Talk:Received Pronunciation

Talk:Received Pronunciation

Yod coalescence?

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the historical variation section, it is mentioned: ‘most speakers’ pronounce /tʃ/ instead of /tj/. I heavily doubt that (personal experience) but can’t access the source. Yongtsit (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia says

Most RP speakers use /tʃ/ instead of /tj/ (e.g. tube) and /dʒ/ instead of /dj/ (e.g. dew) in accented syllables.

Gimson's Pronunciation of English Seventh Edition on the pages 80-81 indeed says that that pronunciation is "typical of a majority of speakers of General RP".
If you disagree with that, how about providing a more reliable sources that says otherwise? ~2026-20860-17 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should this article be split?

Latest comment: 27 days ago33 comments9 people in discussion

Wondering if a new Standard Southern British English article is needed given the significant accent shifts in recent decades- several sources seem to indicate so. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree with that. I've recently heard J C Wells on YouTube at Dr Geoff Lindsey channel saying that the term RP should be kept for a former standard. Which sources do you have in mind? ~2026-26697-58 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have the same thought: do you have sources besides Lindsey who I believe might be the pioneer of this? Are other scholars using that terminology as well? (I don't doubt that they are. We just need the sources.) Wolfdog (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Evidence for SSBE usage here:
IPA Handbook p. 4: "Standard Southern British (where 'Standard' should not be taken as implying a value judgment of 'correctness') is the modern equivalent of what has been called 'Received Pronunciation' ('RP')"
Standard Southern British English by Jose A. Mompeán
And many more. [citation unneeded] (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The fact that this accent has changed over time is surely not the point. All accents do that, as the RP article makes clear. SSBE is a perfectly good alternative name for RP (though John Wells in his Youtube interview with Geoff Lindsey seems to have serious reservations about it). However, I can't see the point in writing a new article on SSBE. Effectively you'd be rewriting the RP article and then making "Received Pronunciation" redirect to it. What happens if other people want to campaign for other alternative names, such as "General British"? RoachPeter (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the central debate here is about WP:COMMONNAME. I've looked and the media still widely use the term "RP" (though sometimes prefer "SSBE"). There are lots of sources in the literature of linguists using the term SSBE, but then you also get ones like Iturri et al. (2025) claiming that "‘General British’ is now phoneticians’ and linguists’ preferred term for the British accent previously known as ‘Received Pronunciation’ or RP."
I only did a very cursory look, but it seems to me that there's some disagreement about the use of the term. With that said, I do think the argument for treating them as different entities has some weight, because rather than simply being an accent that has changed over time, "the older traditions of RP analysis continue to be commonly taught and used", not to mention the fact that the IPA themselves no longer use the term RP to describe the current accent. Therefore, I think that they should be split, because there are good arguments on both sides for structuring the page around both the older accent and the current one. [citation unneeded] (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I can't make sense of your last sentence. If I understand the overall proposal correctly, you are discussing having one article on RP (essentially the one we have today) and having another article, called SSBE, which would presumably have its own tables, diagrams, recorded examples, list of notable speakers etc. In order to avoid the risk of OR, this would have to be based on published presentations of SSBE, and while, as you point out, there are several authors who use the term SSBE, I can't find a comprehensive stand-alone description of the accent. There are cogent arguments made by Geoff Lindsey for moving from RP (as currently described) to a more modern standard, and the RP article mentions this, but I don't think you could make a comprehensive WP article on a new standard accent based just on his book. RoachPeter (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think you're right to say that there are not enough RS on SSBE to merit another article at present. With that said, I do think there is scope for making more of SSBE here. While the "Historical variation" section does go into significant detail on how RP -> SSBE took place, the section describing changes in phonological description as "Alternative notation" is very strange indeed. I think we should further stress that the phonology described is a historical, slightly inaccurate standard which is used for broad transcription etc because of convenience and tradition, rather than a structure that implies that /æ/ is somehow still /æ/ and not /a/ (for instance).
Tangibly then, I would be in favour of
  • more detail on the difference between RP and its modern form in the lead
  • clear signposting in the phonology section that the contemporary sound system of "RP" is very different from the standard described (maybe going so far as to have two different "vowels" sections: there are comparatively fewer changes to the consonants so perhaps these could be confined to a subheading). This would entail overhauling the "Alternative notations" section too.
I think there's scope for a useful discussion on the level to which we stress that RP ≠ SSBE/GB. [citation unneeded] (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think this suggestion for improvement of the RP article is a good way forward, and is preferable to the idea of creating a parallel SSBE article which would duplicate a lot of the RP material. The RP article is a big and unwieldy amalgam of old and new information that needs a lot of tidying up. The term SSBE is explained in different places, and it is not always made clear that names like "RP", "SSBE" and "GB" are alternative names for the same accent, whether in its older or newer form. It is not made sufficiently clear that disagreements within the topic of RP relate to different issues, such as individual preferences for symbols, or different analyses of English phonology, and not simply the observed changes in the phonetic characteristics of the accent. I agree that the article should focus more on the contemporary form of the accent. The material in "Historical variation" is important, but it is ill-organised and the title implies random variation rather than the linear progression from older to newer that we should describe. It would be a massive task to rewrite this article: it would be difficult to avoid OR, it would create a lot of controversy and it would have implications for WP's own transcriptions. In other walks of life this would call for the setting up of a