Why do British theater actors use such different accent?

Status
Not open for further replies.

enthink

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
Why do British theater actors, who are native English speakers, pronounce the sound /r/ as if they were Italian or Spanish?

Sometimes I hear that accent used even outside theaters.

If you need an example, then listen to this famous recording of Vincent Price. He says this /r/ sound at time 0:40 in the word "creatures" in this clip: YouTube - Michael Jackson - Thriller (Vincent Price's studio acapella with verse that got cut)

Note that in many other cases on that recording he pronounces the /r/ sound as a native English speaker would.

Thanks!
 

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
Why do British theater actors, who are native English speakers, pronounce the sound /r/ as if they were Italian or Spanish?

Sometimes I hear that accent used even outside theaters.

If you need an example, then listen to this famous recording of Vincent Price. He says this /r/ sound at time 0:40 in the word "creatures" in this clip: YouTube - Michael Jackson - Thriller (Vincent Price's studio acapella with verse that got cut)

Note that in many other cases on that recording he pronounces the /r/ sound as a native English speaker would.

Thanks!
Vincent Price was an American theatre/film actor, not a British theatre actor. In the clip he is putting on an accent for dramatic effect.
 

enthink

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
Thanks. Could you please specify what exactly you mean by dramatic effect? What feeling does it evoke in a native speaker?

Does it sound foreign or not?

Vincent Price was an American theatre/film actor, not a British theatre actor. In the clip he is putting on an accent for dramatic effect.

I know he worked in the US, but he allegedly spent an initial part of his life travelling throughout Europe (I'd looked this up before posting) and I believe one can clearly hear his somewhat British-like accent (non-rhotic). Also, I talked about British actors because I heard the /r/ sound when I watched British actors in a British theater.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
It depends on the part of Britain- many Scottish speakers are rhotic, for instance.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Also, there is a performance art tradition dating back a thousand years, surviving mosty in French, to use the Languedoc pronunciation of the letter R rather than the northern Frankish pronunciation. This is for authenticity, as the troubadors were all from Languedoc originally, (the ones who were not Galego-Portuguese).

So we have Edith Piaf and Mireille Matthieu using the Mediterranean r in their songs (just check onliune for "Je ne regrette rien.)"

So I think there may be a bleed of this tradition into English. In London, at the theatre, I hear more rolled Rs than outside on Shaftesbury Avenue, by a large margin.

But I'm only guessing here.
 

enthink

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
It depends on the part of Britain- many Scottish speakers are rhotic, for instance.

Those actors were not Scottish. I am certain of that. They used the normal English /r/ only in certain cases did they use the "Spanish" /r/.
 

enthink

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
So I think there may be a bleed of this tradition into English. In London, at the theatre, I hear more rolled Rs than outside on Shaftesbury Avenue, by a large margin.

Yes. I thought something like that too. Thanks.

Could any native speaker answer this question please? What exact feelings does the foreign /r/ sound evoke in the listener when he or she hears it from the mouth of a native speaker who otherwise speaks RP?
 
Last edited:

curates-egg

Junior Member
Joined
May 2, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Germany
What exact feelings does the foreign /r/ sound evoke in the listener when he or she hears it from the mouth of a native speaker who otherwise speaks RP?
It is not 'foreign'; it is just not normal in standard British English as spoken in most parts of England. If I hear it used in a kitchen-sink drama set in England, then I conclude that the actors are not very accomplished; if I hear it in a performance of Shakespeare, then I accept it. In many types of plays we do not expect to hear the language of the street.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Robertson Davies used to imitate TS Eliot and put on an exaggerated RP accent, though he was raised here, when reading his books in public in Toronto. I saw him with Tony Burgess (who was literally foaming at the mouth he was so drunk); Davies rolled his Rs like a Scottish grand-dad (in addition to using RP for all other sounds. So I think there is some truth to the effect. Or the affectation.
 

freezeframe

Key Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
The recording you link is camp horror, which is what Vincent Price is best known for anyway. The rolling R's and other affectations in language and manners are part of the genre expectations of certain sub-genres of horror (especially camp horror).

Rolling R's are also common in what is known as Mummerset accent which is used for comic effect (rolled R's are perceived as funny) or to show that the character is of an "aspiring class".

Similarly, the "Shakespearean accent" is part of genre expectations. Shakespeare can be delivered with a modern accent, but that feels inauthentic to some of the audience (not all) because we expect Shakespearean language to be pronounced a certain way.

This is part of the aesthetic contract we enter into. The language we expect is "estranged" (made-strange) and that is what seems to lend the plays their dramatic character. Shakespeare writes before the bourgeois theater with its focus on the individual, the private, the personal. His characters are closer to Greek theater than to Ibsen. The plays deal with fate and destinies of great people. Thus, it must be estranged. One view is that when delivered in modern English, thus losing their estranged character, the plays become "common" (something more suitable for a realist drawing room drama, for example). Of course one can very successfully argue with this view but it's still a valid view.

