Pronunciation of Standard English in America (1919)

[Emily]

i have a copy of a book from 1919 (pronunciation of standard english in america by george philip krapp) that aims to describe standard pronunciation in the US. the author, an english professor at columbia university, is undertaking a vocally descriptivist task rather than putting out a book of the "correct" pronunciations of frequently "mispronounced" words, and stresses that everything in it derives from his own observation rather than being culled from such books. the book is organized generally by phoneme, and by his own admission he uses a pretty broad transcription scheme, and clarifies what he means by "standard":

The term standard speech, it will thus be seen, has been used by the author without a very exact definition. Everybody knows that there is no type of speech uniform and accepted in practice by all persons in America. What the author has called standard may perhaps be best defined negatively, as the speech which is least likely to attract attention to itself as being peculiar to any class or locality. As a matter of fact, speech does not often attract notice to itself unless it is markedly peculiar. . . . there is likely to be, even in what we may justly call standard speech, a considerable area of negligible variation, negligible, that is, from the point of view of the practical use of language.

anyway, reading through it, there's a lot of differences between 100 years ago and now that jumped out at me that i thought people might be interested in seeing. i'm using his transcription scheme with only a couple of updates to modern IPA symbols (just the symbols—our ʊ for his small-caps "u", for example—not the transcriptions themselves). for some of the examples i will have to rely on the ancient knowledge of those wizened graybeards and crones on the board who stubbornly cling to their cot-caught distinction in order to explain to me what has remained the same since 1919 and what has changed on that front. i'll probably do a separate post for each chapter or section

[Emily]

i'm mostly skipping the first two chapters, which are respectively a general description of phonetics and an explanation of the pronunciation of english phonemes. there are a couple of things that jump out, however:

• in describing the tendency of intervocalic /t/ to sound more like [d] (better, water, putty), he includes winter as an example ([ˈwɪndr])
• despite his otherwise wholehearted attempt at avoiding prescriptivism, he describes nasalized vowels as "faulty" and "lazy" and talks about how to "correct" it
• he goes into great detail (four whole pages) describing how to pronounce "r", which seems to be the only phoneme he uses two different symbols for (essentially, [ɹ] post-vocalically and [r] elsewhere)
• the vowel terminology he uses is striking: /i/ is "high blade tense wide", and /ɪ/ is "high blade slack neutral"
• the word err is pronounced /ɚ/???
• the pronunciation of the /e/ vowel (e.g. fate) and /o/ vowel (boat) are generally a simple long vowel, only forming the diphthongs [eɪ] and [oʊ] when fully stressed before voiced consonants or word-finally
• they couldn't decide in 1919 whether envelope should be "enn-velope" or "on-velope" any more than we can today

[Emily]

ok i'm actually breaking out the section on stress into a separate post since there's so many points

• transfer is given as an example of latinate words that stress the second syllable when used as verbs
• "In cement a distinction was formerly made between the noun [ˈsɛmənt] and the verb [sɪˈmɛnt], but now both noun and verb are stressed on the second syllable." — !!!
• a further comment on stress talks about how some words may shift stress depending on syntax or rhythm patterns of the word (e.g. how complex can have the stress on either syllable even just when used as an adjective), and one of his examples is the word occult, which he stresses on the initial in occult sciences but the final in in the regions of the occult (though in both the first vowel is a clear /ɑ/ and the second /ʌ/ with no schwas to be found). i think i've only ever heard the initial stress in dark shadows, a spooky soap opera from the 1960s; everyone i've ever heard say it in person has always stressed the second syllable, and the first is just a schwa
• pronunciation of program as [ˈprogrəm] rather than [ˈproˌgræm] is "a popular pronunciation" that "is also heard and seems to be growing in use" (i personally have only heard it from a speaker who originally came from georgia, or from a podcaster who does it as a joke)
• three-syllable words ending in -ate are typically stressed on the first syllable (acclimate, compensate, etc), "though some speakers cultivate a pronunciation with stress on the second syllable". he also states, though, that consummate is stressed on the first syllable as a verb, but on the second as an adjective!
• "usage is unsettled" on where to place the stress in other three-syllable words such as armistice and opponent; he states that "the prevailing usage" is to stress the first syllable in combatant and combative
• idea is standardly stressed on the first syllable, "but one frequently hears, especially in the South, [ˈaɪdɪə]"; stressing the first and second syllables equally "is popular and illiterate"
• despicable is most commonly pronounced on the first syllable; aristocrat is often stressed on the first syllable as well
• pronunciation of words like declamatory as [dɪˈklæməˌtɔrɪ] vs [dɪˈklæmɪtrɪ] is a US vs UK distinction even in 1919
• other words, however, are described as discarding secondary stress in "cultivated pronunciation" but often retaining it in "popular speech": interest [ˈɪntərɪst] vs [ˈɪntərˌɛst], interesting [ˈɪntərɪstɪŋ] vs [ˈɪntərˌɛstɪŋ] or even [ˌɪntərˈɛstɪŋ] (no indication of deleting the second vowel in either of these words); cemetery [ˈsɛmɪtrɪ] (!) vs [ˈsɛməˌtɛrɪ]; favorite [ˈfeːvrɪt] vs [ˈfeːvəˌraɪt] (!!!)

