Hear Beowulf Read In the Original Old English: How Many Words Do You Recognize?

beowulf original
I was as sur­prised as most peo­ple are when I first heard the ancient lan­guage known as Old Eng­lish. It’s noth­ing like Shake­speare, nor even Chaucer, who wrote in a late Mid­dle Eng­lish that sounds strange enough to mod­ern ears. Old Eng­lish, the Eng­lish of Beowulf, is almost a for­eign tongue; close kin to Ger­man, with Latin, Norse, and Celtic influ­ence.

As you can hear in the Beowulf read­ing above from The Tele­graph, it’s a thick, con­so­nant-rich lan­guage that may put you in mind of J.R.R. Tolkien’s elvish. The lan­guage arrived in Briton—previously inhab­it­ed by Celtic speakers—sometime in the fifth cen­tu­ry, though whether the Anglo-Sax­on inva­sion was a hos­tile takeover by Ger­man­ic mer­ce­nar­ies or a slow pop­u­la­tion drift that intro­duced a new eth­nic­i­ty is a mat­ter of some dis­pute. Nev­er­the­less it’s obvi­ous from the read­ing above—and from texts in the lan­guage like this online edi­tion of Beowulf in its orig­i­nal tongue—that we would no more be able to speak to the Anglo-Sax­ons than we would to the Picts and Scots they con­quered.

So how is it that both the lan­guage we speak and its dis­tant ances­tor can both be called “Eng­lish”? Well, that is what its speak­ers called it. As the author of this excel­lent Old Eng­lish intro­duc­to­ry text­book writes, speak­ers of “Old Eng­lish,” “Mid­dle Eng­lish,” and “Mod­ern Eng­lish” are “them­selves mod­ern”; They “would have said, if asked, that the lan­guage they spoke was Eng­lish.” The changes in the lan­guage “took place grad­u­al­ly, over the cen­turies, and there nev­er was a time when peo­ple per­ceived their lan­guage as hav­ing bro­ken rad­i­cal­ly with the lan­guage spo­ken a gen­er­a­tion before.” And while “rel­a­tive­ly few Mod­ern Eng­lish words come from Old Eng­lish […] the words that do sur­vive are some of the most com­mon in the lan­guage, includ­ing almost all the ‘gram­mar words’ (arti­cles, pro­nouns, prepo­si­tions) and a great many words for every­day con­cepts.” You may notice a few of those dis­tant lin­guis­tic ances­tors in the Beowulf pas­sage accom­pa­ny­ing the read­ing above.

Beowulf is, of course, the old­est epic poem in Eng­lish, writ­ten some­time between the 8th and ear­ly 11th cen­tu­ry. It draws, how­ev­er, not from British sources but from Dan­ish myth, and is in fact set in Scan­di­navia. The title char­ac­ter, a hero of the Geats—or ancient Swedes—travels to Den­mark to offer his ser­vices to the king and defeat the mon­ster Gren­del (and his moth­er). The prod­uct of a war­rior cul­ture, the poem shares much in com­mon with the epics of Homer with its code of hon­or and praise of fight­ing prowess. And here see vocal­ist, harpist, and medieval schol­ar Ben­jamin Bag­by per­form the open­ing lines of the poem as its con­tem­po­rary audi­ence would have expe­ri­enced it—intoned by a bard with an Anglo-Sax­on harp. The mod­ern Eng­lish sub­ti­tles are a boon, but close your eyes for a moment and just lis­ten to the speech—see if you can pick out any words you rec­og­nize. Then, per­haps, you may wish to turn to Ford­ham University’s online trans­la­tion and find out what all that big talk in the pro­logue is about.

And for a very short course on the his­to­ry of Eng­lish, see this con­cise page and this ten-minute ani­mat­ed video from Open Uni­ver­si­ty.

