Percentage of Rhotic and Non-Rhotic speakers?

Thaddeus   Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:45 am GMT
I'm wondering, what percentage of native English speakers are rhotic and what percentage are non-rhotic?
sueddahT   Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:21 pm GMT
ever heard of google? geez.
Uriel   Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:53 pm GMT
Google it yourself, sueddahT -- no ready answer pops up.

I guess the best way you can answer that question is to add up the populations of countries that have a pronounced majority of speakers of one style or the other. So you can add up the populations of Canada, the US, Ireland, and Scotland on the rhotic side, versus the populations of England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,and the Caribbean on the non-rhotic side.

Just remember that there will be exceptions to the norm in various parts of those countries, as detailed here, but they probably cancel each other out in the big picture:

From http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents_-_Distribution_of_rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents/id/5418627


"Rhotic and non-rhotic accents - Distribution of rhotic and non-rhotic accents

Most speakers of American English have a rhotic accent. Outside of the United States, rhotic accents can be found in Barbados, most of Canada, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. In England, rhotic accents are found in Northumbria, the West Country, and parts of Lancashire. Other areas with rhotic accents include India (particularly in southern India and Maharashtra where the R's are rolled), Philippines, and Otago and Southland in the far south of New Zealand's South Island, where a small Scottish influence is apparent.

Areas with non-rhotic accents include Africa, Australia, Malta, most of the Caribbean, most of England (especially Received Pronunciation speakers) most of New Zealand and South Africa. Singapore and Malaysia are also two examples of countries in Asia with a non-rhotic accent.

In Canada, non-rhotic accents are found in the Maritimes. In the United States, large parts of The South were formerly non-rhotic, but this is sharply recessive. Today, non-rhoticity in Southern American English is found primarily among older speakers, and only in some areas like New Orleans, southern Alabama, Savannah, Georgia, and Norfolk, Virginia (Labov, Ash, and Bomberg 2006: 47-48). Parts of New England are non-rhotic as well as New York City and surrounding areas. The case of New York is especially interesting because of a classic study in sociolinguistics by William Labov showing that the non-rhotic accent is associated with older and middle- and lower-class speakers, and is being replaced by the rhotic accent. African American Vernacular English is largely non-rhotic."


I've also seen some discussion of what English is like in India, Africa, and Singapore, but it seems that for the most part they either follow the British example or they are spoken as a second language, which clouds the issue somewhat. It was mentioned, however, that one area of India is so rhotic that they roll their R's -- but that is a legacy from the local language.
The Maurice   Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:25 am GMT
It would be hard to ascertain a very specific percentage for each variety without some massively large study, but I would assume rhotic accents are the majority for the people who have English as their mother tongue. The U.S. is by far the largest English speaking country and they're mostly rhotic and add in Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and some parts of England and the rhotic side has to be the majority variety.
Trimac20   Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:31 am GMT
I made a similar query not long ago. Rhotic is clearly the winner: the US alone pretty much equals non-rhotic speakers of English, and it's largely rhotic. What is interesting is how you have two large 'groups' of English: American inspired rhotic and English inspired non-rhotic. Non-rhotic accents in America and rhotic ones in the UK are recessive due to the main influence of these accent families.
Damian London N22   Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:44 am GMT
Rhotics versus the non rhotics.....it's all a bit of a mish mash really, certainly here in the UK.....it varies quite a lot even within the same areas of the country.

Let's consider one example here - take a stroll around somewhere like Sevenoaks in Kent, SE England....very few, if any, Rhotics ambling around among the throngs of Non Rhotics, but venture out to some of the small villages in the neighbourhood and you could well come across the occasional Rhotic - a rare species in this region - usually of the older variety, either some old geezer supping his pint in the public bar of the Fox and Hounds or a couple of old biddies chattering away together in the street outside the local Community Centre. Most of the younger generation much prefer the local brand of Estuaryspeak.

Now hop into your car and drive all the way down to Devon, in SW England - far more Rhotics are to be found down there.....wander about the streets of Great Torrington, for instance, and you will even find some of the younger generation rhoticising all over the place...Devon is well known for its distinctive rhotic accent, for this is the famed West Country where the local cider puts hairs on your chest - well, only if you're male, which is why you see females partaking of the locally produced scrumpy.

Further down in Cornwall it's virtually compulsory to go all rhotic like, for not only is this the extreme West Country (the next landfall westwards after the southernmost tip of Cornwall is North America) but to the locals it's even a "foreign country" in its own right.

That's just one minor snapshot of Rhotic Britain....there are others in abundance but I won't bore you any further....I haven't got the time to do it right now anyway.
Trimac20   Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:43 am GMT
Your posts are never boring Damian ;-). I read J.C. Well's 'Accents of the British Isle' and am otherwise well aware of how recessive rhoticism is in England. It's interesting how in the early 20th century rural England was at least 50% rhotic in terms of area, but by the 1960s this area had shrunk to about 25-30%. Devon, Cornwall and the far western counties are still the strongholds of rhotic speech but it seems it's recessive in the larger cities like Plymouth.
Uriel   Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:13 am GMT
<<What is interesting is how you have two large 'groups' of English: American inspired rhotic and English inspired non-rhotic. Non-rhotic accents in America and rhotic ones in the UK are recessive due to the main influence of these accent families. >>

What's even funnier is it's really all about timing.

