Prescriptive Pronunciation
Last night I was goofing off and watched the interview between Stephen Colbert and Christiane Amanpour on Comedy Central's website. It wasn't as funny as I hoped it would be, but I was amused by one exchange: Colbert keeps pronouncing the names of a certain pair of adjoining countries "eye-rack" and "eye-ran." Amanpour repeatedly corrects him, coaching him to say "ee-rahk" and "ee-rahn." (IPA version--Colbert says /aj.r@k/ and /aj.r@n/, Amanpour says /i.rak/ and /i.ran/). After saying them back and forth for awhile, Colbert simply says he can't hear the difference.
Now, I've entered into this debate before, at least once with Special K, as I remember. Personally, I find it a bit silly that people try to correct adults' pronunciation at all, especially when they're pronouncing a transliterated name of a foreign country. It's true that Amanpour's pronunciation is closer to the native one, although it would be possible to critique /i.rak/ as not being close enough yet. My impression is it that the "q" signifies a uvular stop--it sounds like a "k" but is made further back in the throat.
It's worth remembering that "Iraq" is an Arabic word that has been borrowed into English (and many other languages as well). When words are transferred from one language with its unique set of sounds and rules to another, pronunciation changes. When a speaker of English says "Iraq," why should we expect him/her to say the word according to the sound rules of Arabic and not according to English?
What people like Colbert are doing (unconsciously) when they pronounce /aj.r@k/ is treating the word as if it was part of the ancient heritage of English words rather than a recent borrowing. Imagine if the words Iraq and Iran had existed, with those spellings, in English, in about 1000. They would have been pronounced a la Amanpour; however, like all other English words, they would have been caught up in the Great Vowel Shift and moved to Colbert's pronunciation!
Now, neither Colbert nor Amanpour probably know or care that these words came into English after the Great Vowel Shift, but my point is that they don't need to. Speakers of a language don't have to know anything about the history of the language to speak it correctly. They don't even have to consciously know anything about the rules of the language! Colbert's pronunciation is perfectly good English, a pronunciation accepted by millions of English speakers, and that's good enough for me.
Now, I've entered into this debate before, at least once with Special K, as I remember. Personally, I find it a bit silly that people try to correct adults' pronunciation at all, especially when they're pronouncing a transliterated name of a foreign country. It's true that Amanpour's pronunciation is closer to the native one, although it would be possible to critique /i.rak/ as not being close enough yet. My impression is it that the "q" signifies a uvular stop--it sounds like a "k" but is made further back in the throat.
It's worth remembering that "Iraq" is an Arabic word that has been borrowed into English (and many other languages as well). When words are transferred from one language with its unique set of sounds and rules to another, pronunciation changes. When a speaker of English says "Iraq," why should we expect him/her to say the word according to the sound rules of Arabic and not according to English?
What people like Colbert are doing (unconsciously) when they pronounce /aj.r@k/ is treating the word as if it was part of the ancient heritage of English words rather than a recent borrowing. Imagine if the words Iraq and Iran had existed, with those spellings, in English, in about 1000. They would have been pronounced a la Amanpour; however, like all other English words, they would have been caught up in the Great Vowel Shift and moved to Colbert's pronunciation!
Now, neither Colbert nor Amanpour probably know or care that these words came into English after the Great Vowel Shift, but my point is that they don't need to. Speakers of a language don't have to know anything about the history of the language to speak it correctly. They don't even have to consciously know anything about the rules of the language! Colbert's pronunciation is perfectly good English, a pronunciation accepted by millions of English speakers, and that's good enough for me.
posted by Chaka at 8:41 AM
5 Comments:
Ah yes, I remember that conversation well. I still argue that speaking the names of countries and cities with the pronunciation and spelling native to the country would give us an appreciation for foreign cultures and languages and would equip us with examples toward which to turn if we were ever to attempt to learn such languages. All exposure helps. And who knows? Maybe it would even generate curiosity, teach us something about the roots of our own language, and lessen some foolish assumptions about the English language. I think it's the only way to go, and I will fight for it always...right after I get the metric system established.
ah - Great Vowel Shift - i remember it like i was yesterday.
yes i know - i lost a 't' on my last comment. by i still think it makes just as much sense as its original intent.
must... post... on... metric... system.......
I just had an interesting thought on this subject while picking trash at work today. When people who speak other languages talk about the United States, I guarantee that not a single one of them says "United States." If you were to walk into Mexico City and ask them about the United States, you would definitely hear "Estados Unidos." And I can also guarantee that the majority of non-english speakers who actually say "United States" and not their respective translation, they won't do it without an accent. Not that this justifies us pronouncing something wrong, but I'd say we've got a LOT more people who pronounce "Iraq" correctly in the US than anyone else in the world pronouncing "United States" correctly, and in English.
Post a Comment
<< Home