Talk:Received Pronunciation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archive of debate between various editors of Wikipedia. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Talk:Received Pronunciation. No further edits should be made to this page.

Old[edit]

From here: It was standard practice until around the 1950s for those with regional accents who went to university to change their accent to be closer to RP.

This seems like it’s saying that those people went to university in order to change their accents (and thus an incomplete sentence—it was standard practice for them to… do what?), rather than that it was standard practice for them to change their accents. I’m not so good at rephrasing (can you tell?), can someone else give it a shot? —Frungi 02:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? "It was standard practice until around the 1950s for university students with regional accents to modify their speech to be closer to RP." Adrian Robson 17:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find the suggestion that Harold Wilson "spoke with a strong Yorkshire accent, exaggerated, some said, to appeal to the working classes his party represented" somewhat surprising. To a Northerner, even an émigré like myself, his accent was clearly that of an educated middle-class Northerner which had mellowed slightly through living in the South among RP-speakers, though not deliberately adopting RP like many university graduates, as commented on in the article. It had none of the characteristics of working-class Yorkshire, such as dropped aitches, "but" rhyming with "put", flat 'a' in "father", lack of diphthongs in "know" and "made". etc. It was only remarkable because he was the first Prime Minister from a local grammar school, rather than Public School (i.e. privileged private) background. Many Northern MPs from working-class backgrounds had much stronger local accents, as indeed does John Prescott today. Margaret Thatcher, by contrast, did make a conscious effort to modify her accent, first from East Midlands to RP, and then to take what was perceived as a snobby edge off the RP. RHK 16 September 2005.

You're right, this doesn't quite convey what was going on. The point was that he had adopted RP earlier, probably while he was an Oxford don in the 30s and 40s, and changed back to Yorkshire when he was prime minister, softened though that might still sound to Yorkshire ears. Here's the first source I came across on Google, probably not a very good one but a start if more research is needed. On [1] it says: "Harold Wilson, Prime Minister in the 60s and 70s, had a near RP accent in the 40s, but when it suited him in the 60s he came over all 'Yorkshire like'." The article probably needs to clarify this. The word "strong", as used to describe his accent, only applies in contrast to his previous RP accent, not in comparison to his original Yorkshire accent. Adrian Robson 18:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: should there be a paragraph about words like 'duke' and 'tube', where RP sounds the 'u' as 'you'. d-you-k, t-you-b. In Gemeral American, the 'u' sounds more like a double-o. 'd-oo-k' and 't-oo-b'.

I think this would be a good idea (if it is actually a part of received pronounciation).Haddock420 02:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a feature of most British accents, I would say. It's certainly not limited to RP. The double-o pronunciation occurs in some northern/urban accents. -- Arwel 16:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More East Anglian ("bootiful"), East Midland and to some extent Cockney than northern, I think. I think there is a case for adding this; yod dropping is common enough in non-RP English English that it's not just a British/American issue. I may add it to the Characteristics section.--JHJ 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the sentence that formerly read as:

Therefore, whilst some accents may "drop hs", transforming "hello" to "'ello", or let a t slip to a d (as Americans and Australians do), Received Pronunciation makes sure to enunciate every consonant properly, except for the r consonant, which is not pronounced when it immediately precedes a consonant (as in cart), and which is enunciated at the end of syllables only when linking with vowel sounds.

Many Britons falsely believe that "Americans pronounce 't' as 'd'". Only if a 't' or 'd' sound follows a vowel or fluid and precedes an unaccented vowel or fluid does a difference from RP emerge. The resulting sound is not a 'd', but rather a sort of flap not unlike the Spanish 'r'.

Also, what constitutes "properly" enunciating a consonant is a matter of opinion and linguistic upbringing.

I clarified your change because, had I read that paragraph without first having read your discussion note, I wouldn't have had the faintest idea what it was talking about. I have heard an American pronounce the name "Rita" in such a way that I thought she was saying "reader". Your own statement indicates that to many Britons, American intervocalic /t/s sound like /d/s. Mike hayes 19:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RP is not the same as Home Counties, though some of the following text I've removed could bve refactored in. -- Tarquin

the pronunciation of English traditionally used by the BBC. It implies use of a Home Counties accent to speak the dialect of English used by the British Government for official purposes. It is otherwise known as the Queen's English, BBC English or British English. The term Standard English is also sometimes used. However this should be used to refer to the written language only.

RP is surely not identical to any of Home Counties accents. However it is so similar that someone from outside those counties would find difficulty in telling the difference. If there is another accent which is more like RP than that of the Home Counties, it would be nice to know what it is. Perhaps that of Cambridge ? I certainly find it easier to name accents which are less like RP.

As for the mark of an educated speaker, that's a matter of opinion: from what I can see, an opinion held mainly by RP speakers themselves. I for one have met enough fools with RP accents to consider that it is no more likely to mark a speaker as educated than any other accent. Rather than characterising RP in such a slanted way, it's better to compare it to the various English accents from which it must have evolved. And you won't find those in Northumbria or Wales. The Home Counties, Oxford or Cambridge seem to be much more likely places of origin.

Despite the statement that RP implies no region, it has much more similarity to southern English accents than it does to Irish or Northern English accents. So there is some implication of region. I realise that people learn it no matter where they come from but then Russians often learn to speak English with an American accent. That hardly means that an American accent has no regional implication. It just means that if the Russian's grammar and vocabulary are good enough, listeners will wrongly assume that the Russian is actually American. Similarly someone who has learned to speak RP English will be assumed to come from the South of England unless there is other evidence to the contrary. That's why I prefer the original opening paragraph to the one which you have replaced it with. Derek 23:32 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

Granted, what I wrote needs work. Home Counties accent may seem similar to RP to someone who is not British, but HC is much more clipped with higher vowels than RP. The part about not conveying information about regional origin -- yes, should be clarified about regional origin within the UK -- but that was directly cribbed from David Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, I forget the page reference. RP is the "middle ground", the Platonic ideal, if one will. Technically, nobody actually speaks it. The clearest definition might be to say it is the pronunciation which is used in dictionaries. -- Tarquin 10:27 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have mentioned that RP got its name because it was the accent that was "received" when people (debs, etc) were presented at Court. As for it being the accent of educated people, that was largely an affectation of the late 19th through mid 20th centuries -- Prime Minister William Gladstone certainly didn't use it, he was noted for speaking with a Scouse accent. It's not even the "Queen's English" anymore, as the Queen's accent has noticeably changed at different points in her life. Arwel 20:11 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

I can half remember being told that there is a US equivalent, something like "Standard Midwestern", that is used by network news presenters etc. If there is can someone more knowledgeable make a page and add a link.


Seems that it is called "General American", as described in http://www.xrefer.com/entry/442194, http://ajet.kghs.kh.edu.tw/www/BAindex/PRONU~1.HTM.

I removed this as it's such a matter of opinion that I don't think it can be rescued.

