§ 6 Colonial Pronunciation
—The debate that long raged over the pronunciation of classical Latin exhibits the difficulty of determining with exactness the shades of sound in the speech of a people long departed from earth. The American colonists, of course, are much nearer to us than the Romans, and so we should have relatively little difficulty in determining just how they pronounced this or that word, but against the fact of their nearness stands the neglect of our philologists, or, perhaps more accurately, our lack of philologists. What Sweet did to clear up the history of English pronunciation,42 and what Wilhelm Corssen did for Latin, no American professor has yet thought to attempt for American. The literature is almost, if not quite a blank. But here and there we may get a hint of the facts, and though the sum of them is not large, they at least serve to set at rest a number of popular errors.
One of these errors, chiefly prevalent in New England, is that the so-called Boston pronunciation, with its broad a’s (making last, path and aunt almost assonant with bar) comes down unbrokenly from the day of the first settlements, and that it is in consequence superior in authority to the pronunciation of the rest of the country, with its flat a’s (making the same words assonant with ban). A glance through Webster’s “Dissertations” is sufficient to show that the flat a was in use in New England in 1789, for the pronunciation of such words as wrath, bath and path, as given by him, makes them rhyme with hath.43 Moreover, he gives aunt the same a-sound. From other sources come indications that the a was likewise flattened in such words as plant, basket, branch, dance, blast, command and castle, and even in balm and calm. Changes in the sound of the letter have been going on in English ever since the Middle English period,44 and according to Lounsbury45 they have moved toward the disappearance of the Continental a, “the fundamental vowel-tone of the human voice.” Grandgent, another authority,46 says that it became flattened “by the sixteenth century” and that “until 1780 or thereabouts the standard language had no broad a.” Even in such words as father, car and ask the flat a was universally used. Sheridan, in the dictionary he published in 1780,47 actually gave no ah-sound in his list of vowels. This habit of flatting the a had been brought over, of course, by the early colonists, and was as general in America, in the third quarter of the eighteenth century, as in England. Benjamin Franklin, when he wrote his “Scheme for a New Alphabet and a Reformed Mode of Spelling,” in 1768, apparently had no suspicion that any other a was possible. But between 1780 and 1790, according to Grandgent, a sudden fashion for the broad a (not the aw-sound, as in fall, but the Continental sound as in far) arose in England,48 and this fashion soon found servile imitation in Boston. But it was as much an affectation in those days as it is today, and Webster indicated the fact pretty plainly in his “Dissertations.” How, despite his opposition, the broad a prevailed East of the Connecticut river, and how, in the end, he himself yielded to it, and even tried to force it upon the whole nation—this will be rehearsed in the next chapter.
The colonists remained faithful much longer than the English to various other vowel-sounds that were facing change in the eighteenth century, for example, the long e-sound in heard. Webster says that the custom of rhyming heard with bird instead of with feared came in at the beginning of the Revolution. “To most people in this country,” he adds, “the English pronunciation appears like affectation.” He also argues for rhyming deaf with leaf, and protests against inserting a y-sound before the u in such words as nature. Franklin’s authority stands behind git for get. This pronunciation, according to Menner,49 was correct in seventeenth century England, and perhaps down to the middle of the next century. So was the use of the Continental i-sound in oblige, making it obleege. It is probable that the colonists clung to these disappearing usages much longer than the English. The latter, according to Webster, were unduly responsive to illogical fashions set by the exquisites of the court and by popular actors. He blames Garrick, in particular, for many extravagant innovations, most of them not followed in the colonies. But Garrick was surely not responsible for the use of a long i-sound in such words as motive, nor for the corruption of mercy to marcy. Webster denounced both of these barbarisms. The second he ascribed somewhat lamely to the fact that the letter r is called ar, and proposed to dispose of it by changing the ar to er.
