The Grammar of English Grammars/Part IV/Chapter II

by Goold Brown

CHAPTER II—UTTERANCE.

Utterance Is the art or act of vocal expression. It includes the principles of articulation, of pronunciation, and of elocution.

SECTION I.—OF ARTICULATION.

Articulation is the forming of words; by the voice, with reference to their component letters and sounds.

ARTICLE I.—OF THE DEFINITION.

Articulation differs from pronunciation, in having more particular regard to the elements of words, and in not embracing accent^[1]. A recent author defines it thus: "Articulation is the act of forming, with the organs of speech, the elements of vocal language."—Comstock's Elocution, p. 16. And again: "A good articulation is the perfect utterance of the elements of vocal language."—Ibid.

An other describes it more elaborately thus: "Articulation, in language, is the forming of the human voice, accompanied by the breath, in some few consonants, into the simple and compound sounds, called vowels, consonants, and diphthongs, by the assistance of the organs of speech; and the uniting of those vowels, consonants, and diphthongs, together, so as to form syllables and words, and constitute spoken language."—Bolles's Dict., Introd., p. 7.

ARTICLE II—OF GOOD ARTICULATION.

Correctness in articulation is of such importance, that without it speech or reading becomes not only inelegant, but often absolutely unintelligible. The opposite faults are mumbling, muttering, mincing, lisping, slurring, mouthing, drawling, hesitating, stammering, misreading, and the like. "A good articulation consists in giving every letter in a syllable its due proportion of sound, according to the most approved custom of pronouncing it; and in making such a distinction between the syllables of which words are composed, that the ear shall without difficulty acknowledge their number; and perceive, at once, to which syllable each letter belongs. Where these points are not observed, the articulation is proportionably defective."—Sheridan's Rhetorical Grammar, p. 50.

Distinctness of articulation depends, primarily, upon the ability to form the simple elements, or sounds of letters, by the organs of speech, in the manner which the custom of the language demands; and, in the next place, upon the avoidance of that precipitancy of utterance, which is greater than the full and accurate play of the organs will allow. If time be not given for the full enunciation of any word which we attempt to speak, some of the syllables will of course be either lost by elision or sounded confusedly.

Just articulation gives even to a feeble voice greater power and reach than the loudest vociferation can attain without it. It delivers words from the lips, not mutilated, distorted, or corrupted, but as the acknowledged sterling currency of thought;—"as beautiful coins newly issued from the mint, deeply and accurately impressed, perfectly finished, neatly struck by the proper organs, distinct, sharp, in due succession, and of due weight."—Austin's Chironomia, p. 38.

OBS.—The principles of articulation constitute the chief exercise of all those who are learning either to speak or to read. So far as they are specifically taught in this work, they will be found in those sections which treat of the powers of the letters.

SECTION II.—OF PRONUNCIATION.

Pronunciation, as distinguished from elocution, or delivery, is the utterance of words taken separately. The correct pronunciation of words, or that part of grammar which teaches it, is frequently called Orthoëpy.

Pronunciation, or orthoëpy, requires a knowledge of the just powers of the letters in all their combinations; of the distinction of quantity in vowels and syllables; and of the force and seat of the accent.

ARTICLE I—OF THE POWERS OF LETTERS.

The just powers of the letters, are those sounds which are given to them by the best readers. These are to be learned, as reading is learned, partly from example, and partly from such books as show or aid the pronunciation of words.

It is to be observed, however, that considerable variety, even in the powers of the letters, is produced by the character and occasion of what is uttered. It is noticed by Walker, that, "Some of the vowels, when neither under the accent, nor closed by a consonant, have a longer or a shorter, an opener or a closer sound, according to the solemnity or familiarity, the deliberation or rapidity of our delivery."—Pronouncing Dict., Preface, p. 4. In cursory speech, or in such reading as imitates it, even the best scholars utter many letters with quicker and obscurer sounds than ought ever to be given them in solemn discourse. "In public speaking," says Rippingham, "every word should be uttered, as though it were spoken singly. The solemnity of an oration justifies and demands such scrupulous distinctness. That careful pronunciation which would be ridiculously pedantic in colloquial intercourse, is an essential requisite of good elocution."—Art of Public Speaking, p. xxxvii.

