English Rhotacism: traditional dialect,speech disorder,linguistic phenomenon
I am a retired (Australian) English lecturer with an Ma (Hons) in Literature & Linguistics. I have spent some of my life as a journalist and features writer, part of it based in London in the early 1980's.
It was at that time, travelling widely through the U.K,. that I became fascinated by the asymmetric preponderance of rhotacism.
I wish to avoid the amusing competitive internationalism which has developed in this thread, but I do not shy away from any controversy the following may stimulate in those equally fascinated by this issue.
In line with some, I would agree that it is a 10/90 percentile split, far greater than in other english speaking countries.
Significantly, the issue is concentrated far more with the English (as opposed to the Scottish,Cornish & Welsh - and I discount the claim that it actually begins with the specific burred Welsh 'r'). And the interesting percentile tends to suggest this to be far more than just normal speech impediment . Nor is it "just an accent".
And as a linguist, I discount much of the technical phonic argument while recognising that the difficult 'trilled R' is often the last sound a child masters (or NOT).
Furthermore, I would assert that - on a male/female basis - the rhotacism split is about 80/20, and between the higher educated/lesser educated, the split returns to to something like 90/10.
I stress the above figures are assertions/guesstimations based only upon 30 years of personal observation/fascination.
As a linguist and historian, I am doubly interested in the suggestion from this thread that English rhotacism (as opposed to true speech impediment) may have been initiated by the Norman conquest & in particular the centuries long 'cringe factor' among the English upper & business classes to be seen to 'fit' the imposed dialect/lifestyle.
As a French speaker & teacher, I can attest to the english speaker's difficulty in mastering the gallic 'trilled uvula R', and to the resultant rhotacization compromise. It is at least a credible supposition that this could become partially embedded in the ongoing aristocratic system.
But how to explain it's evolution into the 'apparently' classless twentieth & twenty first centuries?
With the demise of the old aristocracy came the rise of the new : a more than proportional increase in the highly educated (the ongoing Oxbridge influence), and in the rise of the articulate media presenter/celebrity.
Here I would refer to another element raised in this thread - the nature/nurture suggestion.
A parental affectation which engenders an atmosphere of security and comfort will inevitably appeal to infantile needs for such to be mimicked/copied.
It does at least serve to illustrate the possibility that once a significant portion of society develops an idiosyncracy, it may be passed on/communicated to the following generation by way of benign imitation.And so forth ...
The argument that England is a more nurturing (viz. "softer") society than others, i will leave alone as unworthy of this thread.
A further area of perhaps controversial interest might be to ask what proportion of the gay population ( & it has always been notable there, has developed the rhotacism. If greater, would this suggest it makes for an appealing affectation, over and above the 'incentives' already explored.
As for my earlier assertion that rhotacism is a predominantly (English?) male idiosyncrasy ... "Go figure!", as our American contributors might put it.
So, I certainly do view English rhotacism as more idiosyncratic than the other recognised ( & partially valid) explanations. If it is not fake, it is not exactly a speech impediment. More perhaps a self-perpetuating affectation, part hereditary, part learned, part mimicked.
I hope these propositions I have put forward will continue to stimulate discussion and I would be more than pleased to be challenged/updated/set straight. This is no life & death issue but one of pure academic interest. It is a topic that has fascinated me for decades, as much because the English are the depository of the language but seem to be in denial ("too close to the source to hear it") of the peccadillo.
