Pouillon, Véronique & Ballier, Nicolas, pre-publication paper , to appear in Castanier, Duchet, Trapateau & Zumstein (eds) Walker and his Time,

Cambridge Scholar Publishing

“Syllabication” in English according to John Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary

1. Introduction

John Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary was one of the few eighteenth-century

pronouncing dictionaries to incorporate syllable division into its respellings, which begs the question of

the underlying reasoning: are there recognizable, systematically applied principles behind Walker's

syllable divisions, and are they phonological? Our goal is to understand the way the orthoepist thought

about syllables, within the larger framework of how he conceived of spoken language. Therefore, to

determine how Walker positions syllable boundaries, and to what extent he recognizes the restrictions

imposed by the phonotactics of English, we will rely on his stated principles, as well as on evidence

from his syllabified entries.

2. “Dividing words into syllables”

2.1. Definition of “syllabication”

In the “Principles of English Pronunciation” prefaced to his dictionary, Walker writes about

“syllabication”, the earliest English term used to describe not only dividing syllables but also

constructing them, first attested in a work from 1631. It seems to be the preferred term in the

seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, before the widespread adoption of the more modern

“syllabification”, which first appeared in the mid-seventeen hundreds1. The Oxford English Dictionary

tells us “syllabification” is the “formation or construction of syllables” or “the action or method of

dividing words into syllables”, and gives the older “syllabication” as a synonym. It is not immediately

clear how Walker himself defines the term (see below), and for this very reason, in this paper, we will

employ “syllabication” only in direct quotes, considering it to be more vague, in the sense of having a

wider variety of meanings, including uses pertaining to written language. Historically, and to this day,

“syllabification” has been employed with just as much ambiguity, but for the sake of clarity, we will

restrict our use of “syllabification” to the second part of the OED's definition, and further specify that it

1 See Appendices 1 and 2, for a comparison of the use of both words since the seventeenth century and a review of the terms that have been used to describe the process of separating syllables.

implies a phonological or phonetic aim.

Before looking at the specific details of Walker's rules and individual transcriptions, the first

step in discovering his conception of the syllable and syllable division must be to understand his

definition of “syllabication”. He tells us, in his “Principles”, that

Dividing words into syllables is a very different operation, according to the different ends proposed by it. The object of syllabication may be, either to enable children to discover the sound of words they are unacquainted with, or to show the etymology of a word, or to exhibit the exact pronunciation of it. (Walker 1791, Principle 538, p. 70)

“Syllabication”, then, applies to orthographically-based word division, for the purpose of “sounding

out” words when learning to read; it applies to morphological boundaries as well; and, it can also

reflect phonetic, or possibly phonological, partitioning. Walker goes on, in Principles 539 to 541, to

describe all three “methods” of division, and he recognizes that they are very different not only in their

intention but in their result – the word orthography for instance, is divided ortho-graphy

etymologically, but rendered as or-thog-ra-phy to show its “exact pronunciation”, in what Walker calls

the “analytic method”.2

2.2. Syllables in spelling, syllables in speech

Implicitly, Walker appears to follow the latter approach; his goal is ostensibly “to divide words

exactly as they are pronounced” (p. 71). Indeed, the subsequent paragraphs discuss clearly phonetic

aspects of syllable division and give arguments relating to phonetic criteria: Walker refers to “the

position and power of the secondary accent”, deplores Sheridan's compressed realizations of “di-mund”

and “de-vyate”, and observes that “when a vowel ends a syllable it is long; and when a consonant ends

a syllable, the preceding vowel is short.” (ibid.) And yet he quotes Bishop Robert Lowth:

But the best and only sure rule for dividing the syllables in spelling, is, to divide them as they are naturally divided in a right pronunciation, without regard to the derivation of words, or the possible combination of consonants, at the beginning of a syllable. (Lowth 1762, p. 7, italics mine)

Is Walker ultimately more concerned with dividing syllables “in spelling”? He, like Lowth, sees

“consonants” as graphic units (cf. the opening sentence of Walker's “Principles”: “The first principles

or elements of pronunciation are letters”, Principle 1, p. 1), though they do more often than not have a

bearing on speech; the phrase “possible combination of consonants” definitely cannot be taken to mean

“phonotactics of English” (or “sonority sequencing principle”) – since that would actually be consistent

2 We draw attention to the fact that all the examples given by Walker are represented orthographically: written words are the words themselves, which makes letters phonemes by default.

with “right pronunciation”. Rather, the “possible combinations” are those explained and often

catalogued in contemporary grammars that purport to teach reading and spelling. Walker and Lowth are

saying that we must ignore rules pertaining to written forms in order to achieve a correct realization of

syllables in speech.

