Talk:Received Pronunciation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

England

I've noticed that the way English people pronounce, well, England, is different from the way Americans pronounce it. How would the English pronunciation be written phonetically? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

/Iŋ'lənd/. What do the Americans say? Epa101 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant for you to put it in brackets. Americans typically pronounce it [Iŋ'ɡlɨnd]. It's a slight difference, but it's still there. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Diagram of change over time

If you go to the Tuesday 8th April blog entry, there is a reproduced diagram of how the vowel sounds in RP have changed in 50 years. I think that this would be a good inclusion to this article. Any ideas? Epa101 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What blog are you talking about? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to post the link! I am stupid at times. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/blog0804a.htm This one, John C Wells's blog, 8th April entry. Epa101 (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As the blog states the chart is from "The speaker discriminating power of sounds undergoing historical change: a formant-based study" by Gea de Jong, Kirsty McDougall, Toby Hudson, and Francis Nolan in the Proceedings of ICPhS Saarbrücken, 2007. So if we use it we should cite that paper. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that the diagram has been added to the article. Good work! Epa101 (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If I don't forget, I'll try to add the info from the article as well. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Norman/French influence on Received pronunciation

Has anyone noticed how British people (both native and colonial variety) who choose to use a non regional accent/pronunciation, ie, use a posh version of English to distinguish themselves from the locals, appear to use French pronunciation of words? Is this an effect of the Norman conquest and their ongoing influence on England? I was particularly impressed by a film-clip of Bernard Montgomery (a self-confessed Norman) speaking to a public meeting during the Second World War in an accent that can only be described as "foreign" to his audience, and indeed to his own background - after all, he came from Ulster! Similarly, one thinks of (on pense à) the famous Mrs Bucket who insisted on being addressed as Mrs Bouquet, and the perennial dilemma on how to pronounce words like "garage" and "vase". This is just a "sondage" to see if anyone else out there has noticed this and if they want to investigate it further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.144.127 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more likely the result of recent French influence than of Norman French influence from 800 years ago. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do any British people have a dilemma on how to pronounce vase? -- Q Chris (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me as if some Americans might be questioning the validity of British English on the global language landscape again... --Kudpung (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad that the article makes point about BBC English

I am so glad that the article makes the point that the traditional reference to the Queen's or King's English as being "BBC English" is today "somewhat misleading". If any one listens to BBC Radio regularly, he or she must have noticed how many English errors are made there, as there are on BBC television. To use just one example, I have often heard people on Radio Four or BBC One use phrases such as "this data".The correct English would be "these data", since it is "datum" which is the singular. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that data was the plural of anecdote. *rimshot* — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely making grammatical mistakes does not mean you do not speak RP. Also, isn't that example of language change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njjackson89 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is something that results from the ambiguity of the term, the Queen's English. ACEOREVIVED is using it to refer to Standard English while the article used it to mean RP. NJJackson is quite correct that grammar and accent are independent. Whether data can be used as a singular in SE is subjective; it doesn't contraindicate the underlying dialect as being Standard English while something like "He done it" would. 00:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derbyadhag (talk • contribs)

Shortness of English Short Vowels

It seems like the short vowels of many Southern English accents are shorter than their American counterparts. Is this true? Thegryseone (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

USe on the BBC - dates

The Article says:

It is also sometimes referred to as BBC English, because it was traditionally used by the BBC prominently during the period between 1930 to 1955 (approximately), yet nowadays these notions are slightly misleading.

I have a big question about the start date, why 1930; I assumed that they used received pronunciation from their founding in 1922. The end date seems rather early to me, certainly all my childhood TV programs in the 1960s had RP accents. The start date is pqrticularly dubious given this from a BBC site [1]:

In the 1920's, Lord Reith, director general of the BBC, believed that there was a right way to speak and insisted that his announcers should all speak properly and all sound the same. He saw it as his duty to ensure that the public knew the right way to speak.

I have added dubious and a citation tag for the start and end dates respectively. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain I can picture his voice, but I very much doubt Reith himself spoke RP. He would have believed in clarity and "educated" speech, but we shouldn't idly assume he was in favour of all BBC announcers being RP speakers (I don't know). Citations definitely needed. Flapdragon (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about some help for us Americans?

I find the discussions of phonetics--which constitute the majority of the article--difficult since they were written by Brits for Brits. When IPA symbols are used it's not bad, but often they just write the words normally as though everyone reading this knows how they sound in the U.K.Gene Fellner (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I'm an American who made significant contributions to the coverage of phonetics at this article so it could just be that I have my head up too far up my ass to know what makes sense to readers. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To bring these comments up to date: the IPA articles and most of the articles in the Wikipedia on proper (British) English pronunciation, were written by Americans - how's that for cultural hegemony? - And they got it all wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by kudpung (talk • contribs)

The information in the phonology section is backed up by sourcing. What do you see as incorrect there? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