Canadians and Americans are rhotic because all English was rhotic in the 1600's, when the North American colonies were founded.

Australians, Kiwis, and South Africans can blame their later starts for depriving them of half of their R's.

Non-rhoticity started creeping into English centuries ago, although it didn't really take off until the 1700's. There were certain inroads being made in some words as early as the 1400's -- parcel had become the variant passel as far back as that, before taking on a life of its own as a separate word with a slightly different meaning:



From http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/passel

Pronunciation: pæs-êl • Hear it!

Part of Speech: Noun

Meaning: 1. A lot (of), a large group (of). 2. A large amount.

Notes: Today's is an interesting word that demonstrates how a mispronunciation of a common word can lead to the genesis of a new word. Today parcel and passel are two entirely different words. Although the mispronunciation has been around at least since the 1460s, only in a few regions of England and, mostly, the southeastern US is the new form used.

In Play: We generally think of parcels as small packages but its mispronunciation refers to large amounts: "You will find yourself in a passel of trouble if you criticize my wife's cooking." Apparently, the meaning originally referred to several as opposed to one item, but now it can refer to countable and uncountable things but always in large amounts: "Al Falfa has a passel of collards in his garden this year but his okra didn't get enough rain."

Word History: Today's Good Word is a corruption of parcel. Middle English, from Old French parcelle the descendant of Latin particula "little part, particle", the diminutive of pars, partis "part". The same root suffixed, originally *par-tion-, became Latin portio(n), which is behind our noun portion. It also underlies party, in all its senses, an interesting etymological ride in itself for which we have no time or space here but will return to some day.




Don't know how true this is or not, but according to the book British Origins of American Colonists, 1629-1775 by William Dollarhide, early American colonists can be traced back to four major sources:

1. East Anglian Puritans to New England, 1629-1640
2. West Country Cavaliers and their Servants to the Chesapeake, 1640-1675
3. North Midland Quakers to the Delaware Valley, 1675-1725
4. British and Scottish Borderers (the so-called "Scotch-Irish") to the American backwoods, 1717-1775

Maybe one of our resident British posters can elaborate more on any similarities they notice between these accents and North American ones.
>   Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:40 am GMT
That sounds more like Adam than Uriel.
Robin Michael   Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:42 am GMT
Is 'Burn mouth' and 'Bourne mouth' the same word, pronounced differently?
Guest   Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:53 am GMT
<<That sounds more like Adam than Uriel.>>

LOL. You're right!
Kaeops   Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:07 am GMT
''In Canada, non-rhotic accents are found in the Maritimes.''

Only in people born before 1930ies...
MD   Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:14 am GMT
Robin,

Pronouncing Bournemouth, you say the "mouth" part more like "moth" - or at least I do.
Damian SW15   Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:07 pm GMT
***Is 'Burn mouth' and 'Bourne mouth' the same word, pronounced differently?***

"Burn" is a Scots word for a stream or a rivulet, commonly used in Scotland. Scots roll/trill the "r" when they use it, unlike the English who simply glide over it as if it wasn't there.

Burnmouth is actually the name of the first village you come to after you've crossed the border into Scotland from England on the A1 road north from Berwick-upon-Tweed, just inside England. As the name suggests the village is situated right on the coast (of the North Sea) at the spot where this wee burn flows into the sea after its journey down from the Lammermuir Hills to the west....at the mouth of the burn.....hence Burnmouth.

"Bourne" (or bourn) is the old Southern English English word for the very same thing...a small stream or brook. It is pronounced exactly the same as "born".
English place names either beginning or ending with "bourne" are invariably located in Southern England, with Bournemouth, in Dorset on the south coast of England, probably being the most well known, along with another sizeable seaside town also on the south coast, this time in East Sussex - Eastbourne.

Both towns have small streams running through them down to the seashore...bourns, or bournes.....the same as the Scottish burns.

Everyone knows how to pronounce Eastbourne, but Bournemouth is simply pronounced as "BAWN-muth" or even just "BAWN'm'th" - the usual English English gliding over the letter "r" whereas we Scots would voice it, even when referring to Bournemouth.

Those bournes in Bournemouth often run down pretty wee wooded glens (small valleys) before reaching the shore, and in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole areas these are known as "chines" - another old Southern English word meaning a small kind of valley. THe most famous of these in Bournemouth itself is Branksome Chine.

You will find quite a number of placenames in Southern England containing "bourne", most usually as a suffix....Honeybourne (Gloucestershire) Weybourne (Norfolk) Camborne (variation - in Cornwall)or just simply Bourne on its own - in Lincolnshire...all of these places are located on small rivers or streams either flowing directly into the sea (as at Weybourne) or into another and larger river, as is the case with those other places.

Most British placenames have their origins lost in the mists of time, and most have a direct link to their position and surrounding geographical locations or for some particular historical feature or connection. Many of course are Roman in origin.....how I love those Romans...the Romans in Britain of literary fame....
Trimac20   Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:41 am GMT
^ Yet another complication, while most of the founding fathers and early Americans were rhotic, American speech became less rhotic over time like in Britain, not just in certain regions like New England but in general (of course only some regions lost all their rhoticity, notably Louisiana, the Carolinas, New York and New England). As someone pointed out rhoticity has increased alot since the 1940s or so.

Indeed it's also possible the earliest Americans weren't that rhotic, as I believe Lincolnshire was one of the first areas where non-rhotic features appeared.