I heard English historian Paul Johnson say that Americans tend to speak what is considered the historical British accent than what accent the British speak today. I hope that makes sense. Any comments?
Colonial America English Accent and contemporary Brit accent
American English does preserve some things that have become somewhat archaic in British English, like rhotacism and the lot-cloth split, but it also contains a lot of innovations that have never been present in British English: the father-bother merger, pre-rhotic vowel mergers, alveolar flapping, pre-velar vowel raising, and so on. I don't think it would be accurate to say that "Americans tend to speak what is considered the historical British accent."
Isn't there a father-bother merger in Ireland? Or did it arise from America?
The question is which British accent is he referring to? Edinburgh? Birmingham? Bristol? London? Cardiff? All of which, amongst others, differ less today than they would have 200-300 years ago.
<<archaic in British English, like rhotacism>>
Rhoticity isn't archaic in Britain, although it is absent from the accents of the largest English cities it often remains in smaller towns and rural areas. It's also present in all (I think) Scottish accents. The main change that was present in some English accents (mainly southern) that still remains in some American accents is the pronunciation of "e"s as "i"s -"git" instead of "get", for example.
I think the general problem is that South Eastern English accents have changed to a greater extent than the rest of Britain and North America. As the linguist's compass seems to always be pointed in this direction- look at the number of posts talking about Cockney, Estuary and RP- this type of comparison is inevitable.
<<archaic in British English, like rhotacism>>
Rhoticity isn't archaic in Britain, although it is absent from the accents of the largest English cities it often remains in smaller towns and rural areas. It's also present in all (I think) Scottish accents. The main change that was present in some English accents (mainly southern) that still remains in some American accents is the pronunciation of "e"s as "i"s -"git" instead of "get", for example.
I think the general problem is that South Eastern English accents have changed to a greater extent than the rest of Britain and North America. As the linguist's compass seems to always be pointed in this direction- look at the number of posts talking about Cockney, Estuary and RP- this type of comparison is inevitable.
I double-checked my Paul Johnson quote and unfortunately have not yielded any more specifics, other than what he seemingly believes, that the American way of speaking sounds more like what the Brits have traditionally sounded like. Sounds like a hasty generalization, and I'm normally skeptical of these things myself. Mr. Johnson is normally considered a leading historian, but a comparative linguist, I perhaps think not...
Yes, as Lazar said, there are features common in North American English which were once part of Southern British English, but just like other varieties, North America has had its share of innovations as well (dialects don't fossilize since language is always changing).
Here's a post I wrote for another forum showing how both modern RP and modern GAE (albeit in conservative forms) have both changed in different ways from their common ancestor, 16th-17th century English.
Here's the pronunciation of the name "Shakespeare":
--Early-Modern English (1500s-1600): [ˈʃɛkspeɹ]
--as compared to RP: [ˈʃeɪkspiə]/ [ˈʃeɪkspɪə]
--or General North American: [ˈʃeɪkspiɹ]/ [ˈʃeɪkspɪɹ]
Going back to Shakespeare, here are a few lines of a sonnet written by him and how they would've been pronounced in Middle English (pre Great Vowel Shift), in Early Middle English (during Shakespeare's time), and in Modern (conservative) RP and GAE. I know the Middle English one would've been morphologically different, but I'm just trying to indicate pronunciation here.
Quote:
When to the sessions of sweet silent thought
I summon up remembrance of things past,
I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought...
But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,
All losses are restored and sorrows end.
