# Is AREN'T pronounced /a:nt/ ONLY by a minority of English speakers?



## kuleshov

I've always thought that AREN'T was pronounced /a:nt/ or /a:rnt/ in American English, but now I've been told that only a minority of English speakers pronounce /a:nt/ because Irish people pronounce the r, and so do Scottish people, etc, etc.

Is that so? I've only heard /a:rent/ once in my life. Perhaps I'm going deaf.

Help


----------



## Dimcl

Hi Kuleshov.  I'm not a grammarian so I have no clue about the pronunciation coding you've used.  What I do know is that most AE speakers pronounce it:

arnt

Is this what you're asking?


----------



## kuleshov

the problem is that I've been told that English native speakers also pronounce the e in aren't, which I find surprising.


----------



## Gordonedi

I can assure you that here in Scotland many people still pronounce the letter R in aren't.  Perhaps you're not going deaf, but just not listening to enough Scots !


----------



## kuleshov

No problem with the r, I know that; the problem is the e


----------



## mtmjr

The "e" can and should be pronounced, however, when speaking we tend to slur the word, pronouncing it "arnt".


----------



## Dimcl

kuleshov said:


> No problem with the r, I know that; the problem is the e


 
I never hear the "e" pronounced.  In fact, I would be surprised to hear it.  The other issue involved is the speed with which the word is said.  The faster it's said, the more the word is contracted.  This may be a regional thing for all I know but I think that the vast majority of AE speakers would say "arnt".


----------



## Loob

Hi kuleshov

Some varieties of English are rhotic (pronounce word-final r); some aren't. I really don't know whether rhotic or non-rhotic varieties are in the majority, looking at world-wide varieties of English.

I personally speak a non-rhotic variety, despite having grown up in a rhotic area and retaining many other features of my original dialect. i suggest you stick with whatever you learnt

EDIT: 
Have since realised, in the light of post 5, that you're interested not in rhoticity but in the two-syllable pronunciation of "aren't", with schwa in the second syllable. This exists in various varieties of English; but I'd say it's a minority pronunciation.


----------



## Gordonedi

kuleshov said:


> No problem with the r, I know that; the problem is the e



There is a link.  By pronouncing the R, the word becomes two syllables, even though the R seems to run straight into the N.  This is not the same as pronouncing the R and the E, which would give ARRENT.

So, I would say that in Scotland the R is sounded but the E is not.  I would also say that the E is not sounded anywhere else either.  Let's see what others think !


----------



## kuleshov

mtmjr, are you sure the "e" should be pronounced?

I never pronounce either the r or the e in aren't. The problem is that I thought non-native speakers were making a mistake when they pronounced the re .
But it seems that I am wrong because pronouncing the re is OK in some varieties, and therefore I cannot "correct" non-native speakers because they use a different variety.


----------



## Outsider

I have heard it pronounced as well. My guess would be that the "e" may be pronounced in careful or emphatic enunciation (only in rhotic accents, no doubt), but tends to disappear in casual speech.


----------



## mtmjr

Here is a dictionary pronunciation key:

[ahrnt, *ahr*-_uh_nt]

Most everyone I've ever heard, slurs the word into one syllable as in the first pronunciaiton.


----------



## kuleshov

Are there any Irish people around? Do you pronounce the e?


----------



## Cagey

For anyone who (like me) has difficulty understanding the difference under discussion, Merriam-Webster provides audios of both pronunciations.


----------



## Matching Mole

The majority of speakers in _England_ are non-rhotic speakers, and this includes the most populous areas of the UK, so per capita of the UK population it is the most common form of speech.

It is true that the Scots and Irish (amongst others) speak rhotically, but they are in the minority in the UK as a whole,so the reasoning behind what you have been told is incorrect. I would only adopt this pronunciation if you intend to live in those regions; I think it would be odd as a learner not to adopt the local accent. I expect you would do that naturally in any case.


----------



## kuleshov

Cagey, I'm flabbergasted; The Merriam-Webster pronounces the e.

So much for my longlife "misperception."

Thanks


----------



## Dimcl

kuleshov said:


> mtmjr, are you sure the "e" should be pronounced?
> 
> I never pronounce either the r or the e in aren't. The problem is that I thought non-native speakers were making a mistake when they pronounced the re .
> But it seems that I am wrong because pronouncing the re is OK in some varieties, and therefore I cannot "correct" non-native speakers because they use a different variety.