British Non-Regional Pronunciation

A new article has been started at British Non-Regional Pronunciation. That may or may not be the best way to handle what seems to be a fairly new piece of terminology. Those of you interested might like to call by there and record your thoughts. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone say what happened to the British NRP article? It's being redirected here, but there's no mention of NRP in the article, and RP and NRP are not the same thing at all: article explaining difference. I propose the article be created. Littlewood (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There was an AFD. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just seen this. This is bad. There was indeed an AFD, in which it was agreed to delete the NRP article and merge it here. But all trace of the merge has since disappeared. The NRP article contained a reputable source, and the material should not have been lost. If anybody is currently maintaining this article, please look into this and restore. NRP is probably a minority term, but it is one we should explain somewhere. (I notice that further up this page a user used the phrase NRP in the context of a different point. That in itself adequately attests that the phrase is in use and needs to be explained.) --Doric Loon (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is that article just before it was turned into a redirect: [2]. It was just a first stub, and the decision to merge was certainly right, but the information should not have been lost. --Doric Loon (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an incredibly politically loaded term. This *IS* the regional accent where I was born, for a start, and if I'm honest as a concept Non-regional pronunciation is the invention of tribal and provincial interests who have blurred the article terms like "regions far away from London" (what has that to do with anything?) and the notion that disliking the accent is a sign of decent left-wing political credentials. It would be really nice if we could iron out the (prevalent in Northern England) inverted snobbery against "people from that London", "southerners" and "posh people" from this article, get off the soap-box, and stick to objective facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.94.195 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I added that section, so I should defend it. First, I'd like to state that RP has a political dimension to it: it was favoured by the BBC for such a long time that it has been become associated with the establishment in the minds of many. Until recently, there was no indication in the article that anybody disliked RP, and somebody from a far-flung land might've got the impression that everyone in Britain strove to speak in a certain way. I used Tom McArthur's The Oxford Guide to World English as a reference to show that there are some people in Britain who dislike RP as well as those who admire it. In addition, please do not use insults about getting on soap-boxes! Not everyone has the same views on this subject, and it is the job of Wikipedia to reflect of all them. Epa101 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have altered the section about Non-Regional Pronunciation. Collins & Mees do not reject the phrase "Received Pronunciation" entirely: they just confine it to upper-class speech in the 20th century, and use NRP for [what John Wells would consider] the modern variety of RP. Epa101 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We really need to make a distinction between RP and non-regional/general British somehow. I definitely don't speak RP but there's nothing to tie me down to a particular area. Chrisjwowen (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a British non-regional pronunciation. English? maybe - but I am sceptical that it is different to RP. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As Collins & Mees define it, RP is an old-fashioned variety: think somebody like Brian Sewell or Diana Athill! You can sound non-regional without sounding old-fashioned or upper-class (e.g. Tony Blair). Epa101 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

They are obviously using a different definition of RP to the common usage now. BTW I don't think that Tony Blair is a good example of non-regional, he has some definite "Estuary English" qualities. -- Q Chris (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several different definitions of RP and the article reflects that. Collins & Mees only take one sentence in the article, and I think that their influential book deserves that much. Tony Blair is actually from Scotland (birth and education), so I don't think that you can refer to him as an Estuary speaker. I presume that you're referring to his T-glotalling, but that is now widespread amongst young people in all social classes across the country (odd exceptions such as Liverpool). Epa101 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Prime ministers again

"In the 19th century, there were still British prime ministers who spoke with some regional features, such as William Gladstone. It was not until the end of the century that the use of Received Pronunciation was considered to be a trait of education. As a result ... elitist notions sprang up around it ... Historically the most prestigious British educational institutions (Oxford, Cambridge, many privately funded public schools) were located in England, so those who were educated there would pick up the accents of their peers."

Why are PMs by implication so likely to speak RP? RP is not so much a measure of education as of social class, which is not the same thing; it was and is a principal marker of high social class, not something that was unnoticed until somehow "elitist notions sprang up around it". Politics is a funny old game and PMs are not necessarily the incredibly highly educated or even socially elevated; for example, some have come up through the trade union movement. Ramsay MacDonald (in office in the 1920s and early 30s) was the son of a Morayshire farm labourer. John Major, like Attlee and Thatcher (who would have learned her RP at university, and later had her speaking style rebuilt by elocutionists), came from lower-middle-class roots and his status as an RP speaker is debatable. And the PM is PM of the whole of Britain, while RP is not by any means a universal marker of educated/posh speech in, eg, Scotland where our current (non-RP-speaking) PM comes from, as many of the top names in Westminster politics have done over the years. Try telling them in the ancient Scottish universities and public schools that the most prestigious institutions are in England!

I suggest this para is confused, contradictory and full of debatable unsupported assumptions, and I for one would like to see some pretty good sources backing up specific assertions. Otherwise most of this should be pruned as, at best, unhelpful. Flapdragon (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Audio file issues

The audio files linked to at the bottom of the article are not playable unless using non-free software. Floker (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that that's not true. Thegryseone (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It really should be free. I wouldn't link those audio files if they weren't free, because I wouldn't pay for software just to listen to them. I listened to all of them and they worked just fine. If you tell me exactly what goes wrong when you click "play" then I may be able to help you. I might have downloaded something a while ago to listen to them, but it was certainly free. Thegryseone (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

when i said free, i meant free as in freedom, not as in beer. Floker (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? You can listen to it, and hear what RP sounds like. I thought that was the point. Thegryseone (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I see what Floker is saying, as the free encyclopedia, we have certain standards of what is acceptable media content on Wikipedia. However, the links at the bottom are to places outside of Wikipedia. Our standard of freedom is a bit laxer when it comes to outside links. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I just think that if there is something to replace them that is not tied into American patent law, it'd be nicer for all of us. Not something to get mad about though, of course. Floker (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Future Edits