committee to agree how to proceed! RoachPeter (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've put a message on WikiProject Linguistics so hopefully they can help us figure out how to make these changes or otherwise weigh in! [citation unneeded] (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Any revision should also address the considerable overlap with English phonology. RoachPeter (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We can cover both accents here, there's too much overlap to split the article. Then there's the issue of WP:RS's on SSBE and RP being "a thing of the past" as Lindsey puts it. Sol505000 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if there might be a consensus for changing the title of the article to something neutral, such as "Standard accents in England". Then two key points could be given more emphasis: (a) the accent described as RP in WP and many other places is based on an outdated 20th-century standard, and (b) there is no agreement on the name of the standard accent. The older descriptive material could be shunted into a historical section and an updated description (based on published sources) developed. At some stage WP might want to adopt the name "SSBE" in place of "RP"; however, I can't accept the idea that one accent (RP) has expired and been replaced by a different accent (SSBE) - that is to ignore the continuous nature of language change. RoachPeter (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I assume RP is a well-known term in British pop culture, not just among linguists, theatre people, voice coaches, etc. My understanding is that, even though Prince Harry and King Charles, for instance, have very different accents, the lay public would identify both as "RP": that is, some kind of upper-class accent of southeastern England. If so, I'm not sure of any reason to open up the topic to an even more ambiguous term like "Standard accents in England". But that's just my instinct, assuming WP:COMMONNAME is relevant here. Wolfdog (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am sure you are right about how the lay public would describe the accents of King Charles and Prince Harry. However, in the academic world of linguistics and phonetics there are complaints that in places like WP and the IPA our description of the supposed standard pronunciation of English is much more like the King than the Prince, and suggestions that a more modern standard is overdue, possibly with a different name in order to differentiate it. See the refs to Lindsey's work. RoachPeter (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it's unrealistic to describe RP/SSBE as "standard" in the context of Northern Ireland and Scotland, but what about Wales? Their accents are very similar to Anglo-English. Isn't SSBE perceived as equally standard in Wales? Sol505000 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't say so. Welsh accents are widely different from RP. That's not to say that you couldn't find RP speakers among the Welsh population. RoachPeter (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
English accents including southern English accents are also widely different from RP.
“Standard Southern British” would seem to be a moronic way of describing an accent that a tiny minority use in South Britain and isn’t necessary geographically restricted to South Britain. ~2026-36509-33 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The label is disputed, but it is in use so we should mention it. [citation unneeded] (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's no reason why we can't keep RP as the name of the article per WP:COMMONNAME while also splitting it up as you describe. Both the outdated 20th-century version of the accent and the modern version of the accent are commonly called RP. I don't see any entirely compelling arguments to have the focus on one rather than the other, or a way to do so without losing sight of the fact that they are one accent. I am cautious of splitting up the article too much (e.g. having two "use" sections rather than just detailing how the use has changed over time). The fact that the accent developed into a linguistic standard is slightly irrelevant to its classification, and that should be listed as part of its "use" as it is currently.
The problem with this article is that it includes the bias that the outdated standard is the platonic form of RP (e.g. in modern phonetic analyses being called "Alternative notations" rather than being listed alongside the old one). In order to eliminate this we need to weight it very differently. I therefore propose laying out the sections something like this (with green for presentation of both as one accent, red for focus on the modern one and blue for focus on the older one):
  • (Top)
  • History [move notes on the name dispute here]
  • Prevalence and perceptions
  • Use
  • Phonology
    • Modern
      • Consonants
      • Vowels
    • Outdated standard [more neutral name needed]
      • Consonants
      • Vowels
      • Role in English linguistics [this is the place for descriptions of the use of RP vowels as diaphonemes etc.]
  • Historical variation [descriptions of all changes in phonology over time]
  • etc.
[citation unneeded] (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Per [1] (not the best source probably), "outdated standard" could be "the standard of the 60's" or something like that. Sol505000 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be better to use a term slightly less linked to the decade it was created (of possible) in because it continues to be a standard in some form even today. [citation unneeded] (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I second this basic restructuring. Wolfdog (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
In English After RP, Lindsey identifies the standard as that defined by Gimson in his English Pronouncing Dictionary: "most publications still use the set of phonetic symbols [of] A. C. Gimson" (p. vii). I therefore propose calling the outdated standard section something like "Gimson's symbols/system/standard/description". Lindsey refers to "his [Gimson's] vowel symbols". Do people have preferences?
The way consonants are treated as "standard" is different to vowels. Yes /a/ is now a more accurate symbol than /æ/, but the use of /tr/ in place of /tʃr/ (trend: 1 2) or /tj/ in place of /tʃ/ (tune: 1 2) is still standard in a lot of dictionaries - though actual phonetics papers would probably use the modern pronunciations. Modern use of the consonants often appears alongside the old, which is different to vowels because there Gimson's symbols are taken to be phonemes (/æ/ now often represents [a]). So I suppose there's an open question as to whether consonants are part of this standard, or if they just tend to be outdated because dictionaries aren't great at keeping pronunciations up to date. Do you lot think we should include consonants in this?
