Rhoticity in English
Rhoticity in English is the pronunciation of the historical rhotic consonant /r/ in all contexts by speakers of certain varieties of English. The presence or absence of rhoticity is one of the most prominent distinctions by which varieties of English can be classified. In rhotic varieties, the historical English /r/ sound is preserved in all pronunciation contexts. In non-rhotic varieties, speakers no longer pronounce /r/ in postvocalic environments—that is, when it is immediately after a vowel and not followed by another vowel. For example, a rhotic English speaker pronounces the words hard and butter as /ˈhɑːrd/ and /ˈbʌtər/, whereas a non-rhotic speaker "drops" or "deletes" the /r/ sound, pronouncing them as /ˈhɑːd/ and /ˈbʌtə/. Other terms synonymous with "non-rhotic" include "/r/-deleting", "r-dropping", "r-vocalizing", and "r-less"; synonyms for "rhotic" include "/r/-pronouncing", "r-constricting", and "r-ful".
When an r is at the end of a word but the next word begins with a vowel, as in the phrase "tuner amp", most non-rhotic speakers will pronounce the /r/ in that position (the linking R), since it is followed by a vowel in this case. Not all non-rhotic varieties use the linking R; for example, it is absent in non-rhotic varieties of Southern American English.
Rhotic varieties of English include the dialects of Scotland, Ireland, and most of the United States and Canada. Non-rhotic varieties include most of the dialects of modern England, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. In some varieties, such as those of some parts of the southern and northeastern United States, rhoticity is a sociolinguistic variable: postvocalic r is deleted sometimes but not always, its probability depending on an array of social factors such as the speaker's social class or ethnicity or the degree of formality of the speech event.
Evidence from written documents suggests that loss of postvocalic /r/ began sporadically during the mid-15th century, although these /r/-less spellings were uncommon and were restricted to private documents, especially ones written by women. In the mid-18th century, postvocalic /r/ was still pronounced in most environments, but by the 1740s to 1770s it was often deleted entirely, especially after low vowels. By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety, though some variation persisted as late as the 1870s. This loss of postvocalic /r/ in British English influenced southern and eastern American port cities with close connections to Britain, causing their upper-class pronunciation to become non-rhotic while the rest of the United States remained rhotic. Non-rhotic pronunciation continued to influence American prestige speech until the 1860s, when the American Civil War began to shift America's centers of wealth and political power to rhotic areas with fewer cultural connections to the old colonial and British elites. The advent of radio and television in the 20th century established a national standard of American pronunciation that preserves historical /r/, with rhotic speech in particular becoming prestigious in the United States rapidly after the Second World War.
- 1 History
- 2 Modern pronunciation
- 3 Distribution
- 4 Mergers characteristic of non-rhotic accents
- 5 Up-gliding NURSE
- 6 Effect of non-rhotic dialects on orthography
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 Bibliography
The earliest traces of a loss of /r/ in English appear in the early 15th century and occur before coronal consonants, especially /s/, giving modern "ass (buttocks)" (Old English ears, Middle English ers or ars), and "bass (fish)" (OE bærs, ME bars). A second phase of /r/-loss began during the 15th century, and was characterized by sporadic and lexically variable deletion, such as monyng "morning" and cadenall "cardinal". These /r/-less spellings appear throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, but are uncommon and are restricted to private documents, especially ones written by women. No English authorities describe loss of /r/ in the standard language prior to the mid-18th century, and many do not fully accept it until the 1790s.
During the mid-17th century, a number of sources describe /r/ as being weakened but still present. The English playwright Ben Jonson's English Grammar, published posthumously in 1640, records that /r/ was "sounded firme in the beginning of words, and more liquid in the middle, and ends." The next major documentation of the pronunciation of /r/ appears a century later in 1740, when the British author of a primer for French students of English said: "...in many words r before a consonant is greatly softened, almost mute, and slightly lengthens the preceding vowel". By the 1770s, postvocalic /r/-less pronunciation was becoming common around London even in more formal, educated speech. The English actor and linguist John Walker used the spelling ar to indicate the long vowel of aunt in his 1775 rhyming dictionary. In his influential Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language (1791), Walker reported, with a strong tone of disapproval, that "... the r in lard, bard, [...] is pronounced so much in the throat as to be little more than the middle or Italian a, lengthened into baa, baad...." Americans returning to England after the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783 reported surprise at the significant changes in fashionable pronunciation. By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety, though it continued to be variable as late as the 1870s.
