Irish Speak

[Peter Duggan]

Why on Earth would someone so quintessentially English pronounce something like that?

That, my friend, is a different issue entirely. I hear many a rhoticized ending A out of certain UK accents

Coope Boyes & Simpson singing 'Hanging on the Old Barbed Wire'...

'I sawrim, I sawrim' (perhaps put on/exaggerated for effect, but there you go)!

[benhall.1]

Why on Earth would someone so quintessentially English pronounce something like that?

That, my friend, is a different issue entirely. I hear many a rhoticized ending A out of certain UK accents - not all, of course - mainly where an ending A precedes another vowel, but it can be stand-alone, too.

That's as maybe, but there is a nuance in the way certain people over here in the UK - my guess would be everybody, but I could be wrong there - use the phrase "quintessentially English". That phrase, to me at least, definitely doesn't include any non-English accents (Welsh, Scots etc) and, the way everybody I know uses the phrase, would only include a sort of cut glass, refined English accent, and would exclude South West, Yorkshire, or in fact any regional accent. In fact, until you picked me up on it, I hadn't realised quite how precise a meaning is generally meant, amongst people I know, by the phrase "quintessentially English". It includes character, of course, but also accent, behaviour and even social mores.

I've heard Right Ponders saying words like "yoga" and pronouncing it "yoger" (this comparison uses my Midwest US pronunciation to inform the spelling, where the lone A in the first is often reduced to a schwa, and the R in the second is pronounced: an alveolar/retroflex sound called a rhotic approximant).

Now, quite apart from the point I make above, I have never, ever heard anyone this side of the pond put an 'r' of any sort on the end of "yoga". I wonder if you've heard it in the States, and they've picked it up there?

In my own accent, certain vowel combinations (A and O, for example) are usually separated by beginning the next with with a light glottal stop, so a rhotic separation of vowels really stands out to my ear.

As in something like "tuba orchestra"? Yes, a light glottal stop. There are very few accents over here that would do otherwise, I think. Maybe in parts of Essex ...

[david_h]

I have never, ever heard anyone this side of the pond put an 'r' of any sort on the end of "yoga". I wonder if you've heard it in the States, and they've picked it up there?

certain vowel combinations (A and O, for example) are usually separated by beginning the next with with a light glottal stop, so a rhotic separation of vowels really stands out to my ear.

I logged on to agree with Ben, but now I am not so sure. Agree about the glottal stop in tuba orchestra. I think some people pronounce yoga with the final vowel as in tuber. But when I say tuber the only difference from tuba is the vowel and mouth shape to produce it. But in "tuber orchestra" there would be an r. My question to Nano was going to be "are you sure it really is rhotic".

Then I realised that if I said "yoga advice" I would separate the vowels with a glottal stop if speaking formally (giving a presentation, say) but might use something close to an r in casual conversation.

[Nanohedron]

I've heard Right Ponders saying words like "yoga" and pronouncing it "yoger" (this comparison uses my Midwest US pronunciation to inform the spelling, where the lone A in the first is often reduced to a schwa, and the R in the second is pronounced: an alveolar/retroflex sound called a rhotic approximant).

Now, quite apart from the point I make above, I have never, ever heard anyone this side of the pond put an 'r' of any sort on the end of "yoga". I wonder if you've heard it in the States, and they've picked it up there?

I know I've heard it at least twice - probably more - and the first, for certain, was definitely from British lips, for I remember how I was quite taken aback by it, and I also remember that it wasn't just different, but foreign. So for the longest time I simply assumed that the intrusive R, as it's called, was therefore a British peculiarity until some years later when I noticed it in some US speech as well. The first time I heard it I was much younger and still unhatched from the shell of my Midwestern egg, so to speak, and due to the media I had way more exposure to British accents than Eastern US ones at the time. At my first introduction to the intrusive R, I remember thinking to myself, But they said "yoga" like "yogurt" without the T! But - there's no R. How odd-sounding. I suppose it must be just another one of those inscrutable British things...

I've been delving deeper into this phenomenon of the intrusive R, and it occurs on both sides of the pond, chiefly in otherwise non-rhotic accents. Drawing from Wikipedia for British examples, you hear it in the Beatles' song A Day In The Life ("I saw-r-a film today, oh boy") and in Oasis' song Champagne Supernova ("supernova-r-in the sky"). Margaret Thatcher was nicknamed "Laura Norder" because of her pronunciation of "law and order" with an intrusive R. So it's there, all right.

I've been searching YouTube for other examples, but wouldn't you know, it's been like the toothache and the dentist, of course. I could swear I've heard it out of Mary Berry in the past, but she's been eluding me today.