As an amateur linguist, I'm going to take it upon myself to add some allophonic description to this article from A Handbook of Varieties of English edited by Bernd Kortmann and Edgar W. Schneider (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004) and possibly some other sources. If anyone disagrees with my edits, then please respond here. Thanks. Thegryseone (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I'd like to address this request for clarification but I don't know what about it exactly isn't clear. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I'd just like some examples. I doubt most people understand what that means. I simply want some examples written in the IPA to clarify what that means. Thegryseone (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think that that particular feature (and others in this article) isn't restricted to RP. This needs to be noted. Thegryseone (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some help

I'll chime in, here; unfortunately, to save writing a small pamphlet, I'll assume some knowledge of basic acoustics and physics. A human larynx creates a sound rich in harmonics during normal speech, and various parts of the vocal tract above it have two principal resonances. Those resonances impart tone color to spoken vowels. Sometimes called formants, the pitches of those resonances are what makes vowels sound as they do. The horizontal and vertical scales are frequencies of those resonances in hertz (Hz). A good book on acoustics of speech should clarify this. It's somewhat unfortunate that this representation is not better known. Regards, Nikevich (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note its negative status?

The article notes the positive status that this accent can have for presenters of formal TV shows, and this applies to the academic community and nobles too, but speaking the Queen's English will not make you many friends in most English schools, and would be far from ideal for fitting in an a pub setting. Gronky (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do have the WP:OR statement in the second paragraph: "Because of its formal nature, using RP in casual circumstances can give the impression that the speaker is overly ostentatious or pompous." Is that what you're looking for? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that. Thanks. I've added a reference now. Hundreds of other references are surely possible, but I just plucked the first one I found. Gronky (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That was a good attempt, but blogs don't usually stand as reliable sources. As a sociolinguistic matter, this claim shouldn't be too hard to find in sociolinguistic journals. Also (and this is relatively minor), "posh" isn't really an appropriate term, especially because of its ambiguity. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Because of its formal nature..."?! How can an accent be inherently formal? That would mean many thousands of people were incapable of speaking informally, or that there was no such thing as an RP pronunciation of an informal word. (How do you pronounce "crap" in RP? -- You can't!) This is not so much Original Research as just a bit silly, and risks implying that RP is just a sort of speech style you switch on in a certain situation, like using longer words or speaking more clearly than normal; yes, there are people who put it on in formal situations (though probably not many nowadays when such linguistic chameleonism is seen as duplicitous or insincere), but it's the normal, native, everyday diction of hundreds of thousands of people. Flapdragon (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't ignore that this is a prestige variety and, as such, is used more frequently in formal situations than other varieties are. It sounds more like you have an issue with the precise wording than with the general idea being expressed. Am I correct? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Obviously we've made the point that it's (in most situations) a prestige accent. Does it follow from that that it's more often heard in formal situations? I'm not sure if that's either true or relevant, and it gets us into muddy waters about what counts as a formal situation. Would we want to say that, say, white clean-shaven men with short hair are more often found in formal situations than other social groups? Flapdragon (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does follow that prestige varieties are heard more often in formal situations--that is, in comparison to other varieties, not in comparison to non-formal situations (I hope you don't think I'm arguing the latter). While I can't say that white clean-shaven men are found more often in formal situations in the UK, the parallel here would be saying that formal situations have a higher frequency of clean-shaven men than bearded men (I'm not touching the race or gender aspect because those have more to do with unpopular forms of discrimination). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical variation: some stuff to sort out

Joseph Wright's work suggests that, during the early 20th century, words such as cure, fewer, pure, etc. were pronounced with a triphthong /iuə/ rather than the more modern /juə/.[ref: Joseph Wright, English Dialect Grammar, p.5, section 10] The older pronunciation is still common in speech across the North of England and Scotland.

What's the source for this? Citing Wright's grammar itself as a reference for an extrapolation from that primary source looks like OR to me. Also, the (extremely academic and subtle) distinction between [iuə] and [juə] clearly would not work in Scotland where AFAIK all accents are rhotic (so /r/ wd replace /ə/).

The change in RP may even be observed in the home of "BBC English". The BBC accent from the 1950s was distinctly different from today's

Except that there is no such thing today as "the BBC accent". Never was really, it was just shorthand for the kind of accent spoken by people that populated such (then) elitist establishment organisations, when regional accents were not heard from announcers and newsreaders. This is just a way of restating the assertion that RP has changed over the decades. Which is true, but it could use a proper source, something a bit more authoritative than Harry Enfield's imitation of his idea of the RP of the 1950s.

There are several words where the traditional RP pronunciation is now considered archaic: for example, "medicine" was originally said /ˈmedsɪn/ and "tissue" was originally said /ˈtɪsjuː/.[ref: David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p.307]

The reference should support the assertion that /-sj-/ is older than, and has been replaced by, /-ʃ-/. I have Crystal's book in front of me and it says no such thing. The words medecine and tissue appears only in a list of words with different pronunciations in RP and General American. Wells's excellent webpage hints at this with its reference to yod coalescence (point 9) but doesn't specifically mention it.

Flapdragon (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Archaic seems too strong, I say /ˈmɛdsɪn/ and I'm only 21. Although I think it is the case that a yod after /s/ or /l/ does now sound either very precise or extremely upper class if spoken by a young person. There might be references on the British library website or Jack Windsor Lewsis's website. Derbyadhag (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Derbyadhag (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

/h/ becomes voiced?

