# Is Received Pronunciation acquiring some liaison?



## Nino83

Hello everybody. 

I read on "A Handbook of Varieties of English A Multimedia Reference Tool. Volume 1: Phonology" (page 194) that the students of public schools in London (like Charterhouse, Harrow ) use the glottal stop before consonants (100%, both in speech and in reading for "Ga*t*wick" and "qui*t*e right") and in absolute final position (50% in speaking but 0% in reading, for "qui*t*e") while they don't use it in intervocalic positions ("qui*t*e easy", "bu*tt*er") and before "l" ("bo*tt*le"). 

As Wells said, glottal stop before consonants is becoming normal in RP. If it is so, we have: 

- quite right = [kwaɪʔ ɹaɪʔ] but quite easy = [kwaɪ_*t*_iːzi] 
- four times = [fo̞ː taɪmz] but four eggs = [fo̞ː_*ɹ*_ɛgz] (linking "r") and law and order = [lo̞ː_*ɹ*_ən o̞ːdə] (intrusive "r") 
- feel better = [fiːo bɛtə] or [fɪo bɛʔə] (in Cockney) but feel it = [fiː_*ɫ*_ɪt] 

Yesterday, while I was watching a tennis match on British Sky Sports I noted that the commentators used a lot of pre-consonantal glottal stops and vocalization of "l". 

Are these features becoming part of Received Pronunciation and is RP acquiring some liaison? 

Thank you


----------



## CapnPrep

Nino83 said:


> Are these features becoming part of Received Pronunciation and is RP acquiring some liaison?


Linking _r_ has been part of RP for quite some time.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, I know. I was talking about intrusive "r" (glottal stop and vocalization of "l").


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Yes, I know. I was talking about intrusive "r" (glottal stop and vocalization of "l").


There is no _l_-vocalization in _law and order_. The _r_-insertion there isn't new either.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> There is no _l_-vocalization in _law and order_.



Have I said it?


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Have I said it?


In a way: yes. CapnPrep told you that _r_-linking wasn't new. And you replied "I was talking about intrusive 'r'". But like _r_-linking, _r_-insertion hasn't anything to do with glottal stops and _l-_vocalization either.


----------



## Nino83

Mh...I intended to say that the new "liaisons" in RP are intrusive "r", glottal stops and l-vocalization. 
Ok, linking "r" and intrusive "r" are old enough but was the latter taught as an RP feature?


----------



## CapnPrep

Nino83 said:


> Mh...I intended to say that the new "liaisons" in RP are intrusive "r", glottal stops and l-vocalization.


Yes, this became clear after your first response, but you will agree that in your original message it sounds as though you don't think RP has any established liaison phenomena.


Nino83 said:


> Ok, linking "r" and intrusive "r" are old enough but was the latter taught as an RP feature?


A complete description of RP (as an object of study) must recognize intrusive _r_ as a widespread but variable feature. But if you mean RP as a normative standard, then no, intrusive _r_ is still generally considered incorrect and often stigmatized. But pronunciations with intrusive _r_ are indicated in many dictionaries, and maybe some learners are taught these pronunciations (I don't know).


----------



## berndf

I wouldn't know why one would call _t_-glottalization a "liaison effect". It is simply exchanging one stop consonant [t] for another [?] which happens only under certain conditions.

_l_-vocalization affects only velarized /l/s. In RP,_ l_-velarization is inhibited in front of vowels. Hence, the process is not applicable to _feel it_.


----------



## entangledbank

RP and similar accents have long had a kind of liaison in that a glide [r], [w], or [j] is likely to occur between any two vowels, the choice of glide depending on the first vowel.

In the accent that regularly vocalizes /l/, I believe it's vocalized even before the vowel of a following word, that is there isn't an alternation [o ~ l] comparable to the linking R. As more RP-like speakers come to use vocalized /l/, and it's quite common, I'd imagine it would follow that pattern. The 250-year-old alternation of /r/ isn't necessary the analogy a new sound change will follow.

As to the glottal stop, at the moment it's just one of several conditioned allophones of /t/ for all speakers. Some like me only use it in a few pre-consonantal positions like 'quite right', 'not quite', and that only optionally, and others use it consistently in a wider range of positions. But to get a French-type liaision it would have to disappear, so you get an alternation [kwaɪ bɪg ~ kwaɪt 'i:zi]. It shows no sign of disappearing.

