Why is Indian English usually rhotic?
It seems that speakers of Indian English generally speak with a rhotic accent, pronouncing an [r] in all cases where spelled, whereas a speaker of British English would leave it off in postvocalic environments. This is surprising to me, because Indian English is supposed to be based on British English, which is non-rhotic. In addition, non-native speakers from China, Korea, and Japan often speak English with a non-rhotic accent (and BrE-based vowels). While this might be because Korean and Japanese don't have terminal /r/s, standard Mandarin Chinese does have terminal /ɹ/s, and so the phonology of the native languages doesn't seem to explain the discrepancy here.
(The r's in Indian English generally seem to be rolled [r]s, in contrast to an American English [ɹ].)
Wikipedia's article Rhoticity in English says: “Many varieties of Indian English are rhotic owing to the underlying phonotactics of the native Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages whilst some tend to be non-rhotic.” Still, even if an Indian speaker would find it easier to pronounce r's at the end of a word than a Japanese speaker, for instance, I would still expect them to follow BrE pronunciation as close as possible, and non-rhoticity seems to be an obvious characteristic.
Is pronouncing r's due to spelling pronunciation? Are there any other factors that might be contributing to the rhoticity in Indian English?
pronunciation indian-english rhotic
asked yesterday
MiClMiCl
21419
|
show 3 more comments
It seems that speakers of Indian English generally speak with a rhotic accent, pronouncing an [r] in all cases where spelled, whereas a speaker of British English would leave it off in postvocalic environments. This is surprising to me, because Indian English is supposed to be based on British English, which is non-rhotic. In addition, non-native speakers from China, Korea, and Japan often speak English with a non-rhotic accent (and BrE-based vowels). While this might be because Korean and Japanese don't have terminal /r/s, standard Mandarin Chinese does have terminal /ɹ/s, and so the phonology of the native languages doesn't seem to explain the discrepancy here.
(The r's in Indian English generally seem to be rolled [r]s, in contrast to an American English [ɹ].)
Wikipedia's article Rhoticity in English says: “Many varieties of Indian English are rhotic owing to the underlying phonotactics of the native Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages whilst some tend to be non-rhotic.” Still, even if an Indian speaker would find it easier to pronounce r's at the end of a word than a Japanese speaker, for instance, I would still expect them to follow BrE pronunciation as close as possible, and non-rhoticity seems to be an obvious characteristic.
Is pronouncing r's due to spelling pronunciation? Are there any other factors that might be contributing to the rhoticity in Indian English?
pronunciation indian-english rhotic
asked yesterday
MiClMiCl
21419
2
A few initial thoughts: American English is also based on British English and has rhotic dialects. Indian English also has a multigenerational history, functioning as a lingua franca from the 19th century through Indian Independence and to today. Even Scotland has rhotic dialects. Why wouldn't some Indian English dialects be rhotic?
– TaliesinMerlin
yesterday
1
The British used to pronounce their 'r's. When do you think England colonized India?
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
@TaliesinMerlin British English became non-rhotic in the late 19th century, after America was already mostly settled. According to Wikipedia, "English language public instruction began in India in the 1830s during the rule of the East India Company," which should be after British English became non-rhotic. I see three possibilities here: English in India was introduced by rhotic speakers; Indian English was initially non-rhotic and later became rhotic; or Indian English was always rhotic.
– MiCl
yesterday
1
@MiCl; British English became non-rhotic in an incredibly slow process, which started at the middle of the 18th century (if not earlier) and still hasn't ended today.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
@TaliesinMerlin My bad, I meant late 18th century. Re-reading the Wikipedia page, there does seem to be some wiggle room for when this happened: "By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety, though some variation persisted as late as the 1870s." The East India Company was based in London, so I'd guess that the London accent is what we're concerned with, although perhaps the company could have been from the more rhotic parts of England.
– MiCl
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
It seems that speakers of Indian English generally speak with a rhotic accent, pronouncing an [r] in all cases where spelled, whereas a speaker of British English would leave it off in postvocalic environments. This is surprising to me, because Indian English is supposed to be based on British English, which is non-rhotic. In addition, non-native speakers from China, Korea, and Japan often speak English with a non-rhotic accent (and BrE-based vowels). While this might be because Korean and Japanese don't have terminal /r/s, standard Mandarin Chinese does have terminal /ɹ/s, and so the phonology of the native languages doesn't seem to explain the discrepancy here.