To speak the dialect generally requires some disciplined use of the mouth, making received pronounciation slightly more work than other common accents (especially North-Country English, some Canadian, and most Australian dialects) which hold and use the mouth in a much more laid-back or lazy way.

I certainly haven't noticed Canadians to be "lazy" speakers. Their pronunciation is easily understood -- by me at any rate. I've left in the other parts of the "Isn't RP wonderful?" section which has been added to the end of the article but tried to balance it by pointing out the consonants for which most RP speakers do "use the mouth in a much more laid-back or lazy way". -- Derek Ross

moved from Received pronunciation:

(Anyone with an understanding of phonetics and the phonetic symbols is invited to add to this page, or offer some guidance on the talk page. I can then work through it and add a better explanation of vowel pronounciation - Chimpa 21:59 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC))


I'm unsure about saying RP "drop" the "r" in "charming". From my POV, it's more a case of some dialects adding it. And who says "chawming"? I don't! This is the problem with make-your-own phonetic transcription... -- Tarquin 12:09 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Most non-rhotic accents add an intrusive "r" in phrases like "the ideaRis"; I have heard that that is not true of RP. (Rhotic accents generally do not add such intrusive "r"s.) Is that correct?

How old is the British practice of considering non-rhotic pronunciation to be "correct"? Would it be accurate to say that it had not yet happened in 1850? Michael Hardy 21:44 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I expect that you will find that there is no clear cut date, and non-rhotic pronunciation was accepted in some regions and not others before 1850. Non-rhotic pronunciation is very much a regional thing in Britain, with all(?) of Scotland, Norfolk, and much of the west country using rhotic pronunciation. I would guess that there is about a 50-50 split in rhotic/non-rhotic pronunciation in terms of geographical area, but that in terms of population about 90% of British speakers are non-rhotic.
As for the question of whether RP speakers use an "r" between words, I think that there is a fairly wide definition of what RP is, with some people considering Tony Blair's accent to be RP and others confining it to the aristocracy and 1930s BBC presenters. The tighter definition of RP I think would not allow "r" between words, but I think many people would see the use of the "r" as within the acceptable variations of RP. There is a TV presenter who announces the TV series "Law and Order", who I would consider to speak RP but who uses the "r" between words. This greatly amuses my (American) wife, as to her ears it sounds like "Lore and Awder"! -- Chris Q 06:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about the article saying RP drops the 'r' in "charming". It's not there in the first place, as my dictionary attests. -- Tarquin 22:22 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

This traditional idea was certainly not just confined to England (or even Britain), but was seen in other Commonwealth countries too. My wife tells me that even in the USA, rich families will often have an accent which has many characteristics of RP, and that if I were to move to the USA my accent is close enough to RP to be considered an asset! -- Chris Q 06:43 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm feeling bold. I'm going to risk war with Mr. Maverick by moving this from Received pronunciation to Received Pronunciation. Haha! Do I need to justify this? I mean, that's how it's written whenever I've seen it written. See e.g. Britannica and dictionary.com and the OED... oh, wait, that last one doesn't back me up. Well, that's the first time I've seen it uncapitalised, I'm sure! Maybe I'd better not be so bold after all, and wait to see what other people say. Still, I should point out that "Received Pronunciation" is just as much a proper noun as the name of any language, and of course more so than the names of bird species and dog breeds, which aren't proper nouns at all... -- Oliver P. 22:00 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

War! Did I hear the w-word spoken? Well anyway - I don't have much of an issue with this move. There are always exceptions to any rule of grammar (and that includes capitalization). --mav
What if they had an edit war and nobody showed up? -- John Owens

Okay... but maybe I will wait for another opinion or two, just to see. I'm not feeling very bold any more... -- Oliver P. 02:05 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Boy, this page leaves me wishing for sound files of examples. How do you pronounce "Wales" and " whales" diferently? Rmhermen 23:13 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

"Wales" and... "hwales". The latter is an older pronunciation, still used by some, such as one of my maths teachers at school... I gather that in Old English these words used to be pronounced with a "khw" - where I am using "kh" to represent something like the "ch" in "loch" - and I think back in Proto-Indo-European it was all "kw"... But don't quote me on that. :) -- Oliver P. 02:05 May 3, 2003 (UTC) P.S. - Oh yes, I've just remembered - I read somewhere that the PIE word for wheel had been reconstructed as kwekwlos. I remember some strange things sometimes. :)

Wales starts with a voiced consonant; whales with an unvoiced one. It's the same as the difference between veils and fails, between bails and pails, between dales and tales or between Zales and sails. It's obvious if you know what you're listening for. -- Derek Ross

Surely the difference is in aspiration, not in voice? Well, this person agrees with me... And if you follow the link from the bottom of that page to some posts by proper linguists, you'll find that they write "wh" phonetically as /hw/, i.e. /h/ followed by /w/, rather than as a single voiceless consonant. -- Oliver P. 02:39 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting little article! I know how the writer feels. I think it's arguable whether the difference is voicing or aspiration and that it depends a bit on accent in any case. As a test you could try whispering each of the word pairs and see if a partner with their eyes shut can tell which one you are saying. They should be able to tell the difference between aspirated/unaspirated but not between voiced/unvoiced. -- Derek Ross 02:56 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Removed : == Loss of distinctions between words ==

Received Pronunciation has more homophones than most other English pronunciation systems. For example, most English-speaking people pronounce "formerly" differently from "formally", but in Received Pronunciation they are pronounced the same.


I do not believe that RP has more homophones than most other English pronunciation systems, though I can see why it might sound like that to Americans. American English uses consonants to differentiate between words in places where RP usas voewls; RP has mone destinct voewl sounds than most other forms of English. In the example above, to comensate for the lack of the "r" sound the RP speaker pronounces formally as fOm@li, but formerly as fOm3li, which sound quite destinct to most British English speakers (See SAMPA/English). This might sound like a homophone to an American, most of whome are not used to so many different vowel sounds.

Whereas there are words which are homophones in RP (e.g. Lore, Law), I have no evidence that there are more than in other English dialects, for example Harry and Hairy , Carry and Kerry are homophones in most US dialects but didtint in RP and most British dialects.

It is very difficult for anyone not used to a pronunciation system to detect the differences, for example I lived in Yorkshire for five years before I relised that the Yorkshire pronounciation of "look" and "luck" are not homophones. -- Chris Q 09:58 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that the claim that RP has more homophones than most other English pronunciation systems was a bit dodgy, but the claim that RP speakers have more distinct vowel sounds doesn't sound any more plausible to me. I consider my pronunciation to be near enough RP, but I pronounce formally and formerly in exactly the same way, and I've never noticed any other "r-dropper" distinguishing between those words, either. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the same representations for both words in its pronunciation guides: see formally and formerly. And, as far as I can remember, I've never seen any other dictionaries distinguishing in similar cases. If we change "most" to "some" in the paragraph you've removed, I think it would be accurate.
On the other hand, I'm not sure about the claims that RP speakers are more careful to enunciate sounds than anyone else. I suppose it depends on how you are defining RP - if you're talking about the speech traditionally used by the BBC, then it's obviously true, as people speaking in public broadcasts need to speak clearly, but of course that's true regardless of their accent. If you mean the way people speak in real life, I doubt there is much correlation between accent and clarity of speech. After all, wouldn't you classify the speech of Rowley Birkin, Q.C. as RP? ;) -- Oliver P. 18:37 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to say fOm3li. It comes out sounding as "form early"... the shortness of the second syllable forces a schwa. -- Tarquin

There is a greater number of distinct vowel sounds, for example "caught", "cot", "cart" are different in RP.