As for the consonants, the colonists seem to have resisted valiantly that tendency to slide over them which arose in England after the Restoration. Franklin, in 1768, still retained the sound of l in such words as would and should, a usage not met with in England after the year 1700. In the same way, according to Menner, the w in sword was sounded in America “for some time after Englishmen had abandoned it.” The sensitive ear of Henry James detected an unpleasant r-sound in the speech of Americans, long ago got rid of by the English, so late as 1905; he even charged that it was inserted gratuitously in innocent words.50 The obvious slurring of the consonants by Southerners is explained by a recent investigator51 on the ground that it began in England during the reign of Charles II, and that most of the Southern colonists came to the New World at that time. The court of Charles, it is argued, was under French influence, due to the king’s long residence in France and his marriage to Henrietta Marie. Charles “objected to the inharmonious contractions will’nt (or wolln’t) and wasn’t and weren’t... and set the fashion of using the softly euphonious won’t and wan’t, which are used in speaking to this day by the best class of Southerners.” A more direct French influence upon Southern pronunciation is also pointed out. “With full knowledge of his g’s and his r’s,... [the Southerner] sees fit to glide over them,... and he carries over the consonant ending one word to the vowel beginning the next, just as the Frenchman does.” The political importance of the South, in the years between the Mecklenburg Declaration and the adoption of the Constitution, tended to force its provincialisms upon the common language. Many of the acknowledged leaders of the nascent nation were Southerners, and their pronunciation, as well as their phrases, must have become familiar everywhere. Pickering gives us a hint, indeed, at the process whereby their usage influenced that of the rest of the people.52
The Americans early dropped the h-sound in such words as when and where, but so far as I can determine they never elided it at the beginning of words, save in the case of herb, and a few others. This elision is commonly spoken of as a cockney vulgarism, but it has extended to the orthodox English speech. In ostler the initial h is openly left off; in hotel and hospital it is seldom sounded, even by the most careful Englishmen. Certain English words in h, in which the h is now sounded, betray its former silence by the fact that not a but an is still put before them. It is still good English usage to write an hotel and an historical; it is the American usage to write a hotel and a historical.
The great authority of Webster was sufficient to establish the American pronunciation of schedule. In England the sch is always given the soft sound, but Webster decided for the hard sound, as in scheme. The variance persists to this day. The name of the last letter of the alphabet, which is always zed in English, is usually made zee in the United States. Thornton shows that this Americanism arose in the eighteenth century.
Footnotes
1 Bristed was a grandson of John Jacob Astor and was educated at Cambridge. He contributed an extremely sagacious essay on The English Language in America to a volume of Cambridge Essays published by a group of young Cambridge men; London, 1855.
2 Vol. i, p. vi.
3 Scheme for a New Alphabet and a Reformed Mode of Spelling; Philadelphia, 1768.
4 Dec. 26, 1789. The Works of B. Franklin, ed. by A. F. Smyth; New York, 1905, vol. i, p. 40.
5 The Druid, No. 5; reprinted in Witherspoon’s Collected Works, edited by Ashbel Green, vol. iv; New York, 1800-1.
6 Vide, in addition to the citations in the text, the British Critic, Nov. 1793; Feb. 1810; the Critical Review, July 1807; Sept. 1809; the Monthly Review, May 1808; the Eclectic Review, Aug. 1813.
7 1815, pp. 307-14; reprinted in his Remarks on National Literature, Boston, 1823.
8 American English, North American Review, April, 1883.
9 A number of such Indian words are preserved in the nomenclature of Tammany Hall and in that of the Improved Order of Red Men, an organization with more than 500,000 members. The Red Men, borrowing from the Indians, thus name the months, in order: Cold Moon, Snow, Worm, Plant, Flower, Hot, Buck, Sturgeon, Corn, Travelers’, Beaver and Hunting. They call their officers incohonee, sachem, wampum-keeper, etc. But such terms, of course, are not in general use.
10 A long list of such obsolete Americanisms is given by Clapin in his Dictionary.
11 An Account of the History, Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations....; Phila., 1818.
12 Cf. Hans Brinker, by Mary Maples Dodge; New York, 1891.
13 (a) A chest of drawers, (b) a government office. In both senses the word is rare in English, though its use by the French is familiar. In the United States its use in (b) has been extended, e. g., in employment-bureau.
14 From Sint-Klaas—Saint Nicholas. Santa Claus has also become familiar to the English, but the Oxford Dictionary still calls the name an Americanism.
15 The spelling is variously sauerkraut, saurkraut, sourkraut and sourkrout.
16 Cf. The Cambridge History of American Literature, vol. i, pp. 14 and 22.
17 The American origin of this last word has been disputed, but the weight of evidence seems to show that it was borrowed from the rapides of the French Canadians. It is familiar in the United States and Canada, but seldom met with in England.