I have to dispute the Wiki article's assertion that the intrusive R doesn't occur in rhotic accents, though, because the article contradicts itself in citing the example of George W. Bush - a rhotic speaker - who said in 2005, "The FEMA-r director's working 24/7."

[Nanohedron]

Then I realised that if I said "yoga advice" I would separate the vowels with a glottal stop if speaking formally (giving a presentation, say) but might use something close to an r in casual conversation.

This brings up an interesting point, and it's made me try to see what it is that I do in similar circumstances. I'm going to use different words than "formal" and "casual" here, because they're too socially freighted for my purposes. Instead, I'll use "clear" and relaxed" in describing speech, because those words are closer in practical terms to what I mean. In clear speech I certainly use the leading glottal stop to separate vowels, but even in relaxed speech I tend to retain it - but there does come a point where I'll drop it. But that's all there is to it; I just glide one vowel to the next without separation. It's easier to do if the vowels have enough contrast ("toe injury"), but with "yoga advice" I just draw out the schwa from one end to the other and let timing do the work by implying a separation; there's still probably a fleeting, barely perceptible glottal "dip" in between. It's very unsatisfying to me aesthetically, but that's not going to stop me, especially in rapid speech. Sometimes when dropping the glottal stop in relaxed, rapid speech I'll alter a vowel to create contrast: "yoga edvice".

The alveolar/retroflex R is called an approximant for good reason, because it's in this liminal area between vowel and consonant. Here's what I suspect: Rhotic speakers are more likely to hear it as a consonant in all positions, whereas with certain obvious exceptions ("real", "carry"), non-rhotic speakers are more likely to be able to hear it as something like a vowel, and I further suspect that this may account for their incomprehension when they're confronted with the confounding notion that the intrusive R might exist in their speech at all. The hypothesis does answer a few questions...

[benhall.1]

Then I realised that if I said "yoga advice" I would separate the vowels with a glottal stop if speaking formally (giving a presentation, say) but might use something close to an r in casual conversation.

This brings up an interesting point, and it's made me try to see what it is that I do in similar circumstances. I'm going to use different words than "formal" and "casual" here, because they're too socially freighted for my purposes. Instead, I'll use "clear" and relaxed" in describing speech, because those words are closer in practical terms to what I mean. In clear speech I certainly use the leading glottal stop to separate vowels, but even in relaxed speech I tend to retain it - but there does come a point where I'll drop it. But that's all there is to it; I just glide one vowel to the next without separation. It's easier to do if the vowels have enough contrast ("toe injury"), but with "yoga advice" I just draw out the schwa from one end to the other and let timing do the work by implying a separation; there's still probably a fleeting, barely perceptible glottal "dip" in between. It's very unsatisfying to me aesthetically, but that's not going to stop me, especially in rapid speech. Sometimes when dropping the glottal stop in relaxed, rapid speech I'll alter a vowel to create contrast: "yoga edvice".

The alveolar/retroflex R is called an approximant for good reason, because it's in this liminal area between vowel and consonant. Here's what I suspect: Rhotic speakers are more likely to hear it as a consonant in all positions, whereas with certain obvious exceptions ("real", "carry"), non-rhotic speakers are more likely to be able to hear it as something like a vowel, and I further suspect that this may account for their incomprehension when they're confronted with the confounding notion that the intrusive R might exist in their speech at all. The hypothesis does answer a few questions...

So much to comment on here. I don't understand the terms "clear" and "relaxed" in this context. They don't clearly convey to me what you mean. Actually, I'd far rather have "formal" and "casual" - it's clear what they mean. Well, it is to me.

"Toe injury". Hmmm ... this is a completely different issue. If you're anything like me, or most people of wherever they're from, I would guess, when you're being sloppy with the pronunciation of a phrase like that, you wouldn't just "glide one vowel to the next"; actually, what people do is, instead of inserting an 'r' between the two words, they insert a 'w'. It's very clearly discernible. Now, I agree that, if one is being careful, one might put a little glottal between, but normally, it would be a very audible 'w'.

"Yoga advice". You say that you would alter the second vowel (or a vowel, in any case) to create contrast. But the 'a' at the beginning of "advice" is a different vowel from the 'a' at the end of "yoga" in any case, so why change it to something it isn't? The 'a' at the end of "yoga" is as the 'a' at the end of "opera" as sung by Sarah Brightman above. It is a short form (possibly very short) of the 'ah' sound. The 'a' at the beginning of "advice" is completely different. It is more or less the same vowel as in "cat".

There are quite a lot of examples where people in the UK put an 'r' between words, but I reckon you'd find that almost all of them (except in certain communities in the South East) would be as the examples quoted above, that is, between a word ending in an 'ore' sound and a subsequent vowel - hence, "sawrim" for "saw (h)im" and "Laura Norder" for "law and order".