The image above comes from the sole sur­viv­ing medieval man­u­script of Beowulf, which now resides at the British Library.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear Homer’s Ili­ad Read in the Orig­i­nal Ancient Greek

What Ancient Greek Music Sound­ed Like: Hear a Recon­struc­tion That is ‘100% Accu­rate’

Sea­mus Heaney Reads His Exquis­ite Trans­la­tion of Beowulf

Read an Excerpt of J.R.R. Tolkien’s 1926 Trans­la­tion of Beowulf Before It’s Final­ly Pub­lished Next Month

What Shake­speare Sound­ed Like to Shake­speare: Recon­struct­ing the Bard’s Orig­i­nal Pro­nun­ci­a­tion

Hear The Epic of Gil­gamesh Read in the Orig­i­nal Akka­di­an, the Lan­guage of Mesopotamia

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

The C.I.A.‘s “Bestiary of Intelligence Writing” Satirizes Spook Jargon with Maurice Sendak-Style Drawings

CIA 1

Ten years in acad­e­mia gave me a healthy dis­like of clichéd jar­gon, as well as an appre­ci­a­tion for jokes about it. There are a few, like the aca­d­e­m­ic sen­tence gen­er­a­tor and Ph.D. Comics, that cap­ture a bit of what it’s like to go to school and work in high­er ed. Cor­po­rate drones, of course, have Office Space and Dil­bert. But what about the spooks, those name­less, face­less agents who work tire­less­ly away in the base­ment of Lan­g­ley, doing who knows what to whom? Where does the C.I.A. go to laugh at its pecu­liar brand of hack­neyed dou­ble­s­peak? Not that we were sup­posed to know this, but per­haps many of them turn to an arti­cle called “the Bes­tiary of Intel­li­gence Writ­ing” in a 1982 copy of inter­nal agency newslet­ter Stud­ies in Intel­li­gence.

CIA 2

Medi­um describes this odd piece as a “zoo of fic­tion­al fau­na,” and like that strange lit­er­ary form, the medieval Euro­pean bes­tiary (often a source of satire and cri­tique), this 17-page arti­cle, with foot­notes, sin­gles out the most offen­sive spook buzz­words as though they were car­di­nal sins—naming 15 mem­bers of “the Col­lec­tion” in all, each one rep­re­sent­ed by its own Mau­rice Sendak-like pen­cil-drawn beast and a descrip­tion of its habits. The two-head­ed beast at the top, Mul­ti­dis­ci­pli­nary Analy­sis, is a “hybrid—the fruit of the casu­al mat­ing of stan­dard forms of Analy­sis.” Just above, we have Height­ened Ten­sions, “the adult form of Con­ven­tion­al Tensions—Tensions that have acquired stilts by thriv­ing on a rich diet of pover­ty, mal­nu­tri­tion and espe­cial­ly alien­ation.” Sounds like rough work, this spy game….

CIA 3

Most of the beasts are cud­dly enough, some mis­chie­vous, some per­haps dead­ly. Above, we have Dire Straits and below, Para­me­ters. “The Agency author and artist detailed 15 mon­sters in all—complete with illus­tra­tions,” writes Medi­um, “Both of their names are redact­ed in the doc­u­ment. We’ll nev­er know just which CIA agents turned their hand towards snarky polit­i­cal satire.” The doc­u­ment comes to us via a cache of records declas­si­fied in a law­suit filed by for­mer agency employ­ee Jef­fry Scud­der. We do know that the two anony­mous lam­poon­ists were inspired by A Polit­i­cal Bes­tiary, book by James Kil­patrick, car­toon­ist Jeff Mac­Nel­ly, and for­mer sen­a­tor and pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Eugene McCarthy. See the full, bone dry arti­cle here, and think about the work talk that might dri­ve you to such cre­ative extremes.

CIA 4

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The CIA’s Style Man­u­al & Writer’s Guide: 185 Pages of Tips for Writ­ing Like a Spy

How the CIA Secret­ly Fund­ed Abstract Expres­sion­ism Dur­ing the Cold War

How the CIA Turned Doc­tor Zhiva­go into a Pro­pa­gan­da Weapon Against the Sovi­et Union

Declas­si­fied CIA Doc­u­ment Reveals That Ben Franklin (and His Big Ego) Put U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty at Risk

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness.

One Woman, 17 British Accents

In April, we fea­tured a tour of 14 British accents in 84 sec­onds. But as any com­menter to that video will tell you, such a selec­tion only scratch­es the sur­face of the vari­ety of ways a giv­en Briton could poten­tial­ly speak Eng­lish. “It’s impor­tant to state that there is no ‘British’ accent,” says the web site of BBC Amer­i­ca’s Anglophe­nia. “There are so many region­al dialects spread across tiny geo­graph­i­cal areas that to arrive in, say, Swansea or Leices­ter (pro­nounced “lester” — you’re wel­come), and launch into a stream of cor­blimey cock­neyisms would go down extra­or­di­nar­i­ly bad­ly.” This blog and video series, which brands itself “British Cul­ture with an Amer­i­can Accent,” has spent more than a lit­tle ener­gy help­ing its fans sort out the “infi­nite world of vari­ety in the accents of the British Isles.” At the top of the post, Anglophe­nia host Siob­han Thomp­son demon­strates no few­er than sev­en­teen British accents.

