November 11, 2013
by Graham


The other day, I forget exactly when, I heard someone on BBC Radio 4 use a word I hadn’t come across before, and one to which my immediate reaction was “he’s making it up”. However, I should have remembered that it is actually very difficult to make up a “new” word in English as so many have been created and then forgotten over the years. The word this time was indignance and I was at first puzzled as to whether he “meant” ‘indignity’ or ‘indignation’. The context then clarified it to ‘indignation’.

Needless to say, the OED has an entry for the word, with this meaning, but I’m still wondering whether the speaker the other day was using it as a familiar word, or whether he simply ‘created’ it from indignant on the spur of the moment by analogy with all the other similar pairs, such as resistant ~ resistance. The OED’s most recent example for indignance dates from 1845, and its earliest from 1590.

November 3, 2013
by Graham

Pottery Phonology (2)

This post may be something of a disappointment to anyone wanting a comprehensive analysis. As I said last week, while the modern accent can be compared, for its differences, with standard British English accents, it would be wrong to compare the dialect in the same way, as both the modern standard and the local dialect are descended separately from different dialects of Middle English, and even Old English. Modern Standard English arises from the form of the East Midlands dialect of Middle English as spoken in the London area (and note that what is usually taught today as ‘Standard’ Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, was not this dialect, but Wessex), whereas the dialect spoken in North Staffordshire was West Midlands.

It would take a whole doctoral thesis to make a thorough analysis of the phonology of Pottery dialect, so here are just some of the most noticeable features:

Middle English (ME) long U /uː/ has split: in many cases it has become /ai/, as in house or council (the first of these is a Germanic word, the second Romance, which is itself interesting for dating the evolution of the sound), so that “Arfur Tow Crate in Staffy Cher” can make fun of the phrase ‘kind slice’ for “council house”. Other words with ME /uː/, however, have developed to /ɛu/. Now and mouse are examples of this.

ME /a/ before a nasal had already become /ɒ/ in the West Midland area, so that man is pronounced /mɒn/, and cannot is /kɒnə/.

ME /eː/ has simply diphthongized in many cases: see is pronounced /sei/, while ME /ai/ has become a closer monophthongal vowel /iː/: say is pronounced /siː/.

ME /iː/ has in many cases merged with ME /eː/ – wife /weif/, mice /meis/. Elsewhere it has undergone the general vowel shift to /ai/, and then simplified to /aː/ and then to /ɑː/ my wife is often called /ˈmɑː liːdi/ (= “my lady”).

ME /el/ has opened to /al/: tell pronounced /tal/. In final /al/ the /l/ has vocalized and the /a/ backed and risen to form a diphthong /ou/: ball pronounced /bou/.

Apart from the phonology, Pottery dialect has some archaizing grammatical features as well: retention of a second person singular form of modal verbs is the most obvious. The shibboleth question for recognizing another Potteries native is “Cost kick a bo’ agen a wo’, then yed it til thee bost it?” Translated, this is “Can you kick a ball against a wall, then head it until you burst it?” It loses a lot in the translation.


October 26, 2013
by Graham

Potteries phonology

Thanks to Ed for suggesting this post.

The first thing is to distinguish between the modern Potteries accent, which I suppose I still have, although modified after 45 years’ non-residence, and the traditional dialect. Both have a phonology that is different from RP, but whereas the modern accent is an approximation to RP, with certain differences that are common to many other regional accents, the traditional dialect has no direct relationship to RP, but is the descendant of the north west Middle English dialect of the area.

The modern accent’s distinctive features are

(1) The non-existence of a velar nasal phoneme: all occurrences of [ŋ] are homorganic allophones of /n/ preceding a velar plosive. Thus ‘singer’ rhymes with ‘finger’ (/-ɪngə/), and ‘singing’ is pronounced phonemically /ˈsɪngɪng/.

(2) The three RP vowels /ʊ, uː, ʌ/ are replaced by two, with different distributions. The short one is often represented by /ʊ/, but this is not very close to the phonetic reality. I’ve written about this before, here. It is not enough to say that /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ are neutralised because some RP /ʊ/ words have Pottery /uː/, e.g. ‘book’, and many other words spelled -oo-.

(3) The distribution of /æ/ and /ɑː/ is different. Basically, /ɑː/ is restricted to stressed – whether primary or secondary –  word-final position (e.g. ‘spa’, ‘bra’, ‘Panama’) or pre /lC/ or /rC/, when the /l/ or /r/ is deleted (e.g. ‘palm’, ‘farm’). There are exceptions – e.g. ‘father’, ‘banana’, but this is the general position (my idiolect has only about a dozen words with /ɑː/ which do not fulfil the two conditions).

(4) The distribution of /h/. There is uncertainty about its occurrence or non-occurrence (so what’s new?) I once heard the Chairman of the City of Stoke on Trent’s Education Committee begin a speech with the words “First hof hall, HI would like to say ow appy HI ham to be ere, this hevening”.

Phonetically, of course, there is a lot of difference between Pottery and RP.

Traditional dialect next week.

