Gretchen McCulloch last explained exactly how the Benedict Cumberbatch name generator works and why dogespeak is so doge. This piece was brought to you by a reader.
You might think that Shakespeare spoke with a British accent. And technically, you wouldn’t be wrong, because since Shakespeare was a full-time Brit, he must, by definition, have had a British accent.
But a lot of people, including many Shakespeare aficionados, take that to mean that a modern-day British accent (usually Received Pronunciation aka RP) is the best accent to pronounce Shakespeare with. Is this actually true?
Partly as a demonstration, partly because I just want an excuse to make everyone watch this truly excellent sketch, here’s Catherine Tate performing Sonnet 130 (the snarky one) for Comic Relief, in a British accent that is definitely not RP. You can start at 4:37 if you only want to watch her perform the sonnet, although the whole sketch is well worth the watch.
Or what about the accent of Ichabod Crane in Sleepy Hollow? (For the uninitiated, this is a TV series involving Ichabod, a British soldier who has been magically asleep since 1781, newly awoken from his enchantment and adjusting to the modern world, while also trying to break an ancient curse and figure out whether he has better chemistry with his cop partner Abbie or his former wife Katrina.) Here’s the series trailer for reference: you can stop after about 30 seconds if you’re pressed for time.
There’s a lot of buddy-cop plus magic stuff in Sleepy Hollow which is actually quite entertaining, but what I want to focus on is the fact that Ichabod speaks with a fairly standard-issue British accent, RP or close to it. Ignoring the realism of Headless Horsemen, is Ichabod’s accent any more reasonable than the affected British accents of Shakespearean actors?
As a matter of fact, there are actually very good reasons to think that neither Shakespeare nor Ichabod should be speaking with what we currently think of as a “British” accent at all. What? Yes, really. Let me explain.
First, we need to talk about how it came to be that British and American accents are different in the first place. Most people assume that the British have always basically talked like that, and at some point after Shakespeare had died and while Ichabod Crane was asleep, the American colonists started speaking differently. That’s certainly what Sleepy Hollow assumes.
But it’s actually the opposite: at the time shortly post-Shakespeare and pre-Ichabod when the majority of British settlers arrived in North America, they actually spoke much more like current Americans than current Brits. One example is in the pronunciation of R after a vowel: at this time, everyone on both sides of the Atlantic was saying things like “paRk youR caR in HaRvaRd YaRd” (well, if cars had existed at the time, which they didn’t. Harvard Yard actually did exist, which, just…whatever, Harvard Yard).
We can tell that the rhotic pronunciation was the original one for a couple of reasons. For one thing, there has to be some reason why we write an R in those words in the first place, and basically everything that seems illogical about English spelling is actually totally reasonable if you go far enough back into the etymology. Another way we can show that people pronounced things in a particular way before we had recording devices to prove it is spelling variation, especially from less-standardized text like private notes and letters or from respelling schemes in early dictionaries. For example, if someone is writing “should” as “shud”, we can be fairly sure that the /l/ is silent for that person; conversely, if people don’t start writing “park” as “pak” until 1775, we can suppose that they didn’t start pronouncing it that way until around the same time.
So anyway, some Brits sailed across the Atlantic, speaking rhotically, and then they rebelled against the mother country, speaking rhotically, and then they founded America, speaking rhotically, and then they decided to make a time-travel action/supernatural TV series featuring some excellent characters of colour, still speaking rhotically. I may have skipped some steps, but speaking rhotically is in every single one of them. (Well, unless you speak one of the American dialects that isn’t rhotic, like Boston English or Southern English, but let’s not complicate things here.)
Meanwhile, back in Ye Olde England, everyone had also been speaking rhotically for quite a long time, but people started getting tired of it in the period just after the American Revolution. (Although we’re not quite sure why: perhaps this was just the 18th century equivalent of memespeak.) The first evidence we have of non-rhotic pronunciation is from a dictionary by John Walker in 1775, and pretty soon thereafter everyone was “pahking theih cahs in Hahvahd Yahd”. Metaphorically speaking. (Well, except for the people who speak a British dialect that is rhotic, like Northern English or Scots, but again let’s not complicate things.)
Is it surprising that the British were the ones who changed their way of speaking? Actually, not really. Language change generally happens faster in urban environments than in rural ones, so there’s a tendency for colonies (rural) to maintain the older forms of a language while colonizers (urban, at least in the capital where the most prestigious dialect is spoken) keep on innovating. So the same pattern happens in other languages: for example, Acadian and Quebec French preserve some older features that are now archaic in European French. (This is true at least until the colonies develop cities for themselves: other changes have happened in North America since then, such as the loss of the Transatlantic accent.)