 
I'm not sure how you came by the idea that the "r" shouldn't be pronounced, Kuleshov.  It's possible that the "r" could be perceived to be unpronounced with a rolling of the "r".    Since North Americans don't have that accent, the "r" is definitely pronounced, at least in Canada and the northern U.S.  I could see the possibility that a southern U.S. accent might, because of the drawl, sound like the "r" is not pronounced.


----------



## kuleshov

Dimcl, I don't think I expressed myself well. I know the r is pronounced in American English. The problem was the e. At least, Spanish people tend to pronounce both the r and the e -but not the schwa; a long e- and I always thought they were careless speakers. And recently I've been told I cannot "criticize" people pronouncing /arent/ because only a minority pronounce /a:nt/ like me. And if, as Loob says, the pronunciation with the schwa is just pronounced by a minority, I think I am not a criminal if I tell someone that aren't can be pronounced /a:nt/; but people insist I am just being imperialist and favouring received pronunciation, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## Outsider

Kuleshov, when natives pronounce the "e" in "aren't", they pronounce it as a schwa, not with a Spanish "e". Listen.


----------



## Dimcl

kuleshov said:


> Dimcl, I don't think I expressed myself well. I know the r is pronounced in American English.


 
Sorry, but I was responding to your comment that you never pronounce the "r".




> And recently I've been told I cannot "criticize" people pronouncing /arent/ because only a minority pronounce /a:nt/ like me. And if, as Loob says, the pronunciation with the schwa is just pronounced by a minority, I think I am not a criminal if I tell someone that aren't can be pronounced /a:nt/; but people insist I am just being imperialist and favouring received pronunciation, blah, blah, blah.


 
It has been my experience that correcting _anyone's_ pronunciation can often result in hurt feelings and resentment (if not fisticuffs!).


----------



## kuleshov

You see I thought the e was never pronounced, not even as a schwa. That's why I feel dumbfounded. Anyway, I am sure a lot of native speakers have heard Spanish people pronouncing /arent/. Do you systematically perceive it as "Oh, this person is using a variety of English.S/he must have lived in X, where people pronounce /arent/"?


----------



## Loob

No - if I heard a Spanish person pronouncing "aren't" with two syllables I'd see it as a mistake, not as a reflection of an English regional pronunciation.


----------



## Matching Mole

I have "systematically" never noticed anyone pronounce the "e" aren't  I would have no idea where they were from on the basis of that clue. I would have to go by other things.


----------



## Outsider

A person with a Spanish accent would pronounce it as "a_*rè*_n't", which is different from "a_*re*_n't".


----------



## Matching Mole

Loob makes a good point. Native English speakers speak the way they do on the basis of their region, education, class, etc. Few feel the need to make conscious choices in these matters. However, as a non-native you may feel the need to make such choices and I think therein lies the danger of sounding "odd". I suppose it is difficult if you never go to the home country of the language that you are learning, because if you do then you can easily adopt the local style. Without prejudice to any way of speaking, I would say, in that situation, to go for the most standard pronunciation regime that you have access to and be consistent with it. As unfortunate as it may be, if you choose oddities of pronunciation, with no rationale, your speech will sound odd, wherever you go.


----------



## kuleshov

That's exactly my point Loob; I consider it as a mistake. It is pronounced using Spanish pronunciation, and I find it too difficult to believe that it is just a question of English varieties. If I hear a second level student pronounce /arent/ I will tell them they are making a mistake; of course if I hear a Spaniard with an excellent command of English, I would think they are just using another variety.


----------



## Matching Mole

Exactly, that was the original point I intended to make (and was distracted from in the end). If you are a native or exceptional non-native speaker you can get away with such things. If you are obviously non-native such variations are likely to be prejudged as errors.


----------



## lizzeymac

I'm sitting in a room full of Am. English speakers.  They are trained actors, though none have 'corrected' their original regional accents in everyday speech, and they have good ears for speech.  
We've just done a quick survey -  
Half of us say "arnt" - 4 from the Midwest, 1 from Oregon (Pacific Northwest) 1 from Upstate New York near Canada,  and 1 from Pennsylvania - 
and the other half say *ar*-uhnt" though the "uh" is subtle,  3 natives of Manhattan, NYC, 1 from San Diego/Chicago, and 2 from Connecticut and Rhode Island.  
We "ar-uhnt" sayers all believe that we may slur to "arnt"  sometimes when speaking quickly, though.
No one seems to find it unusual to hear some of us pronounce the "e" slightly, though it is definitely subtle rather than "are-ent"  - one person describes "arnt" as the straight line throught the word and "ar-uhnt" as a curve in the word.
In terms of education, everyone in the group (but me ) has undergraduate degree and about 70%  have at least one post graduate degree.


