Linking R and
intrusive R are
sandhi phenomena
[1] involving the appearance of the
rhotic consonant (which normally corresponds to the letter ‹r›
😉 between two consecutive morphemes in which it would not normally be pronounced.
These phenomena occur in many non-rhotic dialects of English, such as those in most of England, Wales and the southern hemisphere. These phenomena first appeared in English sometime after the year 1700.[2]
Non-rhotic varieties
By definition, non-rhotic varieties of English only allow [r]
[3] to be pronounced when it immediately precedes a vowel, a feature variably called r-vocalization, r-loss, r-deletion, r-dropping, r-lessness, or non-rhoticity.
[4] So, for example, in non-rhotic varieties, the sound [r] does not occur in a word such as
tuner when it is spoken in isolation, before an intonation break (in
pausa), or before a word beginning with a consonant. Even though the word is spelled with an ‹r› (which reflects that an [r] was pronounced in the past
[5]), non-rhotic accents don't pronounce an [r] when there is no vowel sound to follow it. Thus, in isolation, speakers of non-rhotic accents pronounce the words
tuner and
tuna identically as [ˈtjuːnə]. In contrast, speakers of rhotic dialects, such as those of Scotland, Ireland and most of North America, always pronounce an [r] in
tuner and never in
tuna so that the two always sound distinct, even when pronounced in isolation.
[6][7] Hints of non-rhoticity go back as early as the 15th century, and the feature was common (at least in
London) by the early 18th century.
[8]
[edit] Linking R
In non-rhotic accents, words historically ending in /r/ (as evidenced by an ‹r› in the spelling) may be pronounced with [r] when they are closely followed by another morpheme beginning with a vowel sound. For example,
tuner amp may be pronounced [ˈtjuːnə
r æmp].
[9] This is the case even though
tuner would not otherwise be pronounced with an [r]. Here, "closely" means the following word must be in the same
prosodic unit (that is, not separated by a
pausa). This phenomenon is known as
linking R. Not all non-rhotic varieties feature linking R. A notable non-rhotic accent that does not have linking R is
Southern American English.
[10]
[edit] Intrusive R
The phenomenon of
intrusive R is an overgeneralizing reinterpretation
[11][12] of linking R into an r-insertion rule that affects any word that ends in the non-high vowels /ə/, /ɪə/, /ɑː/, or /ɔː/;
[13] when such a word is closely followed by another word beginning in a vowel sound, an [r] is inserted between them, even when no final /r/ was historically present.
[14] For example, the phrase
tuna oil would be pronounced [ˈtjuːnə
r ɔɪl]. The [r] is inserted epenthetically to prevent
two consecutive vowel sounds.
[15] Other recognizable examples are the Beatles singing: "I saw-r-a film today, oh boy" in the song "A Day in the Life", from their 1967 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album, or at the Sanctus in the Catholic Mass: "Hosanna-r-in the highest". This is now common enough in parts of England that, by 1997, the linguist John C. Wells considered it objectively part of Received Pronunciation, though he noted that it was still stigmatized as an incorrect pronunciation,[16] as it is or was in some other standardized non-rhotic accents. Wells writes that, at least in RP, "linking /r/ and intrusive /r/ are distinct only historically and orthographically".[17]
Just like linking R, intrusive R may also occur between a root morpheme and certain suffixes, such as draw(r)ing, withdraw(r)al or Kafka(r)esque.
Rhotic dialects do not feature intrusive R. A rhotic speaker may use alternative strategies such as a
hiatus between the two consecutive vowel sounds, or the insertion of a
glottal stop to clarify the boundary between the two words. Varieties that feature linking R but not intrusive R (that is,
tuna oil is pronounced [ˈtjuːnə (ʔ
😉ɔɪl]), show a clear phonemic distinction between words with and without /r/ in the syllable coda.
[18]
[edit] Prevalence
A study
[19] examined the pronunciation of 30 British newsreaders on nationally broadcast newscasts around the turn of the 21st century speaking what was judged to be "mainstream RP". The data used in the study consisted mostly of the newsreaders reading from prepared scripts, but also included some more informal interview segments.
It was found that all the newsreaders used some linking R and 90% (27 of 30) used some intrusive R.
Overall, linking R was used in 59.8% of possible sites and intrusive R was used in 32.6% of possible sites. The factors influencing the use of both linking and intrusive R were found to be the same. Factors favouring the use of R-sandhi included adjacency to short words; adjacency to grammatical or non-lexical words; and informal style (interview rather than a prepared script). Factors disfavouring the use of R-sandhi included adjacency to proper names; occurrence immediately before a stressed syllable; the presence of another /r/ in the vicinity; and more formal style (prepared script rather than interview). The following factors were proposed as accounting for the difference between the frequency of linking and intrusive R:
- overt stigmatization of intrusive R
- the speakers being professional newsreaders and thus, presumably, speech-conscious professionals
- the speakers (in most cases) reading from a written script, making the orthographic distinction between linking and instrusive R extremely salient
- the disparity between the large number of short, grammatical words that end in possible linking R (e.g. "for", "or", "are", etc.) and the absence of such words that end in possible intrusive R.
