Why is ârâ not always pronounced in British English?
Rhoticity in varieties of English, features and issues of categorisation
First off, a few words on the concept of rhoticity, its distribution in the world and British English. The pronunciation of ârâ in the English is one of the main features that serves to categorise English dialects: rhotic and non-rhotic ones. What we call rhotic and non-rhotic accents are accents where their speakers would pronounce or not the ârâs even if they are not followed by vowels. If you take the word âfartherâ, two different realisations are possible: [fÉ:Ă°É] if you are non-rhotic and [fÉÉčĂ°ÉÉč] if you arenât.Â
On the one hand, the r-ful American, Canadian, Irish, Scottish and south-eastern English, and on the other hand: most of England, Wales, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.Â
The issue here is that this division lacks in accuracy for it doesnât take into account regional specificities. For example, British English being non-rhotic is a gross over-generalisation because Scotland is rhotic and is included in the phrase Great Britain. We should logically then say English English so as to be more precise but there again we have a problem; while Cornwall is indeed in England, it is inside the rhotic sprachbund. British English is often mistakenly used for the Received Pronunciation (RP) variety.Â
Same thing for the United States. While the vast majority of American-English speakers sport rhotic accents, r-less varieties can be found on the east coast and in the southern states. American English is considered rhotic because most of its dialects are. Below are the places where the âwhiteâ American non-rhotic dialects can be found. This distinction of âwhiteâ American English is opposed to African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) which is relatively homogeneous throughout the country despite great geographical distance. Â
So to clarify, I will use the phrase English English so as to be the most accurate possible even though in reality it doesnât include certain regional accents like in the south-west or Lancashire.Â
Below is the mapping of rhoticity in 1950s England from Professor Harold Ortonâs Survey of English Dialects and in late 20th century in England according to Peter Trudgillâs The Dialects of England:
How and when did it come about?
As the maps above indicate, rhoticity is a recessive phonetic feature in England. Nowadays most local varieties are non-rhotic (Received Pronunciation, Brummie, Scouse, Cockney, Estuary). But how did the ârâ come to be dropped while in dialects like General American realising every ârâ is the norm?
The first traces of deletion of ârâ were recorded in the early 15th century. The first instances of deletion mainly concerned the sequence /r/ + /s/. This resulted in âassâ instead of âarseâ and âbassâ instead of âbarsâ (fish). The phenomenon slowly continues developing in the following century but is restricted to private documents and especially those that were written by women. This is interesting because women are more often than not the spear-head of linguistic innovations. The disappearance of the rhotic consonant is more widely discussed from the 17th century as the phenomenon is spreading so much that it is estimated that by 1790, the London area has grown predominantly non-rhotic. This indicates that the loss of ârâs is a southern development.Â
What is interesting is that the quality of the English R doesnât seem to have a real impact on the loss of ârâ when it not followed by a vowel. Peter Trudgill set up a chronology of the evolution of English: [r > ÉŸ > É» > Éč > Ê]. It started as a trill [r] as you can find in Spanish or Greek, then weakened to a flap [ÉŸ] as in American âtâ in later. It morphed into a alveolar retroflex approximant [É»] as it exists in Hindi or Indian-accented English. It then became the alveolar approximant [Éč] that is used today. The final evolution is the bilabial approximant [Ê] that is emerging in certain areas in England. This is the sound that some speakers make for an [Éč] when their native tongue doesnât have a /w/ sound, like German or Hebrew.Â
Why am I saying this evolution is unconnected? Well, because the rise of present-day ârâ [Éč] seems to date back to the mid-19th century while the loss of ârâ precedes it. In the 16th century, at a time when ârâ was rolled, it already started to fade away. The solution seems to lie in stressing and is twofold. For an ârâ to be left unuttered, it is has to be within an unstressed syllable or be followed by another consonant. In 1740, in a manual destined to French learners of English, the pronunciation of ârâ is thus described:Â
âdans plusieurs mots, lâr devant une consonne est fort adouci, presque muet & rend un peu longue la voyale qui le precede.âÂ
(ââŠin many words r before a consonant is greatly softened, almost mute, and slightly lengthens the preceding vowel.â)
The great softening of the consonant actually translated into a lengthening of the preceding vowel. This is why vowels are longer in non-rhotic English English than General American, compare âhardâ RP [hÉ:d] vs GA [hÉÉčd]. As time went on, in stressed syllables, it seems plausible that the span of action of the stress narrowed to only be effectual on the vowel rather than the vowel and the following ârâ. As languages naturally favour economy, it is logical that speakers set aside a not-too-useful sound. Basically, the vowel sort of stole that of the following ârââs and and became longer.Â
This pronunciation became the norm because it started in the most influential place in England, London and its surroundings. It spread thanks to the top-down influence; a cultural practice is more likely to develop in the lower social classes by imitation of the upper-classes. As London was the economic and cultural centre of the country, everyone wanted to be âLondon-trendyâ, if you will.Â
Why does this ârâ-dropping not concern the US? Because Empire. The US were a colony far before South Africa, Australia and New Zealand were. When the American colonies were founded, English in its entirety was rhotic. Even as time progressed and migrants came in, American English remained rhotic because many of them came from places that pronounced all ârâs (southern England, Ireland or Scotland) or different countries. These migrants would most likely pronounce all instances of ârâs after the fashion of their native tongue, for very few languages deletes its ârâs the way English does.
As for Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they were colonised much later, when prestigious English was predominantly non-rhotic. Once the standard variety cemented in the colonies (after two or three generations of settlers), the influence of later immigrants would be null.
Do any other languages experience the same phenomenon?
Yes, English is not alone in this regard. The most obvious example is its cousin-language, German. If you take the word âsondernâ (âbutâ, âinsteadâ) could be pronounced [ËzÉndÉn] instead of [âzÉndÉÊ]. Here, the sequence of schwa /É/ + /Ê/  forces the vowel to become [É]. French and Catalan have also the habit of not pronouncing some final ârâs. However, it is greatly debatable if this is a clear case of non-rhoticity of if it merely including in the greater trend of final-consonant deletion. For example, French and Catalan infinitives see the final ârâ dropped as in parler [paÊle] and parlar [pÉÉŸËÉ«É] / [pÉÉŸËÉ«a] / [paÉŸËÉ«a]. Portuguese also seems to be affected by the partial loss of rhoticity.
The origins of these evolutions in Romance languages are still mysterious.
tl;dr âRâs are not pronounced in English because of stress; vowels would steal the stress of the following ârâ and add it to its own thus becoming a longer vowel and ârâs in unstressed syllables would be left behind because it is an unnecessary effort. The phonological evolution of the English ârâ did not have any influence on the disappearance because the deletion pre-dates the transformation of ârâ into todayâs alveolar approximant.
areudirty
janainaart
2087
jacobvanloon
snowghoul
turnnoffyourmind