October 21, 2013
by Graham


In the 1970s a series of books (well, they were more like pamphlets really) were published that illustrated local English dialects by making fun of them, not in a nasty way, but affectionately, by people who wanted to record local phrases and pronunciations before they disappeared. One of the first was “Krek Waiter’s Peak Bristle” (translate as “Correct Way to Speak Bristol), which included such useful terms as “Bem Breckfuss”, and “Count’s Louse”.

There were three “Bristle” books, and these were followed by others, including “Arfur Tow Crate in Staffy Cher”, which also spawned a sequel. While “Bristle” made great play of the Bristol ‘added l’ (for those who don’t know, many words ending in schwa have /l/ added to them – including Bristol itself, which was earlier “Bristow”), the Staffy Cher books were able to draw on the vowel system of Stoke on Trent (Potteries) dialect as well as its grammatical idiosyncracies, and unlike the Bristol examples, they need to be ‘translated’: “Dine thar straight” (‘down thy street’), “Kind Slice” (see “Count’s Louse” above) “Eye Straight” and “Eye Lean” (High Street and High Lane).

Apart from poking fun, these books actually demonstrate some aspects of English phonology that turn up even in more standard forms of the language – so “Bem Breckfuss” includes the assimilation of alveolars to labials, and both “Count’s Louse” and “Kind Slice” shows the frequent interpolation of a plosive between a nasal and a sibilant. Non-phoneticians are often surprised to learn that their speech also exhibits these features.

October 12, 2013
by Graham

Spanish orthography

Last week’s post was my own translation of an interview that Professor Salvador Gutiérrez, member of the Real Academia Española, and Professor of General Linguistics at the University of León in Spain, gave to the Spanish newspaper “La Razón” in May (¿Sabemos escribir?). There has been a lot of discussion about education in general this year in Spain because of a proposed new curriculum law – “la ley Wert” – named after the current Minister of Education.

Spanish is often held up as a model that English should follow in its orthography, and yet here is someone complaining about the low standard of spelling by Spaniards. This link is to an article, also published in “La Razón”, pointing out that a tweet sent by opponents of the new law itself contained four errors (three of spelling, one, more doubtful, of vocabulary).

It is true that any written Spanish can be read correctly straight off the page, but spoken Spanish cannot be automatically spelled correctly: there are several points of ambiguity – the letters ‘b’ and ‘v’ are always identically pronounced (phonetically they may be [b] or [β], but these are allophones of a single phoneme, and so contextually determined); ‘h’ is always silent, so that there can often be doubt as to its presence or absence as part of the spelling of a word; ‘g’ is pronounced /x/ before ‘e’ or ‘i’, but there are words in which ‘j’, which is always pronounced /x/, may occur before ‘e’ (e.g. Jerez) ot ‘i’ (‘jinete’). These are difficulties that all Spanish speakers face. In addition there are those caused by the neutralization of ‘ll’ and ‘y’ in certain dialects, to anything from approximant /j/ to palatal plosive /ÉŸ/. So it goes on.

Even languages which supposedly have regular orthographies turn out to be rather more complicated when examined more closely.

October 5, 2013
by Graham

Interview on spelling

I’ve recently read this newspaper interview with a professor of General Linguistics.

Q: Do we have a low level of spelling?

A: In general, yes. Above all, young people. It’s more – it’s one of the perennial problems, our major battlefield. And that’s because nobody is born with the knowledge and the process of learning is very slow. It takes a lot of patience, a lot of practice, a lot of persistence and a lot of attention.

Q: What role does reading play in its acquisition?

A: It’s an essential process, seeing that reading and writing are basic. A pupil will be incapable of mastering any course of study who takes half an hour to understand a page. Guaranteed failure. However, not having this facility has nothing to do with intelligence, it just means not having the basic facility.

Q: Is the problem with the teaching?

A: Learning to spell is difficult and takes a lot of practice. It’s like gymnastics: you have to practice it constantly in order to be good at it.

Q: What role does syntax play in the correct use of the language?

A: Spelling has two sides: the letters themselves and syntax. The first can be learned with a lot of practice, and syntax is key to using punctuation. This is the part that children learn last. They have to know how to construct sentences, and for this, the rules of punctuation are key.

Q: Do young people arrive at university well prepared?

A: The majority not. In the university, during the first years, they are corrected severely, but we should be conscious of the fact that teaching spelling is not just a task for language teachers – everyone must be vigilant when it comes to the mastery of the language.

Q: Are the new technologies acting against the correct use of the language?

A: People blame the new technologies, but it isn’t true. The person who makes mistakes doesn’t know the spelling. They have to make sure they read a lot, correcting themselves, because it is a social problem. When they finish their studies, if they cannot spell correctly, they will suffer rejection.

Fairly obviously, from the reply that “they are corrected severely” in universities, this interview is not with a British academic. But where is it from? Answers on a postcard, please (no, not seriously!!). The answer next week.