i love this line: "But it seems safer to follow the normal processes of the language, and in doing so, one cannot do better than direct attention to the unconstrained speech of educated and well-bred persons. The decision who such persons are must naturally be left to individual judgment." lol

[zompist]

These are fun, I hope you keep going!

I think cot/caught is regional, not temporal. I will try to test this on my nieces at Easter.

[*] he goes into great detail (four whole pages) describing how to pronounce "r", which seems to be the only phoneme he uses two different syllables for (essentially, [ɹ] post-vocalically and [r] elsewhere)

Today the American r is divided into bunched and retroflex. Do his descriptions seem to describe one of those?

[*] the vowel terminology he uses is striking: /i/ is "high blade tense wide", and /ɪ/ is "high blade slack neutral"

That's understandable at least, except for "wide". Labov would contrast these as tense vs. lax.

[*] the pronunciation of the /e/ vowel (e.g. fate) and /o/ vowel (boat) are generally a simple long vowel, only forming the diphthongs [eɪ] and [oʊ] when fully stressed before voiced consonants or word-finally

I think that's accurate. I say [fejt] in isolation, but in quick speech there's not really time for diphthongization.

[Travis B.]

I think cot/caught is regional, not temporal. I will try to test this on my nieces at Easter.

One thing to also note is that some people have a covert cot-caught non-merger, like my mother, who grew up in Kenosha, not that far north of Chicago. She pronounces LOT as [a] and THOUGHT as [ɑ], which may be misheard by people not familiar with Inland North varieties as being a cot-caught merger.

[Emily]

I think cot/caught is regional, not temporal. I will try to test this on my nieces at Easter.

i was joking, i'm just born and raised in southern california

[*] he goes into great detail (four whole pages) describing how to pronounce "r", which seems to be the only phoneme he uses two different syllables for (essentially, [ɹ] post-vocalically and [r] elsewhere)

Today the American r is divided into bunched and retroflex. Do his descriptions seem to describe one of those?

honestly i've always had trouble distinguishing different r's, and i can't really make head or tail of his description. he has it grouped under the fricatives (!). relevant passages quoted below (note that i am substituting "ɚ" for his older symbol, a schwa with a curled tail, which i can't find in unicode):

More: show

§39. [r] is produced by raising the body of the tongue so that the sides of it press against the upper teeth, tilting the point of the tongue so that it just barely touches the bony ridge of the gums, and allowing the breath to escape with a distinctly audible friction over the point of the tongue and between the teeth, which are slightly open. It may be described, therefore, as an alveolar r, with reference to the position of the tongue. The vocal chords are in vibration and the lips are slightly drawn back. The breath escapes with considerable force between the up-tilted point of the tongue and the alveoli, and it is here that the consonantal friction in [r] is produced, not as the air passes between the teeth. The tongue positions for [r] are somewhat similar to those for [ʃ], [ʒ], but in [r] the teeth are open, in [ʃ], [ʒ] the upper and lower teeth are generally in close contact.