[david_h]

I agree with Ben about the "yoga advice" vowels. I used "tuber" as a contrast to "tuba" because I think for many people they are homophones and wonder if there is a tendency to hear the "r" in tuber because we know one would be written there. However, I suspect that how I separate vowels (interposing a hint of a consonant or changing one vowel) may depend on context and wouldn't normally notice inconsistency in others.

I am not sure Margaret Thatcher's Laura Norder a good example because I hear it in the context of her other rs which are not particularly rhotic - for example the repeated "bring" at the start of this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odb8ux3g9_8 whch sounds a bit "French" to me.

[Nanohedron]

I don't understand the terms "clear" and "relaxed" in this context. They don't clearly convey to me what you mean. Actually, I'd far rather have "formal" and "casual" - it's clear what they mean. Well, it is to me.

I use the term "clear" to convey the notion of either auditory clarity or simple precision of meaning, and often, but not necessarily, both at once. When I'm speaking to a foreigner who has some English but isn't comfortable with it, and clear pronunciation or simple, non-colloquial wording on my part is key, formality - which to me is something more akin to a social register - is of questionable purpose, and might even be counterproductive. For a pronunciation example, if I say " 'Tsall good," that is relaxed speech, but it's unlikely to be decipherable by someone who's not at ease with colloquial English formation. "It's all good" would be clear speech by comparison, but I wouldn't consider it formal at all. And, for the record, neither would I use such a colloquialism when speaking to a foreigner with scant English; I'd say, "That's fine." I wouldn't say, " 'Tsfine," which is what I'd do in relaxed speech. I consider both forms of the phrase to be casual English in any case; if I want to be formal, I'd say something like, "That would be acceptable."

"Toe injury". Hmmm ... this is a completely different issue. If you're anything like me, or most people of wherever they're from, I would guess, when you're being sloppy with the pronunciation of a phrase like that, you wouldn't just "glide one vowel to the next"; actually, what people do is, instead of inserting an 'r' between the two words, they insert a 'w'. It's very clearly discernible. Now, I agree that, if one is being careful, one might put a little glottal between, but normally, it would be a very audible 'w'.

This is where facing each other in person would be most helpful, because each of us is coming from the position of our own accents, and I feared this would happen. I'm fully aware that some people would have a W sound in there, but not all do, and I'm one of them, for my Os don't typically carry that W tag on the end, but are most often a pure O, not unlike what you'll hear in Scottish speech. In the US, Minnesotans are famous - and even mocked - for it. I can slip in that W, but due to habit, normally I wouldn't. For me, the transition between "toe" and "injury" has no inevitable intervening W phoneme, nor is one required to mark the separation; a pure O and and an I are different enough by themselves to be sufficient.

"Yoga advice". You say that you would alter the second vowel (or a vowel, in any case) to create contrast. But the 'a' at the beginning of "advice" is a different vowel from the 'a' at the end of "yoga" in any case, so why change it to something it isn't? The 'a' at the end of "yoga" is as the 'a' at the end of "opera" as sung by Sarah Brightman above. It is a short form (possibly very short) of the 'ah' sound. The 'a' at the beginning of "advice" is completely different. It is more or less the same vowel as in "cat".

Again, not in my case. I may use the "cat" A in clear speech, but in my more typical relaxed speech, the A in "advice" is realized as a schwa: "udVICE", like. It's not always even as clear as that; on its own, it's usually more like a glottal plosive rather than a distinct vowel. As such, I'll sometimes alter it for better clarity when I think it's called for.

A new tenant just came to me some minutes ago because her toilet was backing up (I'm the building caretaker), and since I was caught in the awkward position of being rather en déshabillé, and it would have taken more time for me to make myself presentable than if she tried addressing the issue herself, I handed her my own plunger because, to my surprise, she didn't have one, and I advised her to be sure and get one for her own unit afterward, because they can be such handy little problem-solvers when time is of the essence. A bit more followed from me on the matter of technique, and off she went to save the day. As expected, this solved the problem (as well as further empowering a young adult still in the process of learning the basic requirements of independence), and in the course of some pleasant after-chat I apologized for being frowsy and in a bathrobe at that time of day (I'm a night owl), and because she's a college student, I thought she might also be interested to hear that I was in the midst of an online phonology discussion with folks from both sides of the Pond. She was impressed, but I assured her that we were all mere layfolk just trying to get our ideas ironed out; not quite the blind leading the blind, but teeteringly close. Anyway: In this case, for her benefit I lightly enunciated the first O in "phonology" because I had introduced the word; without that enunciation it might have been taken as either "phenology" or "finology", and I didn't want that. It would only have been afterward, in the unlikely event that I used the word again, that I would have relaxed my pronunciation to something more vague since the word was already now part of the conversation. That is what I mean by clear speech: the matter of enunciation and/or readily understandable grammar. It's not always necessary, but it's good to be mindful of when it probably will be.