----------



## kuleshov

I wish I could have heard you!!!

Thanks a lot lizzeymac


----------



## pricey

In my experience it is always pronounced as one syllabul.
"are not "(hardly ever used except for emphasis)=ahnt
                                                                =arnt
                                                               =aint
Either of the first two are universally accepted ,but"aint"is not.


----------



## pricey

Sorry "syllable"


----------



## merrylunatic

Personally, I will always say "ar'n't" and "wer'n't" (without the E) and I'm rather sure most English speakers do the same, but I believe it is regional because I've spent my life in Ohio and Southern New Jersey and am now attending school in Northern New Jersey where it is common to pronounce it "are-unt" and "were-int"


----------



## panjandrum

kuleshov said:


> Are there any Irish people around? Do you pronounce the e?


I'm sorry that there has been a significant delay in the transmision of your message 

I am rhotic, so the /r/ is pronounced.
I don't pronounce the /e/ in any way, not even as schwa - so that /rn't/ sounds just like the consonant cluster /rnt/ in burnt and learnt.

There are some softly rural accents near to me in which _aren't_ would sound like _'arent_, but they also have other peculiarities of pronunciation and those I know who have this characteristic are careful to not to use it when speaking outside their local context.


----------



## JulianStuart

I'll be paying more attention to the e in the future but my first reaction to this was "I think I hear ar-uhnt more frequently if it's the beginning of a question than if it's a simple statement"  So "Aren't you coming with us?" would sound different than "They aren't here right now!"  Anyone else had similar experience?


----------



## Lone Ranger

I just check the pronunciation of your question in one of those PRONUNCING DICTIONARIES in internet and AREN'T sounds like aant in spanish no " r " no "e" I would suggest you try this phonetic dictionaries or make one of your american friends pronunce that contraction then will be easy.


----------



## JamesM

kuleshov said:


> Cagey, I'm flabbergasted; The Merriam-Webster pronounces the e.
> 
> So much for my longlife "misperception."
> 
> Thanks


 
Merriam-Webster's first pronunciation is without the "e" as a second syllable.  It is the secondary pronunciation that includes the "e".

I have heard it both ways.  Friends of mine from Arkansas pronounce it as two syllables but I can't say that it is a general Arkansas pronunciation.  I have a friend who grew up in upstate New York who often says, "ah-rent" with a bright "ah" sound.  

Generally speaking, though, I would expect to hear "arnt" as a single syllable here in southern California.


----------



## Forero

_Aren't_ and _weren't_ are far more common as one syllable where I live.  I think it is because the _-e_ on _are_ and _were_ is silent, but ...

I have heard _aren't_ and _weren't_ with the extra schwa before the _n_, and even _film_ and _alarm_ with an extra schwa before the _m_.

My mother told me that telephone operators in the days before dialing devices pronounced the words _please_, _line_, and _nine_ with a schwa before the final consonants, presumably to improve transmissibility.  (She said that as a little girl she was concerned about the "lion" that was often "busy".)

I myself add a schwa before _-n't_ on the rare occasions I have contracted _dare not_ and even _may not_, and I have heard others do the same.  I suspect I would not even recognize these particular contractions without the extra schwa.

Maybe those who put the schwa in _aren't_ feel it improves understandability.


----------



## kalamazoo

I mostly say "arnt" but sometimes "arent" with a schwa, probably mostly for emphasis. It would sound strange to me if someone pronounced a very distinct "e" but a schwa is fine.  Other than that, either way is fine and wouldn't make me think the speaker was making an error.


----------



## Mr.Slade

kuleshov said:


> Dimcl, I don't think I expressed myself well. I know the r is pronounced in American English. The problem was the e. At least, Spanish people tend to pronounce both the r and the e -but not the schwa; a long e- and I always thought they were careless speakers. And recently I've been told I cannot "criticize" people pronouncing /arent/ because only a minority pronounce /a:nt/ like me. And if, as Loob says, the pronunciation with the schwa is just pronounced by a minority, I think I am not a criminal if I tell someone that aren't can be pronounced /a:nt/; but people insist I am just being imperialist and favouring received pronunciation, blah, blah, blah.