Currently the article states /h/ becomes [ɦ] between voiced sounds. This appears to be unsourced. While I agree that this kind of realization of a word like ahead could occur in extremely casual or hurried speech, it definitely isn't standard. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Lazybones! Look in any of the standard British works on English phonetics (which usually means RP) and you'll find the voiced allophone of /h/ described. It's been a commonplace is such works for a hundred years. 109.154.175.82 (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ireland"

Does the word Ireland normally have two or three syllables in RP? I guess my real question is are the triphthongs of RP normally disyllablic? Thegryseone (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I have a very different difficult time distinguishing between Ireland and island in RP, whereas in most American accents, it's very easy to hear the distinction. Ireland has three syllables and island has two. Thegryseone (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's quite right: most would say that American "Ireland" is also only 2 syllables. What makes it easier to distinguish the words in American accents is that the "r" is realized: [aɪəɻlnd] versus [aɪlnd]. In RP, the "r" is not pronounced, so the only difference is the schwa: [aɪəlnd] versus [aɪlnd]. Since some speakers may insert a schwa before "l" as a matter of course, the distinction then collapses. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm American and I say Ireland with three syllables. Thegryseone (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Do "higher" and "hire" sound the same to you? Grover cleveland (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Now I recall that we've had this discussion on another talk page. I can't remember if you were involved or not. What you said earlier is probably true for most Americans. I honestly haven't listened that closely to how many syllables other Americans have in hire and similar words. I tend to assume that everyone else speaks like me, but that's often not the case. Thegryseone (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Three forms?

The paragraph states that there are three forms of RP. Conservative, general and advanced are the forms given. I see also there is a source by a writer named Schmitt. Sadly we are unable to consult the explanation by Schmitt online at the minute. I question however, might this all just be a case of original research by the original editor? I cannot truely believe that there are three contrasting variations. All I know is that ever since the inception of a special pronunciation type, it has changed generation by generation along with the norms of the language itself. It is clear that RP used on broadcasts from the 1970s are significantly different from the RP of the 1930s, or from the very earliest recordings of sound. I don't doubt that the age factor also meant that two variations existing simultaneously. However, two things: first, every generation has known exactly what constitutes RP, and second, RP maintained a number of features which remained the same. I gather then that general is a mixture of ones regional accent with RP as opposed to conservative which is a pure form. But what I wish to know is what on Earth advanced is? Speaking as a 33-year old, I contend that there is nobody in the UK below ther age of 50 (and very few much older) who speak with anything that can be considered RP. The changing attitudes in the last 30 years condemned the pronunciation and the barron period in English teaching followed by the replacement of prescriptive grammar with descriptive methods has also contributed to the demise of RP. I know many young people think that they have a neutral accent, but that is partly because they do not know what RP really sounds like but mostly because they do not hear themselves!! Have a listen to the anchormen on many of the news networks. Clear and pleasant sounding they may be, but you can invariably detect their region of origin by listening closely. The biggest giveaway (what they fail to realise) is that whilst they feel that they are immitating the accent, the pronunciation effect is not yet complete. There is breathing technique, intonation and place of articulation which needs to be mastered before a 25-year old can sound both natural and like Churchill. A skeleton of a standard language remains but I argue that advanced RP or anything exisiting among the young does not exist and that the mention of it is purely original research. Evlekis (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Hannan sounds pretty RP to me in this YouTube video. He was born in 1971, which would make him 38 years old. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well spotted Grover. I am forced to reconsider my previous remark. That accent is certainly a modified version of RP, descended directly from the earlier pure forms. He, as a conservative, puts his leader Cameron to shame; at least as a speaker. The likes of Hannan are still rare however. To have heard him speaking on Today In Parliament or any other Radio 4 broadcast, I would have predicted that this was a much older gentleman and I mean that in a positive way. I maintain my position that he is one of very few for this generation. Going back to my original point, are there really three forms or is it just that RP changes with every generation? What would make Hannan's speech advanced and who uses general? These are the things the article lacks. Evlekis (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Evlekis. My guess (and it is no more than a guess) is that "conservative", "general" and "advanced" simply refer to the speech of different generations of RP-speakers. However, I have to take issue with some of your assumptions about RP. You seem to think that there was once a "pure" "conservative" RP spoken by Churchill, from which later speakers deviated in some kind of negative way, and which must be "mastered", presumably through years of study. In fact the only speaker who ever spoke like Churchill was Churchill himself. Most RP speakers have always learned their speech naturally from family and friends during their youth, not through lessons or conscious study. And the RP of the early-mid 20th century itself was not "conservative" in some important ways. Here are a few of its changes with respect to its late-19th century counterpart:

* Loss of the horse/hoarse distinction

* Some yod dropping after /s/ and /l/

* Advancement of the "goat" vowel from [oʊ] to [əʊ]

Looked at comparatively, RP is "conservative" in some respects and innovative in others. RP is clearly less conservative than an Irish or Scottish accent. It's slightly more conservative than Estuary English. It may be approximately equally conservative to some General American accents. Whether this makes it better or worse than them I leave to others to decide. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is better or worse. Thegryseone (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and just in case you were curious, those three distinctions within RP that you (Evlekis) mentioned (conservative, general, advanced) were proposed by a phonetician named (or "called" for my friends in the British Isles) Alfred C. Gimson in 1980, so no, by no means do they constitute "original research by the original editor." Conservative RP is defined as the type of RP "used by the older generation and, traditionally, by certain professions or social groups." General RP is defined as the type of RP "most commonly in use and typified by the pronunciation adopted by the BBC." Advanced RP is defined as the type of RP "mainly used by young people of exclusive social groups - mostly of the upper classes, but also, for prestige value, in certain professional circles."