The adoption of postvocalic /r/-less pronunciation as the British prestige standard in the late 18th and early 19th centuries influenced American port cities with close connections to Britain, causing upper-class pronunciation in many eastern and southern port cities such as New York City, Boston, Alexandria, Charleston, and Savannah to become non-rhotic. Like regional dialects in England, the accents of other areas in America remained rhotic in a display of linguistic "lag" that preserved the original pronunciation of /r/. Non-rhotic pronunciation continued to influence American prestige speech until the 1860s, when the American Civil War shifted America's centers of wealth and political power to areas with fewer cultural connections to the British elite. This largely removed the prestige associated with non-rhotic pronunciation in America, particularly following the Second World War, such that when the advent of radio and television in the 20th century established a national standard of American pronunciation, it became a rhotic variety that preserves historical /r/.
In most non-rhotic accents, if a word ending in written "r" is followed immediately by a word beginning with a vowel, the /r/ is pronounced—as in water ice. This phenomenon is referred to as "linking R". Many non-rhotic speakers also insert an epenthetic /r/ between vowels when the first vowel is one that can occur before syllable-final r (drawring for drawing). This so-called "intrusive R" has been stigmatized, but nowadays many speakers of Received Pronunciation (RP) frequently "intrude" an epenthetic /r/ at word boundaries, especially where one or both vowels is schwa; for example the idea of it becomes the idea-r-of it, Australia and New Zealand becomes Australia-r-and New Zealand, the formerly well-known India-r-Office and "Laura Norder" (Law and Order). The typical alternative used by RP speakers (and some rhotic speakers as well) is to insert a glottal stop where an intrusive R would otherwise be placed.
For non-rhotic speakers, what was historically a vowel plus /r/ is now usually realized as a long vowel. This is called compensatory lengthening, lengthening that occurs after the elision of a sound. So in RP and many other non-rhotic accents card, fern, born are pronounced [kɑːd], [fɜːn], [bɔːn] or similar (actual pronunciations vary from accent to accent). This length may be retained in phrases, so while car pronounced in isolation is [kɑː], car owner is [ˈkɑːrəʊnə]. But a final schwa usually remains short, so water in isolation is [wɔːtə]. In RP and similar accents the vowels /iː/ and /uː/ (or /ʊ/), when followed by r, become diphthongs ending in schwa, so near is [nɪə] and poor is [pʊə], though these have other realizations as well, including monophthongal ones; once again, the pronunciations vary from accent to accent. The same happens to diphthongs followed by R, though these may be considered to end in /ər/ in rhotic speech, and it is the /ər/ that reduces to schwa as usual in non-rhotic speech: tire said in isolation is [taɪə] and sour is [saʊə]. For some speakers, some long vowels alternate with a diphthong ending in schwa, so wear may be [wɛə] but wearing [ˈwɛːɹɪŋ].
Even General American speakers commonly drop the /r/ in non-final unstressed syllables when another syllable in the same word also contains /r/; this may be referred to as R-dissimilation. Examples include the dropping of the first /r/ in the words surprise, governor and caterpillar. In more careful speech, however, the /r/ sounds are all retained.
Semi-rhotic accents have also been studied, such as Jamaican English, in which r is pronounced (as in even non-rhotic accents) before vowels, but also in stressed monosyllables or stressed syllables at the ends of words (e.g. in "car" or "dare"); however, it is not pronounced at the end of unstressed syllables (e.g. in "water") or before consonants (e.g. "market").
Variably rhotic accents are also widely documented, in which deletion of r (when not before vowels) is optional; in these dialects the probability of deleting r may vary depending on social, stylistic, and contextual factors. Variably rhotic accents comprise much of Caribbean English, for example, as spoken in Tobago, Guyana, Antigua and Barbuda, and the Bahamas. They also include current-day New York City English, New York Latino English, and some Boston English, as well as some varieties of Scottish English.
Non-rhotic accents in the Americas include those of the rest of the Caribbean and Belize.