§40. This is the sound commonly heard in American speech for r initially, as in red [rɛd], between vowels, as in very [ˈvɛrɪ], and after consonants, as in dress [drɛs]. Before proceeding further with the consideration of various other kinds of r, the student is advised to observe extensively the occurrence of [r] in the three positions just mentioned in different words, and to study the sound itself so as to be able to distinguish the consonantal from the vocalic element in it. A voiceless r, which is merely frictional, should be compared with the voiced fricative [r], as for example the tr of tread pronounced separately without voicing as compared with red, read (preterite of the verb), pronounced [rɛd] with voicing.

§41. A trilled or rolled r, though not very common in American speech, is sometimes heard, especially for r between vowels, as in very, hurry, etc. It is commonly cultivated in stage pronunciation on the ground that it carries better than the fricative r. It is also cultivated by telephone operators in the pronunciation of three. It is formed by causing the point of the tongue to tap or vibrate against the gums, once or more, and in highly-developed forms of trilled r, a considerable number of times. This sound is so rare in American speech that it has not seemed necessary to provide a special symbol for it. It may be regarded as a variant form of [r].

§42. [ɹ] is also a voiced sound, but the friction accompanying the vocalic element is so slight that one might hesitate to group it with the fricatives, or with the consonants at all. Its orthographic representation, however, is r, and it is commonly thought of as being a variety of this sound.

In pronouncing [ɹ] the point of the tongue is not tilted as high as in [r], but if it were permitted to touch the roof of the mouth, which it does not do, it would strike the region just back of the upper teeth and in front of the place where the concavity of the roof of the mouth begins. It is commonly heard in American speech before consonants and finally, as in part [pɑːɹt], hard [hɑːɹd], heard [hɚɹd], cord [kɔɹd], fir, fur [fɚɹ], demur [dɪˈmɚɹ], car [kɑːɹ], dinner [ˈdɪnɚɹ], color [ˈkʌlɚɹ], never [ˈnɛvɚɹ], etc. There is less friction in the pronunciation of [ɹ] than of [r], the space between the tongue and the roof of the mouth being greater, and some phoneticians do not recognize any consonantal value for orthographic r before consonants and finally. It is true that [ɹ] is regularly omitted by some speakers, especially in the East and South in America, when it is final or stands before another consonant, the difference between taw and tore, pot and part, so far as there is one with such speakers, being altogether a difference of vowel quality or length. In unstressed position, as in never, the word ends, in this manner of speech, with the vowel [ə], as in [ˈnɛvə]. A word like part consists, in this pronunciation, of only three elements, [p], [ɑː] and [t] giving [pɑːt]. But in all regions of the United States, especially away from the Atlantic seaboard, an orthographic r commonly has phonetic value before consonants and when final. Whether one calls this sound which is heard a consonant or not is of little importance, provided the existence and quality of the sound itself are recognized. Its presence can be easily demonstrated by observing the tongue positions in pronouncing a word like part. This word, in American pronunciation which is not typically Eastern, contains four elements, the first and last being stop consonants, the second and third resulting from a shifting of the tongue from mid to high position accompanied by curving or tilting of the point. In never, when the word ends only in a vowel, as in Eastern American pronunciation, the tongue position at the conclusion of the word is that of [ə], that is mid position, with the point of the tongue touching or on a level with the lower front teeth. With those, however, who are said to pronounce their r's, the word ends with the tongue in high position and the tip of the tongue on a level with the roots of the upper teeth, giving [ˈnɛvɚɹ]. The difference between [r] and [ɹ] may be tested by pronouncing the word never by itself, and then by letting it be followed by rains, as in it never rains. Of course if one has no final r, this would be simply [ɪt ˈnɛvə reːnz]. But if one pronounces final r's, the final consonant of never cannot simply be carried over like a long consonant*, to satisfy the demand for the initial consonant of rains. A slight modification in articulation is observable in pronouncing the two r's, which is adequately represented, however it be named, by the two phonetic symbols [ɹ] and [r].

§43. Some speakers, especially those of an unenergetic habit of enunciation, pronounce [ɹ] for [r] even in the stressed initial position, between vowels, and after consonants. The pronunciation of [r] for [ɹ], that is a strongly fricative consonant finally and before other consonants, as in [ˈnɛvɚr], [pɑːrt], etc., is current in localities, but is not general in standard American English.