Gimson's successor, John C. Wells, on the other hand, recognizes mainstream RP, U-RP, and adoptive RP. He also finds it "convenient to recognize a rather vaguer entity, Near-RP." Mainstream RP (which corresponds to Gimson's general RP) can be defined by what it isn't, and it isn't U-RP or adoptive RP. U-RP stands for upper-crust RP or the RP of the upper-classes, which distinguishes it from mainstream (upper-middle-class) RP. Wells says it has a special voice quality, manner of delivery, and some salient phonetic characteristics (I could go into more detail about these phonetic characteristics). Adoptive RP is spoken by those who did not speak RP as children, but adopted it later. They do things in their speech that natural RP speakers do not do, like using a clear l in all environments, for example, as a result of hypercorrection. Finally, Near-RP comprises "accents which are not exactly RP though not very different from it."

Alan Cruttenden (2001), in his revision of Gimson's work, lists general RP, refined RP (upper class and associated with certain professions which traditionally recruit from the upper class), and regional RP (RP with a small number of regional features, such as vocalized /l/ in milk or /æ/ for /ɑː/ in path). Cruttenden allows for some regional differentiation (within RP), which Peter Trudgill excludes as a possibility for RP.

The classification system of this web site is like that of Gimson, except it uses the terms conservative RP, mainstream RP, and contemporary RP rather than Gimson's conservative RP, general RP, and advanced RP, respectively.

Things can get very complicated and confusing with all these ways of classifying the types of RP, as you can see. Thegryseone (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A return to the above

I began this discussion then completely forgot to ever return to this article. A million apologies. I originally doubted this advanced form but it looks as if it has been known for some time. As such, I am sure that we can add the likes of Wells and Gimson as sources for this particular usage. Either way, I still say that there are very few (and I certainly know of none) young persons who use any form of RP. However one defines RP, it can only be considered RP if it contains certain characteristics. First, it should be universal (there can be no northern RP as opposed to a southern RP); second, it should be known across the language zone that the accent used has pride of place; and third, the modern register needs to be directly descended from the previous form (it cannot therefore be RP if it replaces a conventional pronunciation with its Irish counterpart - even if Irish is more conservative). I may sound like an unliberal and pedantic misery-guts here here, but I do not accept that the pronuciation of the vowel in off rhyming with rock is RP where there are still many who give it the ball vowel pronunciation - including me at 33. There are others who continue to use this form: all the true Londoners (from where its place in RP originates) and some older people from outside the south-east too. As such: off rhyiming with rock (vowels) - even if the user considers his/her speech to be "neutral" - is an example of regional usage drawn from areas outside of the RP catchment area. If Grover and Thegryseone still visit this page, I'd appreciate your remarks. Evlekis (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are interesting criteria, but we've got to use sources. If you still don't have access to Schmitt, here's the relevent quote:

Other researchers, following Gimson (1962: 84f.), distinguish between Conservative RP (CRP; used mainly by older speakers with certain social and professional backgrounds), General RP (GRP) and Advanced RP (ARP; spoken by the younger generation).

"Gimson (1962)" is An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English by Alfred Gimson. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we must use sources. I have every confidence in Gimson and Schmitt. We need to find a way of marking the text on the article with these references. My point was simply to establish that whatever RP is today (in its advanced form), we as editors all need to be certain as to what that register is (Grover sited Daniel Hannan earlier, which is a good example). Like this, we won't go awarding this remarkable status to individuals who do not qualify!!! :) ----Evlekis (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Evlekis, it is a common observation in linguistic circles that the layman is ever so keen on giving his opinions on linguistics matters and believes that being a member of the speech community makes him an expert on the language. A bit like having a body makes you an expert on biology and gives you the right to lecture your surgeon. I suggest you do some basic reading before you put your ill-formed views here for all to see. Your use of the NORTH/FORCE/THOUGHT vowel in the CLOTH lexical set is a non-RP regional feature local to London (or South Africa!) these days. Yes, you are indeed unliberal and pedantic, and must share the fate of all such commentators - egg on your face! Those who live by pedantry, die by pedantry. The same law of pedantry that gives you the right to criticise others can be invoked to condemn you. At least be a good pedant and do your homework! 109.154.175.82 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Clive Upton distinguishes between "northern RP" and "southern RP", and his model has been adopted by the Oxford Dictionary. In addition, Daniel Jones and many others defined RP so that it only covered the south of England. I am aware that John Wells and some others consider RP to extend across England and Wales, but this is not a consensus. The problem with English is that it is an anarchy in its governance, and no two people speak identically. Churchill is mentioned above, but Jack Windsor Lewis has pointed out that he had non-RP forms (e.g. dropping an h in "at home). Epa101 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wales?

There were some references to "England and Wales", that conflicted with other parts of the article. As there is no supporting evidence that RP carries any particular _prestige_ in Wales, over and above the Welsh accent, I have removed these claims. I'll put them back gladly, if anyone can find a good source that suggests that a Welsh accent has lower prestige inside Wales than an RP one does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk • contribs)

I also wonder if this is true at the present time, particularly since the reference provided is rather out-of-date (1981).Jimjamjak (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How can BBC English and Queen's English both be classed as RP?

There are huge differences in pronunciation between BBC English and Queen's English. The accent spoken on BBC television (e.g. on news and documentaries) is very neutral, and more like Home Counties pronunciation. Queen's English, as spoken by upper-middle and upper classes is more what we would call "posh". Or is BBC English regarded as the 'posher' accent spoken on Radio 3 and 4, and what used to be used on TV in the 1950s? For example, in Queen's English the words 'Off' and 'Golf' are pronounced as 'Orf' and 'G-oh-lf'. This very different to the more neutral BBC pronunciation.