ARTICLE II—OF QUANTITY.

Quantity, or time in pronunciation, is the measure of sounds or syllables in regard to their duration; and, by way of distinction, is supposed ever to determine them to be either long or short.^[2]

The absolute time in which syllables are uttered, is very variable, and must be different to suit different subjects, passions, and occasions; but their relative length or shortness may nevertheless be preserved, and generally must be, especially in reciting poetry.

Our long syllables are chiefly those which, having sounds naturally capable of being lengthened at pleasure, are made long by falling under some stress either of accent or of emphasis. Our short syllables are the weaker sounds, which, being the less significant words, or parts of words, are uttered without peculiar stress.

OBS.—As quantity is chiefly to be regarded in the utterance of poetical compositions, this subject will be farther considered under the head of Versification.

ARTICLE III.—OF ACCENT.

Accent, as commonly understood, is the peculiar stress which we lay upon some particular syllable of a word, whereby that syllable is distinguished from and above the rest; as, gram'-mar, gram-ma'-ri-an.

Every word of more than one syllable, has one of its syllables accented; and sometimes a compound word has two accents, nearly equal in force; as, e'ven-hand'ed, home'-depart'ment.^[3]

Besides the chief or primary accent, when the word is long, for the sake of harmony or distinctness, we often give a secondary or less forcible accent to an other syllable; as, to the last of tem'-per-a-ture’, and to the second of in dem'-ni-fi-ca'-tion.

"Accent seems to be regulated, in a great measure, by etymology. In words from the Saxon, the accent is generally on the root; in words from the learned languages, it is generally on the termination; and if to these we add the different accent we lay on some words, to distinguish them from others, we seem to have the three great principles of accentuation; namely, the radical, the terminational, and the distinctive."—Walker's Principles, No. 491; L. Murray's Grammar, 8vo, p. 236.

A full and open pronunciation of the long vowel sounds, a clear articulation of the consonants, a forcible and well-placed accent, and a distinct utterance of the unaccented syllables, distinguish the elegant speaker.

OBSERVATIONS.

1. The pronunciation of the English language is confessedly very difficult to be mastered. Its rules and their exceptions are so numerous, that few become thoroughly acquainted with any general system of them. Nor, among the different systems which have been published, is there any which is worthy in all respects to be accounted a Standard. And, if we appeal to custom, the custom even of the best speakers is far from an entire uniformity. Perhaps the most popular directory on this subject is Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. The "Principles of English Pronunciation," which this author has furnished, occupy fifty-six closely-printed octavo pages, and are still insufficient for the purpose of teaching our orthoëpy by rule. They are, however, highly valuable, and ought to be consulted by every one who wishes to be master of this subject. In its vocabulary, or stock of words, this Dictionary is likewise deficient. Other lexicographers have produced several later works, of high value to the student; and, though no one has treated the subject of pronunciation so elaborately as did Walker, some may have given the results of their diligence in a form more useful to the generality of their consulters. Among the good ones, is the Universal and Critical Dictionary of Joseph E. Worcester.
2. Our modern accentuation of Greek or Latin words is regulated almost wholly by the noted rule of Sanctius, which Walker has copied and Englished in the Introduction to his Key, and of which the following is a new version or paraphrase, never before printed:

   RULE FOR THE ACCENTING OF LATIN.

   One syllable has stress of course,

   And words of two the first enforce;

   In longer words the penult guides,

   Its quantity the point decides;

   If long, 'tis there the accent's due,

   If short, accent the last but two;

   For accent, in a Latin word,

   Should ne'er go higher than the third.

This rule, or the substance of it, has become very important by long and extensive use; but it should be observed, that stress on monosyllables is more properly emphasis than accent; and that, in English, the accent governs quantity, rather than quantity the accent.

SECTION III.—OF ELOCUTION.

Elocution is the graceful utterance of words that are arranged into sentences, and that form discourse.

Elocution requires a knowledge, and right application, of emphasis, pauses, inflections, and tones.

ARTICLE I—OF EMPHASIS.