2.3. Graphocentric bias

The truth of the matter is that for Walker, and for his fellow eighteenth-century orthoepists, the

concept of “syllabication” probably aspired to phonological status, but was hampered by a degree of

inevitable graphocentrism. Indeed, graphocentrism in the narrowest sense, i.e. an inability to see past

spelled forms, or to imagine a word as distinct from its graphic representation, did significantly

compromise John Walker's transcription system; in a broader sense, the tendency “to accord priority to

written language over speech” (Chandler 2000), it led him to ascribe great authority to orthography and

privilege graphically motivated pronunciation choices. This bias leads to problems not only of

transcription but of logic. In his remarks on Sheridan's syllable division, for instance (see above), he

relies on orthographic conventions to convey phonetic and/or phonological information, as if spelling

were a reliable predictor of speech, precisely to show that a specific pronunciation is inappropriate

because it fails to conform to orthography – thereby proving that speech often does not reflect spelling,

or vice versa. Basically, in rendering Sheridan's respellings as “di-mund” and “de-vyate”, he is using

pronunciation spelling to demonstrate the impropriety of a realization that diverges from spelling

pronunciation.

So, while in Walker's time the dividing of words into syllables was at least partly beholden to

the written form, it seems to have had (prescribed) pronunciation as its goal. Consequently, an analysis

of Walker's syllabified entries and relevant principles in terms of phonological concepts appears to be

intellectually acceptable and even appropriate, though we must bear in mind the bias of

graphocentrism as well as the related attitude of prescriptivism.

As to his prescriptive tendencies, John Walker's stance was typical of his time, which saw “a

hardening of attitudes towards any pronunciation deemed 'improper' ” (Beal 2004, pp. 172-173) and

great increase in the value associated with “right pronunciation”. His talent for phonological and

phonetic description, however, was exceptional; his “keen ear for phonetic variation” (ibid., p. 175) set

him apart from his contemporaries; and paradoxically, the fact that Walker systematically recorded the

“wrong” pronunciations to contrast with the “right” ones makes him a pioneer in the field of modern,

descriptive linguistics.

3. Examining Walker's syllabification choices

3.1. Our approach

Our first line of inquiry into syllable division in the Critical Pronouncing Dictionary will be

comparing Walker's rules with modern theories, namely, the “Maximal Onsets Principle” (as stated in

the English Pronouncing Dictionary), and the concept of “MaxCoda” (as set forth by J.C. Wells, and

applied in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary). We will also explore the notion of ambisyllabic

phonemes, a possibility suggested by CPD transcriptions and not found in most modern pronouncing

dictionaries. These questions bring us naturally to an evaluation of Walker's stance as to “CV”-

patterned syllabification: does he in fact prefer dividing syllables “on the vowel” wherever possible?

The issue is linked to the status of long versus short vowels, and to better ascertain Walker's analysis of

this type of phonotactic constraint, we have chosen to examine what is now referred to as “privilege of

occurrence”: are there syllabic contexts where the CPD indicates unstressed short vowels?

We will furthermore seek to explore other aspects of John Walker's syllabifications which have

less to do with phonological theory than with the pronunciation of English in the eighteenth century,

and more specifically whether the Critical Pronouncing Dictionary is a reliable source on this point, or

rather a predominantly prescriptive work. We will focus on two similar issues, the choice of syneresis

versus dieresis (in words such as egregious, for instance), and the possibility of syncope (as in the

compressed realization of words like history). To better determine the degree of Walker's prescriptivism

– and, inversely, his trustworthiness in matters of transcription – we will compare a sample of his

respellings (of words where these different kinds of compression may occur in present-day English)

with those given in Thomas Sheridan's General Dictionary of the English Language, the CPD's direct

precursor, and the most similar of the pronouncing dictionaries to be published at the time. The

inclusion of syncopated realizations in such works would speak to their authors' recognition of the

interaction between syllables and connected speech processes, and therefore to their focussing on actual

spoken language, as opposed to written or idealized forms, or reading aloud.

Hopefully, looking into the aforementioned issues pertaining to syllabification will both

confirm John Walker's standing as a linguist with real insight into the phonetics and phonology of

English, and underline the shortcomings of his scientific practice – shortcomings that modern linguists

must continue to be wary of today. The aim is also to emphasize the problems and contradictions

evident in contemporary accounts of syllabification: many of the questions that Walker grappled with

are still without a satisfactory answer; studying the ideas of our intellectual forebears may be helpful in

defining syllables and syllabification even today.

3.2. Comparison with modern theories

3.2.1. Maximal Onset Principle

In Principle 538 of the Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, Walker explicitly states that “a

consonant between two vowels must go to the latter”. This appears to be a basic form of what is

commonly referred to as the “Maximal Onset Principle”, or M.O.P., defined by the English

Pronouncing Dictionary as follows:

The ‘Maximal Onsets Principle’, which is widely recognised in contemporary phonology, is followed as far as possible. This means that, where possible, syllables should be divided in such a way that as many consonants as possible are assigned to the beginning of the syllable to the right (if one thinks in terms of how they are written in transcription), rather than to the end of the syllable to the left. (EPD, p. xiii)

In a limited way, Walker seems to be in agreement with the EPD; for him, a single consonant, at least,

does get “assigned to the beginning of the syllable to the right”. This is borne out in many of his actual

entries, edict and apply for instance (see Tables 1a and 1b for the key to Walker's transcriptions, and

IPA equivalents):

e1'di2kt a4-pli1

In the remark beneath the entry for despatch, he describes the necessity, in some cases, “and if the two

succeeding consonants are combinable, to carry them both to the syllable which has the accent”, which

suggests that Walker's approach to onsets also bears some resemblance to J.C. Wells' “main

syllabification principle”, which holds that “consonants are syllabified with the the more strongly

stressed of two flanking syllables” (Wells 1990) – but the limited role given here to “accent” still

remains within the stipulations for the M.O.P.