Whether or not the royal family actually speaks the same accent that is traditionally spoken on the BBC is sort of moot. People use the terms interchangeably. Or are you not referring to the royal family? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how two accents that are very different can be called the same thing.

Can you be more specific? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The solution is simple. "BBC English" does not refer to what you hear on the BBC today. It is a historical term referring to the way English was pronounced on the BBC 40/50/60 years ago, when it did indeed sound like the poshest upper-class accent, a.k.a. the King's/Queen's English. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not refer to any form of speaking as "posh". Whenever I hear of one sounding "posh", it emerges that he/she does not so much talk in BBC English (as mentioned above 40/50/60 years ago) but rather in a highly unnatural and inconsistent guise blatantly obvious from the outset that the speaker is attempting to immitate the queen. In other words, snobby. True RP is not snobby, it is developed naturally, and used naturally. Evlekis (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I talk posh, and I'm not afraid to admit it or use the word - and it's 'posher' than today's BBC English, but I hardly think I would consciously want to imitate the queen! But I'm also capable of code-switching ;) The reference to the the Royal Family's accent however is actually quite a good one (as long as we don't use it in the article) because all people in the UK can relate to it as a comparison with all the other accents. Forty or 50 years ago, television presenters, new readers, weathermen, and sports commentators did indeed speak with the same squeaky, almost nasal Public School accent. Nowadays however, the BBC has become a pioneer of classlessness. Media, communications, immigration, and domestic travel - and not, surprisingly education - have probably been the main contributions to the watering down of regional UK accents in all but the remotest areas.--Kudpung (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

But listen to recordings of Queenie when she had just ascended to the throne in 1952 and compare them to recordings of her nowadays and she too has undergone a huge 'watering down' of her accent. 86.159.39.99 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it, a thousand times, almost as many times as Chamberlain's declaration of war in 1939. Changed, yes it has done, but natural? No sir. Liz didn't speak naturally then and she doesn't now either. Kupdung - so very honest of you to describe your accent as "posh", but I fear you may be dishonouring yourself. It depends when you say "posh", what exactly do you mean? The only person I have never known to describe herself as "posh" is that blancmanche Joanna Lumley. Do you sound like her? Half the time, Welsh, to my ears, unnatural and disgracefully inconsistent, bogus, affected, and out of harmony with itself one moment to the next, even worse than Pennelope Keith? Or do you sound like the late Leonnard Rossiter (in Reginald Perrin, not Rising Damp), or the late Trevor Hawthorne (aka Sir Humphrey)? Or the late Paul Eddington (television's PM)? Tom Baker? Peter Jones (Hitchhiker's Guide narrator)? If you sound like those in the latter list, please do not inult them by referring to something similar to them as posh when it is clearly the case that those persons did precisely acquire their accents, receiving them naturally as is evident by their breathing techniques, intonation, diction and natural approach; all the features lacked by the Joanna Lumleys and the Prince Charlses who think of themselves as flash!!! Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Status

Can someone explain the reference to the University of Leeds under this heading? Is there a word missing somewhere? Anna Lowenstein (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty muddled paragraph, and would benefit from some work - but I assume the point is that at the University of Leeds an RP accent was the norm, even though the city as a whole used (and still uses) a very different accent. Likewise for Edinburgh etc - ialands of RP or RP-like accents in a sea of regional speech patterns. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Harold Wilson

How many of us clearly remember the great man and scholar or his accent. Whatever, I do, and I think to suggest that he alone changed the way anyone in Britain speaks is being a bit fanciful; I've tagged it as such. I'll remove the statement too, if someone doesn't quickly find a source for the claim. With his background in academia it would have been almost impossible for him to not adopt RP at least some of the time. His native Yorkshire accent might well have been rekindled and coached as part of the image-making of him as the the leader of the traditional cloth cap party. Code-switching par excellence? --Kudpung (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The tagged statement doesn't suggest that he alone changed attitudes ("one of the catalysts") but you're right that it should be removed if no one can find a source. It strikes me as potential OR. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oxford English

"the production of dictionaries gave Oxford University prestige in matters of language". This is so confident I daren't intrude the actual cultural role of Oxford. --Wetman (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Abercrombie

Abercrombie (1956:44-48) argues that RP use is socially advantageous over other English dialects within England but carries no "special privileges" outside England. - I don't know what Abercrobie says because I don't have the book here. And for that reason I would suggest the statement is rather sweeping. While for a Scot or a Welsh person to lose his/her native accent would accord no extra privileges, he/she will certainly distinguish between an English English speaker with a regional flavour and one who speaks RP, and consequently accord the speaker the social class that matches it. I think it's fairly obvious what is actually meant here but it needs some rephrasing.--Kudpung (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest rewording it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't, that's why I didn't WP:BOLD and fix it when I came across it, but I'm sure one of the regular editors to this article will find an apt solution.--Kudpung (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a little confused as to why it needs rewording. Is it just awkward prose or is it saying something that seems wrong or misleading? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Awkward prose - if it's a case of putting a label on it. Difficult for Americans to understand maybe, because regional accents there don't carry the same social stigma that they do in England.--Kudpung (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should add, Abercrombie is nearly 60 years out of date and therefore can no longer be WP:RS. I notice that since my comment in February no one has taken the initiative to rectify the situation. As I advocate an accurate encyclopedia, I will make the necessary changes on 21 April.--Kudpung (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable People?