Emphasis is the peculiar stress of voice which we lay upon some particular word or words in a sentence, which are thereby distinguished from the rest as being more especially significant.^[4]

As accent enforces a syllable, and gives character to a word; so emphasis distinguishes a word, and often determines the import of a sentence. The right placing of accent, in the utterance of words, is therefore not more important, than the right placing of emphasis, in the utterance of sentences. If no emphasis be used, discourse becomes vapid and inane; if no accent, words can hardly be recognized as English.

"Emphasis, besides its other offices, is the great regulator of quantity. Though the quantity of our syllable is fixed, in words separately pronounced, yet it is mutable, when [the] words are [ar]ranged in[to] sentences; the long being changed into short, the short into long, according to the importance of the words with regard to meaning: and, as it is by emphasis only, that the meaning can be pointed out, emphasis must be the regulator of the quantity."—L. Murray's Gram., p. 246.^[5] "Emphasis changes, not only the quantity of words and syllables, but also, in particular cases, the sent of the accent. This is demonstrable from the following examples: 'He shall increase, but I shall decrease.' 'There is a difference between giving and forgiving.' 'In this species of composition, plausibility is much more essential than probability.' In these examples, the emphasis requires the accent to be placed on syllables to which it does not commonly belong."—Ib., p. 247.

In order to know what words are to be made emphatic, the speaker or reader must give constant heed to the sense of what he utters; his only sure guide, in this matter, being a just conception of the force and spirit of the sentiment which he is about to pronounce. He must also guard against the error of multiplying emphatic words too much; for, to overdo in this way, defeats the very purpose for which emphasis is used. To manage this stress with exact propriety, is therefore one of the surest evidences both of a quick understanding, and of a delicate and just taste.

ARTICLE II.—OF PAUSES.

Pauses are cessations in utterance, which serve equally to relieve the speaker, and to render language intelligible and pleasing.

Pauses are of three kinds: first, distinctive or sentential pauses,—such as form the divisions required by the sense; secondly, emphatic or rhetorical pauses,—such as particularly call the hearer's attention to something which has been, or is about to be, uttered; and lastly, poetical or harmonic pauses,—such as are peculiar to the utterance of metrical compositions.

The duration of the distinctive pauses should be proportionate to the degree of connexion between the parts of the discourse. The shortest are long enough for the taking of some breath; and it is proper, thus to relieve the voice at every stop, if needful. This we may do, slightly at a comma, more leisurely at a semicolon, still more so at a colon, and completely at a period.

Pauses, whether in reading or in public discourse, ought always to be formed after the manner in which we naturally form them in ordinary, sensible conversation; and not after the stiff, artificial manner which many acquire at school, by a mere mechanical attention to the common punctuation.

Forced, unintentional pauses, which accidentally divide words that ought to be spoken in close connexion, are always disagreeable; and, whether they arise from exhaustion of breath, from a habit of faltering, or from unacquaintance with the text, they are errors of a kind utterly incompatible with graceful elocution.

Emphatic or rhetorical pauses, the kind least frequently used, may be made immediately before, or immediately after, something which the speaker thinks particularly important, and on which he would fix the attention of his audience. Their effect is similar to that of a strong emphasis; and, like this, they must not be employed too often.

The harmonic pauses, or those which are peculiar to poetry, are of three kinds: the final pause, which marks the end of each line; the cæsural or divisional pause, which commonly divides the line near the middle; and the minor rests, or demi-cæsuras, which often divide it still further.

In the reading of poetry, these pauses ought to be observed, as well as those which have reference to the sense; for, to read verse exactly as if it were prose, will often rob it of what chiefly distinguishes it from prose. Yet, at the same time, all appearance of singsong, or affected tone, ought to be carefully guarded against.

ARTICLE III.—OF INFLECTIONS.

Inflections are those peculiar variations of the human voice, by which a continuous sound is made to pass from one note, key, or pitch, into an other. The passage of the voice from a lower to a higher or shriller note, is called the rising or upward inflection. The passage of the voice from a higher to a lower or graver note, is called the falling or downward inflection. These two opposite inflections may be heard in the following examples: 1. The rising, "Do you mean to gó?" 2. The falling, "When will you gò?"