Incidentally, the Great British De-Rhoticization (a term I just made up) also explains why Australian, New Zealand, and South African English are all non-rhotic, because these areas were settled after the British switched off their Rs, while Canada and the USA were first settled while everyone was still R-full. (More about British colonization if you want numbers.)
So let’s go back to Shakespeare: his dates are 1564 to 1616, which is far before the American Revolution in the 1700s and therefore long before anyone in Britain got it into their head to speak non-rhotically.
And as for Ichabod Crane, he’s a British soldier-turned-revolutionary from 1781, but he emigrated from Britain some unspecified time before the American Revolution (1765-1783), so chances are that he should probably actually be speaking rhotically, although for him it’s quite a near thing. I mean, sure, I get why the creators didn’t do it: having a different way of speaking emphasizes Ichabod’s otherness, plus, everyone likes to listen to a dude with a British accent. And unlike me, probably not everyone would find historical linguistics the most riveting possible thing to include in a mythological Americana buddy cop show.
What about other differences?
It’s not just R-fullness or R-lessness. There have been lots of other changes since Shakespeare’s day. A big one is the pronunciation of various vowel sounds: as we can tell by certain sonnets, “love” used to rhyme with “prove” and “remove”, such as in Sonnet 116:
Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds
Or bends with the remover to remove
In general, Shakespeare-era vowels tend to have a rather Scottish tinge. For more examples of how the vowels have changed, I’d recommend this excellent demonstration video with David Crystal and his son Ben (the demonstration proper starts at 3:00, although the intro also has some lovely shots of the Globe Theatre.)
In Sleepy Hollow, a major source of anachronistic confusion for fans has been Ichabod’s pronunciation of “lieutenant” as “leftenant”: it’s such an issue that it’s even addressed on the FAQ of the fuckyeahsleepyhollow tumblr. However, this one is actually spot-on. The “left” pronunciation has existed for basically as long as the term itself in English. Not only is it the current pronunciation in the UK (and also Canada), but it’s also how the word was pronounced in the US up until around the 1820s, several decades after Ichabod zonked out. Rhotic or non-rhotic, Ichabod should definitely not be saying “lootenant”.
Where the language of Sleepy Hollow and Shakespeare collide is in Episode 5, where Ichabod and Abbie come across settlers from Roanoke. Founded in 1586, Roanoke was one of the earliest British settlements in North America, but that’s not quite early enough for the “Middle English” that its inhabitants are supposedly speaking, as even a lot of fans have pointed out. Middle English (think Middle Ages) is approximately the speech of Chaucer and stopped being spoken around 1470, which is well before any sustained contact between England and the Americas, let alone settlements. (Recall the famous Columbus 1492 thing.) Roanoke settlers would actually have spoken Early Modern English, just like Shakespeare, who was actually 22 years old when Roanoke was founded. (Hey, I think I have an idea for a second time-travelling episode next season.)
Unfortunately, if for plot purposes you want to have the Roanoke settlers speaking a variety of English that’s unintelligible to modern ears, Early Modern English isn’t quite going to cut it. Even if we don’t quite get all the innuendos in Shakespeare without the help of the footnotes, this era of speech is far from incomprehensible to present-day listeners.
Ichabod in particular shouldn’t have had to study anything at Oxford in order to talk to people from about 200 years before his time: this is basically the same gap as a modern person reading Jane Austen. On the bright side, as far as I can tell without being fluent in it, the actual Middle English that the TV-Roanoke settlers are speaking does sound like a reasonable approximation. (This behind-the-scenes video says that the producers hired a Middle English specialist and dialect coach to help with that episode, though alas not a historical linguist to determine whether they should have been teaching them Middle English in the first place.)
Fortunately, I think there’s a perfect solution to all of these problems. We clearly need an elite squadron of linguists to vet all programming for linguistic accuracy before it appears in the public eye. And I know lots of highly qualified linguistics grad students who will probably be looking for work in the next few years. Dear Hollywood: call me. I’ll hook you up.
Tags: Gretchen McCulloch, linguistics, magic, nicole has never watched sleepy hollow so did not know until she edited this piece that that boy is FINE, sleepy hollow, television, the british and their stupid sexy voices
Rhoticity died out in Lancashire later than elsewhere in England (West Country aside) but it's still pretty solidly non-rhotic at this point – interesting article here: http://swphonetics.com/2013/09/21/rhoticity-in-la…
Merry and Sam were both doing West Country in LotR – Pippin didn't have to as he just kept his charming Scottish accent. What interested me about LotR was the way that even the RP speakers like Elrond and Gandalf would pronounce some words – notably the word 'Mordor' – rhotically. This will not have been accidental given Tolkein's linguistic prowess, I'm interested by the fact they chose to do that. Another observation along similar lines: the AMERICAN announcer for the Narnia trailers pronounced 'Narnia' NON-rhotically – Nanny-ah. That amused me greatly.
