Criticising mispronunciation is ‘hypocritical snobbery'

Telegraph

9 hours ago

People who criticise mispronunciations are often guilty of snobbery towards regional dialects, a top linguist has claimed.
In response to a debate among Telegraph readers, Dr Amanda Cole, a linguist at Essex University – and self-avowed 'Essex woman' – said mispronunciation is part of how the English language evolves.
Many mispronunciations such as 'an apron' from the middle English 'napron' had become the accepted norm in the English language because they were so prolific, she said in an article for the paper.
And she warned that 'linguistic puritans' who attempted to stand on the shore wagging their finger at the 'incoming tide' of changing pronunciation would 'eventually be enveloped'.
The debate was sparked by Susie Dent, Countdown 's lexicographer, when she said that she now come to regard the common mispronunciation of mischievous as 'mischiev-i-ous' as acceptable.
It sparked a debate where Telegraph writers identified their biggest bugbears of mispronunciation such as the letter h being pronounced 'haitch', 'expresso' for espresso and 'hyberbowl' for hyperbole.
Dr Cole said part of the backlash was tied up with 'accent prejudice' where people 'nitpicked' over the ways people from different backgrounds spoke, such as Essex men and women who dropped their 'ts' in water, so it became 'wor-arrrrr' or turned proper into 'propaaa'.
'As a linguist but also a proud Essex girl (or, better put, woman) I take objection. Our accents reflect where we are from and who we are,' she said.
'In particular, in the UK, accents are closely linked to social class. Those with the strongest regional accents tend to be working class. Accent prejudice is a smokescreen for broader societal prejudices particularly class snobbery and middle-class gatekeeping dressed up as a light to protect and serve the English language.
'Many may cry, 'but the spelling! There is a t in water for a reason!' but there is a certain hypocrisy at play. These people also tend to be those who break out in an angry sweat at the pronunciation of hyperbole as 'hyperbowl'.
'There is a famously loose relationship between English spelling and pronunciation. I call for an end to the prevailing thinking that the English language is being used and abused but instead for a greater understanding that language changes over time and naturally varies between people from different backgrounds.'
Dr Cole's research has revealed how the King's English and Cockney have all but disappeared among young people as three new accents have emerged.
Voice analysis found the traditional two accents had been overtaken by standard southern British English, as articulated by Ellie Goulding; estuary English, as spoken by Adele; and multicultural London English, as voiced by Stormzy.
'In this country the current thinking on the English language is that there is an ancient stone tablet atop a mountain on which the divine pronunciation of each and every English word is etched. Deviation from this text is sacrilege or at least wilful traitorship to our fine land and the language we share,' said Dr Cole.
'In reality, the English we speak is like a snapshot of the sea: it will never look the same at any two points even if it is recognisably the same body of water.
'There are swells, tides and sometimes transient ripples on the surface. Linguistic puritans may stand on the shore wagging their finger at the incoming tide but will eventually be enveloped. The last of the nadder-sayers undoubtedly sounded like a stubborn fool and perhaps the same will one day be true of 'aitch' for h in British English.'
The English language is always in a state of change
By Dr Amanda Cole
Last month, Telegraph writers and editors wrote about the 'mispronunciations' that most peeve them such as the letter h being pronounced 'haitch', 'expresso' for espresso and 'hyberbowl' for hyperbole. But are 'haitch', 'expresso' and 'hyperbowl' wrong or are they just alternative pronunciations? How many people must pronounce a word a certain way and for how long before we accept the new pronunciation as correct?
The English we speak today includes many pronunciations that would have horrified or mystified speakers from previous times. Prior to the 15th century, vowels were pronounced very differently to present times, meaning that, for example, words such as bite and name would once have sounded more like 'beet' and 'nahm'. In fact, English has changed so dramatically that an Icelandic speaker might have a better chance of understanding Old English than a modern-day monolingual English speaker.
At times, the English language has changed because of mispronunciations so prolific that they became the accepted norm. The word apron actually comes from the Middle English napron. Over time people turned 'a napron' into 'an apron', resulting in the word we know today. In the same way, nadder became adder and oche became notch. It is also little wonder that cows, which follows the regular English pattern for plurals, has won out against kine for more than one cow. In the same way I would not be surprised if yous, a plural form of you which is used in many dialects of English, one day became widely accepted.