The EPD also tells us that there are certain restrictions on the application of the M.O.P. (also

embraced by the LPD), mainly concerning short stressed vowels and the fact that they can only appear

in CVC (Consonant Vowel Consonant), closed-syllable structures:

However, when this would result in a syllable ending with a stressed /ɪ/, /e/, /æ/, /ʌ/, /ɒ/ or /ʊ/, it is considered that this would constitute a violation of English phonotactics, and the first (or only) intervocalic consonant is assigned to the preceding syllable […]. (ibid.)

Walker is plainly aware of this major limitation on maximal onsets concerning short stressed vowels, as

is clear in these examples:

si2v'i2l e2d'e1-bl

He states the same idea explicitly in Principle 544:

[W]hen a vowel ends a syllable it is long ; and when a consonant ends a syllable, the preceding vowel is short. This will not be disputed when the vowel is under the accent […] ; […] we may, with very few exceptions, say, that […] every vowel succeeded by a consonant which ends a syllable is short or shut.

Walker's logic is not impeccable: he interprets the context as modifying the vowel, rather than specific

vowels requiring or occurring only in certain contexts; as John Sargeaunt puts it, the problem is “the

confusion of cause and effect” (Sargeaunt 1920); but, the link between closed syllables and short

vowels is established. Up to this point, Walker has shown himself to be in agreement with the

guidelines for the M.O.P. proposed by the EPD.

However, when there is more than one intervocalic consonant, Walker also tells us that “two

consonants coming together must be divided”, which contravenes the EPD position; to illustrate the

issue, let us compare the transcriptions for aspire and caustic. Walker divides the words thus:

a4s-pire' ka4ws-ti2k

They appear in the EPD as /əˈspaɪə/ (a-spire) and /ˈkɔː stɪk/ (cau-stic). On the basis of this divergence

alone, we can say that Walker does not follow the Maximal Onset Principle in his syllabifications. Yet

he does not systematically apply his second rule, either; for the most part, he treats affricates as

indivisible, as in:

di2tsh'u2r

Also, when a vowel is long he keeps it syllable-final, even when that means the following syllable will

have a complex onset, for instance in:

pe1'tro4l pa1'stre1-ko2o2k

Though his syllabifications do not strictly conform to the M.O.P., we might now come to the

conclusion that Walker has a certain preference for maximal onset nonetheless, as these last examples

are identical, in terms of syllable-division, to what we would find in the EPD. However, one other

distinctive aspect of Walker's syllabifications absolutely precludes us from claiming he aspired to any

form of maximal onset : redoubled consonants around syllable boundaries, which may indicate that

Walker subscribed to the notion of ambisyllabicity, a possibility we will come back to (see below).

3.2.2. MaxCoda

We have established that Walker does not follow the (graphic) conventions of his time when it

comes to dividing syllables, but adopts a phonologically-informed approach: he definitely recognizes

the need for short stressed vowels to appear in CVC-structured syllables. We have seen that his

syllabifications show a certain affinity with the Maximal Onset Principle, but he does sometimes place

consonants leftward, in the coda, in a way that at first glance may be reminiscent of J. C. Wells'

MaxCoda rule, which is twofold:

(1) Subject to certain conditions (…), consonants are syllabified with the more strongly stressed of two flanking syllables.

(2) Where adjacent syllables are of equal grade, consonants are (…) syllabified with the leftward syllable.

(Wells 1990)

The question is, therefore: do Walker's respellings conform to Wells' first two syllabification principles

when it comes to codas? What do we make of the syllable divisions in selfish or between the first two

syllables in arundineous (meaning “reedy”):

se2lf'i2sh a4r-u2n-di2n'e1-u2s

We will see that the great majority of these apparent exceptions to Walker's own rules can be explained

by either by morphological concerns or by a short vowel bearing unmarked secondary stress (here, the

a4 in arundineous).

Walker's principles as well as his dictionary entries actually show little evidence of a preference

for placing consonants in the leftward syllable “where adjacent syllables are of equal grade”, or in the

coda of “the more strongly stressed of two flanking syllables”, as Wells prescribes, when morphology

does not provide a clear choice. Indeed, Walker has a morphological rule for syllable division:

“compounds must be divided into their simples” (Principle 538) – more specifically, “where the

compound retains the primary sense of the simples” (Principle 531). (Incidentally, this stipulation is

comparable to Wells' own assertion that morpheme boundaries be respected in syllable division only

when the morphemes are “psychologically real”.) When there is no obvious border between

morphological constituents, Walker usually reverts to keeping what consonants he can in the rightward

syllable, as in:

do4l'fi2n ne2r'vu2s

In these words, the Longman Pronouncing Dictionary gives the syllable boundary as dolph-in (/'dɒlf

ɪn/) and nerv-ous (/'nɜ:v əs/) respectively.