Yeah, we try to correct (gently!) at home–"There's an 'l' in 'cold.' Try that again." Ideally, he'll have my preferred west-coast/southwest accent but be able to drop into Full Yinzer as a party trick.
That idea (which I have heard as well) comes from the idea that the Appalachian accent has been so isolated for so long that it has experienced less change (especially from outside forces) and is therefore closer to what original colonial settlers spoke, which is therefore closer to what Shakespeare and his actors spoke. However, that presupposes that accents never change absent external influences, which is false, and also assumes that relative isolation is the same as total isolation, which is also false.
I always find it so amazing that such a small country could have so many different regional accents. We have regional accents in the states, too, obviously, but those regions tend to be larger, and a lot of the time the way I can tell where someone is from is less by how they pronounce words and more by what words/constructions they use.
I tried it and IMMEDIATELY had a faux-Scots accent, complete with flipping my "r"s in a way I would never do in my natural accent.
Toasties interested in a very detailed etymological history of the English language (like, starting with hypothetical reconstructed Indo-European tribal languages) should check out the History of English podcast. Tons of enjoyable content that others might find dry, but that is riveting for (clearly, based on these comments) people like us.
Thank you, Gretchen! Always enjoy your work.
Lovelovelovelove this piece! I’ve always wondered what went down when the American and Brit accents diverged. Language RULES! More linguist stuff rah rah!
Nah, she cleared up bout' an hour ago.
Dammit, I forgot to clarify that "Is it raining yet." translates to "Is it still raining."
Gives "Are you married yet?" a whole new spin.
I am so psyched about the new Outlander TV show but I worry it is going to have all these problems. D:
I say it like McCullock, but I have cousins who say McCulla, so I pretty much accept either from people.
But! There's actually a linguistically interesting reason for the difference. The Scottish pronunciation actually ends with the "ch" as in "loch" or German "Bach", what's known in the biz (linguistics is a biz, right?) as a voiceless velar fricative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_velar_fri…
However, since this sound isn't really found in any really native Englishy words, many English speakers have trouble with it and end up either making it into /k/ (a voiceless velar stop) or /h/ (a voiceless glottal fricative). Since /h/ at the end of a word isn't something that English does, that becomes just the vowel sound.
Ohemgee you guys, Ben Crystal, the younger of the two British folk speaking Shakespeare above, has a book called Shakespeare on Toast, and a website. ( http://www.shakespeareontoast.com/about-toast/ ) So much toast, you guys. So much toast.
EEE that's so cool! Thank you for explaining it more! My husband is going to get such a kick out of this. We're always so dumbfounded when it's mispronounced, but now we know there's a reason.
I thought I'd be switching to an easier for people to pronounce name when I got married. Gadeken to McCulloch… Should be easy, right? Little did I know…
The old Shakespeare is gorgeous. I now want to see an entire play produced that way. The sound! i love the sound.
I'M NOT BRITISH! I'M ENGLISH! THE BRITISH ARE THAT FOREIGN LOT WHOM MY ANCESTORS BOOTED OVER INTO WALES AND BRITTANY IN THE FIFTH CENTURY. THEY DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH. THE BRITISH SPEAK WELSH!
he is FINE tho
LOLing a week late at this – I'm a Californian in PGH and when I first got here and started a job, my trainer's pronunciations of "PayPow" (PayPal) sparked an obsession. Weirdly nobody else I've talked to has even noticed the L thing.
I'm from eastern Mass and when I went to England a few years back I got asked if I was Irish.
It's believed that old northern English was more rhotic than today. The BBC archives has recordings of early 20th century rural people in East Yorkshire & it sounds like a fascinating mixture of Northumberland & Suffolk.
I agree much of northern English is not that rhotic, particularly in Yorkshire, although if you listen to Lancashire apart from modern Mancunian & Scouse, it is still very rhotic.
The RP version of English was developed when the Hanoverian monarchy took over the throne. They initially spoke no English at all, then as the learned they spoke it with a north German accent. This accent sounded very strained & the "R's" were nearly silent. The upper echelon English around London copied the style of speaking in order to equate themselves with what they considered to be the important circles.