18 Log-cabin came in later. Thornton’s first quotation is dated 1818. The Log-Cabin campaign was in 1840.
19 Theo. Roosevelt: Gouverneur Morris; Boston, 1888, p. 104.
20 William Brown Meloney: The Heritage of Tyre; New York, 1916, p. 15.
21 Vide his preface to Every-Day English, pp. xxi and xv, respectively.
22 Vide Lyell’s Travels in North America; London, 1845.
23 Pref. to the Biglow Papers, 2nd series, 1866.
24 Reprinted in Helpful Hints in Writing and Reading, comp. by Grenville Kleiser; New York, 1911, pp. 15-17.
25 A. Cleveland Coxe: Americanisms in England, Forum, Oct., 1886.
26 Edwin S. Gould: Good English, or, Popular Errors in Language: New York, 1867; pp. 25-27.
27 Cf. Ch. I, § 5, and Ch. V, § 1.
28 Lott appears in the Connecticut Code of 1650. Vide the edition of Andrus; Hartford, 1822. On page 35 is “their landes, lotts and accommodations.” On page 46 is “meadow and home lotts.”
29 Vide Hutchinson’s Diary, vol. i, p. 171; London, 1883-6.
30 The definitions are from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1914) and the Standard Dictionary (1906), respectively.
31 S. Sewall: Diary, April 14, 1712: “I lay’d a Rock in the North-east corner of the Foundation of the Meeting-house.”
32 The Americana,... art. Americanisms: New York, 1903-6.
33 Immigration, 2nd ed.; New York, 1913, p. 4. Sir J. R. Seeley says, in The Expansion of England (2nd ed.; London, 1895, p. 84) that the emigration from England to New England, after the meeting of the Long Parliament (1640), was so slight for a full century that it barely balanced “the counter-movement of colonists quitting the colony.” Richard Hildreth, in his History of the United States, vol. i, p. 267, says that the departures actually exceeded the arrivals.
34 Works, ed. by Sparks: vol. ii, p. 319.
35 Cf. Pehr Kalm: Travels into N. America, tr. by J. R. Forster, 3 vols.; London, 1770-71.
36 Sydney George Fisher: The True Story of the American Revolution; Phila. and London, 1902, p. 27. See also John T. Morse’s Life of Thomas Jefferson in the American Statesmen series (Boston and New York, 1898), p. 2. Morse points out that Washington, Jefferson and Madison belonged to this new aristocracy, not to the old one.
37 Cf. the Cambridge History of American Literature, vol. i, p. 119. Francis Jeffrey, writing on Franklin in the Edinburgh Review for July, 1806, hailed him as a prodigy who had arisen “in a society where there was no relish and no encouragement for literature.”
38 Examples of its use in the American sense, considered vulgar and even indecent in England, are to be found in Gen. xlviii, 1; II Kings viii, 7; John xi, 1, and Acts ix, 37.
39 J. O. Halliwell (Phillips): A Dictionary of Archaisms and Provincialisms, Containing Words now Obsolete in England All of Which are Familiar and in Common Use in America, 2nd ed.; London, 1850.
40 An interesting discussion of this verb appeared in the New York Sun, Nov. 27, 1914.
41 Cf. J. H. Combs: Old, Early and Elizabethan English in the Southern Mountains, Dialect Notes, vol. iv, pt. iv, pp. 283-97.
42 Henry Sweet: A History of English Sounds; London, 1876; Oxford, 1888.
43 P. 124.
44 Cf. Art. Changes in the Language Since Shakespeare’s Time, by W. Murison, in The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. xiv, p. 485.
45 English Spelling and Spelling Reform; New York, 1909.
46 C. H. Grandgent: Fashion and the Broad A, Nation, Jan. 7, 1915.
47 Thomas Sheridan: A Complete Dictionary of the English Language; London, 1780.
48 It first appeared in Robert Nares’ Elements of Orthography; London, 1784. In 1791 it received full approbation in John Walker’s Critical Pronouncing Dictionary.
49 Robert J. Menner; The Pronunciation of English in America, Atlantic Monthly, March, 1915.
50 The Question of Our Speech; Boston and New York, 1906, pp. 27-29.
51 Elizabeth H. Hancock: Southern Speech, Neale’s Monthly, Nov., 1913, pp. 606-7.
52 Vide his remarks on balance in his Vocabulary. See also Marsh, p. 671.