This wouldn't necessarily affect the title, but it's worth thinking about. [citation unneeded] (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just because the most common realization of a vowel phoneme in an accent has evolved and diverged from what is indicated by a phonemic representation doesn't immediately render the representation "outdated" or "inaccurate". Phonemic analysis by definition never becomes obsolete until there's a split or merger or a clear change in natural classes, and the choice of phonemic symbols is not something you do by just picking whatever you think is the most common realization, narrowly transcribing it, and calling it a day. They're informed by such concerns as stated purpose (who the target audience is) and harmony with existing conventions. I implore you to read JWL if you haven't. One may disagree with his assessment and argue Gimson's notation gives confusion or inaccurate impressions to laypeople with no linguistic background, but that doesn't automatically make the underlying analysis or the notation obsolete.
I for one am really wary of going down the path Lindsey advocates for because if you did you'd have to keep updating the notation every decade or two and the same symbol would inevitably come to represent different phonemes for different periods so you wouldn't be able to know what a transcription means without knowing when it was made. Nardog (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but if Gimson were alive today, he'd constantly update the transcription. That was his philosophy, and it makes a lot of sense. I mean, you have three mid vowels /ɛː ɜː ɔː/ in SSBE. This means that the front/central/back contrast is fully phonemic in the language (retract SQUARE to central - you get a regionally marked SQUARE-NURSE merger. Retract NURSE to back - you get a regionally marked, Geordie-style NURSE-THOUGHT merger). Why on earth would you then expect /uː/ not to be back and not to be a monophthong? But it's not, it's [ʉu], which sounds NOTHING like German /uː/. To hear an actual [uː], you need to put on a rap track performed by someone speaking AAVE or the New York dialect. Same with /iː/ - it's not [iː] and to me Kane (a Dutchman) in "Rain Down on Me" sounds inauthentic when he uses a long monophthong in "me" [miːːːː] on a long note. It should be [mɪːːːj], as you can hear in e.g. Linkin Park tracks. The vowel is clearly lower and more central (often closer to [ɘ], at least that's what I often hear in singing, often with reduction of the glide: [mɘːːːɪ̯]) for the vast majority of its duration in that context. This kind of transcription is a hindrance to both learners of English and learners of other languages (German, French) whose native language is English and whose first contact with the IPA is this kind of transcription. It mixes accurate, narrow symbols such as ⟨ʌ⟩ with symbols that are either outdated or have absolutely nothing to do with modern SSBE phonetics anymore. The alphabet is called the International Phonetic Alphabet and we should be vary of WP:ASTONISH, which goes both ways (for existing conventions and for readers' expectations when they learn IPA before learning the set of symbols used for English, which is possible). I get that there are conventions and traditions to follow, but I think we should update them as well. When /ʊ uː/ in one language (SSBE) are heard as /ʏ yː/ in another language (German) as opposed to /ʊ uː/ that are also present in that language (and which are historically strictly connected and form many minimal pairs, such as Mutter /ˈmʊtɐ/ 'mother' vs. Mütter /ˈmʏtɐ/ 'mothers'), we have a problem. To Germans, even central [ɵ ʉː] (including [ʉu]) for /ʊ uː/ are heard as a full-on merger with /ʏ yː/, as evidenced by how they perceive Upper Saxon dialects. Allowing for such cross-language discrepancies in the usage of symbols is, in my opinion, highly problematic, and I'm not alone in this. Sol505000 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This seems to be slightly off-topic. I'd suggest starting a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics on whether or not to apply Lindsey and Gimson's philosophy to Wikipedia, if that's what you're driving towards. [citation unneeded] (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I just wanted to illustrate my point. I probably should've been more concise, because it does go off at a tangent. Sol505000 (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
All of those would be great points if the transcriptions were put between square brackets. Hardly anyone advocates Spanish /d/ be represented as /ð/ just because it's the most common realization. English vowels happen to vary little by phonetic environment but that's no reason to expect phonemic transcriptions to be representative of phonetic realizations. I find the most unfortunate part of Gimson's legacy to be that his system (or its popularity) made people do. Nardog (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I broadly agree with you about the consistent use of a phonemic standard (thank you for the reading btw), but Gimson's symbols are not reflective of current phonology and the article should reflect that. The relevant section should give the indication that Gimson's symbols are used by linguists to refer to the phonemes of modern RP, but that they are outdated when used to suggest actual phonetic values. Do you have any thoughts about the title of such a section, or whether we should include consonants in that? [citation unneeded] (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's a rather extreme position to claim that there is 'no reason to expect phonemic transcriptions to be representative of phonetic realizations'. If that were the case, we could just use entirely random letters or simply numbers. Obviously people try to pick symbols that do roughly correspond to the most common realisation of the phonemes or to the underlying form that they assume, with deviations and compromises based on familiarity, convenience, simplicity, typographic restrictions and the like.--Anonymous44 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Of course it's reasonable to expect some representativeness or approximation, but not a exact or even close match, given there are allophony and variation. Nardog (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
If no-one has any problems with this restructuring, I assume we can go ahead?
I agree with Nardog's analysis that the transcription isn't necessarily obsolete, but no-one's actually commented on a better term for the standard. I am now of the opinion that the best name would be "Phonemic standard", and we change the umbrella category from "Phonology" to "Phonetics", and "Modern" to "SSBE". This is because Lindsey's transcription, while closer to actual modern phonetic realisations, is still a phonemic transcription, merely updated to reflect modern phonology
  • The last statement is evidenced by such things as the use of ɑː in place of ʌː for STRUT despite noting that both pronunciations are in use and that "STRUT is variable and not a clear reference point" (English After RP, p. 20). Since Lindsey only uses one rather than listing both, he cannot be attempting a completely accurate description of SSBE phonetics. There are probably better examples but that's the first one I thought of.
Please do comment if you have a better suggestion for a name. [citation unneeded] (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Table of RP vowels

