When referring to the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, why do British news folk insist on pronouncing her first name in what I presume to be the German fashion – i.e. “ANgle –ah”? “Angela” is a common English name, and we have an agreed English pronunciation, so that’s the one we should all use. There’s a bit more leeway when it comes to her surname, because we don’t have an equivalent, but I reckon most of us would say “MYRRH-kle” rather than the more teutonically apposite “MAIR-kle”.
A similar thing happened almost 20 years ago when Boris Yeltsin became the Russian President. The newsreader Michael Buerk (pronounced “Burke”, by the way, not “Bwerk”), who had been the BBC’s Moscow Correspondent, suddenly decided to start pronouncing “Boris” in the Russian fashion, which he assured colleagues was “BERRis”. This, of course, confused the whole nation, who were perfectly used to the standard English pronunciation. “Boris” is pronounced the same, whether it’s a Pasternak, a Yeltsin, or a Johnson.
Many foreign names have agreed English pronunciations: ignoring them is at best eccentric, at worst pretentious. For instance, Björn (as in Björn Borg) isn’t pronounced “Byern” over here, as it is in Sweden. But, while no commentator or reporter ever adopted “Byern”, many subsequently decided that Steffi Graf’s Christian name should be pronounced “Shteffee”. Why? Certainly, that’s what she’s called in Germany, but we don’t live there.
This origin of this irritating tendency has been traced by some to Angela (or is that ”ANgle-ah”) Rippon’s habit of pronouncing “guerrilla” as if she had spent years in a jungle with Che Guevara (an affectation perfectly skewered by Pamela Stephenson in her Not The 9 O’Clock News days). This practice reached its nadir when that amiable newsreader Martyn Lewis started to say “Barthelonah” when referring to Barcelona. As I seem to remember pointing out at the time, why didn’t we also start talking about “Paree” and “Roma”?
Surely the rule for news media is simple: it’s all about comprehensibility. If using a foreign pronunciation makes it easier for the audience to understand who you’re referring to, feel free. But as it never does, don’t!
Politicians are in a slightly different category: they do things for effect (in fact, everything they do is for effect, and no other purpose). The Tory Eurosceptic, Norman Tebbit, used, quite deliberately, to torture the name of the Dutch town Maastricht – the semi-house trained polecat sneered the name rather than spoke it, so it came out something like “My-streeeeshhhht” – to make it sound as bizarrely alien and un-English as possible. Obvious but effective. Point made. But newsreaders and reporters aren’t meant to be scoring points or telling us where they’ve previously been posted, or where they went for their hols: their sole purpose is to give us information in such a way that we understand it.
One interesting wrinkle is provided by a name like “Chernobyl”, where everyone started off with “CHER-no- bill”, with the emphasis on the first syllable, but the correct pronunciation -Cher -NOBBle - rapidly started to gain ground. Why should we care, as long as we all agree right up front what to call it? The worst outcome is when there’s no consensus - as highlighted in The Day Today, where a long recorded trailer for a programme about John “FASH-A-noo” was followed by Chris Morris, as the newsreader, saying, “John Fash-AHN-oo there”.
Dealing with American names causes more wrinkles. “Michigan” is actually pronounced “MISHigan” but few of us know that over here. Are we allowed to decide how to pronounce a name in a language so like our own? Can we pronounce the town of Athens in Georgia as we do the Greek capital, or do we have to follow the American custom and scall it “AY-thens”? And when the name of an American comes from another language - say, “Barack”, although that seems an unlikely monicker for anyone - do we have to follow the individual’s preferred version? What if this unlikely person pronounced it “Bay- RAHRK”? Could we ignore their wishes? No idea.
Yes, when it comes to this topic, I’ll admit, I am an utter train-spotter. Maybe that’s because I have been sensitized by having a foreign name for which no English pronunciation protocol exists. (Barry Obama and I share that much in common, at least.) I’ve spent a lifetime having to spell out Grønmark for Brits, turning ”ø” into ”o” in the process, because the confusion is just too painful otherwise. Pronouncing it in the Norwegian fashion renders it doubly unintelligible to English speakers. So here, I’m ”GRON-mark”. Phonetical. Because that’s what makes sense to the indigenous peoples of these islands. And, of course, to my English wife, who has followed tradition by adopting my surname – bit rough on her if she couldn’t pronounce it! (My British mother went for “GROANmark”, but at school, everyone called me “GRON-mark”, so that’s the version I adopted.)
In the extremely unlikely event that I become sufficiently famous for a newsreader to have to say my name out loud, here’s a tip – say it any damn way you please, just as long as you don’t confuse everyone by going for Scandinavian authenticity. I really don’t want to face the danger of ending my days as “GROIN-mark”. And, for goodness sake, make sure it’s pronounced the same way in the introduction as in the 10-minute top-of-the-programme obituary (not to mention the special one-hour documentary following the news).
No comments:
Post a Comment