The English language has always been in a state of change, and so too there have always been those who bemoan such change. In 1440, friar and poet Osbern Bokenam wrote with dismay that the English language had been corrupted by Norman French after the arrival of William the Conqueror – something that we now consider to be foundational to modern-day English. In perfect irony, he expressed his concerns using words with French or Latin origins such as famylyar (now, of course, written 'familiar'), demonstrating the futility in policing language.
Linguists aim to describe and not prescribe language. We consider the English language to be defined by how people use it, not a set of ideals for how we feel it should be used. Most lexicographers also take the same approach. For example, although it really grates on linguistic pedants, most dictionaries now include figurative definitions of literally ('I laughed so hard I literally died') because there is a sizeable body of evidence that many people use the word in this way and have done for a long time – even literary greats such as Charles Dickens, James Joyce and Charlotte Brontë.
You may think I am pushing linguistic wokery – a term I just made up that would certainly have been uninterpretable for English speakers born a hundred years ago, let alone in times of Old English. Indeed, a prominent newspaper columnist once called me a proponent of linguistic anarchy. But I do believe that there are, dare I say it – take a breath – incorrect pronunciations. I won't forget the time my Italian friend pronounced the r in iron (as in: I, Ron, do solemnly swear…). I instinctively corrected her pronunciation – for which she was glad – and another linguist in earshot gently chided me for prescribing how a word should be pronounced.
There are, of course, rules and collective understandings that govern the English language and I am in no way challenging this. But I do call for a wider awareness of how language works. In this country, the current thinking on the English language is that there is an ancient stone tablet atop a mountain – although, surely, it should rightfully be homed in southern England where apparently exemplary English is spoken, so perhaps it is just atop a sizeable hill in the Chilterns – on which the divine pronunciation of each and every English word is etched. Deviation from this text is sacrilege or at least wilful traitorship to our fine land and the language we share.
In reality, the English we speak is like a snapshot of the sea: it will never look the same at any two points even if it is recognisably the same body of water. There are swells, tides and sometimes transient ripples on the surface. Linguistic puritans may stand on the shore wagging their finger at the incoming tide but will eventually be enveloped. The last of the nadder-sayers undoubtedly sounded like a stubborn fool and perhaps the same will one day be true of 'aitch' for h in British English.
Having said that, I do think it is okay and only natural to have an opinion on language. I, for one, openly dislike being called a 'girl' – something women, even those deep into adulthood, commonly experience while the equivalent is rare for men. But the motivation behind any commentary on language is important. Calling women 'girls' is literally infantilising but 'haitch', 'expresso' and 'hyperbowl' are pretty harmless and any criticism seems to come from a place of lofty linguistic idealism.
Much nitpicking on language devalues regional dialects. In the original Telegraph article, aim was taken at the Essex accent in which, apparently, proper becomes 'propaaa' and water is 'wor-arrrrr'. As a linguist but also a proud Essex girl (or, better put, woman) I take objection. Our accents reflect where we are from and who we are.
In particular, in the UK, accents are closely linked to social class. Those with the strongest regional accents tend to be working class. Accent prejudice is a smokescreen for broader societal prejudices particularly class snobbery and middle-class gatekeeping dressed up as a light to protect and serve the English language. Many may cry, 'but the spelling! There is a t in water for a reason!' but there is a certain hypocrisy at play. These people also tend to be those who break out in an angry sweat at the pronunciation of hyperbole as 'hyperbowl'.
There is a famously loose relationship between English spelling and pronunciation. I call for an end to the prevailing thinking that the English language is being used and abused but instead for a greater understanding that language changes over time and naturally varies between people from different backgrounds.