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am concerned about the big table that comes at the end of the Vowel section of the "Historical variation" section, just before the start of the Consonant part. It has no explanatory heading or caption. The column heads are questionable: "Dictionary" references three dictionaries apparently chosen at random, none of them being pronunciation dictionaries. "Received English (oldest form)" would be better headed "Received pronunciation", but on what basis is this column designated as the oldest form of the accent? "General RP (intermediary)" uses the words "General" and "intermediary" in an obscure way ("intermediary" is more commonly a noun referring to a go-between). "SSBE (current norm)" refers only to Lindsey's work and implies that this is now the norm in place of RP, something which is surely not universally agreed. My principal concern, however, is where the phonetic values in the cells of this table have come from. Does Jones, for example, explicitly say that /i:/ has the values [iː~ɪi~ii̯], or has the creator of this table inferred those values from Jones's text? Without some explanation of how the table was devised it is not possible to say if some original research has been included.

If nobody wants to defend this table I will propose its removal. 

RoachPeter (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Language family infobox

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Does an article on RP really need the infobox at the beginning setting out the English language's descent from Indo-European and its passage through Old English, Middle English and Early Modern English? RoachPeter (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've generally wondered this for all dialects of modern English. Wolfdog (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think limiting it to "English" and the descendants from there is more than specific enough. If people are on the RP page, then they probably know what English is.
With that said, in some cases (e.g. Australian English) it might be useful to give rough dates for when the accent diverged from its parent in the infobox. [citation unneeded] (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The main problem is that the box is all about languages, while RP is an accent. I can't see how the current box could incorporate information about divergence among accents. I think it should be removed. RoachPeter (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that there are just too many parts of the Languages infobox that just don't make sense for accents, like Language Family, Writing Stystem and ISO 639-3. I think we should make a new infobox for accents (and some dialects) at Template:Infobox accent. [citation unneeded] (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does RP sound posh/negative?