--Middle English:
[ʍɛn tʰoː ðə ˈsɛsjəns ɔf sweːt ˈsiːlənt θɔxtʰ iː ˈsʊmən ʊp ɹɛˈmɛmbɹɑns ɔf θɪŋgz pʰast iː sɪç ðə lakʰ ɔf ˈmanɪ ə θɪŋg iː sɔxt bʊt ɪf ðə ʍiːl iː θɪŋk ɔn ðeː dɛɹ fɹɛnd auɫ ˈlɔsɪs ɑɹ ɹɛˈstoɹd ænd soɹɔws ɛnd]
--Shakespearean Early-Modern London English (circa 1600):
[ʍɛn tʰuː ðə ˈsɛʃənz ʌv swiːt ˈsaɪlənt θɔːtʰ aɪ ˈsʌmən ʌp rɛˈmɛmbɹəns ʌv θɪŋz pʰæst aɪ saɪ ðə lækʰ ʌv ˈmɛnɪ ə θɪŋ aɪ sɔːt bʌt ɪf ðə ʍaɪɫ aɪ θɪŋk ɔn ðiː deːɹ fɹɛnd ɔɫ ˈlɒsɪz ɑɹ ɹɪˈstoɹd ænd ˈsɔɹoʊz ɛnd]
--Modern Conservative GA:
[ʍɛn tʰuː ðə ˈsɛʃənz ʌv swit ˈsaɪlənt θɔɾ aɪ ˈsʌmən ʌp ɹɪˈmɛmbrɛn(t)s ʌv θɪŋz pʰæst aɪ saɪ ðə lækʰ ʌv ˈmɛni ə θɪŋ aɪ sɔt bʌɾ ɪf ðə ʍaɪɫ aɪ θɪŋk ɑn ðiː dɪɹ fɹɛnd ɔɫ ˈlɑsɪz ɑɹ ɹɪˈstɔɹd æn(d) ˈsɑɹoʊz ɛnd]
--Modern Conservative RP:
[wɛn tʰuː ðə ˈsɛʃənz ɒv swiːt ˈsaɪlənt θɔːtʰ aɪ ˈsʌmən ʌp ɹɪˈmɛmbɹən(t)s ɒv θɪŋz pʰɑːst aɪ saɪ ðə lækʰ ɒv ˈmɛnɪ ə θɪŋ aɪ sɔːt bʌt ɪf ðə waɪɫ aɪ θɪŋk ɒn ðiː dɪə fɹɛnd ɔɫ ˈlɒsɪz ɑː ɹɪˈstɔːd æn(d) ˈsɒɹəʊz ɛnd]
I did my best from what I already knew and from researching the nature of Middle and Early-Modern English vowels and consonants, if you think something's wrong there please let me know. Anyway, it's a pretty close representation of how the language has changed--obviously even conservative RP and GA have changed in different ways from their common ancestor in the 400 years since they split up.
If we consider less conservative versions of British and American English we'd find even more interesting differences that both have.
---My mostly conversational pronunciation of the text:
[wɪn tʰɯ ðə ˈsɛʃɪnz ʌv swit ˈsaɪlɪ̃ʔ θɑɾ aɪ ˈʃvmɪn ʌp ɹɪˈmɪmbrɪnts ʌv θiŋz pʰæst aɪ saɪ ðə lækʰ ʌv ˈmɪni ə θiŋ aɪ sɑt bʌɾ ɪf ðə waɪɫ aɪ θiŋk ɑn ði dɪɹ fɹɛnd ɑɫ ˈlɑsɪz ɑɹ ɹɪˈstɔɹd æn(d) ˈsɑɹo̜z ɛnd]
--A hypothetical mostly conversational *Estuary pronunciation of the text:
[wen tʰʉ ðə ˈseʃənz ɒv swɪiʔ saɪlənʔ θoːʔ ɑɪ ˈsʌmən ʌp ɹɪˈmembɹənts ɒv θɪŋz pʰɑːst ɑɪ sɑɪ ðə lakʰ ɒv ˈmeni ə θɪŋ ɑɪ soːʔ bʌʔ ɪf ðə wɑɪo ɑɪ θɪŋk ɒn ðɪi dɪː fɹend ɔːo ˈlɒsɪz ɑː ɹɪˈstoːd an(d) ˈsɒɹʌʊz end]
*I know Estuary is hard to define, but I know the difference between Cockney and Estuary and for this text have mostly stuck towards the Estuary side of things
Here's the pronunciation of the name "Shakespeare":
--Early-Modern English (1500s-1600): [ˈʃɛkspeɹ]
--as compared to RP: [ˈʃeɪkspiə]/ [ˈʃeɪkspɪə]
--or General North American: [ˈʃeɪkspiɹ]/ [ˈʃeɪkspɪɹ]
Going back to Shakespeare, here are a few lines of a sonnet written by him and how they would've been pronounced in Middle English (pre Great Vowel Shift), in Early Middle English (during Shakespeare's time), and in Modern (conservative) RP and GAE. I know the Middle English one would've been morphologically different, but I'm just trying to indicate pronunciation here.
Quote:
When to the sessions of sweet silent thought
I summon up remembrance of things past,
I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought...
But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,
All losses are restored and sorrows end.