In general, questions that may be answered by yes or no, require the rising inflection; while those which demand any other answer, must be uttered with the falling inflection. These slides of the voice are not commonly marked in writing, or in our printed books; but, when there is occasion to note them, we apply the acute accent to the former, and the grave accent to the latter.^[6]

A union of these two inflections upon the same syllable, is called a circumflex, a wave, or a "circumflex inflection." When the slide is first downward and then upward, it is called the rising circumflex, or "the gravo-acute circumflex;" when first upward and then downward, it is denominated the falling circumflex, or "the acuto-grave circumflex." Of these complex inflections of the voice, the emphatic words in the following sentences may be uttered as examples: "And it shall go hărd but I will ûse the information."—"Ô! but he paŭsed upon the brink."

When a passage is read without any inflection, the words are uttered in what is called a monotone; the voice being commonly pitched at a grum note, and made to move for the time, slowly and gravely, on a perfect level.

"Rising inflections are far more numerous than falling inflections; the former constitute the main body of oral language, while the latter are employed for the purposes of emphasis, and in the formation of cadences. Rising inflections are often emphatic; but their emphasis is weaker than that of falling inflections."—Comstock's Elocution, p. 50.

"Writers on Elocution have given numerous rules for the regulation of inflections; but most of these rules are better calculated to make bad readers than good ones. Those founded on the construction of sentences might, perhaps, do credit to a mechanic, but they certainly do none to an elocutionist."—Ib., p. 51.

"The reader should bear in mind that a falling inflection gives more importance to a word than a rising inflection. Hence it should never be employed merely for the sake of variety; but for emphasis and cadences. Neither should a rising inflection be used for the sake of mere ‘harmony,’ where a falling inflection would better express the meaning of the author. The sense should, in all cases, determine the direction of inflections."—Ib.

Cadence is a fall of the voice, which has reference not so much to pitch as to force, though it may depress both; for it seems to be generally contrasted with emphasis,^[7] and by some is reprehended as a fault. "Support your voice steadily and firmly," says Rippingham, "and pronounce the concluding words of the sentence with force and vivacity, rather than with a languid cadence."—Art of Speaking, p. 17. The pauses which L. Murray denominates the suspending and the closing pause, he seems to have discriminated chiefly by the inflections preceding them, if he can be said to have distinguished them at all. For he not only teaches that the former may sometimes be used at the close of a sentence, and the latter sometimes where "the sense is not completed;" but, treating cadence merely as a defect, adds the following caution: "The closing pause must not be confounded with that fall of the voice, or cadence, with which many readers uniformly finish a sentence. Nothing is more destructive of propriety and energy than this habit. The tones and inflections of the voice at the close of a sentence, ought to be diversified, according to the general nature of the discourse, and the particular construction and meaning of the sentence."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 250; 12mo, p. 200.

ARTICLE IV.—OF TONES.

Tones are those modulations of the voice which depend upon the feelings of the speaker. They are what Sheridan denominates "the language of emotions." And it is of the utmost importance, that they be natural, unaffected, and rightly adapted to the subject and to the occasion; for upon them, in a great measure, depends all that is pleasing or interesting in elocution.

"How much of the propriety, the force, and [the] grace of discourse, must depend on these, will appear from this single consideration; that to almost every sentiment we utter, more especially to every strong emotion, nature has adapted some peculiar tone of voice; insomuch, that he who should tell another that he was angry, or much grieved, in a tone that did not suit such emotions, instead of being believed, would be laughed at."—Blair's Rhet., p. 333.

"The different passions of the mind must be expressed by different tones of the voice. Love, by a soft, smooth, languishing voice; anger, by a strong, vehement, and elevated voice; joy, by a quick, sweet, and clear voice; sorrow, by a low, flexible, interrupted voice; fear, by a dejected, tremulous, hesitating voice; courage, by a full, bold, and loud voice; and perplexity, by a grave and earnest voice. In exordiums, the voice should be low, yet clear; in narrations, distinct; in reasoning, slow; in persuasions, strong: it should thunder in anger, soften in sorrow, tremble in fear, and melt in love."—Hiley's Gram., p. 121.