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've recently listened to the talk with Professor David Crystal where he says that the attitude toward RP has changed, and now it is seen negatively: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t83DAaelego (about 38:13)

Can we add that info to the article? ~2026-29835-13 (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The point about RP being perceived negatively is already mentioned in para 3 of the section Prevalence and perceptions, but I don't think it would do any harm to add a reference to this recording to add to the discussion. RoachPeter (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Received Pronunciation isn't the same as General British

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gimson's Pronunciation of English (8th edition) says:

First, I no longer regard the book as describing RP (Received Pronunciation). (...) I have dropped the name RP and now consider myself to bedescribing General British or GB.

Wikipedia says:

A few illustrative examples of changes in RP during the 20th century and early 21st are given below. A more comprehensive list (using the name "General British" in place of "RP") is given in Gimson's Pronunciation of English.

I don't like that extract. What's the point in suggesting a book, which doesn't even describe RP, in a paragraph that is about RP inside the article about RP? We shouldn't use or mention that very book at all ~2026-32519-66 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The pronunciation of /ɪə/

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, if you don't mind my asking, is /ɪə/ (e.g. in 'near') most commonly pronounced as [ɪː] in RP nowadays? Or it's common but not done by the majority of RP speakers?

Also, I've come across the explanation that /ɪə/ is pronounced as [ɪjə]. Is it true? ~2026-33336-64 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is the talk page for improving the Received Pronunciation article, it is unlikely your question will be answered here. Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) In Solidarity 13:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Recent replacements of SSBE mentions with "modern RP"

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Recently a TA user (can't really ping them here to discuss because they keep hopping) has been replacing instances of "{S,s}tandard Southern British English" with "modern RP" (as well as replacing "contemporary RP" with "modern") in a number of articles, citing it as the "more common term"; is this a desirable change? I have been hesitant to revert them, but given the discussion above (#Should this article be split?), my understanding is that SSBE is the preferred term, not the other way around.

Side note: given that referenced discussion, I figured I'd start here, but this may be better served on a WikiProject (Languages or Linguistics or both). If you believe so, please mention and I will move this over there. ~ oklopfer (💬) 09:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think we should revert, per consensus. Wolfdog (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I saw this discussion and then started to changing "modern RP" to "Standard Southern British" on many pages, but one editor seems to have doubts. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2026-37231-58
What do you think? ~2026-37143-79 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

First, if the transcriptions use the Lindsey symbols, they clearly shouldn't be labelled 'RP' to avoid confusion. If, on the other hand, these are just the same transcriptions and the only difference is that RP is renamed to SSBE, such a change of terminology seems pointless and at least somewhat confusing, as using two different names for the same phenomenon within the same resource is bound to be. In general, I find the use of SSBE both as a term and as a transcription system premature. The lede of this article itself says that there is no consensus whether the newest form of RP must be referred to as SSBE or not. So far, nobody has demonstrated that a majority of linguists nowadays opt for this terminology. We've got Lindsey, perhaps a few others, but we don't know that there is a majority. If we did, that would override the fact that the general public is better acquainted with the term RP, but given that we don't, the fact is relevant. In practice, the symbols of RP are used as conventional designations of the phonemes, regardless of the fact that people know they are pronounced differently from what the IPA symbols imply; they can easily derive the proper modern RP/SSBE phonetic realisation from the traditional RP one. This makes them a useful standard, and replacing it with SSBE does not make it easier to identify the phonemes; in fact, it will probably make it harder for those unfamiliar with the new transcription. (Personally, I also find it really odd that the name of an accent should be replaced just because it has gradually changed; RP within the time frame for which nobody disputes the name changed significantly, too. You might as well change the name of English itself because it has changed. I see this as more of a political gesture and an attempt to distance RP from its class connotations.) --Anonymous44 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Confusion

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

'Furthermore, RP has changed to such a degree over the last century that many of its early 20th-century traditions of transcription and analysis have become outdated or are no longer considered evidence-based by linguists. Still, the older traditions of RP analysis continue to be commonly taught and used, for instance in language education and comparative linguistics, and RP remains a popular umbrella term in British society.'

This passage can't seem to make its mind up whether the problem is that RP has changed or that it wasn't correctly scientifically described to begin with. Just because the accent has changed, doesn't mean the earlier descriptions were 'no(t) ... evidence-based'. If what is meant by language education is second-language teaching, then what is used there is the old transcription based on the earlier form of the accent; calling this a different phonological analysis seems like stretching it. Anonymous44 (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.