And not only can Thomp­son speak them, she can tell you who else speaks them. Oth­er users of the mid­dle-class, BBC-friend­ly “received pro­nun­ci­a­tion” include cur­rent­ly bank­able film and tele­vi­sion actors Mar­tin Free­man and Bene­dict Cum­ber­batch. And pret­ty much only on film and tele­vi­sion do you hear the more refined-sound­ing “height­ened received pro­nun­ci­a­tion,” and even then main­ly from char­ac­ters like Down­ton Abbey’s Dowa­ger Count­ess. She also does a tru­ly Lock, Stock, and Two Smok­ing Bar­rels Lon­don accent, the flat East Anglian inflec­tion that every­one los­es when they move out of East Anglia, and thir­teen more from across the rest of Eng­land as well as Wales, Scot­land, and Ire­land. Once you learn to com­pre­hend all these vari­eties of speech, though, you may still fail to grasp the mean­ing of what you hear. The Anglophe­nia episode above, “How to Speak British,” gives you a primer on a series of expres­sions — “Away with the fairies,” “Swings and round­abouts,” “Hors­es for cours­es” — you’ll only ever hear said in a British accent.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

A Brief Tour of British Accents: 14 Ways to Speak Eng­lish in 84 Sec­onds

Peter Sell­ers Gives a Quick Demon­stra­tion of British Accents

Peter Sell­ers Reads The Bea­t­les’ “She Loves You” in Four Dif­fer­ent Accents

Sir Patrick Stew­art Demon­strates How Cows Moo in Dif­fer­ent Eng­lish Accents

What Shake­speare Sound­ed Like to Shake­speare: Recon­struct­ing the Bard’s Orig­i­nal Pro­nun­ci­a­tion

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

The CIA’s Style Manual & Writer’s Guide: 185 Pages of Tips for Writing Like a Spook

cia style guide

Along with top­pling demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly elect­ed gov­ern­ments, fun­nel­ing mon­ey ille­gal­ly to dubi­ous polit­i­cal groups and pro­duc­ing porno­graph­ic movies about heads of state, the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency has also been fiendish­ly good at manip­u­lat­ing lan­guage. After all, this is the orga­ni­za­tion that made “water­board­ing” seem much more accept­able, at least to the Wash­ing­ton elite, by rebrand­ing it as “enhanced inter­ro­ga­tion tech­niques.” Anoth­er CIA turn of phrase, “extra­or­di­nary ren­di­tion,” sounds so much bet­ter to the ear than “ille­gal kid­nap­ping and tor­ture.”

Not too long ago, the CIA’s style guide, called the Style Man­u­al and Writ­ers Guide for Intel­li­gence Pub­li­ca­tions, was post­ed online. “Good intel­li­gence depends in large mea­sure on clear, con­cise writ­ing,” writes Fran Moore, Direc­tor of Intel­li­gence in the fore­word. And con­sid­er­ing the agency’s deft­ness with the writ­ten word, it shouldn’t come as a sur­prise that it’s remark­ably good. Some high­lights:

  • The guide likes the Oxford or ser­i­al com­ma. “Most author­i­ties on Eng­lish usage rec­om­mend [the ser­i­al com­ma], and it is the rule for CIA pub­li­ca­tions.”
  • It favors using adjec­tives and adverbs spar­ing­ly. “Let nouns and verbs show their pow­er.”
  • In all cas­es, it favors Amer­i­can over British spellings, even prop­er names. Thus, “Labor Par­ty” not “Labour Par­ty.” And for that mat­ter, the guide isn’t ter­ri­bly keen on using phras­es like “apro­pos” and “faux pas.” “For­eign expres­sions should be avoid­ed because they sound hack­neyed.”
  • It wise­ly dis­cour­ages writ­ers, or any­one real­ly, from ever using the word “enthused.”
  • And they cau­tion against using excla­ma­tion points. “Because intel­li­gence reports are expect­ed to be dis­pas­sion­ate, this punc­tu­a­tion mark should rarely, if ever, be used.”