Greater than in what, exactly? A comparative only makes sense if you know what it is being compared to. Aren't those words pronounced distinctly by most (or even all?) British people? -- Oliver P. 13:46 25 May 2003 (UTC)

good point. me bad. Needs fixing. -- Tarquin

Do we have any RP speakers here? Could you upload some sound samples? I for one can't even begin to imagine what the difference between caught and cot is... DanKeshet 15:46 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)


I'm an RP speaker. You'll find a sample of the phoneme in "cot" here: media:Image:SAMPA Q dot bomb wasp English RP.ogg. I was planning to do more, but got sidetracked. I've just uploaded the phoneme for "caught" I had on disk from last time: Media:SAMPA O board talk law English RP.ogg -- Tarquin 16:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
What is .ogg file format? ...My computer just sat dumbly... Rmhermen 16:38 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
*cough* search wikipedia! - Tarquin

"(Oxford, Cambridge, many public schools) were located in the south-east". Ahem. Oxford is in the Midlands, and Cambridge is in East Anglia. Neither are in the south-east! GRAHAMUK 09:46, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. Oxfordshire and East Anglia are both in the south-central to south-east part of Britain. They're just not in the region known as the South-East. Nicholas

I'm really not sure about a lot of this, but I don't want to change anything in case I cause an international dispute! I went to an independent school in Scotland, where many of the people (including me) spoke with what can only be described as Scotticised RP accents. To Scots, we sounded English, but to the English, we sounded Scottish. I don't think RP's South-Eastern English connection should be emphasised so much in this article, to be honest.

Like other people, I've met enough RP speakers thick as two short planks to destroy any notion of it being "educated", but it's also true that most of the intelligent people I know speak with slightly- or fully- RP accents, mostly because they use the English language properly with little localisation/dialect/slang.

Anyway, I'll leave any decision to change things up to someone else, I don't want to do something silly. -- Taras 11:57 04 Sept 2003 (UTC)

I think Taras has a point here. And apart from the specifically Scottish example, it might be good to mention the kind of regionalised RP that is often spoken. i.e. it's no longer common for people to take elocution lessons to completely eliminate any trace of a regional accent, but people wishing to appear educated will often speak in RP-with-a-regional-flavour. Marked regional accents are still perhaps lower status - acceptable for yoof TV presenters and comedians, but not yet BBC newsreaders or cabinet ministers. Harry R 09:40, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of the transformations of words when spoken with a received pronunciation are as follows:
  • "Oh!" is pronounced as a diphthong, with a w sound to round off the word.
  • "Room" is often pronounced with a short vowel sound.

Why are these being called "transformations"? What are they transformations from?? The presupposition seems to be that these are ways in which RP differs from other pronunciations. But most non-RP speakers (including me) pronounce "oh" with that same diphthong and pronounce "room" with a short vowel (I'm an American; that's how nearly all Americans pronounce them; we are non-RP speakers, and there are more English-speaking people in the USA than in all other English-speaking countries combined). Michael Hardy 19:47, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Removed assertion that most English dialects are rhotic. In England most Dialects are non-rhotic, the exceptions being the West Country, East Anglia and some parts of the Western Border country -- Chris Q 07:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


"In general, the accent gives great importance to vowel sounds, which are extended and rounded."

Is this correct? I was under the impression that vowel sounds were clipped and short in RP.

A couple of thoughts about the origins of the RP accent and its status, neither of which I've got a clear enough reference for to edit into the main article -

The sheer size and dominance of London within England/the UK means that trends in English have always tended to spread outwards from London (which is why Chaucer, a Londoner, is easier for modern readers to read than the Gawain Poet, an exact contemporary living in the west Midlands). Power, bureaucracy, the law, the Court are all based in London and hence the way of speaking that is associated with those institutions is a London accent. That accent becomes a high-status accent.

But there's a distinction between working-class London accents and educated ones. The explanation I heard for this was that the native dialect for the London area was East Saxon (hence the similarities between modern Cockney and Essex accents), but that literary/clerkly English was derived from the Wessex dialect (because it was established during the reign of Alfred the Great, who was king of Wessex and ruled from Winchester). So that distinction is established between a locally rooted working-class London accent and the somewhat rootless literary accent that serves to mark someone out as an educated speaker.

The trouble is, while the dominant London influence on English is clearly true, the Essex/Wessex theory outlined above may be completely bogus - I can't remember where I read it, and the class system would be enough to create a distinctive educated accent without starting from separate dialects.

And on the subject of class, should the article draw a distinction between what could be called 'neutral RP' as spoken by most middle-class speakers in the South-East, and the kind of 'hyper-RP' spoken by the people who went to Eton or Harrow? And is there a term in linguistics for this kind of class-marker accent?

Harry R 09:26, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone know any celebrities/actors etc who talk with RP?? (apartfrom the queen and royal family). I think it would be helpful to start to build up a list.

fallacy or my own density?[edit]

if "RP speech is non-rhotic, meaning that written r is pronounced only if it is followed by a vowel", then how is it that "'here we are' does not have either r pronounced"?

Because, by "vowel", what is meant is "vowel sound", not "vowel letter". Nohat 23:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It does. It just isn't pronounced as two r's each. Phoneticians are wrong. lysdexia 14:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think the Phoneticians are correct.
He'r'e We - R followed by W, non vowel
are - end of sentence. Pronunciation depends on what follows, e.g., "here we a'r'e again" would pronounce the 'r', but as a sentenc on its own the 'r' is not pronunced. -- Chris Q 06:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Homophones in RP[edit]

I disagree with the statement in the article that Ion and Iron are homophones in RP. The are pronounced (eye:on) and (eye-yun) respectively. I also wish to amend Chris Q above that Law /lɔ:/ and Lore /lɔ:r/ are homophones. They are only so when Law is followed by a vowel. Nicholas