OBS.—Walker observes, in his remarks on the nature of Accent and Quantity, "As to the tones of the passions, which are so many and various, these, in the opinion of one of the best judges in the kingdom, are qualities of sound, occasioned by certain vibrations of the organs of speech, independent on [say of] high, low, loud, soft, quick, slow, forcible, or feeble: which last may not improperly be called different quantities of sound."—Walker's Key, p. 305.

Notes

1. [470] "As soon as language proceeds, from mere articulation, to coherency, and connection, accent becomes the guide of the voice. It is founded upon an obscure perception of symmetry, and proportion, between the different sounds that are uttered."—Noehden's Grammar of the German Language, p. 66.
2. [471] According to Johnson, Walker, Webster, Worcester, and perhaps all other lexicographers, Quantity, in grammar, is—"The measure of time in pronouncing a syllable." And, to this main idea, are conformed, so far as I know, all the different definitions ever given of it by grammarians and critics, except that which appeared in Asa Humphrey's English Prosody, published in 1847. In this work—the most elaborate and the most comprehensive, though not the most accurate or consistent treatise we have on the subject—Time and Quantity are explained separately, as being "two distinct things;" and the latter is supposed not to have regard to duration, but solely to the amount of sound given to each syllable. This is not only a fanciful distinction, but a radical innovation—and one which, in any view, has little to recommend it. The author's explanations of both time and quantity—of their characteristics, differences, and subdivisions—of their relations to each other, to poetic numbers, to emphasis and cadence, or to accent and non-accent—as well as his derivation and history of "these technical terms, time and quantity"—are hardly just or clear enough to be satisfactory. According to his theory, "Poetic numbers are composed of long and short syllables alternately;" (page 5;) but the difference or proportion between the times of these classes of syllables he holds to be indeterminable, "because their lengths are various." He began with destroying the proper distinction of quantity, or time, as being either long or short, by the useless recognition of an indefinite number of "intermediate lengths;" saying of our syllables at large, "some are long, some short, and some are of intermediate lengths; as, mat, not, con, &c. are short sounds; mate, note, cone, and grave are long. Some of our diphthongal sounds are longer still; as, voice, noise, sound, bound, &c. others are seen to be of intermediate lengths."—Humphrey's Prosody, p. 4. On a scheme like this, it must evidently be impossible to determine, with any certainty, either what syllables are long and what short, or what is the difference or ratio between any two of the innumerable "lengths" of that time, or quantity, which is long, short, variously intermediate, or longer still, and again variously intermediate! No marvel then that the ingenious author scans some lines in a manner peculiar to himself.
3. [472] It was the doctrine of Sheridan, and perhaps of our old lexicographers in general, that no English word can have more than one full accent; but, in some modern dictionaries, as Bolles's, and Worcester's, many words are marked as if they had two; and a few are given by Bolles's as having three. Sheridan erroneously affirmed, that "every word has an accent," even "all monosyllables, the particles alone excepted."—Lecture on Elocution, pp. 61 and 71. And again, yet more erroneously: "The essence of English words consisting in accent, as that of syllables in articulation; we know that there are as many syllables as we hear articulate sounds, and as many words as we hear accents."—Ib., p. 70. Yet he had said before, in the same lecture: "The longer polysyllables, have frequently two accents, but one is so much stronger than the other, as to shew that it is but one word; and the inferior accent is always less forcible, than any accent that is the single one in a word."—Ib., p. 31. Wells defines accent as if it might lie on many syllables of a word; but, in his examples, he places it on no more than one: "Accent is the stress which is laid on one or more syllables of a word, in pronunciation; as, reverberate, undertake."—Wells's School Gram., p. 185. According to this loose definition, he might as well have accented at least one other syllable in each of these examples; for there seems, certainly, to be some little stress on ate and un. For sundry other definitions of accent, see Chap. IV, Section 2d, of Versification; and the marginal note referring to Obs. 1st on Prosody.
4. [473] According to Dr. Rush, Emphasis is—"a stress of voice on one or more words of a sentence, distinguishing them by intensity or peculiarity of meaning."—Philosophy of the Voice, p. 282. Again, he defines thus: "Accent is the fixed but inexpressive distinction of syllables by quantity and stress: alike both in place and nature, whether the words are pronounced singly from the columns of a vocabulary, or connectedly in the series of discourse. Emphasis may be defined to be the expressive but occasional distinction of a syllable, and consequently of the whole word, by one or more of the specific modes of time, quality, force, or pitch."—Ibid.
5. [474]
   1. This doctrine, though true in its main intent, and especially applicable to the poetic quantity of monosyllables, (the class of words most frequently used in English poetry,) is, perhaps, rather too strongly stated by Murray; because it agrees not with other statements of his, concerning the power of accent over quantity; and because the effect of accent, as a "regulator of quantity," may, on the whole, be as great as that of emphasis. Sheridan contradicts himself yet more pointedly on this subject; and his discrepancies may have been the efficients of Murray's. "The quantity of our syllables is perpetually varying with the sense, and is for the most part regulated by emphasis."—Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 65. Again: "It is by the accent chiefly that the quantity of our syllables is regulated."—Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution, p. 57. See Chap. IV, Sec. 2d, Obs. 1; and marginal note on Obs. 8.
   2. Some writers erroneously confound emphasis with accent; especially those who make accent, and not quantity, the foundation of verse. Contrary to common usage, and to his own definition of accent, Wells takes it upon him to say, "The term accent is also applied, in poetry, to the stress laid on monosyllabic words; as,