--Middle English:
[ʍɛn tʰoː ðə ˈsɛsjəns ɔf sweːt ˈsiːlənt θɔxtʰ iː ˈsʊmən ʊp ɹɛˈmɛmbɹɑns ɔf θɪŋgz pʰast iː sɪç ðə lakʰ ɔf ˈmanɪ ə θɪŋg iː sɔxt bʊt ɪf ðə ʍiːl iː θɪŋk ɔn ðeː dɛɹ fɹɛnd auɫ ˈlɔsɪs ɑɹ ɹɛˈstoɹd ænd soɹɔws ɛnd]
--Shakespearean Early-Modern London English (circa 1600):
[ʍɛn tʰuː ðə ˈsɛʃənz ʌv swiːt ˈsaɪlənt θɔːtʰ aɪ ˈsʌmən ʌp rɛˈmɛmbɹəns ʌv θɪŋz pʰæst aɪ saɪ ðə lækʰ ʌv ˈmɛnɪ ə θɪŋ aɪ sɔːt bʌt ɪf ðə ʍaɪɫ aɪ θɪŋk ɔn ðiː deːɹ fɹɛnd ɔɫ ˈlɒsɪz ɑɹ ɹɪˈstoɹd ænd ˈsɔɹoʊz ɛnd]
--Modern Conservative GA:
[ʍɛn tʰuː ðə ˈsɛʃənz ʌv swit ˈsaɪlənt θɔɾ aɪ ˈsʌmən ʌp ɹɪˈmɛmbrɛn(t)s ʌv θɪŋz pʰæst aɪ saɪ ðə lækʰ ʌv ˈmɛni ə θɪŋ aɪ sɔt bʌɾ ɪf ðə ʍaɪɫ aɪ θɪŋk ɑn ðiː dɪɹ fɹɛnd ɔɫ ˈlɑsɪz ɑɹ ɹɪˈstɔɹd æn(d) ˈsɑɹoʊz ɛnd]
--Modern Conservative RP:
[wɛn tʰuː ðə ˈsɛʃənz ɒv swiːt ˈsaɪlənt θɔːtʰ aɪ ˈsʌmən ʌp ɹɪˈmɛmbɹən(t)s ɒv θɪŋz pʰɑːst aɪ saɪ ðə lækʰ ɒv ˈmɛnɪ ə θɪŋ aɪ sɔːt bʌt ɪf ðə waɪɫ aɪ θɪŋk ɒn ðiː dɪə fɹɛnd ɔɫ ˈlɒsɪz ɑː ɹɪˈstɔːd æn(d) ˈsɒɹəʊz ɛnd]
I did my best from what I already knew and from researching the nature of Middle and Early-Modern English vowels and consonants, if you think something's wrong there please let me know. Anyway, it's a pretty close representation of how the language has changed--obviously even conservative RP and GA have changed in different ways from their common ancestor in the 400 years since they split up.
If we consider less conservative versions of British and American English we'd find even more interesting differences that both have.
---My mostly conversational pronunciation of the text:
[wɪn tʰɯ ðə ˈsɛʃɪnz ʌv swit ˈsaɪlɪ̃ʔ θɑɾ aɪ ˈʃvmɪn ʌp ɹɪˈmɪmbrɪnts ʌv θiŋz pʰæst aɪ saɪ ðə lækʰ ʌv ˈmɪni ə θiŋ aɪ sɑt bʌɾ ɪf ðə waɪɫ aɪ θiŋk ɑn ði dɪɹ fɹɛnd ɑɫ ˈlɑsɪz ɑɹ ɹɪˈstɔɹd æn(d) ˈsɑɹo̜z ɛnd]
--A hypothetical mostly conversational *Estuary pronunciation of the text:
[wen tʰʉ ðə ˈseʃənz ɒv swɪiʔ saɪlənʔ θoːʔ ɑɪ ˈsʌmən ʌp ɹɪˈmembɹənts ɒv θɪŋz pʰɑːst ɑɪ sɑɪ ðə lakʰ ɒv ˈmeni ə θɪŋ ɑɪ soːʔ bʌʔ ɪf ðə wɑɪo ɑɪ θɪŋk ɒn ðɪi dɪː fɹend ɔːo ˈlɒsɪz ɑː ɹɪˈstoːd an(d) ˈsɒɹʌʊz end]
*I know Estuary is hard to define, but I know the difference between Cockney and Estuary and for this text have mostly stuck towards the Estuary side of things
That IPA doesn't show up for me on IE Explorer, but I can read it if I copy-and-paste it into MS Word and change the font to "Lucida Sans Unicode".