When the unexpected placement of a syllable boundary cannot be attributed to the morphological

constraint, Walker's choice may reflect his instinct of secondary stress, for instance in the first syllables

of farinaceous (i.e., “floury”) or acervation (“accumulation”):

fa4r-e1-na1'shu2s a4s-e2r-va1'shu2n

Additionally, in these examples, the treatment of the last syllable actually confirms that the principle of

MaxCoda is not being applied: the stressed syllables do not attract the consonants that follow – because

they contain long, or open vowels. This is true for all open vowels, whether they bear primary or

secondary stress:

ko1-re1-a4n'du2r

Walker has ko1-r in coriander, where the LPD has /kɒr-/.

Also, we must emphasize that in the case of short vowels bearing secondary stress, Walker does not

actually maximize the coda, but only keeps a single consonant on the left, in order to maintain a CVC-

structure:

ko4n-tra1-di2k'tu2r-e1

Here, he does not divide contradictory ko4ntr-, which the LPD does.

Only a few cases are truly problematic: syllables occurring after the primary stress, that are

truly “of equal grade”: the -tu2r-e1 in contradictory for instance. Perhaps here the orthoepist is pushing

the limits on morpheme boundaries and decomposing the -ory suffix; perhaps the choice of the short u2

vowel (which is more or less the equivalent of the /ʌ/ STRUT vowel) leads him to treat this syllable as

necessarily closed; or, perhaps, Walker does sometimes – rarely – prefer a MaxCoda structure. But of

course we still have words like successor (albeit with a different pronunciation than we are now used

to) where the consonant is doubled:

su2k'se2s-su2r

Just as was the case for the Maximal Onset Principle, the fact that some consonants are redoubled at the

syllable boundary is in plain contradiction with MaxCoda.

3.2.3. Ambisyllabicity

As we have said, a number of Walker's entries include what may be ambisyllabic consonants,

that are doubled in transcriptions, appearing on both sides of a syllable boundary, without, presumably,

being pronounced twice:

be2t'tu2r a4k-ko4m'pli2sh

da4m'ma1dje pe2r'ri2l ko4k'kl

Walker doubles the consonant in certain words regardless of the spelling, although preliminary

observations do seem to indicate that having doubled graphemes does increase the chance for doubled

phonemes in the transcription (we have not yet conducted a statistical analysis of this phenomenon).

His use of redoubled consonants remains rather difficult to predict: in horizontally, for instance, the

double ls in spelling lead us to expect a two ls in the transcription; instead, we find:

ho4r-e1-zo4n'ta4l-e1

The suffixed morpheme -ly can definitely be analyzed as “psychologically real”, but for some reason,

we only have the single l in coda position. This is the case in many other -ally adverbs – but,

counterintuitively, not all of them; for instance:

be2n-e1-fi2sh'a4l-le1

All the -fully adverbs also appear to be transcribed with two ls. There are many such contradictions:

compare, for example, si2v'i2l with a single v, but pe2r'ri2l with two rs. Clearly, Walker is not

consistent in his transcriptions; it is hard to determine whether this should be ascribed to negligence (on

his part or perhaps even that of the printers) or to an inadequate conceptual framework, within which he

explored contradictory notions. Of course, a more refined understanding of the distribution of these

different respellings would be necessary to reach a definitive conclusion.

Sometimes, alternate pronunciations of the same word allow for even more direct comparison;

for instance, two possibilities for the pronunciation of successor are given in the 1803 Philadelphia

edition (the 1st edition, from 1791, only has the first version):

su2k'se2s-su2r, or su2k-se2s'u2r

This pair would seem to suggest that Walker's “ambisyllabicity” is connected to stress: the s is no

longer doubled when the relevant adjacent syllables are not equally stressed. Our previous examples,

however, contradict that: there are many words where two adjacent syllables of unequal stress are

syllabified with ambisyllabic or doubled consonants.

Other sets of words provide intriguing examples of ambisyllabic or doubled consonants, for

instance the homographic noun and verb pair damage:

da4m'ma1dje da4m'a1je

The trouble here is that the words are not only identical in spelling but are also homophonic, as they

were in Walker's time as well: they have the same stress pattern, the same vowel sounds, the same

consonants – the only difference is the repetition of m in the noun form. It is difficult to work out what

to make of this contrast, not least because there is no evident distinction between the forms on the

phonetic level.

Let us consider another set of homographs, the noun and verb produce:

pro4d'ju1se pro1-du1se'

The ambisyllabicity may not be obvious at first glance, but it makes sense to treat it as such, because in

Walker's transcriptions the j stands for /dj/, so the second syllable of the noun actually has an

invisible /d/ in its onset. Here, the different syllabifications make sense because of the values given for

the vowel in the 1st syllable: “short broad o, as in no4t” in the noun and “long open o, as in no1” in the

verb. (Walker 1791, principle 559, p. ) By virtue of the repeated /d/ in the noun form, the short stressed

vowel o4 is kept in a closed-syllable structure, while the long o1 is allowed to occur syllable-finally.