Though most English varieties in England are non-rhotic today, stemming from a trend toward this in southeastern England accelerating in the very late 18th century onwards, rhotic accents are still found in the West Country (south and west of a line from near Shrewsbury to around Portsmouth), the Corby area, some of Lancashire (north and west of the centre of Manchester), some parts of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and in the areas that border Scotland. The prestige form, however, exerts a steady pressure toward non-rhoticity. Thus the urban speech of Bristol or Southampton is more accurately described as variably rhotic, the degree of rhoticity being reduced as one moves up the class and formality scales.
Most Scottish accents are rhotic, but non-rhotic speech has been reported in Edinburgh since the 1970s and Glasgow since the 1980s.
American English is predominantly rhotic today, but at the end of the 1800s non-rhotic accents were common throughout much of the coastal Eastern and Southern U.S., including along the Gulf Coast. In fact, non-rhotic accents were established in all major U.S. cities along the Atlantic coast except for the Delaware Valley area centered around Philadelphia and Baltimore. During the early to mid-1900s (presumably correlated with the Second World War), rhotic accents began to gain social prestige even in the these traditionally non-rhotic areas. Thus, non-rhotic accents are increasingly perceived by Americans as sounding foreign or less educated, while rhotic accents are increasingly seen as sounding more "General American".
Today, non-rhoticity in the American South is found primarily among older speakers, and only in some areas such as central and southern Alabama; Savannah, Georgia; and Norfolk, Virginia, as well as in the Yat accent of New Orleans. The local dialects of eastern New England, especially Boston, Massachusetts, extending into the states of Maine and (less so) New Hampshire, show some non-rhoticity, as well as the traditional Rhode Island dialect; however, this feature has been receding in the recent generations. The New York City dialect is traditionally non-rhotic, though William Labov more precisely classifies its current form as variably rhotic, with many of its sub-varieties now fully rhotic, such as in northeastern New Jersey.
African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) is largely non-rhotic, and in some non-rhotic Southern and AAVE accents, there is no linking r, that is, /r/ at the end of a word is deleted even when the following word starts with a vowel, so that "Mister Adams" is pronounced [mɪstə(ʔ)ˈædəmz]. In a few such accents, intervocalic /r/ is deleted before an unstressed syllable even within a word when the following syllable begins with a vowel. In such accents, pronunciations like [kæəˈlaːnə] for Carolina, or [bɛːˈʌp] for "bear up" are heard. This pronunciation also occurs in AAE. This also occurred for many older non-rhotic Southern speakers.
Typically, even non-rhotic modern varieties of American English do pronounce the /r/ in /ɜr/ (as in "bird," "work," or "perky"), realizing it, as in most rhotic varieties, as [ɚ] (an r-colored mid central vowel) or [əɹ] (a sequence of a mid central vowel and a postalveolar or retroflex approximant).
Canadian English is entirely rhotic except for small isolated areas in southwestern New Brunswick, parts of Newfoundland, and the Lunenburg English variety spoken in Lunenburg and Shelburne Counties, Nova Scotia, which may be non-rhotic or variably rhotic.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The prestige form of English spoken in Ireland is rhotic and most regional accents are rhotic although some regional accents, particularly in the area around counties Louth and Cavan are notably non-rhotic and many non-prestige accents have touches of non-rhoticity. In Dublin, the traditional local dialect is largely non-rhotic but the more modern varieties, referred to by Hickey as "mainstream Dublin English" and "fashionable Dublin English", are fully rhotic. Hickey used this as an example of how English in Ireland does not follow prestige trends in England.
The English spoken in Asia is predominantly rhotic. Many varieties of Indian English are rhotic owing to the underlying phonotactics of the native Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages whilst some tend to be non-rhotic. In the case of the Philippines, this may be explained because the English that is spoken there is heavily influenced by the American dialect. In addition, many East Asians (in Mainland China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan) who have a good command of English generally have rhotic accents because of the influence of American English. This excludes Hong Kong, whose RP English dialect is a result of its almost 150-year-history as a British Crown colony (later British dependent territory). The lack of consonant /r/ in Cantonese also contributes to the phenomenon (although rhoticity started to exist due to the handover in 1997 and influence by US and East Asian entertainment industry). However, many older (and younger) speakers among South and East Asians speak non-rhotic.