Does any of this help clarify what I mean by "clear/relaxed"?

I have a Tamil friend who's often at a disadvantage with English pronunciation habits (more properly American English, I suppose, and doubtless even more properly, Minnesotan English), chiefly when it comes to the rather careless and mutable way we'll treat our vowels. He's unused to that, because his own language has very strict rules that don't allow for such a thing. I keep telling him to give his attention to the consonants when he's listening to English, because that will be easier to hang his hat on. Don't know if the advice helps much, but it's the best I can give him.

[chas]

Also, listen to Sarah Brightman sing "Phantom of the Opera." She does it too:

The Phantom of the Operer is there inside my mind

She absolutely definitely doesn't. I've just had to listen again. Why on Earth would someone so quintessentially English pronounce something like that? And, in fact, she doesn't. Her diction and pronunciation are perfect, and she pronounces each syllable - o (beautiful, round 'O) - per (so that you can hear the 'e') - a. That's it. No 'r' on the end at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDN4xE9T1Y

What's that between the a and i at 0:34? I can see her pronouncing an R in this video. I'm not the only person who hears an R, my wife and daughter have both remarked on it, unprompted by me. Listening to the original cast recording, my wife said, "It was operer 25 years ago."

[benhall.1]

Also, listen to Sarah Brightman sing "Phantom of the Opera." She does it too:

The Phantom of the Operer is there inside my mind

She absolutely definitely doesn't. I've just had to listen again. Why on Earth would someone so quintessentially English pronounce something like that? And, in fact, she doesn't. Her diction and pronunciation are perfect, and she pronounces each syllable - o (beautiful, round 'O) - per (so that you can hear the 'e') - a. That's it. No 'r' on the end at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDN4xE9T1Y

What's that between the a and i at 0:34? I can see her pronouncing an R in this video. I'm not the only person who hears an R, my wife and daughter have both remarked on it, unprompted by me. Listening to the original cast recording, my wife said, "It was operer 25 years ago."

Well, that is bizarre. I mean, fair play, you are definitely right in that clip. When I checked on an older Sarah Brightman clip (really, just the first one I came to), in order to make sure I wasn't talking nonsense earlier, I swear there was no 'r'; instead there was a clear stop. How most peculiar. I'll have to look up the clip I found earlier.

[david_h]

I am not sure how Sarah Brightman sings "opera is" is very relevant to normal speach. How to articulate it may be a matter of choice depending on the requirement of the musical performance. Have just listened of some clips of her speaking. Not for long enough to spot examples but from the way she speaks I would be surprised at "operer" when she was talking.

[Nanohedron]

I am not sure how Sarah Brightman sings "opera is" is very relevant to normal speach. How to articulate it may be a matter of choice depending on the requirement of the musical performance. Have just listened of some clips of her speaking. Not for long enough to spot examples but from the way she speaks I would be surprised at "operer" when she was talking.

No, it's not just a singing phenomenon. Watching BBC News last evening, I distinctly heard the intrusive R at least twice, and from different speakers. To a rhotic speaker like myself, it stands out like a sore thumb. But it's not necessarily a consistent phenomenon, either; with most speakers, it usually seems to happen at random.

When I checked on an older Sarah Brightman clip (really, just the first one I came to), in order to make sure I wasn't talking nonsense earlier, I swear there was no 'r'; instead there was a clear stop.

And you're right: for me, too, there was no R that time. As I mentioned, it seems to come out at random. I've never been able to predict it.

[an seanduine]

Geez, everywhere I turn these days, all I read is about ´rhoticisation´. ´R-Speach´. Erhua. https://www.google.com/search?q=erhua&r ... e&ie=UTF-8

Bob

[Nanohedron]

Geez, everywhere I turn these days, all I read is about ´rhoticisation´. ´R-Speach´. Erhua.

Hardee-har-harrrrrrr.

[chas]

I am not sure how Sarah Brightman sings "opera is" is very relevant to normal speach. How to articulate it may be a matter of choice depending on the requirement of the musical performance. Have just listened of some clips of her speaking. Not for long enough to spot examples but from the way she speaks I would be surprised at "operer" when she was talking.

As the father of a training soprano, I was going to point out to Ben (and now you) that I recognize that singing isn’t the same as speech. I’ve just always found that particular phrasing interesting, and when the subject came up. . .