We have failed to discover other sets of homophones like the damage set, that were syllabified

differently though they are ostensibly pronounced in an identical manner; Walker's entries have their

fair share of mistakes and typographical errors3, of which the double m here might simply be another

example. We are forced to conclude at any rate that Walker's syllabifications are woefully inconsistent

when it comes to the possibility of ambisyllabicity. A more in-depth, systematic and statistical

comparison of Walker's choices in these contexts would be necessary to identify patterns. The only

possible, though incomplete, explanation, based on examples like produce, is that Walker actually uses

ambisyllabic consonants to maintain a kind of weakened M.O.P.; he often refers to Latin and Romance

languages, using them as models, and this may have promoted a bias in favor of CV-CV pattern for

syllables, which he would have tried to reconcile with the phonotactic requirement of CVC structures

for short stressed vowels. But, as we have seen from just a few examples (si2v-i2l, e2d'e1-bl),

accounting for the syllabification choices in the CPD is not so straightforward: Walker does not blindly

follow an ideal of CV-patterned syllables, that much seems certain.

3.2.4. Privilege of occurrence

In keeping with the subject of open and closed syllable structures, let us now examine the

problem of so-called “privilege of occurrence”: we will analyze how Walker deals with unstressed

short vowels, and see whether he, like modern theoreticians, resolves the issue by declaring that some

of these vowels operate as an exception to the general rule.

As it is explained in the preface of the EPD:

In the case of unstressed short vowels, /e/, /æ/, /ʌ/, and /ɒ/ are also prevented from appearing in syllable-final position ; however, unstressed /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ are allowed the same "privilege of occurrence" as /ə/ when a consonant begins a following syllable, and may therefore occur in final position in unstressed syllables except pre-pausally. Thus in a word such as 'develop', the syllable division is /dɪ'vel.əp/. (Jones 2006, p. xiii)

Does Walker also grant special status to the KIT and the FOOT vowels? Does he ever have any

unstressed short vowels occur in CV-patterned, open syllables? We find that in words with graphic <i>,

Walker systematically has i – in words ending in -ity, for instance, he has the last two syllables rhyme –

so that where short /ɪ/ might occur syllable-finally, it is replaced by long /i/. Hence:

3 In the very same example, there are two other issues with the transcription: the -dj- cluster is problematic, since Walker's “j” is meant to stand for /dj/ ; and the final “silent e” normally indicates the previous vowel is long, which is impossible in the case of short a4 (/æ/). The modern transliteration would be the improbable /'dæmmæ:ddj/.

se1-vi2l'le1-te1 (/si-'vɪl-li-ti/)

Similarly, where we might have short /ʊ/, we find long /(j)u/, as in:

ka4p-u1-she1e1n' (/kæp-u-ʃi:n/)

Walker does not really address the issue of length4; rather, in his conceptual framework, he circumvents

it by replacing “long” and “short” with “open” and “shut”. He states his position explicitly in his

principles:

[M]any will hesitate to call those vowels long which terminate a syllable not under the accent, because we do not always rest so long upon unaccented as upon accented vowels : but if instead of long and short we substitute open and shut, we may, with very few exceptions, say, that every vowel ending a syllable is open, and every vowel succeeded by a consonant which ends a syllable is short or shut. […] In the same manner, when i ends a syllable, not under the accent as qual-i-ty, though it has not the long diphthongal sound, as in i-dle, yet it is not short as in it, but open as the e in equal: the same may be observed of u. (Walker 1791, Principle 544)

Furthermore:

[E]very vowel pronounced alone has its open sound, as nothing but its junction with a consonant can shut it, and consequently unaccented vowels not necessarily joined to a consonant are always open. (Walker 1797, Principle 550)

As we have pointed out, Walker considers that the consonant defines the vowel rather than the other

way around, therefore, he does not consider that short /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ can occur in unstressed, open

syllables, because the very circumstance of being in an open syllable renders the vowel “open”, which

makes privilege of occurrence more or less impossible. There would have to be an exception not to the

context in which short vowels can occur, but to the actual effect that context is supposed to naturally

have upon the vowel; and, indeed, there is in Walker's system a short vowel that does in fact regularly

occur as syllable-final in the CPD: his “fourth sound of a” , which is described as

According to this description, it obviously seems to correspond to /æ/ ̶ and yet it is often found where

one would expect /ə/, in the suffix -able, for example as well as many other words:

4 In his transcriptions, he does indicate length by adding a “silent e” after a syllable where the vowel is long, or alternatively by doubling the vowel; however, the marking of length in his respellings is not always coherent.

o4n'nu2r-a4-bl fa4l'la4-se1

It seems unlikely that in Walker's time the word fallacy was pronounced with the two first syllables

rhyming; rather, the lexicographer appears to be making the conscious choice to give a transcription

that differs from conventional usage but that he deems acceptable – and perhaps even preferable. He

explains:

There is a remarkable exception to this rule (see above, Principle 544) in the letter a. When this vowel ends a syllable not under the accent, we cannot give it any of its three open sounds without hurting the ear. Thus in pronouncing the word abound – ay-bound, ah-bound, and aw-bound, are all improper; but giving the a the second or Italian sound, as ah-bound, seems the least so; for which reason I have, like Mr. Sheridan, adopted the short sound of this letter to mark the unaccented a. (Walker 1791, Principle 545)

He is opting here for what he describes as the least problematic transcription- although his choices are

severely limited by the shortcomings of his own respelling system. It is worth noting as well that his

analysis of the phonetic realization of abound is explicitly guided by the orthographic rendition of the

word, which can only further constrict his thinking5.