§44. Another variety of r is heard, especially in the North Central states and in the Middle West, which is produced by bending back the point of the tongue so far that if it actually came into contact with the roof of the mouth, it would strike about the middle of the hard-palate. This is often spoken of popularly as 'guttural r,' though it would be truer to the facts to call it a hard-palate r, or simply, back r. Dialect story writers usually represent it by doubling the spelling, as in corrn, farrm, etc. The sound is often so marked in the regions in which it occurs as to constitute as distinct a dialect feature as the loss of [ɹ] before consonants and finally is for the Atlantic seaboard. Speakers who have this back [r] are often said to 'roll their r's', though as a matter of fact there is no more rolling or tapping of any of the organs of speech in pronouncing this r than there is in pronouncing the common [r], [ɹ]. It is, however, sometimes prolonged. Englishmen and Eastern Americans often find this sound offensive.

*the text cross-references a different section that talks about "long consonants" in words and phrases like pen-knife, mad dog, egg glass

[zompist]

§39.[/b] [r] is produced by raising the body of the tongue so that the sides of it press against the upper teeth, tilting the point of the tongue so that it just barely touches the bony ridge of the gums, and allowing the breath to escape with a distinctly audible friction over the point of the tongue and between the teeth, which are slightly open.

Wow, when he insists on the heavy frication, this does not sound like a contemporary r at all. This makes me think of ʐ, as in Polish rz or Mandarin initial r. It certainly isn't a tapped r.

In pronouncing [ɹ] the point of the tongue is not tilted as high as in [r], but if it were permitted to touch the roof of the mouth, which it does not do, it would strike the region just back of the upper teeth and in front of the place where the concavity of the roof of the mouth begins.

OK, that sounds like a retroflex r, which is one of the realizations of American r. It's pretty much what I have, but for initial r- as well.

[Emily]

all right, time to get into the meat of it. i'm just going in the same order of the book, so we'll start where he does: ɑ and ɑː

ɑ
most of my other reportbacks from the book are just going to pull out interesting differences between 1919 english and 2023 english, but this section (and probably the [ɔ] section when i get to it) are going to summarize the text a little more comprehensively, and i'm hoping for feedback from east coasters* about how much of this stuff still is or isn't accurate
*everything past nebraska is the east coast

• short [ɑ] is standard in the words fop, got, hot, lot, not, stock, chocolate, "and many other words written with o before a voiceless consonant", though he notes that parts of New England use something closer to [ɔ] instead, and that the [ɔ] pronunciation is heard as individual exceptions throughout the US
• in other environments, the choice of [ɑ] or [ɔ] is can go either way:
  • before a voiced stop (dog, God, sod); [ɑ] is more common before [b] (rob, nobby)
  • before [l] (doll, follow, pollen) or [r] (examples are coroner, forest, foreign, forehead, horrid, orange, torrid—every one of which my california ass pronounces with the [o] phoneme!)
    • the word forehead is transcribed as "[ˈfɔrɪd] or [ˈfɑrɪd]", with no mention of today's second syllable [-ˌhɛd]—i knew this was a relatively recent spelling pronunciation, but i didn't realize it was so recent that it wouldn't even be mentioned!
  • before nasals: John, on, strong, pomp, romp
    • here he notes that the pronunciations [stɔmp] and [trɔmp] are "dialectal" pronunciations for stamp and tramp!
    • [bʌm] is also heard for bomb, "though probably less commonly in America than in England"
  • "before other continuants": coffee, off, soft; cost, hospital, ostrich; broth, bother; grovel, novel; he notes that grovel can also be pronounced with [ʌ], and that hovel and hover are either [ɑ] or [ʌ] but never [ɔ]
• after [w], both sounds can be found in words written with a, with [ɔ] being the more common preference: quarrel, swamp, swan, want, wash, wasp, water. he notes, however, that [ɑ] seems to be more common in swallow, wabble (presumably an older form of "wobble"), and further notes that individual speakers will also be inconsistent between different words
• listed under this phone (and the only item not discussing a variation with [ɔ] is a note about "the colloquial contraction aren't" becoming [eːnt] or [eɪnt], "but only in very familiar colloquial or dialect pronunciation", further extending to the singular in dialect speech