Where this came from -- you'll have to ask a Shakespearean scholar. I would guess it comes from the fact that in Shakespearean times English was rhotic (that's why you'll see in the article I link below a reference to the commonly held belief that AmE is closer to Shakespeare than BrE). This would go back to the "authenticity" argument.

You might find this interesting:

Shakespearean vs. Contemporary English | Dialect Blog
 

enthink

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
The recording you link is camp horror, which is what Vincent Price is best known for anyway. The rolling R's and other affectations in language and manners are part of the genre expectations of certain sub-genres of horror (especially camp horror).

Rolling R's are also common in what is known as Mummerset accent which is used for comic effect (rolled R's are perceived as funny) or to show that the character is of an "aspiring class".

Similarly, the "Shakespearean accent" is part of genre expectations. Shakespeare can be delivered with a modern accent, but that feels inauthentic to some of the audience (not all) because we expect Shakespearean language to be pronounced a certain way.

This is part of the aesthetic contract we enter into. The language we expect is "estranged" (made-strange) and that is what seems to lend the plays their dramatic character. Shakespeare writes before the bourgeois theater with its focus on the individual, the private, the personal. His characters are closer to Greek theater than to Ibsen. The plays deal with fate and destinies of great people. Thus, it must be estranged. One view is that when delivered in modern English, thus losing their estranged character, the plays become "common" (something more suitable for a realist drawing room drama, for example). Of course one can very successfully argue with this view but it's still a valid view.

Where this came from -- you'll have to ask a Shakespearean scholar. I would guess it comes from the fact that in Shakespearean times English was rhotic (that's why you'll see in the article I link below a reference to the commonly held belief that AmE is closer to Shakespeare than BrE). This would go back to the "authenticity" argument.

Thanks for that very informative post.

Another native English speaker suggested something that is very close to the last paragraph of your post. He said that the actors do it to sound "ancient". And if London English was really rhotic in Shakespeare's times (was it?), then it would really make sense. What do you think?
 

freezeframe

Key Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Thanks for that very informative post.

Another native English speaker suggested something that is very close to the last paragraph of your post. He said that the actors do it to sound "ancient". And if London English was really rhotic in Shakespeare's times (was it?), then it would really make sense. What do you think?

I already posted what I think in a rather lengthy post. I'm not going to repeat it all.

What was or wasn't the case doesn't matter. "Real authenticity" is impossible. What matters is our perceptions and expectations.
 

djack

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Mexico
Current Location
England
Pronunciation of intervocalic /r/ as alveolar tap in British English

Hello everyone,

I recently found the following thread in the Ask a Teacher section of this forum (sadly closed), [I have added your post to the original thread - 5jj] in which @enthink asked why some English actors pronounce the letter R "as if they were Italian or Spanish":

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...theater-actors-use-such-different-accent.html

Quite a few people replied, but the thread ended up in speculation, without anyone giving the correct answer, which I think is worth posting here.
The alveolar tap [ɾ] pronunciation of the intervocalic R (sometimes even a slight trill) in British English is NOT any of the following:

– A fruity affectation in inexperienced thespians (although I'm sure it has become so in many occasions)
– An emulation of Mediterranean/Languedoc pronunciation
– An example of the Scottish dialect (even though the Scots do of course roll their r's)
– A genre expectation in camp horror
– An exercise in "theatrical estrangement" to divorce an audience from the characters in a play
– A left-over sound from rhotic British accents
– A comic effect in the Mummerset accent

All of those theories were posted as fact in that very short thread – it's surprising and a bit unfortunate nobody came up with the correct one.
The reason why that sound was used in the Mid-Atlantic accent of 1940s films quickly becomes apparent when listening to this recording of Virginia Woolf from 1937:


The alveolar [ɾ] wasn't originally an affectation (well, as much as one can say that Received Pronunciation is one, in and of itself) but a common trait of British English which was somehow lost sometime in the early twentieth century.
As with many aspects of BE, this characteristic seems to have been pretty unexceptional throughout the south of the country, even amongst the middle-class, up until the 19th century. It then gradually disappeared "from the bottom up", first in the middle classes, then in academia and in broadcast RP, and finally in the upper-class RP, which has been rather keen in sounding more "street-smart" in the last few decades, no doubt due to "downward class-passing". This "bottom-up" change has happened frequently in the UK, e.g. the pronunciation of words such as whine and tissue.

Basically, it was a common trait of British English which started sounding "posh" and stuffy and was gradually phased out in the 20th century.
Elderly members of the English upper-class actually still use it – something their grandchildren no doubt consider incredibly uncool!

It shows up nowadays mostly in places where we would expect a few archaisms, namely Shakesperean theatre (or any other period plays for that matter), as well as, occasionally, in Middle-Earth wizards :)

LOTR The Fellowship of the Ring - Farewell Dear Bilbo - YouTube

Haha, that conjuror of cheap tricks…
For a concise and very learned read on this and other recent mutations in RP I suggest the following article:

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/rphappened.htm

I hope you all find this helpful, and if @enthink is around, I hope he finally gets his answer!
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Re: Pronunciation of intervocalic /r/ as alveolar tap in British English

Welcome to the forum, djack.
All of those theories were posted as fact in that very short thread
And now you are adding your opinion as fact. That's not unusual in forums.
– it's surprising and a bit unfortunate nobody came up with the correct one.
If you wish to claim that your answer is the absolutely corect one, then you need to add some evidence. Otherwise it's likely to be regarded as just another opinion - interesting, but just an opinion.
s
I hope you all find this helpful, and if @enthink is around, I hope he finally gets his answer!
If enthink is still around, she gets another answer.