Walker's syllabifications do not conform to the modern concept of privilege of occurrence: the

only short vowel he allows in syllable-final position is a4, or /æ/; this could be taken simply as an

attempt to transcribe a schwa, but it is definitely also the sign of a prescriptive desire to modify the

pronunciation of reduced vowels, driven at least in part by spelling. In fact, he does not hide his distaste

for the “state of uncertainty” unaccented vowels may find themselves in, and dismisses those who have

“saved themselves the trouble of farther search by comprehending three vowels under the epithet

obscure”. (Walker 1797, Principle 547). Walker, as ever, is not shy about his prescriptivist agenda:

It may, indeed, be observed, that there is scarcely any thing more distinguishes a person of mean and good education than the pronunciation of the unaccented vowels. When vowels are under the accent, the prince and the lowest of the people, with very few exceptions, pronounce them in the same manner; but the unaccented vowels in the mouth of the former have a distinct, open, and specific sound, while the latter often totally sink them, or change them, into some other sound. Those, therefore, who wish to pronounce elegantly must be particularly attentive to the unaccented vowels. (Walker 1791, Principle 179)

3.3. The importance of prescriptivism

Prescriptivism, therefore, will be at the heart of our exploration of other issues linked with

5 It is important to note that in closed-syllable contexts, Walker uses the short u2, or /ʌ/, to signify a reduced vowel, for instance in <traveller>, tra4v'i2l-u2r.

syllabification: these last two questions have to do less with phonological theory than with the actual

pronunciation of English in the eighteenth century, and whether Walker was recording it accurately or

prescribing against usage. In order to better determine the degree of descriptive reliability, we have

chosen in this section to contrast his respellings with those given by Thomas Sheridan in his General

Dictionary of the English Language. Paradoxically, Sheridan can be taken both as a benchmark for

contemporary comparison (his dictionary was first published eleven years before the CPD, and greatly

influenced Walker) and as a point of reference for diachronic evolution (because of his attachment to

the English of Jonathan Swift, his godfather), and his conviction that the best English had been spoken

in the time of Queen Anne.

3.3.1. Syneresis vs. dieresis

We will first examine the incidence of syneresis versus dieresis; let us begin with a few

examples:

Walker Sheridan

e1-gre1'je1-u2s e2-gre3'-ju1s

a4-ra1'ne1-u2s a1-ra2'-nyu1s

ku2r'tshe1-u2s ku1r'-tshu1s

ple2n'tshu2s ple2n'-tshu1s

Both orthoepists (Walker on the left, Sheridan on the right) appear relatively consistent in their

respective choices: Walker prefers dieresis, Sheridan prefers syneresis, with Walker conceding at least

partly on words like courteous and plenteous, which happens to be one of the few words they agree on.

We have conducted a statistical analysis of a sample of 120 of such words as they appear in Sheridan's

dictionary and in the CPD, which confirms this observation: 85% of Sheridan's transcriptions indicate

syneresis; for Walker, the number drops to 27.5%. In addition, Walker has 12.5% of “intermediate”

pronunciations, of the type illustrated here by courteous, where an affricated consonant occurs along

with a vowel.

It remains to be determined whether they are motivated by descriptive or prescriptive aspirations, or

influenced by the graphic form – of course, these may go hand in hand: prescriptivism is often justified

on Walker's part by graphic concerns.

The divergence between Sheridan and Walker may actually have reflected contemporary reality:

it could be the trace of diachronic variation – a sound change in the making (Sheridan being more “old-

fashioned”, Walker representing a more modern pronunciation); or, the differences might be the result

of synchronic variation – both realizations being possible at the time (the lexicographers might

therefore have recorded the pronunciation dominant in their social circles, or simply the one they

preferred). If these transcriptions really do paint an accurate picture of pronunciation in the

lexicographers' respective milieux, then perhaps they provide evidence for the influence of

orthographically motivated hypercorrection in the population at large – assimilated prescriptivism,

more commonly known as spelling pronunciation. Interestingly, Walker justifies his criticism of

Sheridan's compressed realizations (of words such as diamond and deviate, see above) by adding “if

my ear does not grossly mislead me” (p. 71). Unfortunately, his ear too often depends on his eye for

guidance, and this statement cannot be used to prove that Walker's stance is descriptive in this case.

Alternatively, the syneresis/dieresis controversy might be an instance of Walker's influencing

future pronunciation. It seems dieresis is more widespread today: the Oxford English Dictionary and

the Longman both have even higher rates of dieresis in the same 120 words than the CPD.6 Walker's

transcriptions might be a personal choice, or the reflection of a trend, either way almost certainly

justified by graphocentric hypercorrection.7

6 See Appendix 3 for an overview of syneresis/dieresis in Sheridan 1780, Walker 1791, the OED and LPD.7 We must add that the 1803 edition of the CPD gave <plenteous> as ple2n'tshe1-u2s, furthering or following this very

trend.