 
This is not easy to sort out.

1. Native speakers with rhotic speech say either /arnt/ or arƏnt/. It makes no difference which. If, two sentences later, you asked the speaker or the listener which form was uttered, no one would remember. The difference is non-functional and unremarkable

2. Native speakers with non-rhotic speech say either /a:nt/ or arƏnt/. Again, no difference.

3. Correcting the pronunciation of another is offensive chiefly when the "correction" is incorrect (e.g., when one's pronunciation of "That is his forte" is [erroneously] corrected to "for-TAY").


----------



## Toadie

Well, let's do some math.  Assuming that the US (minus New England), Canada, Scotland, and Ireland are rhotic, and that England, Australia, New Zealand, and New England are non-rhotic, we come up with these figures for population:

Rhotic: 303,437,659
Non-rhotic: 91,110,689

I left out Jamaica, since I couldn't tell you with any certainty whether they speak a rhotic or non-rhotic dialect.  Its population is so small that it would not matter, though.  There are probably pockets of non-rhotic English speakers throughout America as well (primarily in the Louisiana area, with Cajun English), but I think it's safe to assume that this would not have much of an effect either, as the US on its own has a higher population than all of the non-rhotic English speaking countries on Earth.

So, to answer your original question, I think it's safe to say that the _majority_ of native English speakers pronounce the /r/ in "aren't".  


_Population figures obtained from Wikipedia.  If they're at all inacurate, I would that they're not *grossly* off, so the final outcome is pretty clear._


----------



## Thomas Veil

mtmjr said:


> The "e" can and should be pronounced, however, when speaking we tend to slur the word, pronouncing it "arnt".


Why should it be pronounced?  Do you pronounce "are" as "ar-eh"?  The "e" in "are" is a silent "e".  I think that people who pronounce the word as "arƏnt" are not pronouncing the "e" in "are", but rather are simply adding an Ə to "nt" so that it can be pronounced as a separate syllable, similarly to how "fish 'n' chips" is pronounced "fish in chips".


----------



## natkretep

Mr.Slade said:


> 1. Native speakers with rhotic speech say either /arnt/ or arƏnt/. It makes no difference which. If, two sentences later, you asked the speaker or the listener which form was uttered, no one would remember. The difference is non-functional and unremarkable
> 
> 2. Native speakers with non-rhotic speech say either /a:nt/ or arƏnt/. Again, no difference.



Sorry, for what I've seen, those who admit to the two-syllable pronunciation are rhotic speakers. My conclusion is that the two-syllable pronunciation is not available to non-rhotic speakers.

The other example is _iron_ (or _irn _as in Irn Bru!). I pronounce it as one syllable (with a glide off the vowel).But I have heard some Scots pronounce it as two syllables /aIrƏn/.


----------



## Mr.Slade

natkretep said:


> <...> My conclusion is that the two-syllable pronunciation is not available to non-rhotic speakers. <...>
> 
> Certainly it is. They can say warrant, and parent, so certainly they can say /arƏnt/. Non-rhoticity has nothing to do with intervocalic /r/.


----------



## Mr.Slade

Thomas Veil said:


> <...> I think that people who pronounce the word as "arƏnt" are not pronouncing the "e" in "are", but rather are simply adding an Ə to "nt" so that it can be pronounced as a separate syllable <...>.


 
Exactly. The spelling, and the presence of the letter "e", are just a distraction.

Compare "couldn't", pronounced /kʊdƏnt/. There's no "e" there to pronounce or not pronounce.


----------



## natkretep

Mr.Slade said:


> natkretep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly it is. They can say warrant, and parent, so certainly they can say /arƏnt/. Non-rhoticity has nothing to do with intervocalic /r/.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is not whether they can. Of course they can, but they don't. The responses from those who say they might insert a schwa in _aren't _have been from rhotic speakers.
Click to expand...


----------



## Twodalu

The "e" is silent in aren't.  I don't want to confuse you, but "ain't"?


----------



## Forero

Rex Harrison as Prof. Henry Higgins (Pygmalion/My Fair Lady):

_"Her English is too good", he said.  "That clearly indicates that she is foreign.
Whereas others are instructed in their native language, English people aren't."
_
(That's a two-syllable _aren't_ from a non-rhotic speaker, though admittedly a bit of a joke.)