Ion is pronounced either /ʌɪən/ or /ˈʌɪ.ɒn/ (although the COD lists only the first), whilst iron is always pronounced /ʌɪən/, so the two words can be considered homophones. On the other hand, law (/lɔː/) and lore (/lɔː(r)/) are homophones generally, and also, with some RP speakers, if both are followed by a vowel; but not when only one is. Thus, for example:
  • 'Law is' -> /lɔ:rɪz/ or /lɔ:ɪz/ (only the first pronunciation is homophonic with the second sentence)
  • 'Lore is' -> /lɔ:rɪz/
BUT:
  • 'Law was' -> /lɔ:wəz/
  • 'Lore was' -> /lɔ:wəz/
—Sinuhe 09:27, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okay, trying to look at the IPA chart and move my mouth around making silly sounds isn't helping me work out what you are listing, so I'll have a go with words I don't think can be pronounced differently:
  • Are the phrases "I have my eye on you" and "I have my ion you" pronounced identically? I would say yes. I am in Hertforshire, it's never pronounced with a schwa here, more forward and rounded.
  • The vowel sounds in ion and iron are definitely different, iron being closer to a u than an o, iron rhymes with Ryan and onion, and in psudo-english letters I would say it was something like īyun. Nicholas
Well, I would not pronounce the two phrases identically; my pronunciation of ion is with a schwa (and I do think I have an RP accent). But certain dictionaries (such as Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) do list the pronunciation I think you are advocating (/ˈʌɪ.ɒn/). Nonetheless, the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the same pronunciation for iron and ion, and I think it is the COD (and OED, but I'm afraid I don't have that one :( ) that is the dictionary with proper RP.
As for law and lore, it is quite simple really: you can just concentrate on the r's in the pronunciations, the rest is self-evident. —Sinuhe 20:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean?[edit]

The following extract strikes me as being rather odd:

> Received Pronunciation makes sure to enunciate every consonant distinctly, > except for the r consonant, which is not pronounced when it immediately precedes > a consonant (as in cart)

I speak 'Standard English', and I pronounce the r in cart. Is Wikipedia suggesting that I should be pronouncing it as "cat"?

No, obviously not. Pronouncing the "r" in "cart" means making a sound like the initial sound in "ring" just before the "t". That is how most English-speaking people pronounce it, and it is definitely not RP, i.e., in RP one does not pronounce the "r" in "cart" (and, of course, one also does not pronounce "cart" like "cat"; the vowels are pronounced differently). Michael Hardy 21:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you speak received pronunciation you will change the vowel sound (so it won't be like "cat", but the "a" will be like that in "palm"), but you won't pronunce the "r" like they would in Scotland, Ireland or most of the USA. Some English regions, particularly in the West country do pronunce the "r", but not RP. You might be so used to changing the vowel sound that you think t is pronucing the "r"! -- Chris Q 16:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You might say the description "pronouncing the R" is a bit of a value-judgement and is American POV. Maybe it should be emphasising/de-emphasising the R. To my (English, non-RP) ear a lot of Americans on TV say things like "I was struck with horrr when I looked in the mirrr".

Andy G 18:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I think if you got a non-English speaking phoneticist to transcribe the RP English pronunciation of "cart" into IPA/SAMPA they would put [kA:t], without an "r" sound. -- Chris Q 06:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) (who speaks something close to RP)

The salient articulatory feature of the (rhotic) English "r" sounds is what is called "bunched tongue", wherein the tongue is pulled back in the mouth and bunched up. From an acoustic standpoint, the salient feature is a significantly lowered third formant—one that is practically merged with the second formant. These features are true of both "consonantal r" as in "red" as well as "vocalic r" as in the American English pronunciation of "cart" and "her". This analysis is supported by Ladefoged and Maddieson's Sounds of the World's Languages (p. 234-5, 244). The vowels in RP pronunciations of words that have "vocalic r" in American pronunciation have neither the articulatory feature of bunched tongue nor the acoustic feature of a lowered third formant. In other words, there is no "r" in the RP pronunciation of "cart". Nohat 07:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article currently says

Also the l in words ending in "lk" is not pronounced, so "stalk" and "stork" are homophones [stO:k] /st?:k/.

I don't think this is right. Presumably the <L> is pronounced in bilk, bulk, elk, hulk, ilk, milk, silk, and sulk, right? And there aren't any dialects where the <L> is pronounced in stalk, are there? I think the relevant point here is that words that end in <ALK> have same rhyme as words that end in <ORK>, .i.e. [?:k], whereas in rhotic dialects, the former end in [?:k] and the latter end in [?&#633k]. Thus the following are homophones: balk/Bork, caulk/cork, Falk/fork, stalk/stork, talk/torque, whereas they aren't in rhotic dialects. Can someone who speaks RP verify this? Nohat 05:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that in RP it is the "alk" words that sound like "ORK" where the L is not pronounced. My wife is Texan and does pronounce the "l" in stalk. -- Chris Q 08:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sound files needed[edit]

This article would be dramatically improved by the addition of some sound files demonstrating the accent.

Here are some examples: http://www.alt-usage-english.org/audio_archive.shtml#spoken

RP is SE?[edit]

I don't think this is correct. Even assuming that by SE people are not referring to the 'Estuarine' and 'Cockney' accents, with their dropped "H's" and "R'" etc., and instead are referring to Public School English from the SE,(without pausing to consider whether that is any different from Public School accents anywhere else in the UK) there are in my view much better and more likely candidates for the development of modern RP.

It is reasonable to presume that the Public School system tried to emulate that which it perceived to be the accent of the Royal family, or 'Queen's English', and that this may well have formed the initial model,I wouldn't argue with that, but I would contend that modern RP reached it's present form via another route entirely.

It seems to me that, RP has evolved in response to the requirements of modern technology. Recordings, Radio, Film and finally TV. Of these I believe Film has been probably the most influential. If you consider the cast of actors who epitomise the development of standard English aka RP, a common factor is that they have mostly been non-English and have had to undertake elocution lessons in order to ply their trade. Some examples are:-

Scots: Patrick MacNee (Steed in the Avengers), Ronnie Corbett, Alasdair Simms (who actually was an elocution teacher himself before making it in film), James Robertson Justice, Roy Kinnear, David Niven, Ian Bannen, Ian Richardson, Ronald Fraser, Richard Wilson, Brian Cox etc.

Irish: Patrick McGoohan, Pierce Brosnan, Peter Otoole, The McGanns, Richard Harris etc.

Welsh: Stanley Baker, Richard Burton, Anthony Hopkins, Philip Madoc etc.

It is those (or their elocutionists) who have created the international perception of the stereotypical Englishman.

Paradoxically, actual Englishmen in Films tend to be either ex Public School types (luvees) like Ralph Richardson, Michael Hordern, John Gielgud etc. whom American directors love to cast as butlers for some reason, OR they tend to be 'working class lads' Like Michael Caine or Albert Finney etc. neither of those two types habitually use RP although the 'working class' English actors can usually put on learned RP as well when required.

I think the truth of the matter is that Public Schools, SE or otherwise, are the ones moving towards the media honed RP and not vice versa.

I don't think that RP is the "public school" accent, there is a definite difference in vowel sounds. I was brought up in Surrey, and have a definite RP accent, despite going to a state comprehensive school, something that I frequently get ribbed about now I live in Yorkshire. Younger people in the same part of Surrey now appear to speak with more Estuary English intonations, so it may be changing, but at the moment I think it is fair to say that RP is a SE accent, though not "the accent of the SE". -- Chris Q 07:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RP is SE?[edit]

RP is an accent in parts of the SE in the same way it is in parts of other regions of the UK. Basically, it is the accent of choice of middle class communities. However we must not put the cart before the horse. The growth of the middle class and the consequence of entire communities of middle/professional classes is a fairly recent phenomena.