3.3.2. Syncope

When it comes to syncope, Walker and Sheridan are much more often in agreement; neither

includes syncopated pronunciations of such words as history, laboratory, catholic or arsenal:

hi2s'tu2r-e1 hi1s'-tu1r-y1

la4b'bo1-ra4-tu2r-e1 la1b'-bo2-ra1-tu1r-y1

ka4th'o1-li2k ka1tħ'-o2-li1k

a2r'se1-na4l a1'rs-na1l

Again, this could reflect the reality of eighteenth-century speech in the form of synchronic or

diachronic variation, or the prescriptive tendencies of the authors, perhaps influenced by spelling. The

fact that they mostly agree does not necessarily make it more likely that they are giving an accurate

representation of their contemporaries' realization; both are, to a certain extent, prescriptive. It is

important to note that their prescriptivism is not always the result of graphocentrism: though Walker

often explicitly appeals to conventional orthography to justify his preferences, he also occasionally

criticizes spellings that are unsatisfactory from the point of view of his chosen pronunciation:

FATNER, fa4't´n-u2r. s. more properly Fattener.

However, the case of arsenal brings to mind the divergence between Walker and Sheridan regarding

syneresis/dieresis: again, Walker appears to hew more closely to the spelling.

4. Conclusions

Indisputably, John Walker has some phonological idea of the syllable that guides his

syllabification choices, most recognizably when it comes to short stressed vowels, but also in his

insistence that unstressed vowels be “open”. In discussing the restrictions on the placement of syllable

boundaries, in his Principles as well as the remarks throughout the body of the dictionary, he sometimes

sounds terrifically modern. However, he is also inconsistent and often unpredictable: some of his

irregularities are probably due to the unwieldiness of constructing a full-scale reference work without

modern tools for cross-reference and correction. But the inadequacy of his method, of his respelling

system and of his very concepts are no doubt also problematic at times. Clearly, prescriptivism and

graphocentrism play a role in his approach, and both of these attitudes are connected as well. In a way,

it might be argued that because of his dependence on orthographic forms, Walker has a better grasp of

the written syllable than the spoken one – not in the sense of the boundaries enforced by line-final word

division, but rather in the sense of language, words, syllables as they are read out loud. The linguist

Geoffrey Nunberg, in the context of his work on punctuation, coined the term “transdiction” to

describe “a specialized spoken genre used for reading aloud” (Nunberg 1990, p. 14). In Walker's

account of language, written words always form the authentic, authoritative basis for his statements

about pronunciation; as Nicolas Trapateau points out in his paper on “solemn pronunciation”, the

orthoepist himself writes that it is “best to deviate least from written words”. Furthermore, Walker

favored the diction of those heard from the stage, the bar or the pulpit: the sorts of speakers that he uses

as reference, i.e. actors, barristers, preachers and other orators are in reality professional readers. We

would argue that, to a degree, Walker specialized in the phonology of transdiction – that careful,

necessarily graphocentric variety of language – as opposed to spontaneous connected speech.

Our aim with this paper was to help illuminate the interplay between theoretical construction,

unbiased observation, graphocentrism and prescriptivism during the emergence of modern linguistics,

as well as to contribute to the contemporary debate over the various problematic aspects of English

syllabification. Because the syllable as a phonological constituent is still theoretically controversial, it

has thwarted the development of certain aspects of applied phonetics. We believe this research might

eventually have a bearing on some very practical applications, such as providing resources for speech

software (bringing some diversity to a field where the current model is exclusively GenAm-based) and

furnishing ideas for improving syllabification algorithms, as well as playing a part in computing the

dialectal and diachronic variation of syllabification in English.

Table 1a

Table 1b

Walker's examples IPA

In English: In French:

a1 fate, pa-per fée, épée e:

a2 fa-ther, mam-ma fable, rable ɑ:

a3 fall, wa-ter âge, Châlons ɔ:

a4 fat, mar-ry fat, matin æ

e1 me, here, me-tre mitre, epitre i׃

e2 met, get mette, nette ɛ

i1 pine, ti-tle laïque, naïf aɪ

i2 pin, tit-tle inné, titré ɪ

o1 no, note, no-tice globe o:

o2 move, prove mouvoir u:

o3 nor, for or, encor ɔ:

o4 not, hot hotte, cotte ɒ

u1 tube, cu-pid chiourme ju:

u2 tub, sup neuf, veuf ʌ

u3 bull, pull boule, poule ʊ

o3i2 oil héroïque ɔɪ

o3u3 thou Aouté ɔʊ

We have based our interpretation of Walker's key on that provided by Joan Beal (Beal 2004, pp. 133-135).

Appendix 1:

Syllabication vs. syllabification

We have used the search tools available through Google Books to obtain a rough estimate of the ratio

of occurrence of the words syllabication and syllabification:

17th century: 3 results 0 results

18th century: 271 4

19th century: 14 500 2 190

20th century: 64 300 59 300

21st century: 6 870 22 700

Inasmuch as this data may be taken to be representative, it shows the rate of prevalence has only

recently begun to reverse.