And then there are some rules that will remind you this guide is the prod­uct of a par­tic­u­lar­ly shad­owy arm of the U.S. Gov­ern­ment.

  • The guide makes a point of defin­ing “dis­in­for­ma­tion” as opposed to “mis­in­for­ma­tion.” “Dis­in­for­ma­tion refers to the delib­er­ate plant­i­ng of false reports. Mis­in­for­ma­tion equates in mean­ing but does not car­ry the same devi­ous con­no­ta­tion.” Now you know.
  • Unde­clared wars, like Viet­nam, should be spelled with an uncap­i­tal­ized “w.” Same goes for the “Kore­an war” and the “Falk­lands war.” It goes on to argue that the writer should “avoid ‘Yom Kip­pur war’ which is slangy.” Pre­sum­ably, the CIA prefers the term “The 1973 Arab-Israeli war.”
  • The con­fus­ing split between Chi­na and Tai­wan – each refus­es to rec­og­nize the oth­er — is rep­re­sent­ed con­fus­ing­ly here too. “For what was once called Nation­al­ist Chi­na or the Repub­lic of Chi­na, use only Tai­wan, both as noun and as adjec­tive. … Avoid Tai­wanese as an adjec­tive refer­ring to the island’s admin­is­tra­tion or its offi­cials (and do not use the term Tai­wanese gov­ern­ment.)”

It’s unclear whether or not the guide is being used for the CIA’s queasi­ly flip, pro­found­ly unfun­ny Twit­ter account.

If you’re look­ing for a more con­ven­tion­al style guide, remem­ber that Strunk & White’s Ele­ments of Style is also online.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How to Spot a Com­mu­nist Using Lit­er­ary Crit­i­cism: A 1955 Man­u­al from the U.S. Mil­i­tary

How the CIA Secret­ly Fund­ed Abstract Expres­sion­ism Dur­ing the Cold War

Don­ald Duck’s Bad Nazi Dream and Four Oth­er Dis­ney Pro­pa­gan­da Car­toons from World War II

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow.

Steven Pinker Uses Theories from Evolutionary Biology to Explain Why Academic Writing is So Bad

I don’t know about oth­er dis­ci­plines, but aca­d­e­m­ic writ­ing in the human­i­ties has become noto­ri­ous for its jar­gon-laden wordi­ness, tan­gled con­struc­tions, and seem­ing­ly delib­er­ate vagary and obscu­ri­ty. A pop­u­lar demon­stra­tion of this comes via the Uni­ver­si­ty of Chicago’s aca­d­e­m­ic sen­tence gen­er­a­tor, which allows one to plug in a num­ber of stock phras­es, verbs, and “-tion” words to pro­duce cork­ers like “The reifi­ca­tion of post-cap­i­tal­ist hege­mo­ny is always already par­tic­i­pat­ing in the engen­der­ing of print cul­ture” or “The dis­course of the gaze ges­tures toward the lin­guis­tic con­struc­tion of the gen­dered body”—the point, of course, being that the lan­guage of acad­e­mia has become so mean­ing­less that ran­dom­ly gen­er­at­ed sen­tences close­ly resem­ble and make as much sense as those pulled from the aver­age jour­nal arti­cle (a point well made by the so-called “Sokal hoax”).

There are many the­o­ries as to why this is so. Some say it’s sev­er­al gen­er­a­tions of schol­ars poor­ly imi­tat­ing famous­ly dif­fi­cult writ­ers like Hegel and Hei­deg­ger, Lacan and Der­ri­da; oth­ers blame a host of post­mod­ern ‑isms, with their politi­cized lan­guage games and sec­tar­i­an schisms. A recent dis­cus­sion cit­ed schol­ar­ly van­i­ty as the cause of incom­pre­hen­si­ble aca­d­e­m­ic prose. A more prac­ti­cal expla­na­tion holds that the pub­lish or per­ish grind forces schol­ars to turn out deriv­a­tive work at an unrea­son­able pace sim­ply to keep their jobs, hence stuff­ing jour­nals with rehashed argu­ments and fan­cy-sound­ing puffery that sig­ni­fies lit­tle. In the above video, Har­vard cog­ni­tive sci­en­tist and lin­guist Steven Pinker offers his own the­o­ry, work­ing with exam­ples drawn from aca­d­e­m­ic writ­ing in psy­chol­o­gy.