----------



## cajzl

> Rhotic: 303,437,659
> Non-rhotic: 91,110,689


In the Czech Republic we pronounce "aren't" exactly the same way like "aunt" (see http://slovnik.seznam.cz/?q=aunt&lang=en_cz). But I guess you do not want to figure the non-native speakers in.


----------



## Toadie

cajzl said:


> In the Czech Republic we pronounce "aren't" exactly the same way like "aunt" (see http://slovnik.seznam.cz/?q=aunt&lang=en_cz). But I guess you do not want to figure the non-native speakers in.


Yes, I only figured in natives.


----------



## natkretep

Forero said:


> (That's a two-syllable _aren't_ from a non-rhotic speaker, though admittedly a bit of a joke.)


 
Thanks. So, if almost all two-syllable versions are from rhotic speakers, might the two-syllable version not be phonologically conditioned? The three-consonant cluster /rnt/ is split up.

_Weren't_ was mentioned by someone else. Presumably if you have a schwa in _aren't_, you'll have one in _weren't_ and maybe _daren't_ (if you use that word).


----------



## juandiego

Loob said:


> No - if I heard a Spanish person pronouncing "aren't" with two syllables I'd see it as a mistake, not as a reflection of an English regional pronunciation.



Hello Loob.
Yes, it easy to notice a foreign accent.
Correct me if I'm wrong but would not someone like the Queen Elisabeth (King English?) pronounce it with a more or less clear sound separation between the first "a" and the rest and also would pronounce the "e"?


----------



## sound shift

juandiego said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but would not someone like the Queen Elisabeth (King English?) pronounce it with a more or less clear sound separation between the first "a" and the rest and also would pronounce the "e"?



I'm not sure if you are asking Loob, juandiego, but I'll answer your question all the same:

No, the Queen would make a non-rhotic monosyllable of "aren't".


----------



## panjandrum

Toadie said:


> Well, let's do some math. Assuming that the US (minus New England), Canada, Scotland, and Ireland are rhotic, and that England, Australia, New Zealand, and New England are non-rhotic, we come up with these figures for population:
> Rhotic: 303,437,659
> Non-rhotic: 91,110,689
> [...]
> So, to answer your original question, I think it's safe to say that the _minority_ of native English speakers pronounce the /r/ in "aren't".


From these figures, isn't the opposite the case?  Most native English speakers are rhotic and therefore pronounce the /r/?





natkretep said:


> Thanks. So, if almost all two-syllable versions are from rhotic speakers, might the two-syllable version not be phonologically conditioned? The three-consonant cluster /rnt/ is split up.
> 
> _Weren't_ was mentioned by someone else. Presumably if you have a schwa in _aren't_, you'll have one in _weren't_ and maybe _daren't_ (if you use that word).


It may be worth emphasising that in my rhotic world although I have heard some people pronounce _aren't _as two-syllable _'arent_, and they also pronounce _weren't_ as two-syllable _'werent_ this is a very small minority and they have other pronunciation idiosyncracies.





juandiego said:


> Hello Loob.
> Yes, it easy to notice a foreign accent.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but would not someone like the Queen Elisabeth (King English?) pronounce it with a more or less clear sound separation between the first "a" and the rest and also would pronounce the "e"?


The Queen pronounces _aren't_ as one syllable, non-rhotic.


----------



## caitlin_kiss

I am pretty sure that the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh never pronounce the "e" in aren't. It is possible that it might happen in a part of England, depending on accents, but i have never heard it. As this word comes from "are", i would also say that the "e" in aren't is not supposed to be pronounced, as the "e" in "are" is not pronounces. Hope this helps!


----------



## Toadie

panjandrum said:


> From these figures, isn't the opposite the case?


Pffft, wow that was an extremely stupid typo on my part.  Sorry about that.


----------



## se16teddy

kuleshov said:


> Cagey, I'm flabbergasted; The Merriam-Webster pronounces the e.


I don't agree. As I hear it, there is no e or schwa in the second Mirriam-Webster pronunciation. As I hear it, the second pronunciation differs from the first in that the r is pronounced for a longer period, and possibly amounts to a syllabic r - that is, the r may form a syllable separate from the syllable represented by _a_.


----------