Appendix 2:

The different terms used to designate the act or process of dividing syllables

(The definitions are adapted from the Oxford English Dictionary, 2012 online version.)

Syllabification: Formation or construction of

syllables; the action or method of dividing

words into syllables; according to the Oxford

English Dictionary, first attested in 1838, but a

search through Google Books shows that it

appears in a book published in 1764.

Syllabication: listed as synonym of

“syllabification”; according to the OED, first

attested in 1631 (a Google search did not

reveal any earlier uses).

Syllabation: listed as synonym of

“syllabification”; according to the OED, first

attested in 1856, but a Google Books search

shows it was used in a book in 1830.

Syllabization: listed as synonym of

“syllabification”; according to the OED, first

attested in 1926, but a Google Books search

reveals an occurrence in a book published in

1834.

Related verbs:

Syllabify: To form or divide into syllables; according to

the OED, first attested in 1926, but a Google Books

search turned up an occurrence in 1800.

Syllabicate: trans. To form into syllables. Also intr., to

form or construct syllables; to divide a word or passage

into syllables. First attested 1654.

Syllable: trans. ? To arrange in syllables. Rare. c. 1475

Syllabize: To form or divide into syllables; to utter or

articulate with distinct separation of syllables.

According to the OED, first used in 1656, but a Google

Books search shows it appears in a book from 1603.

Syllablize: listed as synonym of “syllabize”; according

to the OED, first attested in 1877, though a Google

Books search shows it in a book from 1874.

Appendix 3:

Lexicographic preference for syneresis, dieresis, or an “intermediate” realization:

Sheridan 1780 Walker 1791 OED 1884-2012 LPD 2008

syneresis 85.00% 27.50% 19.17% 15.83%

dieresis 15.00% 60.00% 74.17% 78.33%

intermediate 0.00% 12.50% 6.67% 5.83%

These statistics are based on the analysis of a sample of 120 words with a graphic e or i occurring before an ending starting with a vowel (beauteous, righteous etc.).

Pearson's Chi-squared test: X-squared = 171.1356, df = 6, p-value < 2.2e-16

Since the p-value is below the threshold of 0.05, we can reject the null-hypothesis that the variation observed is actually independent of the dictionaries, that is, that there is no difference in the dictionaries' transcriptions over all.

SOURCES

ALGEO, John. “Syncope in English”, South Atlantic Bulletin , Vol. 39, No. 4, Nov., 1974, pp. 22-30.

BALLIER, Nicolas. "Quelques problèmes métalinguistiques en phonologie de l'anglais", CORELA -

Volume 2 (2004) | Numéro 1, publié en ligne le 15 juin 2004.

Accessed March 24, 2012. <http://corela.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=594>

BEAL, Joan C. English in Modern Times, Arnold, 2004a.

BEAL, Joan C. ' “Marks of disgrace”: attitudes to non-standard pronunciation in eighteenth-century

pronouncing dictionaries', in R. Lass and M. Dossena (eds), Methods and Data in English

Historical Dialectology, 2004b, pp. 329-349.

CHANDLER, Daniel. “Biases of the Ear and Eye: Graphocentrism”, Media and

CommunicationStudies website, Aberystwyth University, 2000.

Accessed March 24, 2012. <http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral3.html>

JONES, D., ROACH, P., HARTMAN, J. & SETTER J. English Pronouncing Dictionary, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, [1917] 2006 (17th edition).

NUNBERG, Geoffrey. The Linguistics of Punctuation, Center for the Study of Language asnd

Information, Leland Stanford Junior University, Stanford, CA, 1990, 157 p.

Oxford English Dictionary Online, Oxford University Press, 1884-2012 (a number of the entries have

been revised).

RANSON, Rita. “L'influence du philologue John Walker et de son «Critical Pronouncing Dictionary»

de 1791, sur la stabilisation, la standardisation et la transcription de l'anglais oral.” Thèse pour le

doctorat de linguistique sous la direction de Monsieur le Professeur Michel Viel, Université de

Paris-Sorbonne, 1997.

SARGEAUNT, John. The Pronunciation of English Words Derived from the Latin, with preface and

notes by H. Bradley, Society for Pure English Tract n° IV, Clarendon Press, 1920, 45 p.

SHELDON, Esther. “Walker's Influence on the Pronunciation of English”, PMLA , Vol. 62, No. 1,

Modern Language Association, March 1947, pp. 130-146

Accessed: May 24, 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/459198>

SHERIDAN, Thomas. A General Dictionary of the English Language. 1st edition. London, 1780.

TRAPATEAU, Nicolas, “Elements for a phonological characterisation of “solemn pronunciation” in

eighteenth-century English, as described in John Walker’s Dictionary (1791), this volume.

WALKER, John. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, London, 1791.

WALKER, John. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, London, 1797, 2nd edition.

WELLS, J.C. “Syllabification and allophony”, in Susan Ramsaran (ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of

English, A commemorative volume in honour of A.C. Gimson, London and New York:

Routledge, 1990, pp. 76-86.

WELLS, J.C. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, [1990] 2008

(3rd edition).