The fashion took hold & spread throughout the south east of England with other influential sectors of English society & became the standard way of speaking for the upper & latter middle classes.
Are you even aware that Shakespeare was not British, since during his lifetime the British nation did not exist? He was English. He was most certainly NOT 'British'.
Not everyone in Britain is English. The 'estuary accent' is not even spoke all over England much less all over Britain.
Are you even aware that, while the British nation state did not exist in Shakespeare's lifetime, the actual term 'Great Britain' was in use even before Shakespeare's time, and was used by James I?
'British monarchs had begun using "king of Great Britain" as a short-hand for "king of England and Scotland" or "king of Scotland and England" as soon as personal union took place. In a proclamation of Oct. 24, 1604, James I stated: "We do by these presents, by force of our kingly power and prerogative, assume to ourself by the clearness of our right, the name and style of King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. as followeth in our just and lawful style, and do hereby publish, promulge and declare the same, to the end that in all proclamations, missives foreign, and domestical, treaties, leagues, dedicatories, impressions, and in all other cases of like nature, the same may be used and observed."
Source: heraldica.org
Ichabod's mad language skillz (nerd peeps, represent!) are half the reason I watch the show, Mills sister badassery being the other half.
This native of Appalachia thanks you for describing the stereotype as "gross" and generally destroying the stupidity of that myth.
Ireland was rural and colonial, so Hiberno-English maintained the rhotic dialect. Also, there was something about mingling with the Irish that tended to make English transplants become "more Irish than the Irish," as the saying goes.
More than 30 million Americans identified Irish ancestry on the US Census in 2000, and more than 35 million in 2010 (if you include Scotch-Irish, add 4M and 5M, respectively). This is why I think a good case can be made for a strong Irish influence on the development of US English as a mainly rhotic dialect.
Absolutely fascinating. Thanks!
Barbados was settled in 1627 by the British and we have a distinct rhotic accent. I suppose we Bajans still speak the way the English did then.
When we would study Shakespeare at school, we would find some of the vocabulary words, that are now archaic in the UK – familiar. For example we commonly say someone "made us vexed" (instead of angry). Another relic – we "pelt" objects, never 'throw' them!
" except for the people who speak a British dialect that is rhotic, like Northern English or Scots"
The most obvious rhotic accents in Britain are in the southwest: Bristol, Somerset, Dorset etc. There are smatterings of rhoticity in the north of England and in the Scottish borders, but they are small and are not particularly strong. Mainstream Scottish accents are not rhotic.
"Come with" is very common in Grand Rapids, MI too.
Basically listen to a West Country accent, or as it's known "The Farmer Accent". It's pretty obvious that the 'educated' way of speaking that emerged in probably early 1800s London spread along with industrialisation, and more importantly urbanisation.
As the old unfashionable rural areas were swept aside, so was the commonality of the rural accents.
I do find people who say it was closer to North American accents tedious, for many reasons. For a start there are a huge amount of British accents, as was the case in the early colonial and immediate post revolutionary times. The accent in America is also changed from those times, which is immediately evidenced by the variety in America accents observed now. When they say it's closer to American, which American accent are they referring to? and indeed which British accent are they framing that against?
The truth is it probably sounds like neither, and shares some characteristics exclusive to both.
That must have been an interesting version of MND; Benedick is a character in a different play. I'd have liked to have heard her though.
John Milton evidently pronounced it as spelt: see his sonnet that begins 'Captain or colonel or knight-at-arms', where 'colonel' must have 3 syllables to fit the metre.
Melvyn Bragg wrote a fantastic book entitled "The Adventure of English" throughout which he details the evolution of the English language from its earliest inception to modern times. He covers the variety of accents and dialects beautifully! I recommend the audiobook because the narrator is brilliant! His recitation of the Jamaican poetess Miss Sue's work on dialect is spot on.
For my part, I will adopt "bubbler"!
Followed ancient migratory routes, in anticipation that modern plumbing would one day be invented?
Long ago, my husband and I saw a short series on PBS about "American" and dialects. One of the topics was an eastern coastal island and their dialect. I've searched around and think that this is the series: 'Do You Speak American?' – http://www.pbs.org/speak/
Here are some other shows I found that may interest you, too:
An episode of BrainCraft – "The Psychology of Accents" – http://www.pbs.org/video/2365624089/
From American Experience, We Shall Remain series, Native Now – includes episodes that explore the Cherokee, Shawnee, and Nipmuc languages – http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/native…
Nova – "Speaking Ancient Mayan" – http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/speaking-anc…
Language matters – http://www.pbs.org/program/language-matters/