What is interesting is that the couple of generations or so of mothers in these middle class communities have chosen the RP developed largely in Film and TV to drum into their offspring, rather than the much more over the top public school accents portrayed by the luvee fraternity in theatre and film, or indeed Royal family English. It is also the second language of choice for a very large percentage of the UK population. Bi-linguality RP/Local dialect is becoming the norm.

Even in fiercely culturally protective areas like Yorkshire, there are examples where local working class lads have had to 'rid' themselves of their local dialect in order to become actors e.g.s Patrick Stewart, Iain McKellern.

Yes there are swathes of the SE which have acquired RP in the past couple of generations, but, if anything, it is they who have borrowed rather than vice versa. The evidence would suggest that it was mostly developed in non-SE areas. The indigenous SE accent is not RP.

There are satellite towns round most large cities in the UK where middle class communities have become RP dominant, but probably only London where a belt (well a partial belt)of such communities exist.

RP is SE?[edit]

RP and South East are inextricably and undeniably linked. While it may be true that RP does not sound exactly like any one Home County accent, the vowel sounds taught in RP represent those spoken in the counties South of Leicestershire*. Many changes in English seem to spread North from London but regularly fail to bridge the North-South divide. The primary differences are the long and short "a" sounds in words such as ask, bath, grass etc and the South Eastern "u" sounds that have a distinctly "a" sound to Northern ears. While many educated middle class speakers outside of the South East speak in ways similar to RP, the regional vowel sounds often remain. I think a more accurate and representative term might be to speak about Regional Standard English which is used by large amounts of the population throughout the United Kingdom. In my view, in terms of the percentage of speakers, the demographics and the socio-economic groups it is used by, it is a more accurate rival to GA than RP.

  • Geographically Leicestershire is in the English Midlands

Capitalisation of title[edit]

I don't understand why this was moved from Received pronunciation. By this policy it should be Received pronunciation. Reading from the above, it seems this was moved in 2003 because an editor said it was capitalised in Britannica and in some other reference work, and therefore it should be here too. I don't think this is a good explanation. Other works have their own formating criteria and we have ours. What do others think? JoaoRicardo 02:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any feelings one way or the other how it ought to be, but I would think that it would be that this refers to not just any old pronunciation that happened to be received from some other at some time, but rather this particular pronunciation, which was received from so-and-so in particular, during such-and-such era in time. (I'm sure you can fill in the "S-&-S"s from the article.) So that puts it somewhat into the territory of a proper noun, which would validate capitalization/capitalisation. --John Owens (talk) 08:01, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

R's pronounced as Ws?[edit]

Are R's pronounced as Ws normally under RP? Buzzie 20:49, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

No. R's are pronounced as R's, or not pronounced at all, as RP is a non-rhotic dialect. -- Chris Q 07:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See rhotacism#orthoepy for the mispronunciation. Joestynes 10:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A mistake in the transcription of "iron" and "ion"[edit]

I can't see why you've put a semicolon in the transcription of these words. There should be no semicolon (see, for example, Wells's pronunciation dictionary).

'ah' and 'class'[edit]

Surely that depends on how one pronounces 'ah', and therefore isn't a terribly good example? Dan100 17:25, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone break up this 76-word mindbender of a sentence:

It should also be noted that while the rejection of this so-called elitism reflects the predominant intellectual fashion to such a degree that alternative points of view are unlikely to be expressed in the media or academia as they are likely to be countered with aggressive dismissal rather than considered argument, there are still many people in the United Kingdom who privately endorse the concept of a preferred accent for educated people.
I fixed it by removing it, and the following sentence, because besides being overly wordy and almost meaningless, it's an POV assertion that isn't supported by any kind of evidence. Nohat 23:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use of the 'r'[edit]

This section, which would benefit from sound files, should also mention that the soft r is used in RP, rather than a simple dropping of the r sound all together. While some forms of Estuary English do drop the r all together, this tends to be done with point, rather than as the natural way people speak (such as the Cockney pronounciation of 'Geezer' as Geeza-). By comparison, the English pronounciation of r is not an Americansed 'R', but a soft r, sounding of 'er'. It would be helpful to point this out, rather than simply assuming that it is a non-rhotic dropping of r's.

Phonology section[edit]

I've added a phonology section, largely based on the similar section at General American. I think this makes the last section "Speaking with Received Pronunciation" (which strikes me as containing a lot of dubious assertions) largely redundant, but I haven't done anything to it yet.--JHJ 10:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triphthongs[edit]

I've removed this line: 

There are also the triphthongs /aɪə/ as in fire and /aʊə/ as in tower.

These are not triphthongs. They form two syllables each, not one (that would be e. g. Mandarin -iao in syllables like liao, miao...). They are just random collisions of a diphthong and a following monophthong.

David Marjanović david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at 00:14 CET-summertime 2005/8/7

It really depends on the phonological analysis. In many analyses, fire is a single super-heavy syllable. Nohat 03:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC). Indeed, Jones'[reply]
Pronouncing Dictionary doesn't give a syllable break in fire or tower, so I have restored the disputed line. Nohat 03:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typo or convention?[edit]

It seems odd to refer to Fowler as the Fowler's Modern English Usage - or is this a specific reference to the 1965 version? Guyal of Sfere 09:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed 'the'. --Lukas 20:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Canadian raising?[edit]

The article notes that "/aɪ/ as in price is sometimes written /ʌɪ/". To me, these would indicate very different sounds, with the use of /ʌɪ/ for the sound in "price" being a form of Canadian raising, which I thought wasn't generally a feature of RP. But this sentence has confused me, so... what exactly is the nature of the vowel in "price" in RP, the status of Canadian raising in England, etc.? -Chinju 01:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries of the Oxford University Press have (since the mid-1990s, I think) used the symbol /ʌɪ/ for that phoneme, which is why I put it on the page. (I think notational variants used by major dictionaries are worth mentioning.) I'm not really sure why. If you take the symbol [ʌ] literally (as a back unrounded vowel) then [ʌɪ] in price sounds to me like the sort of accent associated with rural southern England and so quite far from RP. On the other hand, I can believe that the first element of the diphthong is similar to the vowel of cut in some forms of RP. (Like most people in Britain, I'm not an RP speaker, nor a trained linguist, so I don't know.) It's closer to the [a] of cat in my own accent, though I think it's not quite as low as the cat vowel.
I don't think the sort of allophonic variation you get in Canadian raising proper (e.g. [aɪ] in prize, [ʌɪ] in price) is behind this; I'm sure prize is shown with /ʌɪ/ too. Googling suggests that Canadian raising has been found in some English accents (such as in the Fens in eastern England), but not RP. I don't feel any difference between the starting points of the diphthongs in price and prize in my own speech. --JHJ 18:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audio clip[edit]