ɑː

• the phone [ɑː] is "practically universal" only in the word father; in most other words it tends to vary either with [æ(ˑ)] (such as gather, lather, slather) or short [ɑ] (bother)
• alm is regularly [ɑːm] (psalm, palm, alms); the words salmon and almond can have either [æm] or [ɑːm], with an [l] pronunciation "sometimes heard" but "not general" (today, the most common pronunciations in my experience are [ˈsæmən] and [ˈɑlmənd])
• he lists the standard pronunciation of hearth as [hɑːɹθ], with [hɚɹθ] labeled "old-fashioned or dialectal"; my own pronunciation matches his standard, but i think by this point the word itself has become old-fashioned, and the pronunciation [hɚɹθ] isn't a holdover but an eye pronunciation
• data is [ˈdɑːtə] but is also "Anglicized" to [ˈdætə] (the android's pronunciation apparently doesn't exist yet); lava is likewise sometimes anglicized to [ˈlævə]; garage is [gəˈrɑːʒ], but "popularly often" [ˈgærɪdʒ]
• tomato is generally [təˈmeˑto], but [təˈmɑːto] is widespread, "especially as a consciously cultivated pronunciation"; he also states that [təˈmæto] "is relatively rare", but it's bonkers that it even exists
• in the present day, Colorado and (especially) Nevada are pronounced with /æ/ within the states themselves and generally throughout the country, while an [ɑː] pronunciation is sometimes found, especially in the east; according to the book, in 1919 this was the case not only for these two states but also for Alabama, Nebraska, and Montana!
• "In several regions of the Atlantic seaboard a glide vowel is introduced between a preceding [k], [g] and [ɑː], as in the Virginia pronunciation of carter [kɪˈɑːtə], garden [gɪˈɑːdən], but this pronunciation is distinctly local or dialectal" — what the fuck??

[Travis B.]

All of this is simply bizarre. Thing is, my parents were born in the 1950's, yet their speech is much closer to my daughter's (she was born in the late 2000's) than to this despite the time distance between when this book was written and when they were born being less than the time distance between when they were born and when my daughter was born.

[zompist]

Just for fun, I'll divide up a/ɔ/o for his sample words.

a: fop, got, hot, lot, not, stock, God, sod, rob, nobby, doll, follow, pollen, John, on, pomp, romp, bomb, hospital, bother; grovel, novel, swamp, swan, want, wasp, swallow
ɔ: chocolate, dog, strong, coffee, off, soft; cost, ostrich; broth, wash, water
o: coroner, forest, foreign, forehead, horrid, orange, torrid, quarrel

On reflection I think the [o] is allophonic before /r/.

[Travis B.]

Just for fun, I'll divide up a/ɔ/o for his sample words.

a: fop, got, hot, lot, not, stock, God, sod, rob, nobby, doll, follow, pollen, John, on, pomp, romp, bomb, hospital, bother; grovel, novel, swamp, swan, want, wasp, swallow
ɔ: chocolate, dog, strong, coffee, off, soft; cost, ostrich; broth, wash, water
o: coroner, forest, foreign, forehead, horrid, orange, torrid, quarrel

On reflection I think the [o] is allophonic before /r/.

I agree exactly on all of these. (Phonetically my THOUGHT vowel is open, and is similar to RP LOT, but that is another story.)

[vlad]

• "In several regions of the Atlantic seaboard a glide vowel is introduced between a preceding [k], [g] and [ɑː], as in the Virginia pronunciation of carter [kɪˈɑːtə], garden [gɪˈɑːdən], but this pronunciation is distinctly local or dialectal" — what the fuck??

This is common in Jamaican English, before both /a/ (= /æ/) and /a:/ ( = /ɑ:/). E.g. c[j]ard, g[j]angster.

Thing is, my parents were born in the 1950's, yet their speech is much closer to my daughter's (she was born in the late 2000's) than to this despite the time distance between when this book was written and when they were born being less than the time distance between when they were born and when my daughter was born.

The book may have been published in 1919, but the author was born in 1872, and may have been describing the speech of people older than himself.

[Nortaneous]

"In several regions of the Atlantic seaboard a glide vowel is introduced between a preceding [k], [g] and [ɑː], as in the Virginia pronunciation of carter [kɪˈɑːtə], garden [gɪˈɑːdən], but this pronunciation is distinctly local or dialectal" — what the fuck??

