Variation

The discussion so far may suggest a rather straightforward dichotomy: phonetics is universal, while phonology is language-specific. But things are not quite that simple.

First, phonologists also attempt to distinguish those patterns which are characteristic of a single language and simply reflect its history, from others where a more universal motivation is at issue. In the case of the absence of *fnil, or more generally the absence of word-initial [fn-] clusters, we are dealing with a fact of modern English. It is perfectly possible to produce this combination of sounds; there are words in many languages, including Norwegian fnise ‘giggle’, fnugg ‘speck’, which begin with just that cluster; and indeed, it was quite normal in earlier periods of English – sneeze, for example, has the Old English ancestor fne¯san, while Old English fnæd meant ‘hem, edge, fringe’; but it is not part of the inventory of sound combinations which English speakers learn and use today. The same goes for other initial clusters, such as [kn-]: this again was common in Old English, as in cna¯wan ‘to know’, and survives into Modern English spelling, though it is now simply pronounced [n]; again, [kn-] is also perfectly normal in other languages, including German, where we find Knabe ‘boy’, Knie ‘knee’.

On the other hand, if you say the words intemperate and incoherent to yourself as naturally as you can, and concentrate on the first consonant written n, you may observe that this signals two different sounds. In intemperate, the front of your tongue moves up behind your top front teeth for the n, and stays there for the t; but in incoherent, you are producing the sound usually indicated by ing in English spelling, with your tongue raised much further back in the mouth, since that’s where it’s going for the following [k] (spelled c). Processes of assimilation like this involve two sounds close together in a word becoming closer together in terms of pronunciation, making life easier for the speaker by reducing vocal tract gymnastics. Assimilation is an everyday occurrence in every human language; and it is particularly common for nasal sounds, like the ones spelled n here, to assimilate to following consonants. Explaining universal tendencies like this one will involve an alliance of phonology and phonetics: so phonologists are interested in universals too.

However, phonological differences also exist below the level of the language: frequently, two people think of themselves as speakers of the same language, but vary in their usage (sometimes you do say tomayto, while I say tomahto). This is not just an automatic, phonetic matter: in some cases a single speaker will always use one variant, but in others, individuals will use different variants on different occasions.

It also has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the different speakers, or the different environments in which they may find themselves, although this was a common belief in the days before linguists adopted a rigorous scientific methodology: thus, Thomas Low Nichols, a nineteenth-century commentator on American English, speculates that ‘I know of no physiological reason why a Yankee should talk through his nose, unless he got in the habit of shutting his mouth to keep out the cold fogs and drizzling north-easters of Massachusetts Bay’. There is a natural tendency for geographically distant accents to become more different; the same tendency has led the various Romance languages, such as Italian, Spanish, Romanian and French, to diverge from their common ancestor, Latin. In addition, speakers often wish, again subconsciously, to declare their allegiance to a particular area or social group by using the language of that group; these accent differences can be powerful social markers, on which we judge and are judged.

Furthermore, although there are agreed conventions, which form the basis of the phonology of languages and of accents, those conventions can be subverted in various ways, just as is the case for other areas of human behavior. In short, even phonologically speaking, there is more than one English – indeed, on one level, there are as many Englishes as there are people who say they speak English. Providing an adequate and accurate phonological description is therefore a challenge: on the one hand, a single system for English would be too abstract, and would conceal many meaningful differences between speakers; on the other, a speaker-by-speaker account would be too detailed, and neglect what unifies speakers and allows them to recognize one another as using the same system. In what follows, we will concentrate on a small number of varieties – Southern Standard British English; Scottish Standard English; General American, the most frequently encountered broadcasting variety in the United States; and New Zealand English. All of these are abstractions, and combine together a range of constantly shifting sub-varieties; but they are useful to illustrate the range of variation within English, and represent groupings recognizable to their speakers, providing a level of accuracy which a monolithic ‘English’ system could not.