I think this article would become even better if readers were able to also listen to some audio clips. Preferably several audio clips so that the reader get to hear how the dialect has changed over the years. - PJ

Invasive R[edit]

American and British English pronunciation differences mentions the invasive R which is not mentioned here. How much overlap is there between these articles? MaxEnt 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RP is a 'standard' language, it is not really spoken by anyone, the intrusive r is non-standard though often heard in educated speakers.--159F357B 08:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's English[edit]

"Queen's English" redirects to this article, which, however, does not mention the term. If "Queen's English" is indeed a synonym to RP, please add a note to the article, otherwise clarify. Thanks. Simon A. 10:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Queen's English" is effectively a dialect, RP is an accent. They're not the same thing. --Arwel (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the term Queen's English refer to the concept of the crown and country being one ie. the language of the country. Another use is the Queen's Highway, ie a raod controlled by the crown/ country. In all the articles I have read there hasn't been a definition of the origins of the term. Ozdaren 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Queen's English" refers to the type of English used by the Queen - an upper-class dialect. -- Arwel (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, the English people I know in Australia speak of it as being the 'English of the Realm' as opposed to the English Betty Windsor speaks. That's always been my Antipodean understanding as well. Any further support from Australian or New Zealand users? Ozdaren 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand[edit]

For such a famous topic, this page is surprisingly short. And no sound samples! Rmhermen 01:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also RP is historically quite recent isn't it, yet I don't think there's anything about the birth of RP in the article. It just says "has been the prestige British accent", but not for how long.

Cameronlad 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open-mid back unrounded vowel[edit]

This page states the following:

Before World War II, Received Pronunciation had /ʌ/ as a phoneme; this sound has since shifted forward to [ɐ]. Despite this change, the symbol <ʌ> is still used (Roca & Johnson 135). This may be due to both tradition as well as the fact that other dialects retain the older pronunciation.

How true is it? Should it be reported here? Ciacchi 15:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partly true but misleadingly written. The RP phoneme /ʌ/ is typically pronounced as a centralised vowel somewhere between the cardinal vowels [ʌ] and [ɐ]. 84.70.242.118 11:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sound is reported by all phoneticians I've consulted.--159F357B 08:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words ending in -th[edit]

Under Characteristics, it says "A word that ends in th would usually pronounced as ending in v rather than f, as is the case in much of the South." Beg your pardon? Sounds like rubbish to me, because (a) in RP surely th does not become f or v, and (b) I can think of no justification for the implication that -th at the end of a word is generally voiced. I think this can be deleted - but I'd like to be sure before I do so. Any thoughts? Snalwibma 08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've deleted it. Adrian Robson 10:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Of course, a word ending in "th" would still be pronounced that way in RP. I am not sure how someone came to this conclusion. And the phrase "(I) beg your pardon" sounds very stiff and formal and overly "posh" instead of just saying "excuse me" or "what did you say".

Origin of the term[edit]

Can someone knowledgeable on this topic add an explanation of the origin of the term itself? From whom or what is the pronunciation "received"?

Thanks. GilHamiltonII 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking this up just now; the overall consensus seems to be that the word 'received' is taken to mean 'Generally adopted, accepted, approved as true or good. Chiefly of opinions, customs, etc.' (from the Oxford English Dictionary). There is a draft article which looks at the history of the term in greater detail. I'm not confident enough to edit the article based on this much - if anybody has a proper, cited article, that'd be a whole lot better, imho. Gaurav 10:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a check next time I go to the University Library.--200.163.203.53 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglocentrism[edit]

I made a minor edit to clarify that RP is not venerated in books on phonology, or dictionaries, published outside the Commonwealth. My revision was reverted; so, rather than get into a revert war, I take it to the collective wisdom of our fellow editors. Does anybody not agree that RP is not the standard used in U.S. dictionaries, for example? --Orange Mike 01:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you (ex: Merriam Webster's pronunciation of aluminum). This also bring up a problem, RP is an "accent not a dialect" yet is listed in the dialog navigation box as a dialect. -Ravedave 02:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, the most prestigious presses for phonology-related publications are located in Britain, and the use Received Pronunciation overwhelmingly. Other systems, like Estuary English or General American, have still not caught up. "Anglocentric"? What rot, many American phonologists enjoy the use of RP as well. CRCulver 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source either way? I can't understand why American publications would use a British accent. -Ravedave 04:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because popular resources on phonology, like many produced by Cambridge University Press, are just as popular in the U.S. as in Britain. CRCulver 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But they are British publications and use British English, correct? Do you have an example of an American publication that uses RP? I am not trying to be difficult I really am just trying to figure this out. Any opionion on the accent/dialect issue I mentioned above? -Ravedave 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to "figure this out", then you apparently have no training in the subject and really should reconsider editing this article. CRCulver 04:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently are unable to support your argument and are needing to use an ad hominem attack. I am changing back to Orangemikes version unless you can provide a reference, or participate in decent conversation. -Ravedave 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your reasoning here, Culver. American dictionaries do not use RP. RP is used in English works on some topics because they are written in England, not because it has some sacred status. The article as written implies otherwise. What on Earth do you mean by "many American phonologists enjoy the use of RP as well"? They don't affect its use, if that's what you imply, nor give it any special place of honor. Indeed, its existence is more often a subject of mockery (or an occasion for Monty Python quotes). --Orange Mike 05:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any phonological work focus on a specific dialect, which is the object of investigation. I can also add that, at least American dictionaries, have American pronunciation, not British.--201.14.22.38 01:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Links[edit]

I have added those, but someone removed them (without giving any justification), I will not re-insert them as I shan't go into an edit war. I think it is a good idea to keep them, as they provide plethora of sound examples. The "learning english" link, has examples for all of the RP's IPA symbols, with sound, and minimal pair drills. Radio 4 is one of the bastions of RP in the BBC, and it is unquestionable of relevance, since RP is also know as BBC English. It is probably the most representative link we could ever find. --201.14.22.38 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that they seem to be useful links (particularly the first) , and I can't see why they were deleted -- Q Chris 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Queen's English" is not specific to the present Queen[edit]

Received Pronunciation was also sometimes referred to as the Queen's English, because it is spoken by the Queen

Presumably, in the past, RP was known as the King's English when a king was on the throne, and the Queen's English when a queen (e.g. Queen Victoria) reigned. The phrase is not specific to Queen Elizabeth II (currently the Queen), as the article implies. 217.155.20.163 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph: why the fact tag?[edit]

Why does this: "Note that RP is an accent (a form of pronunciation), not a dialect (a form of vocabulary and grammar). A person using an RP accent will invariably (except for comic effect) speak Standard English although the reverse is not necessarily true." need a citation? It seems to be a matter of logic rather than anything else. Maethordaer 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a matter of terminology, you would call the accent RP but the dialect "Standard British English". I have not read this anywhere, it just seems to be implied by a lot of things I have read so I won't add it to the article. -- Q Chris 07:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Standard British English can be spoken in RP or in other accents, as anyone who has traveled in former British colonies can attest. The two are overlapping, but by no means coterminous. --Orange Mike 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- ????