Threads are closed automatically if they have received no response for three months. The absence of responses is a pretty good sign that there is no more interest in the thread. However, as djack has expressed interest, I have re-opened it.
 
Last edited:

djack

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Mexico
Current Location
England
Re: Pronunciation of intervocalic /r/ as alveolar tap [ɾ] in British English

Welcome to the forum, djack.
And now you are adding your opinion as fact. That's not unusual in forums.
If you wish to claim that your answer is the absolutely corect one, then you need to add some evidence. Otherwise it's likely to be regarded as just another opinion - interesting, but just an opinion. If enthink is still around, she gets another answer.

I guess one can qualify any statement ever made as an 'opinion', but we can hopefully agree that kind of relativism is self-defeating.

I think the main problem here was a certain degree of terminological confusion here. I think most people here assumed, being native English speakers and also having been able to follow the now defunct link to the (indeed very "camp horror") Vincent Price performance, that the sound enthink was referring to was exclusively the alveolar trill [r] (or rolled R).
I, being a native Spanish speaker and focussing on his description of the sound as being used in theatres, assumed enthink was talking about both the alveolar trill [r] and the alveolar tap [ɾ], since to me they are variations of the same letter (soft and hard R), the trill being an emphasis or extension of the single tap, and really being comprised just of several quick consecutive taps.

In England nowadays, when people say someone is "rolling their Rs", they are focussing on the trill, which when overused is of course a pretty obvious, comical, and rather silly affectation, unless one is very Scottish. When I replied to this, I mainly focussed on the alveolar tap, which used to be a standard part of RP and has died out in the way I described. I have definitely heard people describing as the way the likes of Patrick Stewart or Stephen Fry speak as rolling their Rs, but I can't be sure if they meant the trill only or the single taps as well.

I apologise for my dismissive tone since when considering enthink's question in that light then of course many of the theories I dismissed are quite correct. However I don't think any decent Shakespearean actors overuse the trill; they really are just speaking upper-class/mildly archaic RP, which is the way I understood the question myself. Without enthink's output we can't know for sure whether (s)he meant both sounds or not, but since (s)he mentions the theatre RP accent (which mostly uses the tap and very rarely the trill) I will expand a bit on what I meant.

Most British people know or at least have heard the slightly stuffy "posh" accent I described, most often heard in older aristocrats, but for the rest of you guys, they often use alveolar taps for linking Rs as in for a and tether in, after a short stressed vowel in words such as oracle, empirical or verity, but also after dorsal occlusive consonants, as in cringe, crevice or angry.
Sometimes, when emphasising words with a double R, as in carriage or marriage, or in starting Rs as in ravish or wrong, they often permit themselves a soft, dark trill. Nothing as obvious as a merry Scotsman or as silly as the Vincent Price performance (who I suspect was kind of going for a mild Transilvanian accent, since he normally used a transatlantic accent) – but still definitely there.

I posted two videos in my previous post. One can dismiss the Hollywood wizard as a genre affectation (Ian McKellen often uses an unusual sort of soft "french J" when pronouncing /r/s in real life, almost like [ʒ]). However, The Woolf recording is full of alveolar taps which are slightly, very softly trilled, and a few clear trills (listen to the word Royal at the 4:50 mark, or roving at 5:08) as typical for an old U-RP accent.

If one focusses on the tap as that "Spanish or Italian sound" then the link I posted above is pretty concise about it:

Loss of tapped /r/. A further change from this period was the loss of the alveolar tap [ɾ] as a usual realization of /r/ between vowels, as in very sorry, better off. It has been replaced by the ordinary approximant [ɹ].

-If anyone really wants to waste their time on the evolution of the R sound (and I suspect most people won't), they can read the 250 page doctoral thesis of a linguistics PhD of the University of Bergen. It only very tangentially comments on the evolution of this particular phoneme but I will quote the following paragraph:

The following changes are almost complete, in the sense that the “new” pronunciations are now typical of the large majority of Mainstream RP speakers (the old pronunciations are heard with many U-RP speakers):
[...] /r/ is realised as a post-alveolar approximant in all positions, whereas formerly a tapped[ɹ] was usual in intervocalic positions.

The rest of the thesis can be downloaded on the foliowing website:

https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/2335?show=full


In any case, thank you for merging the threads; it makes much more sense that way.
 
Last edited:

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
Re: Pronunciation of intervocalic /r/ as alveolar tap [ɾ] in British English

For the edification of afficionados of this thread I present Mr William Ewart Gladstone, an Englishman of a certain class, born in Liverpool to Scottish parents, educated at expensive English public schools and recorded here speaking in 1888 as British prime minister. http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/uploads/glads.mp3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top