Also found in Channel Islands English, isn't it?

Just for fun, I'll divide up a/ɔ/o for his sample words.

a: fop, got, hot, lot, not, stock, God, sod, rob, nobby, doll, follow, pollen, John, on, pomp, romp, bomb, hospital, bother; grovel, novel, swamp, swan, want, wasp, swallow
ɔ: chocolate, dog, strong, coffee, off, soft; cost, ostrich; broth, wash, water
o: coroner, forest, foreign, forehead, horrid, orange, torrid, quarrel

On reflection I think the [o] is allophonic before /r/.

I agree exactly on all of these. (Phonetically my THOUGHT vowel is open, and is similar to RP LOT, but that is another story.)

I have /ɑ/ in 'chocolate', 'ostrich', 'horrid', 'wash', and 'water', and 'orange' varies. (Also /ɔ/ in 'on', of course.)

Reading the words in my head, though, it's not intuitive that they all have the same vowels. [sɔft] vs. [kɔəst] and [nävəl] vs. [swɑmp] I had to think about. Now that I'm thinking about the allophonic distinction, though, it's hard to tell which words have which.

[Ketsuban]

[*] transfer is given as an example of latinate words that stress the second syllable when used as verbs

Is this not done in American English? It doesn't seem unusual to me, but I'm in the UK and I've been blindsided by transatlantic differences before.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

[*] transfer is given as an example of latinate words that stress the second syllable when used as verbs

Is this not done in American English? It doesn't seem unusual to me, but I'm in the UK and I've been blindsided by transatlantic differences before.

I have stress on the first syllable for both the noun and verb, though transference is stressed on the second syllable.

[Travis B.]

[*] transfer is given as an example of latinate words that stress the second syllable when used as verbs

Is this not done in American English? It doesn't seem unusual to me, but I'm in the UK and I've been blindsided by transatlantic differences before.

I have stress on the first syllable for both the noun and verb, though transference is stressed on the second syllable.

I have the same.

[anteallach]

The first rhotic described sounds like an alveolar (or postalveolar, given the comparison to [ʃ] and [ʒ]) non-sibilant fricative. Such a sound is mentioned by Ladefoged and Maddieson as occuring in some South African English varieties, and I think it's also sometimes found as the release phase of the affricates used for historic /tr/ and /dr/ for speakers for whom they're not assibilated.

Err with NURSE is standard in BrE BTW.

[RichardFromMarple]

• "In several regions of the Atlantic seaboard a glide vowel is introduced between a preceding [k], [g] and [ɑː], as in the Virginia pronunciation of carter [kɪˈɑːtə], garden [gɪˈɑːdən], but this pronunciation is distinctly local or dialectal" — what the fuck??

This is common in Jamaican English, before both /a/ (= /æ/) and /a:/ ( = /ɑ:/). E.g. c[j]ard, g[j]angster.

Thing is, my parents were born in the 1950's, yet their speech is much closer to my daughter's (she was born in the late 2000's) than to this despite the time distance between when this book was written and when they were born being less than the time distance between when they were born and when my daughter was born.

The book may have been published in 1919, but the author was born in 1872, and may have been describing the speech of people older than himself.

I presume it's representative of speech from an era before long distance telephones, radio, films with sound & television, which would have affected how people pronounce certain sounds.

[Travis B.]

I presume it's representative of speech from an era before long distance telephones, radio, films with sound & television, which would have affected how people pronounce certain sounds.

IMO the influence of media content on how one speaks is overstated, as it is those around one who typically influence how one speaks the most.

[Linguoboy]

"In several regions of the Atlantic seaboard a glide vowel is introduced between a preceding [k], [g] and [ɑː], as in the Virginia pronunciation of carter [kɪˈɑːtə], garden [gɪˈɑːdən], but this pronunciation is distinctly local or dialectal" — what the fuck??

Yeah, I find that pretty baffling. I even just now listened to some recordings of Tangier and Smith Islanders to see if this was some highly regressive Tidewater feature but there's not a trace of it in their accents (which are rhotic anyway).

Among accents of European English, I strongly associate this sort of palatalisation with Northern Ireland. Maybe there are conservative accents among the Scotch-Irish in Appalachia with this feature?