Other Asian regions with non-rhotic English are Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. A typical Malaysian's English would be almost totally non-rhotic due to the nonexistence of rhotic endings in both languages of influence, whereas a more educated Malaysian's English may be non-rhotic due to Standard Malaysian English being based on RP (Received Pronunciation). The classical English spoken in Brunei is non-rhotic. But one current change that seems to be taking place is that Brunei English is becoming rhotic, partly influenced by American English and partly influenced by the rhoticity of Standard Malay, also influenced by languages of Indians in Brunei (Tamil and Punjabi) (rhoticity is also used by Chinese Bruneians), although English in neighboring Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia remains non-rhotic; rhoticity in Brunei English is equal to Philippine and Indian dialects of English and Scottish and Irish dialects. Non-rhoticity is mostly found in older generations, its phenomenon is almost similar to the status of American English, wherein non-rhoticity reduced greatly.
A typical teenager's Southeast Asian English would be rhotic, mainly because of prominent influence by American English. Spoken English in Myanmar is non-rhotic, but there are a number of English speakers with a rhotic or partially rhotic pronunciation. Sri Lankan English may be rhotic.
The English spoken in most of Africa is based on RP and is generally non-rhotic. Pronunciation and variation in African English accents are largely affected by native African language influences, level of education and exposure to Western influences. The English accents spoken in the coastal areas of West Africa are primarily non-rhotic as are the underlying varieties of Niger-Congo languages spoken in that part of West Africa. Rhoticity may be present in English spoken in areas where rhotic Afro-Asiatic or Nilo Saharan languages are spoken across northern West Africa and in the Nilotic regions of East Africa. More modern trends show an increasing American influence on African English pronunciation particularly among younger urban affluent populations, where the American rhotic 'r' may be over-stressed in informal communication to create a pseudo-Americanised accent. By and large official spoken English used in post colonial African countries is non-rhotic. Standard Liberian English is also non-rhotic because liquids are lost at the end of words or before consonants. South African English is mostly non-rhotic, especially Cultivated dialect based on RP, except for some Broad varieties spoken in the Cape Province (typically in -er suffixes, as in writer). It appears that postvocalic /r/ is entering the speech of younger people under the influence of American English, and maybe an influence of Scottish dialect brought by Scottish settlers.
Standard Australian English is non-rhotic. A degree of rhoticity has been observed in a particular sublect of Australian Aboriginal English spoken on the coast of South Australia, especially in speakers from the Point Pearce and Raukkan settlements. These speakers realise /r/ as [ɹ] in the preconsonantal postvocalic position – after a vowel but before another a consonant – but only within stems. For example: [boːɹd] "board", [tʃɜɹtʃ] "church", [pɜɹθ] "Perth"; but [flæː] "flour", [dɒktə] "doctor", [jɪəz] "years". It has been speculated that this feature may derive from the fact that many of the first settlers in coastal South Australia – including Cornish tin-miners, Scottish missionaries, and American whalers – spoke rhotic varieties.
Although New Zealand English is predominantly non-rhotic, Southland and parts of Otago in the far south of New Zealand's South Island are rhotic from apparent Scottish influence. Older Southland speakers use /ɹ/ variably after vowels, but today younger speakers use /ɹ/ only with the NURSE vowel and occasionally with the LETTER vowel. Younger Southland speakers pronounce /ɹ/ in third term /ˌθɵːɹd ˈtɵːɹm/ (General NZE pronunciation: /ˌθɵːd ˈtɵːm/) but sometimes in farm cart /fɐːm kɐːt/ (same as in General NZE).[stress needed] However, non-prevocalic /ɹ/ among non-rhotic speakers is sometimes pronounced in a few words, including Ireland /ˈɑeɹlənd/, merely /ˈmiəɹli/, err /ɵːɹ/, and the name of the letter R /ɐːɹ/ (General NZE pronunciations: /ˈɑelənd, ˈmiəli, ɵː, ɐː/). The Māori accent varies from the European-origin New Zealand accent; some Māori speakers are semi-rhotic like most white New Zealand speakers, although it is not clearly identified to any particular region or attributed to any defined language shift. The Māori language itself tends in most cases to use an r with an alveolar tap [ɾ], like Scottish dialect.
Mergers characteristic of non-rhotic accentsEdit
Some phonemic mergers are characteristic of non-rhotic accents. These usually include one item that historically contained an R (lost in the non-rhotic accent), and one that never did so. The section below lists mergers in order of approximately decreasing prevalence.