September 28, 2013
by Graham


Following from Ed’s comment about the occurrence of rhoticity in English dialects as reported by Ellis, Joseph Wright, and the Survey of English Dialects, it seems to me that Ellis was having great trouble identifying exactly what sounds he (and his principal co-workers, Thomas Hallam and Prince Louis Lucien Bonaparte) was hearing when the orthography contained ‘r’. I think we can assume that the incidence of rhoticity was falling, and perhaps quite rapidly, throughout the country during the nineteenth century, which wouldn’t have helped. Also the sound itself was ceasing to be a ‘proper’ trill or tap, and becoming more like the present-day approximant.

He recognised what we call “intrusive r” in many parts of the country, and if we had continued to use the phrase he had for it – “euphonic r”, perhaps we might have spared ourselves as linguists a lot of grief from the general public who have picked up on “intrusive r” and beaten us on the head with it for allowing what they hear as a blatant solecism to be perpetuated.

I’d also like to acknowledge here Jack Windsor Lewis’ comment about Joseph Wright’s English Dialect Grammar, and John Wells’ Accents of English. I agree that Ellis’s presentation could have been better, but as the pioneering effort it was, I think he did a great job in covering an immense amount of ground.

September 20, 2013
by Graham

Old dialectologists

Ed’s comment to my last post allows me to widen the discussion from the specific question of th > f in modern English, and its history, to that of how much linguists/dialectologists/orthoepists – call them/us what you will – have or have not registered change in the language.

I’ve been reading Alexander J Ellis’s monumental “Early English Pronunciation”, jointly published by the Early English Text Society, the Chaucer Society and the Philological Society between 1869 and 1889, in five parts, and well over 2000 pages. Despite its title, Part V is an analysis of the English dialect area of Great Britain (i.e. of that part of the island that has been English-speaking for many centuries) and the Isle of Man (which Ellis admits is less interesting as English is mainly a “learned” language for the Celtic-speaking natives) during the 19th century. Many of the dialects include th > f as a feature, at least in some words.

The nearest modern equivalent to Ellis is John Wells’ “Accents of English”, and I was surprised when I looked in the bibliography to Wells’ work that Ellis is not mentioned. While Wells gives a set of key words to identify particular vowels, Ellis goes back to the Old English basis as his starting point, and shows the way in which each OE sound has developed in the various dialects. This accounts for the way in which some sounds have developed differently in the modern forms. As an example, some dialects of the north west and north west midlands of England have, as a reflex of OE /Å«/, the phoneme /ai/, so that house is pronounced /(h)ais/, and mouse /mais/. So what happens to OE /Ä«/, which gives standard modern English /aɪ/? It becomes /É›i/, so that mouse and mice are still distinguished. Wells does not mention this, but then he is talking about accents, not dialects. This raises the question, which I shall not attempt to address here: where is the boundary between an accent and a dialect?

Ellis was not only concerned with vowels, as is shown by the th > f example. He also recognized /tl/ for /kl/ in many dialects, and the rhotacization of /t/ in some contexts and in some dialects. John Maidment wrote about this here and the comments to his post show that /t/ to /r/ is quite widespread. Ellis expressed no surprise at any of these features, and was at pains to point out several times in the work that it was a linguist’s job to describe what he heard, not to pass judgment on the correctness or otherwise of his informants’ speech. Perhaps he has been neglected because, writing before the development of the IPA, he used a phonetic script called palaeotype, which is not always easy to interpret nowadays.

September 12, 2013
by gpointon
1 Comment

th > f (again!)

I’ve just been made aware of reports of a project being carried out at Glasgow University which apparently demonstrates that exposure to and engagement with television soaps can affect the accent of the viewers. The particular feature that the press has picked up on is the ‘infiltration’ (my word) of /f/ for /θ/ into Glaswegian speech, supposedly as a result of too much watching “EastEnders” on BBC1. In fact, I knew at least one Glaswegian who pronounced in this way as long ago as the early 1980s, before “EastEnders” hit the screens. I cannot believe that he was alone. I’ve commented before on the increasing prevalence of /f/ for /θ/. Lucy Worsley could be to blame just as easily as any soap – she is very personable, and viewers will certainly “engage” with her.

Jane Stuart-Smith, the lead researcher, quite rightly makes it clear that the media are only one, and a small one at that, of the influences on language change, but of course, the print media are always keen to find any excuse to denigrate their broadcast rivals, and this exaggeration suits their prejudices.

September 3, 2013
by gpointon

French place names

I’ve recently come back from France, and once again been puzzled by many place names. They just don’t correspond to any spelling conventions in the everyday vocabulary, and yet the French give us no help: to the best of my knowledge, there is no pronouncing dictionary that includes place names (or family names). The Petit Robert has two appendices – “Adjectifs et noms tirés des noms propres” and “Dérivés des noms de personnes (réelles, mythologiques, imaginaires)” which are very usfeul, except that they give no help with pronunciation.

Even the French are often confused by the pronunciation of place names. Perhaps the most famous difficulty for them is Chamonix, which French friends have told me they used to pronounce /ʃamoniks/ – until they went there, and discovered that locals call it /ʃamoni/.

In no particular order:

Eawy, Bulgnéville, Thueyts, Andernos (-s silent or pronounced?), Villers (several places of this name – /vije, vile, vilÉ›r/?), anywhere ending in -x (silent or pronounced?)