(The r's in Indian English generally seem to be rolled [r]s, in contrast to an American English [ɹ].)
Wikipedia's article Rhoticity in English says: “Many varieties of Indian English are rhotic owing to the underlying phonotactics of the native Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages whilst some tend to be non-rhotic.” Still, even if an Indian speaker would find it easier to pronounce r's at the end of a word than a Japanese speaker, for instance, I would still expect them to follow BrE pronunciation as close as possible, and non-rhoticity seems to be an obvious characteristic.
Is pronouncing r's due to spelling pronunciation? Are there any other factors that might be contributing to the rhoticity in Indian English?
pronunciation indian-english rhotic
asked yesterday
MiClMiCl
21419
It seems that speakers of Indian English generally speak with a rhotic accent, pronouncing an [r] in all cases where spelled, whereas a speaker of British English would leave it off in postvocalic environments. This is surprising to me, because Indian English is supposed to be based on British English, which is non-rhotic. In addition, non-native speakers from China, Korea, and Japan often speak English with a non-rhotic accent (and BrE-based vowels). While this might be because Korean and Japanese don't have terminal /r/s, standard Mandarin Chinese does have terminal /ɹ/s, and so the phonology of the native languages doesn't seem to explain the discrepancy here.
(The r's in Indian English generally seem to be rolled [r]s, in contrast to an American English [ɹ].)
Wikipedia's article Rhoticity in English says: “Many varieties of Indian English are rhotic owing to the underlying phonotactics of the native Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages whilst some tend to be non-rhotic.” Still, even if an Indian speaker would find it easier to pronounce r's at the end of a word than a Japanese speaker, for instance, I would still expect them to follow BrE pronunciation as close as possible, and non-rhoticity seems to be an obvious characteristic.
Is pronouncing r's due to spelling pronunciation? Are there any other factors that might be contributing to the rhoticity in Indian English?
pronunciation indian-english rhotic
pronunciation indian-english rhotic
asked yesterday
MiClMiCl
21419
asked yesterday
MiClMiCl
21419
edited yesterday
MiCl
asked yesterday
MiClMiCl
21419
asked yesterday
MiClMiCl
21419
asked yesterday
MiClMiCl
21419
21419
2
A few initial thoughts: American English is also based on British English and has rhotic dialects. Indian English also has a multigenerational history, functioning as a lingua franca from the 19th century through Indian Independence and to today. Even Scotland has rhotic dialects. Why wouldn't some Indian English dialects be rhotic?
– TaliesinMerlin
yesterday
1
The British used to pronounce their 'r's. When do you think England colonized India?
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
@TaliesinMerlin British English became non-rhotic in the late 19th century, after America was already mostly settled. According to Wikipedia, "English language public instruction began in India in the 1830s during the rule of the East India Company," which should be after British English became non-rhotic. I see three possibilities here: English in India was introduced by rhotic speakers; Indian English was initially non-rhotic and later became rhotic; or Indian English was always rhotic.
– MiCl
yesterday
1
@MiCl; British English became non-rhotic in an incredibly slow process, which started at the middle of the 18th century (if not earlier) and still hasn't ended today.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
@TaliesinMerlin My bad, I meant late 18th century. Re-reading the Wikipedia page, there does seem to be some wiggle room for when this happened: "By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety, though some variation persisted as late as the 1870s." The East India Company was based in London, so I'd guess that the London accent is what we're concerned with, although perhaps the company could have been from the more rhotic parts of England.
– MiCl
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
2
A few initial thoughts: American English is also based on British English and has rhotic dialects. Indian English also has a multigenerational history, functioning as a lingua franca from the 19th century through Indian Independence and to today. Even Scotland has rhotic dialects. Why wouldn't some Indian English dialects be rhotic?
– TaliesinMerlin
yesterday
1
The British used to pronounce their 'r's. When do you think England colonized India?
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
@TaliesinMerlin British English became non-rhotic in the late 19th century, after America was already mostly settled. According to Wikipedia, "English language public instruction began in India in the 1830s during the rule of the East India Company," which should be after British English became non-rhotic. I see three possibilities here: English in India was introduced by rhotic speakers; Indian English was initially non-rhotic and later became rhotic; or Indian English was always rhotic.