Lead paragraph[edit]

I have just reverted a fairly substantial edit, because it (a) deleted the reference to Fowler and (b) made the wholly unjustified claim that RP = "proper English". No doubt there is scope for improving and tightening the intro, but I don't think this edit helped. Snalwibma 08:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received Pronunciation[edit]

Please see my blog (11 July 2007) for some criticism of this article: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/blog.htm

80.229.29.30 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above comes from John Wells, Emeritus Professor of Phonetics in the University of London, and lead author of a numerous amount of writings on the subject of English pronunciation (see http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/). Jalwikip 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dying out?[edit]

[2] Nil Einne 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a rare form of English[edit]

"Queen Elizabeth II speaks a rare form of English"

Anyone care to explain this strange and vague assertion? She speaks RP, which is not "rare". Flapdragon 09:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"usual accent taught to non-native speakers"[edit]

I don't agree with this statement in the first paragraph. English taught to non-native speakers is rarely RP. Most learners of English learn from 1) a non-native speaker who is unlikely to speak RP and would instead speak with their own accent however close to RP that might be, or 2) native speakers. In the present day native English speakers are always taught to teach how they say and so if they speak with a northern accent, an east-anglian accent or an American accent then this is the form of pronunciation they teach. 217.200.200.54 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an error in wording[edit]

There is a contradiction in Received_Pronunciation#Vowels between a rule's wording and the examples:

If a long vowel is preceded by a voiceless consonant sound (e.g. /p k s/) its length will be equivalent to that of the short vowels, with the exception of /ɑː/ which becomes halfway between long and short. e.g. Burt = [bɜt], seat = [sit], garth = [gɑˑθ].

Burt, garth: the vowel is preceded by a voiced consonant!

What was meant?--Imz 23:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good question. Could it really mean
which a long vowel precedes a voiceless consonant
I.E could it be talking about the voiceless r? -- Q Chris 08:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I think the text is correct and the confusion is the result of a rather strange choice of examples. Certainly, garth does not seem to fit with the text. I cannot see why a Celtic word was chosen when it doesn't even occur in common English (except as a proper noun). I have replaced all three examples with a set which I hope more clearly demonstrate the point. What do you think?
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.153.220 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much better, but I still find this sentence confusing:
The exception being /ɑː/ e.g. marl = [mɑ:l] and vase = [vɑ:z] however hearth = [hɑˑθ] and pass = [pɑˑs].
These don't apper to be exceptions to what was written before, marl = [mɑ:l] and vase = [vɑ:z] are long after voiced consonants, and hearth = [hɑˑθ] and pass = [pɑˑs] are half-long after voiceless ones. (I assume that "h" is voiceless) -- Q Chris 13:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linking 'r' and intrusive 'r'[edit]

"True" RP makes use of intrusive 'r' but other versions of RP do not. However, linking 'r' must ALWAYS be made. Thus "China and Japan" need not have an 'r' sound between the first two words (though it really should) but "before I left" MUST have an 'r' sound between the first two words unless there is a pause between them. That is because "I" starts with a vowel sound. However, "before she left" would have no 'r' betwen the first two words since "she" begings with a consonant sound. I've even heard BBC pronunciations involving INTERNAL intrusive 'r' such as "drawring" for "drawing". Also, while intrusive 'r' is required between a word ending in 'a' or 'ah' and a word beginning with vowel sound, it is not used by all RP speakers between a word ending in 'aw' and a wording beginning with a vowel sound. JC Wells, for example, will pronounce "Christina Onassis" as "kristinerunasis" but will pronounce "Law and Order" as "lawandawde" rather than "lawrandowde". I can't reproduce the proper pronunciation symbols so I tried to transcribe the pronunciation as best as I could.

Incedentally, I speak "Upper-RP", when I want to and tone it down when I feel it to be necessary. I can speak General American but cannot properly imitate any regional British accent because most of them sound so f*****g weird! If you're not going to use RP, then GenAm is your next best bet (assumimg you can pull either or both of them off). In its nicer forms, GA sounds much nicer and more "educated" and "refined" than some of the trashy working class UK accents which are so far from RP that they may as well not even be British. Of course, American English has its "Brooklynese" (which is primarily used in certain parts of the NYC metro area) and the Southeastern accent which can make one sound like a dumb hillbilly or a Southern belle depending on how thick the drawl is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.233 (talk) 8 December 2007

And how does this relate to the wikipedia article on RP? Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the article? Snalwibma (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: the article should note that using this a "posh" way of speaking and can be offensive or off putting to some (most?) people in England. For example, if you talk like that in a pub, it gives the impression you're trying to emphasise your upper class upbringing (or pretend to have had one), thus trying to distance yourself from the "ordinary" folk. Gronky (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole section (on the talk page) is complete dross and has no place in the discussion here. If you have something to add, add it and sign your comments!Jimjamjak (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

this edit adds information that contrasts the part of the article where it states

"In unstressed syllables occurring before vowels and in final position, contrasts between long and short high vowels are neutralized and short [i] and [u] occur"

I'm assuming that the Trudgill (2000) is arguing that the sound in happy is [ɪ] but we've got an inherent contradiction as Roach (2004) says it's [i]. Which is right? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Free variation? It sounds like happy tensing. --Kjoonlee 14:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In words like anything and anyone the vowel often is not tensed. I've noticed that it varies. Thegryseone (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Article[edit]

I think this article should concentrate more on phonetics as opposed to just phonology. Otherwise it seems as if RP is no different from General American. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. There is some phonetic information but we could certainly expand on this. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English as a foreign language[edit]

I run a language school and I can tell you that no modern EFL books push one particular pronunciation over others. All the CDs which come with them include a wide variety of different accents, to avoid the problem described in the article that they don't understand real English speakers unless they modify how they speak. The greatest single influence on how the students speak is the teacher. As they usually have several, they end up speaking something close NRP (which is how most of the young, educated people who teach abroad speak.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.16.30 (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The assertion (in the article) that the modern style of RP is the usual accent taught to non-native speakers learning British English is misleading. This is not based on fact. It is normal practice in Spain for English native ESL teachers to have accents from all corners of the UK as well as America and Australia. In my region (as far as I'm aware) none of them speak with RP and thankfully none of them have tried to pretend that they do. Given that we accept that RP is an accent not a dialogue, in my part of the world at least, students are not learning to speak with RP. (Englishradio (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The BL at http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/sounds/case-studies/received-pronunciation/ assert that RP is used in foreign language training. One assumes that the British Library researched the subject before asserting that.128.86.151.116 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tripthongs[edit]

There are two tripthongs down already. Should there not be a third? I believe that the R.P. pronunciations of cure and pure should be represented with the /juə/ vowel. Is this not a tripthong? I think that /j/ counts as a vowel in I.P.A., but am not 100% sure on this. Epa101 (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, in English [j] doesn't count as part of a vowel nucleus. This is why [ju] is not a diphthong in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, most people agree with you on the /j/. However, I thought about this a bit more, and realised that you could add a schwa onto any of the R.P. dipthongs that do not already end in a shwa and get an acceptable tripthong, although some of these are rarely used. Here is my list:

  • /eɪə/ player, sayer, layer
  • /aɪə/ fire, wire, liar
  • /ɔɪə/ lawyer, employer, destroyer
  • /əʊə/ (lawn) mower, (hair) blower, lower
  • /aʊə/ hour, shower, power

If you look back at Joseph Wright’s work, which were early applications of IPA, all of the tripthongs there end in a shwa. In English Dialect Grammar, the only exceptions were /ɪaʊ/ and /ɪəʊ/, which were both confined to Scotland.