In the terminology of John C. Wells, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets comma and letter. It is found in all or nearly all non-rhotic accents, and is even present in some accents that are in other respects rhotic, such as those of some speakers in Jamaica and the Bahamas.
In some accents, syllabification may interact with rhoticity, resulting in homophones where non-rhotic accents have centering diphthongs. Possibilities include Korea–career, Shi'a–sheer, and Maia–mire, while skua may be identical with the second syllable of obscure.
|Ana||honor||ˈɑːnə||With father-bother merger.|
|Anna||honor||ˈɑːnə||With father-bother merger and trap-bath split.|
|Basia||basher||ˈbæʃə||Without trap-bath split.|
|Carla||collar||ˈkɑːlə||With god-guard merger.|
|Darla||dollar||ˈdɑlə||With god-guard merger.|
|Dhaka||darker||ˈdɑːkə||With trap–bath split.|
|Helena||Eleanor||ˈɛlənə||With h-dropping. Outside North America.|
|pita||peter; Peter||ˈpiːtə||"pita" may also be pronounced ˈpɪtə and therefore not merged|
|Rhoda||rotor||ˈroʊɾə||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|Rita||reader||ˈriːɾə||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|soda||solder||ˈsoʊdə||"solder" may also be pronounced ˈsɒdə(r) and therefore not merged|
|Stata||starter||ˈstɑːtə||With trap–bath split.|
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets PALM and START. It is found in the speech of the great majority of non-rhotic speakers, including those of England, Wales, the United States, the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It may be absent in some non-rhotic speakers in the Bahamas.
|Dhaka||darker||ˈdɑːkə||With trap–bath split.|
|Hamm||harm||ˈhɑːm||With trap–bath split.|
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets THOUGHT and NORTH. It is found in most of the same accents as the father–farther merger described above, but is absent from the Bahamas and Guyana.
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets THOUGHT and FORCE. It is found in those non-rhotic accents containing the pawn–porn merger that have also undergone the horse–hoarse merger. These include the accents of Southern England, Wales, non-rhotic New York City speakers, Trinidad and the Southern hemisphere. In such accents a three-way merger awe-or-ore/oar results. However, Labov et al. suggest that, in New York City English, this merger is present in perception not production. As in, although even locals perceive themselves using the same vowel in both cases, they tend to produce the FORCE higher and more retracted than the vowel of THOUGHT.
|bawn||bourn; bourne; Bourne||ˈbɔːn|
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets BATH and START. It is found in some non-rhotic accents with broad A in words like "bath". It is general in southern England (excluding rhotic speakers), Trinidad, the Bahamas, and the Southern hemisphere. It is a possibility for Welsh, Eastern New England, Jamaican, and Guyanese speakers.
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets THOUGHT and CURE. It is found in those non-rhotic accents containing the caught–court merger that have also undergone the pour–poor merger. Wells lists it unequivocally only for the accent of Trinidad, but it is an option for non-rhotic speakers in England, Australia and New Zealand. Such speakers have a potential four-way merger taw–tor–tore–tour.
This merger is present in non-rhotic accents which have undergone the weak vowel merger. Such accents include Australian, New Zealand, most South African speech, and some non-rhotic English speech (e.g. Norfolk, Sheffield).
A large number of homophonous pairs involve the syllabic -es and agentive -ers suffixes, such as merges-mergers and bleaches-bleachers. Because there are so many, they are excluded from the list of homophonous pairs below.
|territory||terror tree||ˈtɛrətriː||With happy-tensing.|
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets GOAT and FORCE. It may be found in some southern U.S. non-rhotic speech, some speakers of African-American English, some speakers in Guyana and some Welsh speech.
|whoa||wore||ˈwoʊ||With wine–whine merger.|
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets GOAT and CURE. It may be present in those speakers who have both the dough–door merger described above, and also the pour–poor merger. These include some southern U.S. non-rhotic speakers, some speakers of African-American English and some speakers in Guyana. It can be seen in the term "Fo Sho", an imitation of "for sure".