      'Content is wealth, the riches of the mind.'—Dryden."—Wells's School Grammar, p. 185.

      It does not appear that stress laid on monosyllables is any more fitly termed accent, when it occurs in the reading of poetry, than when in the utterance of prose. Churchill, who makes no such distinction, thinks accent essential alike to emphasis and to the quantity of a long vowel, and yet, as regards monosyllables, dependent on them both! His words are these: "Monosyllables are sometimes accented, sometimes not. This depends chiefly on their being more or less emphatic; and on the vowel sound being long or short. We cannot give emphasis to any word, or it's [its] proper duration to a long vowel, without accenting it."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 182.
6. [475] Not only are these inflections denoted occasionally by the accentual marks, but they are sometimes expressly identified with accents, being called by that name. This practice, however, is plainly objectionable. It confounds things known to be different,—mere stress with elevation or depression,—and may lead to the supposition, that to accent a syllable, is to inflect the voice upon it. Such indeed has been the guess of many concerning the nature of Greek and Latin accents, but of the English accent, the common idea is, that it is only a greater force distinguishing some one syllable of a word from the rest. Walker, however, in the strange account he gives in his Key, of "what we mean by the accent and quantity of our own language," charges this current opinion with error, dissenting from Sheridan and Nares, who held it; and, having asserted, that, "in speaking, the voice is continually sliding upwards or downwards," proceeds to contradict himself thus: "As high and low, loud and soft, forcible and feeble, are comparative terms, words of one syllable pronounced alone, and without relation to other words or syllables, cannot be said to have any accent The only distinction to which such words are liable, is an elevation or depression of voice, when we compare the beginning with the end of the word or syllable. Thus a monosyllable, considered singly, rises from a lower to a higher tone in the question Nó? which may therefore be called the acute accent: and falls from a higher to a lower tone upon the same word in the answer Nò, which may therefore be called the grave [accent]."—Walker's Key, p. 316. Thus he tells of different accents on "a monosyllable," which, by his own showing, "cannot be said to have any accent"! and others read and copy the text with as little suspicion of its inconsistency! See Worcester's Universal and Critical Dictionary, p. 934.
7. [476] In Humphrey's English Prosody, cadence is taken for the reverse of accent, and is obviously identified or confounded with short quantity, or what the author inclines to call "small quantity." He defines it as follows: "Cadence is the reverse or counterpart to accent; a falling or depression of voice on syllables unaccented: and by which the sound is shortened and depressed."—P. 3. This is not exactly what is generally understood by the word cadence. Lord Kames also contrasts cadence with accent; but, by the latter term, he seems to have meant something different from our ordinary accent. "Sometimes to humour the sense," says he, "and sometimes the melody, a particular syllable is sounded in a higher tone; and this is termed accenting a syllable, or gracing it with an accent. Opposed to the accent, is the cadence, which I have not mentioned as one of the requisites of verse, because it is entirely regulated by the sense, and hath no peculiar relation to verse."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 78.