This article would benefit greatly from a short list of notable British folks who speak with this accent. To most americans, brits don't sound like they're speaking English so much as chewing on it and spitting it out...such a list would offer a fascinating context of identifiable people perceived as having an accent by their native countrymen.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A good idea, but such a list would probably be suggestive, and may offend the named native speakers. I won't say here what most Brits think of American accents ;) --Kudpung (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would a named native speaker be offended? Cls14 (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably because, as demonstrated throughout this discussion page, the definition of RP is so subjective that to name any assumed speakers of it might be contentious. Not least because the named speakers themselves might not agree, and the claims by Wikipedia could be considered libelous. Associating the names of people in articles, with possibly contentious or unprovable statements, also comes under WP:BLP.--Kudpung (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of George Bernard Shaw's quote: It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him. However, this is getting a little silly. Wikipedia has lists of speakers with other accents, e.g. New York. If, as you suggest above, British people hold speakers of all American accents in disdain then, by your own arguments, the New York list must also be libellous, which is ridiculous. As long as a list of RP speakers is referenced then it is fine. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I do think that "libellous" is a bit extreme, I think that there is a difference. I don't think that any people on the list of people with a New-York accent who would not consider themselves as having an American accent. On the other hand there are quite a few people who would consider themselves to have "refined regional accents", who could end up on the list of RP speakers. I personally know an elderly upper-class Yorkshire woman who gets very upset when people tell her that she doesn't have a Yorkshire accent. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarify tag for RP being used as a standard for pronunciation

I added a clarify tag to the sentence, "RP is used as the standard for English in most books on general phonology and phonetics and is represented in the pronunciation schemes of most dictionaries." This sentence is currently found in the second paragraph of a section titled "Usage". The statement needs to clarify whether it means books and dictionaries in all English speaking countries, just the United Kingdom or just England. Not having an extensive knowledge of the subject, I would say that there is a decent chance that it applies to England, a smaller chance that it applies to the entire United Kingdom, although it may apply to parts of the UK other than England. Perhaps it even applies to some or all of the former British colonies. However, I would say that there is virtually no chance that it applies to the entire English speaking world, particularly the United States. Whatever region or regions it does apply to should be noted and one or more reputable citations should be given as evidence. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What many people ignore is that although US Americans may out number the citizens of the United Kingdom by 6 : 1, on a global scale, BE is probably far more widespread as a first and second official national language, and taught in schoolsaround the world, especially in the European Union (pop. 450,000,000). Most EFL textbooks are based on RP because most of them are written by authors contracted to OUP and CUP.--Kudpung (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused: what countries apart from the UK have British English as "a first and second official national language"? In fact I don't believe that the UK actually has a legally defined "official language", so perhaps the number is zero. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

None, ASFAIK, and it wasn't what I inferred. --Kudpung (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research? Section tag.

In the section Received Pronunciation#Comparison with other varieties, some of the statements may indeed be true, while others are vague and require further clarification. As the section has only one single inline reference, the entire section could eventually be based on OR. If these statements are indeed already covered by earlier footnotes, it may add to a reader's comfort and experience to include them in this section.--Kudpung (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you think it's untoward, go ahead and tag any statements that you question or that you think should be cited. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Because many readers will assume each one of the bulleted statements to be correct, and because the the whole point of building this encyclopedia is to strive for accuracy, each one of them should really be sourced acording to WP:V and WP:RS ( verifiability, not truth... bla bla bla, etc.), besides which, the comparisons with AE don't really come into it either, do they? The focus of the article should really be on RP, and not include a discussion on the differences between AE and BE. The new reference for requested clarification just links to another Wikipedia article - one that has also been tagged for the last three years as OR.--Kudpung (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking over each other. You tagged a statement with {{clarify}}, which is used when the wording of a sentence is ambiguous. I attempted to make it less ambiguous with a quick fix (a wikilink). If you're concerned about verifiability, you can tag citable statements with {{citation needed}}. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, but it looks untidy. Perhaps just a {{Refimprovesect|date=}} section tag would look better and attract more attention.--Kudpung (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're serious about WP:V, making a section look ugly with fact requests might prompt editors to do something about it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. But I do try to see things from a reader's comfort, and not just from my point of view as an editor.--Kudpung (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In further hindsight, I think the whole section on 'comparison' should bedeleted from the erticle. After all, it's misleading, and quality is more important that quantity. Too many editors tend to pad article out unnecessarily just to see their own words in print (bzw. on screen). --Kudpung (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All the claims in the section seem pretty sound to me. I've started adding cites for them. Give me a couple of days and they should all be done. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not about to delete it. That the difference between a thret and a suggestion. I make suggestions. The suggestion above was the the section is possibly not even relevant to the articloe as a whole.