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets CLOTH and NORTH. It may be present in old-fashioned Eastern New England accents, New York City speakers and also in some speakers in Jamaica and Guyana. The merger was also until recently present in the dialects of southern England, including Received Pronunciation—specifically, the phonemic merger of the words often and orphan was a running gag in the Gilbert and Sullivan musical, The Pirates of Penzance.
|off||Orff; orfe; orf||ˈɔːf|
|often||orphan||ˈɔːfən||"Often" is pronounced with a sounded T by some speakers.|
In Wells' terminology, this consists of the merger of the lexical sets LOT and START. It may be present in non-rhotic accents that have undergone the father–bother merger. These includes non-rhotic Rhode Island, New York City, some Southern U.S., and some African-American accents.
|bob; Bob||barb; Barb||ˈbɑːb|
|hominy||harmony||ˈhɑːməni||With weak vowel merger.|
|hottie||hardy||ˈhɑːɾi||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|polly; Polly||parley; Parley||ˈpɑːli|
|shopping||sharpen||ˈʃɑːpən||With weak vowel merger and G-dropping.|
|otter||order||ˈɒːɾə||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|shoddy||shorty||ˈʃɒːɾi||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|solder||sorter||ˈsɒːɾə||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|whap||warp||ˈwɒːp||With wine–whine merger.|
|what||wart||ˈwɒːt||With wine–whine merger.|
|whop||warp||ˈwɒːp||With wine–whine merger.|
A merger of /ɜː(r)/ and /ʌ/ occurring for some speakers of Jamaican English making bud and bird homophones as /bʌd/. The conversion of /ɜː/ to [ʌ] or [ə] is also found in places scattered around England and Scotland. Some speakers, mostly rural, in the area from London to Norfolk exhibit this conversion, mainly before voiceless fricatives. This gives pronunciation like first [fʌst] and worse [wʌs]. The word cuss appears to derive from the application of this sound change to the word curse. Similarly, lurve is coined from love.
|budging||burgeon||ˈbʌdʒən||With weak vowel merger and G-dropping.|
|bugging||bergen; Bergen||ˈbʌɡən||With weak vowel merger and G-dropping.|
|coven||curving||ˈkʌvən||With weak vowel merger and G-dropping.|
|gutter||girder||ˈɡʌɾə||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|hub||herb||ˈ(h)ʌb||With or without H-dropping.|
|muddle||myrtle||ˈmʌɾəl||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|mutter||murder||ˈmʌɾə||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
|oven||Irving||ˈʌvən||With weak vowel merger and G-dropping.|
|Sutton||certain||ˈsʌtən||With weak vowel merger.|
Up-gliding NURSE is a diphthongized vowel sound, [əɪ], used as the pronunciation of the NURSE phoneme /ɜ/. This up-gliding variant historically occurred in some non-rhotic dialects of American English and is particularly associated with the early twentieth-century (but now extinct or moribund) dialects of New York City, New Orleans, and Charleston, likely developing in the prior century. In fact, in speakers born before World War I, this sound apparently predominated throughout older speech of the Southern United States, ranging from "South Carolina to Texas and north to eastern Arkansas and the southern edge of Kentucky." This variant happened only before a consonant, so, for example, stir was never [stəɪ]; rather stir would have been pronounced [stɜ(r)].
In some cases, particularly in New York City, the NURSE sound gliding from a schwa upwards even led to a phonemic merger of the vowel classes associated with the General American phonemes /ɔɪ/ as in CHOICE with the /ɜr/ of NURSE; thus, words like coil and curl, as well as voice and verse, were homophones. The merged vowel was typically a diphthong [əɪ], with a mid central starting point, rather than the back rounded starting point of /ɔɪ/ of CHOICE in most other accents of English. The merger is responsible for the "Brooklynese" stereotypes of bird sounding like boid and thirty-third sounding like toity-toid. This merger is known for the word soitanly, used often by the Three Stooges comedian Curly Howard as a variant of certainly in comedy shorts of the 1930s and 1940s. The songwriter Sam M. Lewis, a native New Yorker, rhymed returning with joining in the lyrics of the English-language version of Gloomy Sunday. Except for New Orleans English, this merger did not occur in the South, despite up-gliding NURSE existing in some older Southern accents; instead, a distinction between the two phonemes was maintained due to a down-gliding CHOICE sound: something like [ɔɛ].