– MiCl
yesterday
1
@MiCl; British English became non-rhotic in an incredibly slow process, which started at the middle of the 18th century (if not earlier) and still hasn't ended today.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
@TaliesinMerlin My bad, I meant late 18th century. Re-reading the Wikipedia page, there does seem to be some wiggle room for when this happened: "By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety, though some variation persisted as late as the 1870s." The East India Company was based in London, so I'd guess that the London accent is what we're concerned with, although perhaps the company could have been from the more rhotic parts of England.
– MiCl
yesterday
2
2
A few initial thoughts: American English is also based on British English and has rhotic dialects. Indian English also has a multigenerational history, functioning as a lingua franca from the 19th century through Indian Independence and to today. Even Scotland has rhotic dialects. Why wouldn't some Indian English dialects be rhotic?
– TaliesinMerlin
yesterday
A few initial thoughts: American English is also based on British English and has rhotic dialects. Indian English also has a multigenerational history, functioning as a lingua franca from the 19th century through Indian Independence and to today. Even Scotland has rhotic dialects. Why wouldn't some Indian English dialects be rhotic?
– TaliesinMerlin
yesterday
1
1
The British used to pronounce their 'r's. When do you think England colonized India?
– Peter Shor
yesterday
The British used to pronounce their 'r's. When do you think England colonized India?
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
1
@TaliesinMerlin British English became non-rhotic in the late 19th century, after America was already mostly settled. According to Wikipedia, "English language public instruction began in India in the 1830s during the rule of the East India Company," which should be after British English became non-rhotic. I see three possibilities here: English in India was introduced by rhotic speakers; Indian English was initially non-rhotic and later became rhotic; or Indian English was always rhotic.
– MiCl
yesterday
@TaliesinMerlin British English became non-rhotic in the late 19th century, after America was already mostly settled. According to Wikipedia, "English language public instruction began in India in the 1830s during the rule of the East India Company," which should be after British English became non-rhotic. I see three possibilities here: English in India was introduced by rhotic speakers; Indian English was initially non-rhotic and later became rhotic; or Indian English was always rhotic.
– MiCl
yesterday
1
1
@MiCl; British English became non-rhotic in an incredibly slow process, which started at the middle of the 18th century (if not earlier) and still hasn't ended today.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
@MiCl; British English became non-rhotic in an incredibly slow process, which started at the middle of the 18th century (if not earlier) and still hasn't ended today.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
1
@TaliesinMerlin My bad, I meant late 18th century. Re-reading the Wikipedia page, there does seem to be some wiggle room for when this happened: "By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety, though some variation persisted as late as the 1870s." The East India Company was based in London, so I'd guess that the London accent is what we're concerned with, although perhaps the company could have been from the more rhotic parts of England.
– MiCl
yesterday
@TaliesinMerlin My bad, I meant late 18th century. Re-reading the Wikipedia page, there does seem to be some wiggle room for when this happened: "By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety, though some variation persisted as late as the 1870s." The East India Company was based in London, so I'd guess that the London accent is what we're concerned with, although perhaps the company could have been from the more rhotic parts of England.
– MiCl
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484173%2fwhy-is-indian-english-usually-rhotic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484173%2fwhy-is-indian-english-usually-rhotic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
A few initial thoughts: American English is also based on British English and has rhotic dialects. Indian English also has a multigenerational history, functioning as a lingua franca from the 19th century through Indian Independence and to today. Even Scotland has rhotic dialects. Why wouldn't some Indian English dialects be rhotic?
– TaliesinMerlin
yesterday
1
The British used to pronounce their 'r's. When do you think England colonized India?
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
@TaliesinMerlin British English became non-rhotic in the late 19th century, after America was already mostly settled. According to Wikipedia, "English language public instruction began in India in the 1830s during the rule of the East India Company," which should be after British English became non-rhotic. I see three possibilities here: English in India was introduced by rhotic speakers; Indian English was initially non-rhotic and later became rhotic; or Indian English was always rhotic.
– MiCl
yesterday
1
@MiCl; British English became non-rhotic in an incredibly slow process, which started at the middle of the 18th century (if not earlier) and still hasn't ended today.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
@TaliesinMerlin My bad, I meant late 18th century. Re-reading the Wikipedia page, there does seem to be some wiggle room for when this happened: "By the early 19th century, the southern British standard was fully transformed into a non-rhotic variety, though some variation persisted as late as the 1870s." The East India Company was based in London, so I'd guess that the London accent is what we're concerned with, although perhaps the company could have been from the more rhotic parts of England.
– MiCl
yesterday