Linguistics

916 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.

Rules:

Instance rules apply.
Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
Have fun!

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why/how did British vs. American stress differences arise? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(I should note I'm ESL and I've noticed my pronunciation is a hodgepodge of British vs. American and older vs. younger pronunciation variants.)

As I was watching Geoff Lindsey's YT videos, I noticed the way he pronounces "transláte", particularly in "Google Transláte" where I heavily prefer the accent "tránslate" - although in the verb (i.e. outside the website name) I would be fine both with tránslate or transláte (but probably with mild preference for the former).

So I looked it up and it turns out this is a widespread case of variant British vs. American stress pattern, also affecting other "-ate" verbs: donate, locate, migrate... The polarisation doesn't appear to be absolute, e.g. to take representatives of US and UK pronunciation: Webster 1913 (=1890) has dónate, lócate, mígrate, but still transláte, Jones (Pronouncing Dict.) 1944 has final stress in all four, but the Concise Oxford Dict. of Current Eng. (1964) mentions the variant mígrate. Today the influence of US on UK is probably even stronger. But already in 1909 Jespersen mentions the variant pronunciation of dictate, narrate, and vacate (Mod. Eng. Gramm. vol. 1, §5.57), so surely it hasn't appeared in UK only due to US influence?

Is there some dialectological or formal explanation of this change, or a study of where and how it spread?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I found a 1975 study from Sherman about this (backup link).

Those stress changes are really old and affect a lot of noun/verb pairs (more than just the -ate ones). Most variation was attested in the XVIII century, but at least one ("accent") already showed some variation back in 1634. (Check page 57 (PDF page 15) for a list.)

And in some cases you see three competing stress patterns for the same pair - both oxytone, both paroxytone, and diatone (paroxytone noun, oxytone verb); e.g. "bombard", "cement" and "outcast".

So, no, the presence of this variation in the UK is not due to USA influence. It was born there, and then spread to USA.

As for an explanation on why this happens: I don't know. But if I had to guess, it's a "conflict" between English "preferring" the stress in the first syllable, and "trying" to keep noun/verb pairs distinct.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The paper is very interesting, but sadly it's not what I'm talking about. It talks about the alternation of the sort: objéct (verb) - óbject (noun), which is basically a manner of word formation, it is present synchronically and intradialectally. My examples are of semantically unmotivated shifts across different dialects and across time, happening among -ate verbs only (i.e. they don't form the verb-noun pair, it's just the same verb in both cases). So I see no "conflict" here to resolve.

It might be that the -ate shift is somehow analogically induced by the verb-noun shift - but how? It actually seems to go the opposite way: in the verb-noun pairs the verb has final stress, whereas the shift affecting the -ate verbs produces the noun-like initial stress. This certainly doesn't affect or support any existing distinctions, at most it just creates confusion by using the noun-like stress for verbs (assuming it is legitimate to call either of the accents noun-like or verb-like in general).

English “preferring” the stress in the first syllable

I've seen this sort of claim regarding English stress many times, but it really isn't an acceptable formulation, it's a "rule" that can be applied everywhere and nowhere. (Similarly so, it would be unacceptable/useless to say that English prefers /k/ to /g/ if all we could say about them is that the former is statistically more frequent than the latter.)

However, it seems you've nonetheless given me some material that might answer my question - the paper you link mentions the book Studies on the Accentuation of Polysyllabic Latin, Greek, and Romance Loanwords in English by B. Danielsson, which also addresses -ate verbs. I'll have to try to find it, it looks very promising.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

semantically unmotivated shifts [...] synchronically

Sorry, then I misread your post - I focused on the diachronic morphophonological aspect. (I'm glad that the paper gives you a lead on what you want, though.)

I’ve seen this sort of claim regarding English stress many times, but it really isn’t an acceptable formulation, it’s a “rule” that can be applied everywhere and nowhere.

It's meaningful as a soft rule. It means that, unless there's some clear motivation against it:

new vocab gets stressed on the first syllable. e.g. if you show a speaker the word "wugwug", they'll pronounce it as paroxytone instead of oxytone.
old vocab is likely to shift the stress to the first syllable, instead of away from it. You see this for example in colour/color - it explains why the word is paroxytone, even if OF likely had it oxytone. (Or why English does no effort to transcode Japanese pitch accent into stress in words like "sushi" or "manga").

And it's useful in this case (from a diachronic PoV) because those pairs of words have been shifting back and forth between multiple stress patterns; without that rule you'd expect them to settle down as diatonic.