<<That IPA doesn't show up for me on IE Explorer, but I can read it if I copy-and-paste it into MS Word and change the font to "Lucida Sans Unicode".>>
Oh, sorry bout that. Antimoon is kinda behind the times in terms of font-reading capabilities but at least you can see it if you do that. I would convert it to X-SAMPA but that'd take forever.
Oh, sorry bout that. Antimoon is kinda behind the times in terms of font-reading capabilities but at least you can see it if you do that. I would convert it to X-SAMPA but that'd take forever.
typo for the transcription..the Estuary version should have [ɑɪ] [AI] for "silent"
<<I would convert it to X-SAMPA but that'd take forever.>>
Yeah, I prefer to use IPA as well - it's much more easily legible. The copy-and-paste thing is no big deal; I don't mind if you use IPA in the future.
Yeah, I prefer to use IPA as well - it's much more easily legible. The copy-and-paste thing is no big deal; I don't mind if you use IPA in the future.
<<I did my best from what I already knew...>>
Kirk, you've outdone yourself. This is great! thanks very much, mate!
Kirk, you've outdone yourself. This is great! thanks very much, mate!
<<Yeah, I prefer to use IPA as well - it's much more easily legible. The copy-and-paste thing is no big deal; I don't mind if you use IPA in the future.>>
Ok I'll keep that in mind. Of course I prefer IPA as well--X-SAMPA is great but I think IPA is, as you say, more legible and more esthetically pleasing as well.
<<Kirk, you've outdone yourself. This is great! thanks very much, mate!>>
Glad you enjoyed it! :)
Ok I'll keep that in mind. Of course I prefer IPA as well--X-SAMPA is great but I think IPA is, as you say, more legible and more esthetically pleasing as well.
<<Kirk, you've outdone yourself. This is great! thanks very much, mate!>>
Glad you enjoyed it! :)
ði ˈo̜nli ˈprɑbləm wɪθ ˈdɯiŋ aɪpʰiˈe hɪɹ ɪz ðæt̚ jɯ ˈhæftə tʰaɪpʰ ɪt̚ ˈsʌmwɛɹ ɛɫs n̩ ðɛŋ ˈkʰɑpʰi əm pʰest ɪt̚ bʌɾ ət list ɪt ʃo̜ːz ʌp hɪr næʊ
John Blair,
According to the literature I've read, British and American English have both changed over the last 250 years but British English has changed a little more.
There is a theory that the languages of colonies tend to ossify and retain some characteristics that have disappeared in the mother country. The best example of this is Icelandic, little changed from Old Norse which was spoken in Denmark, Sweden and Norway (even a few locales in Normandy) until about 1100 A.D. However, the Greek dialects of Calabria and Cyprus contain archaicisms no linger found in the Greek of Greece too - words which Plato and Aristotle would have recognized; some words in Canadian French are considered 17th century French.
Some linguists believe that the American English of Maine may be the closest to what general American Colonial English sounded like before the Revolutionary War. This is because the people of Maine were very isolated. They had few contacts with Boston and New York and none to speak of with Canada despite the close proximity.
Unfortunately, I have never met many people from Maine. A few years ago I heard two elderly men from Maine talking to each other in a McDonald's restaurant here in Seatte. They definitely had regional accents but I didn't hear them long enough to gather any specifics on their speech.
According to the literature I've read, British and American English have both changed over the last 250 years but British English has changed a little more.
There is a theory that the languages of colonies tend to ossify and retain some characteristics that have disappeared in the mother country. The best example of this is Icelandic, little changed from Old Norse which was spoken in Denmark, Sweden and Norway (even a few locales in Normandy) until about 1100 A.D. However, the Greek dialects of Calabria and Cyprus contain archaicisms no linger found in the Greek of Greece too - words which Plato and Aristotle would have recognized; some words in Canadian French are considered 17th century French.
Some linguists believe that the American English of Maine may be the closest to what general American Colonial English sounded like before the Revolutionary War. This is because the people of Maine were very isolated. They had few contacts with Boston and New York and none to speak of with Canada despite the close proximity.
Unfortunately, I have never met many people from Maine. A few years ago I heard two elderly men from Maine talking to each other in a McDonald's restaurant here in Seatte. They definitely had regional accents but I didn't hear them long enough to gather any specifics on their speech.