For Pinker, the ten­den­cy of aca­d­e­mics to use “pas­sives, abstrac­tions, and ‘zom­bie nouns’” stems not pri­mar­i­ly from “nefar­i­ous motives” or the desire to “sound sophis­ti­cat­ed and recher­ché and try to bam­boo­zle their read­ers with high-falutin’ ver­biage.” He doesn’t deny that this takes place on occa­sion, but con­tra George Orwell’s claim in “Pol­i­tics and the Eng­lish Lan­guage” that bad writ­ing gen­er­al­ly hopes to dis­guise bad polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic motives, Pinker defers to evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gy, and refers to “men­tal habits” and the “mis­match between ordi­nary think­ing and speak­ing and what we have to do as aca­d­e­mics.” He goes on to explain, in some fair­ly aca­d­e­m­ic terms, his the­o­ry of how our pri­mate mind, which did not evolve to think thoughts about soci­ol­o­gy or lit­er­ary crit­i­cism, strug­gles to schema­tize “learned abstrac­tions” that are not a part of every­day expe­ri­ence. It’s a plau­si­ble the­o­ry that doesn’t rule out oth­er rea­son­able alter­na­tives (like the per­fect­ly straight­for­ward claim that clear, con­cise writ­ing pos­es a for­mi­da­ble chal­lenge for aca­d­e­mics as much as any­one else.)

Pinker’s talk was part of a larg­er Har­vard con­fer­ence called “Styl­ish Aca­d­e­m­ic Writ­ing” and spon­sored by the Office of Fac­ul­ty Devel­op­ment & Diver­si­ty. The full con­fer­ence seems designed pri­mar­i­ly as pro­fes­sion­al devel­op­ment for oth­er aca­d­e­mics, but lay­folks may find much here of inter­est as well. See more talks from the con­fer­ence, as well as a num­ber of unre­lat­ed videos on good aca­d­e­m­ic writ­ing here. Or, for more amuse­ment at the expense of clunky aca­d­e­m­ic prose, see the results of the Phi­los­o­phy and Lit­er­a­ture bad writ­ing con­test, which ran from 1995–98 and turned up some almost shock­ing­ly unread­able sen­tences from a vari­ety of schol­ar­ly texts.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Steven Pinker Explains the Neu­ro­science of Swear­ing (NSFW)

John Sear­le on Fou­cault and the Obscu­ran­tism in French Phi­los­o­phy

“Lol My The­sis” Show­cas­es Painful­ly Hilar­i­ous Attempts to Sum up Years of Aca­d­e­m­ic Work in One Sen­tence

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

The Speech Accent Archive: The English Accents of People Who Speak 341 Different Languages

Over the years, I’ve met with sev­er­al for­eign speak­ing part­ners. Through con­ver­sa­tion, I learn their lan­guage — Span­ish, Kore­an, Japan­ese — and they learn mine — Eng­lish. Many of them first got seri­ous about their study of that more-or-less-inter­na­tion­al tongue with the goal of com­plete­ly elim­i­nat­ing their native accent which, while demon­stra­bly pos­si­ble, takes so much addi­tion­al effort as an adult that I’ve always advised them to just spend that time learn­ing anoth­er lan­guage (or two) instead. Many, of course, come to that con­clu­sion them­selves, real­iz­ing that Eng­lish speak­ers all over the world have cre­at­ed a legit­i­mate cul­ture of speak­ing Eng­lish in all kinds of dif­fer­ent ways, with all kinds of dif­fer­ent accents, whether or not they learned the lan­guage from child­hood. But it still makes one won­der: how many dif­fer­ent accents do peo­ple speak it in? And what do they all sound like? Won­der no longer, for we have The Speech Accent Archive, cre­at­ed by Steven H. Wein­berg­er of George Mason Uni­ver­si­ty’s Lin­guis­tics depart­ment, who intro­duces it in the video above.