Thanks. Obviously I disagree as to relevance: hopefully we can find a way to resolve this. :) Grover cleveland (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Grover, now that the renaming fiasco is over, we can get down to some serious business again about improving this article. I can see you disagree with the relevance so let's try to resolve this towards maybe an acceptable compromise, and I would also welcome any input from Aeusoes. First of all, you have probably noticed, as Aeusoes has already, from my other work on this encyclopedia, that I strongly disagree with any attempts by Americans to write or rewrite articles about British English. There are enough highly and genuinely qualified British linguists here who can do the job, and there is a lot of apparent interference from American editors on how they think (WP:OR) British English is, or should be spoken. My contention therefore, is that this article is about British English and that it is misplaced to try and Americanise the Wikipedia by comparing this version of English with other foreign accents of it, i.e. American. Otherwise it will set the trend for making such comparisons as Scottish malt whiskey with Kentucky Bourbon, which are two completely different drinks, although in America the bourbon might commonly and loosely be referred to as whisky, or Bolivian red wine with Bosnian white, although they are both (well almost) wine. If anything, I would heartily recommend a merging of this entire RP article with any one of British English, American and British English differences (which also almost entirely the work of an American), or English language in England (which is highly controversial but probably the best choice from title). I would then offer to help rewrite the respective article for global balance, and find better references for it.--Kudpung (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a fair to incorporate sources from England to create a POV balance. I don't think a comparison with other varieties of English is unwarranted, though such a comparison should be dwarfed by the rest of the article. I don't think it's necessary to merge this article into another (at least, not the ones you've suggested) as RP is its own phenomenon. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

{{move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Received Pronunciation → Received pronunciation — There is no rationale for capitalization for this general phenomenon. Wetman (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's capitalized in all the sources that talk about it. All the ones I've seen, anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per Aeusoes, move opposed: RP is a proper name for something and should be capitalised.--Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I have always seen "Received Pronunciation" capitalized. It's not "pronunciation that someone received." Maurreen (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's capitalized in my dictionary. --DAJF (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Assuming we trust our own sources, the term was coined as a proper noun, and is used as one.--Atemperman (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Ot is a proper noun, denoting a particular dialect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The King's English is capitalized, but why is this different from, say, Interesting Fact or Proper Attire?--Wetman (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Because those aren't proper nouns. If you don't know what that is, you ought to click the link. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Common nouns are generally only capitalised when they are part of a tile such as for a book or a song, e.g.: The Wind in the Willows.Kudpung (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)(forgot to sign)

• Oppose. It is capitalised for the same reason as St Petersburg and New York. Look in the dictionary. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose "Received Pronunciation" and "RP" are more common. —innotata 20:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RP isn't the type of English used over England!

In England there isn't one type of English used all over it. For example: a Yorkshireman (someone from Yorkshire) wouldn't use the same words as someone from, eg. Surrey. So having it say that RP is used all over England is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olland (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The claim isn't that RP is used exclusively all over England. You know that, right? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't see where it says RP is used all over England either -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RP is understod and spoken all over England by many but not all people, parallel with, in many places, a local or social accent used by many but not all people. --Kudpung (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A trivial example might be using soap operas. A 'posh' person in Eastenders (set in London's East End) will most likely sound like a 'posh' person in Emmerdale (set in rural Yorkshire). Although they are from different geographical regions they would both sound the same. Not that I consider posh and RP the same but you get my drift! Cls14 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

RP is not 'posh' English as you correctly infer. It is an accent that is largely devoid of any social and/or regional bias. It is used and understood all over the country, and is reflected in the IPA transcriptions for pronunciation in all British English textbooks and British published dictionaries.--Kudpung (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Devoid of any social bias? Oh, come on... how many manual workers who dropped out of school at 16 speak RP? "The way a person speaks was held [in a British survey] to be the most important single factor one uses to determine a person's class affiliation". Wells, Accents of English I, p. 29 Grover cleveland (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree; yes, RP is indeed a plain accent that is largely devoid of any social and/or regional bias. It is used and understood all over the country, and many people assume that it is often the badge of a good educatioin and will strive to adopt it to improve their careers; Nobody is denying that the UK is one of the last countries in the world where speaking 'dead common' will still slam the door to a lot of jobs that require employees to maintain an educated appearance.--Kudpung (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I obviously don't understand your use of the word "social": if it doesn't refer to class and/or educational background, what does it refer to? What would, in your opinion, constitute "social bias" in an accent? Grover cleveland (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If we take posh to mean "associated with the upper class(es)" then RP can definitely carry that association. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not any more it doesn't. There are plenty of non-upper class people who speak with neuttral accents. The confusion is probably with the whining nasal tones of upper-crust affected English typiified by dramatisations of P. G. Wodehouse novels, which even the RF doesn't use, and which has largely died outamong post 60s generations. It is possible that many Americans, especially those who have not lived, worked, or travelled extensively in BE environments, will not fully understand the subtelties of these distinctions in BE. In much the same way, many United Kingdom nationals probably will not automatically recognise the differences between GA and Brahmin.--Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me if I sound a bit incredulous that RP is devoid of any social bias. I don't doubt that there are people of all walks of life who use (or are able to use) RP, but the association still seems to exist. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that RP is strongly associated with class. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

More confusion I think. I believe that my accent is RP and I am not 'posh'. I live in Warwickshire, my father is a nurse and my mother is a care assistant. I work in a call centre. Neither of my grandparents had jobs above lower middle class. My accent is similar to those who live in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire and the northern parts of the home counties. RP is not associated with class but the classic 'posh' accent generally is Cls14 (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

See Trudgill, a respected scholar of English phonology and scoiolinguistics. RP is the accent of the ruling elite/ "the prestige accent". There is a continuum from regional variation to full RP. There is no such thing as "neutral" or "strong/weak" accents, those ideas are unscientific notions borne of social constucts of class prejudice. The regional variations are far old than RP & standard English, and far more conservative, thus you can equally argue that Glaswegian is a more proper English than what the Queen speaks. This article should limit itself to proper linguistic fact and when 'style guide' ideas are used they should be appropriately flagged as 'social attitudes' rather than fact. 94.197.127.204 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)