Any thoughts on whether the five tripthongs above are acceptable? Epa101 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions /aɪə/ and /aʊə/, though they are commonly monophthongized. I suspect that sources don't mention the others because the schwa is syllabified. My Oxford dictionary transcribes layer as /ˈleɪə(r)/; the stress mark means that it has multiple syllables. Interestingly fire and shower also exhibit syllabification but hour does not. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points - this may be a bit of swimming against the tide, but could we have the spelling 'diphthong' and 'triphthong' in this discussion, as that is the traditionally correct spelling? I would like to support expanding the list of triphthongs to five as suggested above, as they are usually all listed together in contemporary accounts of RP. I take the point that the different triphthongs may behave differently in terms of syllabification. RoachPeter (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine with me. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 11:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audio file?[edit]

It would be helpful to have an audio file for this article, demonstrating what Received Pronunciation sounds like. I don't understand phonology, so this article is basically useless for people like me who want to learn what it actually sounds like. Perhaps it could even double as a Spoken Article file. -kotra (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone and Baldwin[edit]

I have provided a reference for Gladstone. I moved the tag to Baldwin seeing as I do not have a reference close to hand. I remember reading that he retained some Midlands pronunciations, and still said bath with the old short a. One book that definitely mentions that it is the Ey Up Mi Duck! The Dialect of Derbyshire book, which has some erudite chapters on linguistics as well as humour. I don't suppose that anyone has a copy close to hand? Epa101 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kings/Queen's English[edit]

Queen's English is not the same as RP! Just thought I'd let you know!--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the queen doesn't actually use proper RP despite popular opinion or are you saying that when a Brit says "he speaks the queen's English" that there's another accent in mind? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus amongst linguists on this? The link at the bottom to the Wells article seems to define "Received Pronunciation" rather widely. I would have thought that any speaker who used t-glottaling and l-vocalisation would automatically be excluded from R.P., but Wells is a phonetician and he would disagree. I am sure that many linguists would define R.P. much more narrowly than that. In early- and mid-20th century literature, "Received Pronunciation" has always been interchangeable with "the King's/Queen's English" from what I have read. Has its meaning broadened over time? Epa101 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The distinction might be that there are sometimes words that may be said one of two ways in R.P. For example:

  • Again - əgɛn, əgɛin
  • Either - ʌɪθə(ɹ), i:θə(ɹ)
  • Moor - mɔː(ɹ), mʊə(ɹ)

In the Queen's English, I think that there is just one, as the Queen decides which one counts. Epa101 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that from? The distinction between Queen's English and RP, I mean. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]
I think that Epa101 has become confused by an equivocation fallacy. Queen's English can be used as a synonym for RP, in which there are multiple ways of pronouncing certain words. Queen's English can also mean the pronunciation and dialect used by the Queen, which assuming that she is consistent would have one way of pronouncing each word. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Roach’s work “English Phonetics and Phonology”, he suggests a distinction between the English used by the Royal Family/aristocracy and R.P. He says that royals use the /eʊ/ vowel instead of /əʊ/ in words such as ‘’no, slow, gold’’, etc. Epa101 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see how you might get a distinction between "Queen's English" and RP from that but it's still quite a stretch. AFAIK, that's not how "queen's english" is commonly used and we would need a clearer statement from a source to justify making such a distinction in the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is page 26 in the Roach "English Phonetics and Phonology" if you want to have a look, but he only mentions it in passing. Epa101 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't being clear. You mentioned a difference between Received Pronunciation and Queen's English (In RP, again, either, and moor have two pronunciations while in QE they have only one). You then cited Roach who indicates that the Royal Family does not speak (perfect) RP. If you are then trying to indicate that the terms RP and QE refer to two different phenomena, then Roach isn't backing you up. RP and QE are synonymous. The Queen not actually using RP is more a cute bit of a trivia than a reason to distinguish the two. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was just giving you the page reference if you wanted to look it up for yourself. My early post on again, either, moor was just a bit of speculation by me - a suggestion. It probably is wrong. The Roach point was added just because I was reading the book that day and thought that it was worth adding to the page. It was not meant to support my earlier post in any way, but just seemed as a respectable source that made a distinction between royal speech and RP. Roach does not actually express any opinion on the phrase "The Queen's English" in the book. Epa101 (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then it looks like we've got harmony here :). — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 10:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's English is a figurative term to mean what linguists would call British Standard English or less commonly, but in the only sense relevant to this matter, British Standard English combined with RP. Obviously it is not a term for the ideolect and personal pronunciation of H.M. The Queen although the Queen uses (and is a native speaker of) a subvariant of the Queen's English. Derbyadhag (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Reference Section Link from "Queen's English Society" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Queen%27s_English_Society&action=edit&redlink=1 ) is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_English_Society works, if that is intended. Gc9580 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article obviously wasn't written by a linguist, as linguists would never say that Queen's English was the same thing as Received Pronunciation. And to think that I read somwhere that Wikipedia was almost as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica, what a joke! --89.216.218.134 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the following books were not written by linguists, then:
— Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important point being missed here. Terms like RP refer exclusively to pronunciation, whereas "The Queen's English" can, and often is, used to refer to wider matters such as grammar, vocabulary and style. The ref. to Queen's English should be removed from this entry. RoachPeter (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fair to put an explanatory note to that effect, provided we find a source that backs it up. Do you have one, Peter? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the ref to "BBC English" removed from the opening para, but this doesn't go far enough, and an explanatory note isn't really enough. As I said above, "Queen's English", "Oxford English", "BBC English" etc. are not terms properly used to refer to an accent. Certainly they are MISused by peple who write angry letters to the BBC, but among informed writers on language variety and pronunciation, they refer to forms of the language including grammar, vocabulary and other matters. The first para would be just as good if all the refs to "xxx English" were removed. I propose to do that unless anyone objects. RoachPeter (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to characterize lay usage as misusage, but it's fine with me as long as the article mentions this usage.
It looks like User:81M has reverted your deletion, though. Perhaps this user can justify their edit. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I didn't realize there was an established consensus on that. I was introduced to the concept after hearing it as "BBC English", thus thinking a reference to that term was appropriate. 81M (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Received_Pronunciation/Archive_1&oldid=1137117256"