In 1966, according to a survey that was done by William Labov in New York City, 100% of the people over 60 used [əɪ] for bird. With each younger age group, however, the percentage got progressively lower: 59% of 50- to 59-year-olds, 33% of 40- to 49-year-olds, 24% of 20- to 39-year-olds, and finally, only 4% of people 8–19 years old used [əɪ]. Nearly all native New Yorkers born since 1950, even those whose speech is otherwise non-rhotic, now pronounce bird as [bɝd]. However, Labov reports this vowel to be slightly raised compared to other dialects.
|coitus||Curtis||ˈkəɪtəs||With weak vowel merger.|
|goitre; goiter||girder||ˈɡəɪɾər||With intervocalic alveolar flapping.|
Effect of non-rhotic dialects on orthographyEdit
Certain words have spellings derived from non-rhotic dialects or renderings of foreign words through non-rhotic pronunciation. In rhotic dialects, spelling pronunciation has caused these words to be pronounced rhotically anyway. Examples include:
- Er, used in non-rhotic dialects to indicate a filled pause, which most rhotic dialects would instead convey with uh or eh.
- The game Parcheesi, from Indian Pachisi.
- British English slang words:
- In Rudyard Kipling's books:
- The donkey Eeyore in A.A. Milne's stories, whose name comes from the sound that donkeys make, commonly spelled hee-haw in American English.
- Burma and Myanmar for Burmese [bəmà] and [mjàmmà].
- Transliteration of Cantonese words and names, such as char siu (Chinese: 叉燒; Jyutping: caa¹ siu¹) and Wong Kar-wai (Chinese: 王家衞; Jyutping: Wong⁴ Gaa1wai⁶)
- The spelling of schoolmarm for school ma'am, which Americans pronounce with the rhotic consonant. (It should, however, be pointed out that this particular term is not used in modern American English. It harkens back to a time when one teacher taught all grades in a rural district and was used to refer to that person in a polite formal way by the community.)
- Paul Skandera, Peter Burleigh, A Manual of English Phonetics and Phonology, Gunter Narr Verlag, 2011, p. 60.
- Lass (1999), p. 114.
- Wells (1982), p. 216.
- Labov, Ash, and Boberg (2006): 47.
- Gick (1999:31), citing Kurath (1964)
- Labov, Ash, and Boberg, 2006: pp. 47–48.
- Lass (1999), p. 115.
- Fisher (2001), p. 76.
- Fisher (2001), p. 77.
- Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006), pp. 5, 47.
- Based on H. Orton, et al., Survey of English Dialects (1962–71). Some areas with partial rhoticity, such as parts of the East Riding of Yorkshire, are not shaded on this map.
- Based on P. Trudgill, The Dialects of England.
- Lass (1999), pp. 114–15.
- Original French: "...dans plusieurs mots, l'r devant une consonne est fort adouci, presque muet, & rend un peu longue la voyale qui le precede". Lass (1999), p. 115.
- Fisher (2001), p. 73.
- Wells, Accents of English, 1:224-225.
- Gimson, Alfred Charles (2014), Cruttenden, Alan (ed.), Gimson's Pronunciation of English (8th ed.), Routledge, pp. 119–120, ISBN 978-1-4441-8309-2
- Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
- Wells, Accents of English, p. 490.
- Wakelyn, Martin: "Rural dialects in England", in: Trudgill, Peter (1984): Language in the British Isles, p.77
- Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English 3: Beyond the British Isles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 629. ISBN 0-521-28541-0.
- Mesthrie, Rajend; Kortmann, Bernd; Schneider, Edgar W., eds. (18 January 2008), "Pakistani English: phonology", Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Mouton de Gruyter, doi:10.1515/9783110208429.1.244, ISBN 9783110208429, retrieved 16 April 2019
- Wells, Accents of English, pp. 76, 221
- Schneider, Edgar (2008). Varieties of English: The Americas and the Caribbean. Walter de Gruyter. p. 396.
- McClear, Sheila (2 June 2010). "Why the classic Noo Yawk accent is fading away". New York Post. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
- Stuart-Smith, Jane (1999). "Glasgow: accent and voice quality". In Foulkes, Paul; Docherty, Gerard (eds.). Urban Voices. Arnold. p. 210. ISBN 0-340-70608-2.
- Trudgill, Peter (1984). Language in the British Isles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-28409-7.
- Milla, Robert McColl (2012). English Historical Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 978-0-7486-4181-9.
