تسجيل الدخول

تسجيل

RP and its lesser forms

المؤلف:  Clive Upton

المصدر:  A Handbook Of Varieties Of English Phonology

الجزء والصفحة:  219-11

2024-03-11

1497

RP and its lesser forms

There are, of course, various kinds of Received Pronunciation. A well-known classification aimed at making sense of this range is that devised by Wells (1982). There we find an upper-class accent labelled “U-RP”, and a less marked form, taken in 1982 to be the most usual and unexceptionable variety, designated “mainstream RP”. To these are added in close company “adoptive RP”, “Near-RP”, and “quasi-RP”.

Simplification is sought, with concentration on an accent that will not be the object of comment as regards elevated upbringing or social pretension. Furthermore, it is not to be associated with any one geographical region in England. This accent is simply labelled ‘RP’. One stage removed from this is a variety that Ramsaran (1990: 179) calls “traditional” (here trad-RP). In most respects RP and trad-RP are identical. But they are different in important particulars that, since they are apparent to native British English speakers, should generally be made known to the speaker-learner who wishes to avoid being judged old-fashioned or affected. To trad-RP are consigned a range of sounds that many Britons are still wont to consider what is meant by “RP”, leading them to think of it as “posh” (its almost universal pejorative label). Even further back in time and still more restricted socially than trad-RP is a version that does nevertheless continue to be heard as the accent of a few older speakers and as the affectation of some others. It also exists as a folk-memory in British society generally. Outmoded and, when heard (typically in old movies and newsreel commentaries), attracting amused comment, this is Cruttenden’s “Refined RP” (1994: 80). The literature also abounds with speculation on possible innovations manifesting themselves in the speech of the young. Neither Refined RP nor speculative RP are treated specifically here, not because they are not interesting to debate, but because they do not belong in a purely descriptive setting, and for reasons of space.