The site, “estab­lished to uni­form­ly exhib­it a large set of speech accents from a vari­ety of lan­guage back­grounds,” col­lects audio sam­ples of native and non-Native Eng­lish speak­ers all read­ing the same para­graph. This lets the user “com­pare the demo­graph­ic and lin­guis­tic back­grounds of the speak­ers in order to deter­mine which vari­ables are key pre­dic­tors of each accent,” demon­strat­ing that “accents are sys­tem­at­ic rather than mere­ly mis­tak­en speech.” You can browse by the speak­er’s native lan­guage, by their region, or (pre­sum­ably excit­ing for the lin­guists) by their “native pho­net­ic inven­to­ry.” You’ll find Eng­lish as spo­ken by native speak­ers of every­thing from French and Chi­nese to Urdu and Chaldean Neo Ara­ma­ic. Here in Seoul, South Korea, where I write this post, I cer­tain­ly do meet peo­ple who sound just like this sam­ple speak­er, a 19-year-old woman from the city who began learn­ing Eng­lish at 17 and spent a few months study­ing in Amer­i­ca. The page describes her accent as char­ac­ter­ized by, among oth­er things, “final obstru­ent devoic­ing,” “vow­el short­en­ing,” and “obstru­ent dele­tion.” But don’t let the site’s lin­guis­tics jar­gon deter you; the salute to the Speech Accent Archive just above will give you an idea of just how much fun you can have there. You can enter the The Speech Accent Archive here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Learn 45+ Lan­guages Online for Free: Span­ish, Chi­nese, Eng­lish & More

A Brief Tour of British Accents: 14 Ways to Speak Eng­lish in 84 Sec­onds

Peter Sell­ers Presents The Com­plete Guide To Accents of The British Isles

What Shake­speare Sound­ed Like to Shake­speare: Recon­struct­ing the Bard’s Orig­i­nal Pro­nun­ci­a­tion

Peter Sell­ers Reads The Bea­t­les’ “She Loves You” in Four Dif­fer­ent Accents

Free Eng­lish Lessons

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Do Rappers Have a Bigger Vocabulary Than Shakespeare?: A Data Scientist Maps Out the Answer

UniqueWordsinRap

Each year brings us a new list of words that, once hip or sub­cul­tur­al, sig­nal their admis­sion into the main­stream by enter­ing the pages—print or online—of the Oxford Eng­lish Dic­tio­nary or Mer­ri­am Web­ster’s. Many of those come from the world of hip hop. The form is a ver­i­ta­ble lab­o­ra­to­ry of lin­guis­tic inno­va­tion, spawn­ing dozens of region-spe­cif­ic argots that mutate and evolve beyond the capac­i­ty of hip lex­i­cog­ra­phers to doc­u­ment. One data sci­en­tist, Matt Daniels, has made an inter­est­ing attempt, how­ev­er, in a project he calls “The Largest Vocab­u­lary in Hip Hop.” Pro­ceed­ing from the premise that cer­tain rap­pers might match or best Shake­speare for the title of “largest vocab­u­lary ever,” Daniels used a method­ol­o­gy called “token analy­sis” to ana­lyze the lyri­cal con­tent of “the most famous artists in hip hop.” He relied on Rap Genius tran­scrip­tions, which are only cur­rent to 2012, to pro­duce a sam­ple size of 35,000 words (the equiv­a­lent of 3–5 stu­dio albums).

Top­ping the list by far with a total of 7,392 unique words used is rap­per Aesop Rock, whom, Daniels admits, is some­what obscure by com­par­i­son with Jay Z or Snoop Dog. More well-known artists like Wu Tang Clan, The Roots, and Out­kast also rank high­ly, but what Daniels dis­cov­ered is that many of the rap­pers near the top of the scale are under­ground or obscure artists who don’t sell mil­lions of records. And occu­py­ing the low­er end are some top-sell­ing artists and house­hold names like Lil Wayne, Kanye West, and Snoop Dog (DMX is dead last at #85). King of the hill Jay‑Z, whose 2013 album Magna Carta…Holy Grail sold half a mil­lion copies in its first week, ranks some­where in the mid­dle, and Daniels quotes from the mega-sell­ing rapper’s “Moment of Clar­i­ty” from his Black Album in which he plain­ly admits that he’ll write mid­dle­brow lyrics for mil­lion dol­lar sales fig­ures, say­ing “I dumb­ed down for my audi­ence to dou­ble my dol­lars” (one won­ders how many lis­ten­ers per­ceived the slight).