- Trudgill, Peter (2010). Investigations in Sociohistorical Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
- Gick, Bryan. 1999. A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English Archived 12 April 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Phonology 16: 1, pp. 29–54. (pdf). Retrieved 12 November 2010.
- Harris 2006: pp. 2–5.
- Pollock et al., 1998.
- Thomas, Erik R. "Rural white Southern accents" (PDF). p. 16. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- Trudgill, Peter (2000). "Sociohistorical linguistics and dialect survival: a note on another Nova Scotian enclave". In Magnus Leung (ed.). Language Structure and Variation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. p. 197.
- Hickey, Raymond (1999). "Dublin English: current changes and their motivations". In Foulkes, Paul; Docherty, Gerard (eds.). Urban Voices. Arnold. p. 272. ISBN 0-340-70608-2.
- Salbrina, S., & Deterding, D. (2010). Rhoticity in Brunei English. English World-Wide, 31, 121–137.
- Nur Raihan Mohamad (2017). Rhoticity in Brunei English : A diachronic approach. Southeast Asia: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17, 1-7. PDF Version
- Brinton, Lauren and Leslie Arnovick. The English Language: A Linguistic History. Oxford University Press: Canada, 2006
- Bowerman (2004), p. 940.
- Lass (2002), p. 121.
- Sutton, Peter (1989). "Postvocalic R in an Australian English dialect". Australian Journal of Linguistics. 9 (1).
- Clark, L., "Southland dialect study to shed light on language evolution," New Zealand Herald, 9 Dec 2016. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
- "5. – Speech and accent – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand". Teara.govt.nz. 5 September 2013. Retrieved 15 January 2017.
- Bauer & Warren (2004), p. 594.
- Hogg, R.M., Blake, N.F., Burchfield, R., Lass, R., and Romaine, S., (eds.) (1992) The Cambridge history of the English language. (Volume 5) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521264785 p. 387. Retrieved from Google Books.
- Wells (1982)
- Wells (1982), p. 225
- Upton, Clive; Eben Upton (2004). Oxford rhyming dictionary. Oxford University Press. p. 59. ISBN 0-19-280115-5.
- Upton, Clive; Eben Upton (2004). Oxford rhyming dictionary. Oxford University Press. p. 60. ISBN 0-19-280115-5.
- Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006), p. 235
- Wells, p. 287
- Wells, p. 524
- Wells (1982), p. 503
- Dialectal variant of "horse"
- Wells (1982), p. 504
- Wells (1982), p. 544
- Wells (1982), p. 577
- Wells, p. 520
- Dillard, Joey Lee (1980). Perspectives on American English. The Hague; New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 53. ISBN 90-279-3367-7.
- Wells, John C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-22919-7., pp. 136–37, 203–6, 234, 245–47, 339–40, 400, 419, 443, 576
- Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006), p. 259
- Thomas (2006), p. 8
- Wells (1982), pp. 508 ff
- Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006), p. 260
- Canatella, Ray (2011). The YAT Language of New Orleans. iUniverse. pp. 67, ... ISBN 978-1-4620-3295-2.
MOYCHANDIZE – Translation: Merchandise. "Dat store seem to be selling nutin' but cheap moychandize"
- Trawick-Smith, Ben (1 September 2011). "On the Hunt for the New Orleans Yat". Dialect Blog. Retrieved 1 December 2019.
- Labov (1966)
- Labov (1966), p. 216
- Fisher, John Hurt (2001). "British and American, Continuity and Divergence". In Algeo, John (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume VI: English in North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 59–85. ISBN 0-521-26479-0.
- Gick, Bryan (1999). "A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English" (PDF). Phonology. 16 (1): 29–54. doi:10.1017/s0952675799003693. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 April 2013.
- Kurath, H. (1964). A Phonology and Prosody of Modern English. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
- Labov, William; Ash, Sharon; Boberg, Charles (2006). The Atlas of North American English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-016746-8.
- Lass, Roger (1999). "Phonology and Morphology". In Lass, Roger (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 56–186. ISBN 0-521-26476-6.
- Pollock, Bailey, Berni, Fletcher, Hinton, Johnson, Roberts, & Weaver (17 March 2001). "Phonological Features of African American Vernacular English (AAVE)". Retrieved 8 November 2016.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Trudgill, Peter (1984). Language in the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.