Comments on: How the Edwardians Spoke

By: Henry (not the famous one)

Henry (not the famous one) — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:18:40 +0000

The Wiltshire residents moving their relative’s speech patterns over to Somerset reminded me of Mark Twain’s introductory comment to Huckleberry Finn:

“IN this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary “Pike County” dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a hap-hazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.”

By: Jacob Christensen

Jacob Christensen — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:55:39 +0000

@22: I can imagine contemporary researchers using articles and blogposts about the fall and fall of Britney Spears as their template…

(More to the point: Yes, limitations of recording equipment, disks that would only hold 3-4 minutes of speech, etc. etc. But it is also an interesting illustration of the problems with controlled experiments in a laboratory environment).

By: Badger

Badger — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:28:08 +0000

By the way, try and imagine the Americans compiling an archive of Mideast accents in recent years, quite a change in imperial “culture”, don’t you think? Thinking about which makes me nostalgic for an academia that could actually talk about history and culture over the din of professional nitpicking…

By: Jay C

Jay C — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:45:08 +0000

@ #20, #21:

I think the situation of the recorded soldiers “not speaking normally” may come from the fact that the crude recording equipment of the time – mechanical, not electrically amplified, IIRC - required its subject(s) to speak loudly and plainly in order to be adequately transcribed.
Also: the issue of the standard text makes sense: this was a study on regional variation in a language: hearing the same text in different accents would make it easier for the researchers to compare the changes. Although I imagine that nowadays, a similar study would use something other than a Biblical parable as the template.

By: Jacob Christensen

Jacob Christensen — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:38:51 +0000

@random:

Could this have been some kind of declamatory exercise, and they weren’t speaking normally?

Yes, the presenter hinted that that effect occured. The Danish and Swedish cases of dialect recordings [disclaimer]I know of[/disclaimer], have people speaking casually.

By: Random

Random — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:04:37 +0000

Didn’t anybody else think it was odd that the woman didn’t recognize her own brother’s voice? Even if she’d long forgotten it, the sound should have brought the memory back. Could this have been some kind of declamatory exercise, and they weren’t speaking normally? I am very suspicious of the fact they were reading prepared texts rather than just saying their names, or whatever.

By: Jacob Christensen

Jacob Christensen — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:57:31 +0000

Fascinating (especially given that my native Danish is one of the fastest changing languages in the world with regard to pronunciation and disappearance of dialects, so Danes born in 1980 would find it hard to understand Danes born in 1890), even if I would have loved to hear more examples from the recordings.

It struck me that Philip Jarvis’ fæ∂er could be found in parts of Jutland as well. But then, Jarvis was from East Anglia.

By: Nicholas Ostler

Nicholas Ostler — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:04:13 +0000

For me, the most salient thing was not the slight, and expected, differences between 1916 and 2006 pronunciation, but the persistent attitudes of the presenter Joan Washington, who associated accents with landscapes, and even with climate (in Aberdeen), and was judgmental (while denying it to her victims) about modern slackness of articulation, even (at the end) seeming to suggest that h-dropping and ‘t-dropping’ (glottalization?) were innovations of the the 20th century. She had evidently purged her native Aberdonian to a highly precise RP - presumably for professional credibility as an elocutionist: interestingly, Jonnie Robinson of the BL had made no such effort. At least it made a bit of sense of something I have never understood – viz how Shaw could paint Henry Higgins in ‘Pygmalion’ as being highly knowledgeable about articulation and acoustics while still bemoaning the performance of the lower classes – ‘for cold-blooded murder of the English tongue’. Joan is a modern Eliza. Plus ça change…

By: Jay C

Jay C — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:07:57 +0000

Yes, Kieran, fascinating. One thing I noticed, though (from the brief clips I viewed: maybe she addresses it elsewhere) is that Joan Washington seems to view the gradual loss/dilution/change of regional British accents as an artifact of creeping urbanization, and doesn’t seem to take into account the technological factors that have homogenized the “standard” English of today.

In Edwardian Britain, not only did a large percentage of the population live, and remain in, linguistically distinct areas, but, unless they migrated elsewhere, had in their language-formative years, little input of “other” accents to draw on. Remember, while sound recording (as we see) was existent, it was probably poorly-distributed in rural areas, and then (as now) probably mostly music. There was no radio, television, or even sound movies to diffuse “standard” accents – e.g. “BBC English”; so it’s no surprise that “local” accent/dialects were more prevalent. Even if, I believe, slowly succumbing to standardization though mass education, even c. 1915.

Still an excellent documentary, thanks.

By: geoff

geoff — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:48:06 +0000

Kieran
I didn;t find it even “slightly ponderous”, of course I used fast forward a few (just twice) times, but it was late at night when I wondered over to Crooked Timber then to the video marked. Very interesting how the first family Washington visits is quite emotionally moved by just how one of their relatives whom none knew sounded. It seemed to trigger family pride that they actually contributed to things. My favorite part of the video was when Washington went and spoke to the sister and niece of one of the POWs. The sister, who recalled the family stories of the older brother, long died, sounded exactly as my mum – about the same age as the sister. Less the accent and speech patterns and more the expressions and linking or words and quite bizzarly, I think, the lovely optimisum in the tone of voice overall. As Washington noted the landscape seems, maybe, to effect how you treat vowels.

Thanks for the video. So of made my late night.

By: Raghav

Raghav — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:31:59 +0000

This is really fascinating. I had no idea that the accents of the home counties at the time were rhotic.

As an American, I’ve always liked West Country accents best.

By: shtove

shtove — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:58:37 +0000

The background music is Gorecki’s Symphony of Sorrowful Songs.

By: Badger

Badger — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:16:41 +0000

Amazing, not ponderous at all. Voices of people from that long ago. How they talked.

Ye knowe eke that in forme of speech is chaunge,
Withinne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
Than hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem, and yet thei spake hem so,
And spedde as well in love as men now do…

By: thag

thag — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:37:16 +0000

Girt stuff, Kieran!

It’s just amazing how WWI managed to draft all those music-hall comedians from Mummerset!

By: pithhelmet

pithhelmet — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:20:28 +0000

Papua New Guinea is linguistically diverse, not just “dialect rich,” and at least hundreds of distinct languages are spoken there. Where dialects are mutually intelligible by speakers of a language, NG villages, often separated by a mountain range, river or endemic warfare have developed their own distinct languages in relative isolation from one another.