Daniels admits in an NPR inter­view that this is “not a seri­ous aca­d­e­m­ic study” but a project he under­took for the fun of it. And a great many of the “unique words” count­ed in each rapper’s totals are slang coinages or vari­ants like “pimps, pimp, pimp­ing, and pimpin,” each of which counts sep­a­rate­ly. Even so, writes Daniels on the project’s site, “it’s still direc­tion­al­ly inter­est­ing,” as well as soci­o­log­i­cal­ly. And of course, lit­er­ary writ­ers have been con­tribut­ing made-up words to the gen­er­al lex­i­con for cen­turies. See Daniels’ site for an inter­ac­tive visu­al­iza­tion (screen shot above) of the rank­ings of all 85 rap­pers sur­veyed.

If you’re won­der­ing who has a big­ger vocab­u­lary — Shake­speare or rap­pers — here’s the quick answer in pure­ly numer­i­cal terms. In his sam­ple size of 35,000 words per artist, Daniels deter­mined that Aesop Rock used 7,392 unique words (and Wu-Tang Clan, 5,895) against Shake­speare’s 5,000 unique words. And there you have it.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Jay‑Z: The Evo­lu­tion of My Style

The Great­ness of Charles Dar­win Explained with Rap Music

The Art of Data Visu­al­iza­tion: How to Tell Com­plex Sto­ries Through Smart Design

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness.

A Brief Tour of British & Irish Accents: 14 Ways to Speak English in 84 Seconds

Amer­i­cans, com­ing from the enor­mous and rel­a­tive­ly recent­ly set­tled place we do, tend to have a hard time with accents, strug­gling to grasp the extent of the vari­ety of region­al ways of speech in small­er, old­er coun­tries, let alone to use them our­selves. Study­ing the Kore­an lan­guage, I’ve found that under­stand­ing a native speak­er from one city does­n’t mean I’ll under­stand any­thing said by anoth­er native speak­er from a city fifty miles away. (Though that holds true even for Kore­ans them­selves; hence the preva­lence of sub­ti­tles on their tele­vi­sion shows.) Vis­it­ing Lon­don a few months ago, eas­i­ly as I could make sense of every­body speak­ing my native tongue, I pre-emp­tive­ly gave up hope of pick­ing up on the nuances of all the accents peo­ple had brought to the city from their home­towns — much less the numer­ous and sub­tle dialects native of Lon­don itself. Every­one I met insist­ed that a Briton’s accent says more about their ori­gin, class, sta­tion in life, and degree of self-regard than any oth­er qual­i­ty, but not know­ing New­cas­tle from Southamp­ton when I first set foot on Eng­lish soil, I had to take them at their word (how­ev­er they hap­pened to pro­nounce it).

The video above, in which pro­fes­sion­al dialect coach Andrew Jack demon­strates four­teen British accents in 84 sec­onds, might help sort things out for my fel­low con­fused coun­try­men. “Received com­mu­ni­ca­tion is the great com­mu­ni­ca­tor,” Jack says, using the accent I assume he grew up with. “As soon as you devi­ate from that and you go into Lon­don speech, for exam­ple, you lose a lit­tle bit of the com­mu­ni­ca­tion.” By that point, Jack has seam­less­ly tran­si­tioned into Cock­ney, from which he then shifts into the accents of East Anglia, the West Coun­try, York­shire, Lan­cashire, Liv­er­pool, North­ern Ire­land, Dublin, the Scot­tish high­lands, Glas­gow, North Wales, and South Wales. The Youtube com­ment box below has, pre­dictably, filled with com­plains about all the accents — the com­menters’ own, dare I imag­ine? — that did­n’t make it into this brief lin­guis­tic tour. Though far from com­pre­hen­sive, the video does in any case put the lie to the notion so many non-Brits seem to have that they can “do a British accent.” If you encounter one of them, don’t ask them to demon­strate it; ask them which British accent they mean. Then you’ll real­ly hear how poor­ly they fare.

via Kot­tke

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Peter Sell­ers Gives a Quick Demon­stra­tion of British Accents

Peter Sell­ers Reads The Bea­t­les’ “She Loves You” in Four Dif­fer­ent Accents

Sir Patrick Stew­art Demon­strates How Cows Moo in Dif­fer­ent Eng­lish Accents

What Shake­speare Sound­ed Like to Shake­speare: Recon­struct­ing the Bard’s Orig­i­nal Pro­nun­ci­a­tion

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.