_cross-posted_


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> I wouldn't know why one would call _t_-glottalization a "liaison effect". It is simply exchanging one stop consonant [t] for another [?] which happens only under certain conditions.


I assume Nino83 was using "liaison" as a shortcut for "phonological alternation involving a word-final phoneme at word boundaries in connected speech subject to further syntactic and stylistic conditions". And who can blame him?  But yes, the only phenomenon in his list that is directly analogous to French liaison is linking _r_.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you for the answers. 
Yes, I was using "liaison" with a broader sense (and a bit facetious tone).  

I'll explain the broader sense. 
In French the alternation is strong, i.e Ø (or zero) vs. k/t/s. What I see in RP is the alternation between a "weaker" sound ([ʔ] and [o]) and the "full" sound ([t] and [l] or [ɫ]). 
So, yes, technically speaking is not the right term (but the vocalization of the velararized "l" seems to be similar to that of Old/Middle French, because in Cockney, vocalization of the /ɫ/ tends to change the quality of the preceeding vowel). 



entangledbank said:


> As to the glottal stop, at the moment it's just one of several conditioned allophones of /t/ for all speakers. But to get a French-type liaision it would have to disappear, so you get an alternation [kwaɪ bɪg ~ kwaɪt 'i:zi]. It shows no sign of disappearing.



Once, in France, Wells was asked if "Regarding the t glottalisation proper, could it be considered as a step in the evolution towards the final dropping of the "t" sound in these environments (as for the 't muet' in French mor(t) ), or is it a consonant in its own right?" and his answer was: 
"The current position is that it is an allophone of /t/, though a pretty salient one. It is in clear and strong contrast with zero: "tight" [tAI?] is distinct from "tie" [tAI], "button" [bV?n] from "bun" [bVn]. No one can know what will happen in the future: if the glottal stop is indeed a stage on the route to disappearance, we shall be overwhelmed with new homophones. (One possibility is that English will compensate by becoming a tone language, as happened in the history of Vietnamese.)" 

But these are speculations.  



entangledbank said:


> In the accent that regularly vocalizes /l/, I believe it's vocalized even before the vowel of a following word, that is there isn't an alternation [o ~ l] comparable to the linking R. As more RP-like speakers come to use vocalized /l/, and it's quite common, I'd imagine it would follow that pattern. The 250-year-old alternation of /r/ isn't necessary the analogy a new sound change will follow.



 Here  it is said that: "Like Cockney (and some other English accents) EE exhibits l-vocalisation. The rule is: /l/ is realised as a back, closeish rounded vowel in positions before a consonant with or without an intervening word boundary or in absolute utterance final position before a pause". 

Looking at  this transcription  of the speech of David Beckham, you see that l-vocalization happens also in "You know, obviously the club has to afford you, but erm, you know, it’s a it’s about the footba*ll* at the end of the day and er, you know, I’m happy playing footba*ll* at Real Madrid at the moment, but you know, you never know.", i.e, also before a vowel. 

I know that "liaison" is a too much strong and an improper term, but I was wondering how these features could be part of the "updated" Received Pronunciation.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> I know that "liaison" is a too much strong and an improper term, but I was wondering how these features could be part of the "updated" Received Pronunciation.


With respect to _t_-glottalization and _l_-velarization/vocalization, _optional allophonic variant under condition XYZ_ does the job nicely, me thinks. _r_-linking/insertion is indeed a liaison-effect but not a new one.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you berndf. 
And, again, about the l-vocalization, in the transcription there is an [o] in "footba*ll* at Real Madrid...", in "English footba*ll* as well", in "you know, peop*le* had", "like Michae*l* had" (the "h" in "had" is dropped), "as we*ll* as" but an [l] in "they'*ll* ask me how..." or "they're sti*ll* in their hotels...". 
It seems that a (very) little pause (like in "as well as" or in "people had") is sufficient to vocalize the "l".


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> It seems that a (very) little pause (like in "as well as" or in "people had") is sufficient to vocalize the "l".


It is certainly so that "liaison effects" (in the wider sense as you used it here) greatly depend on prosodic context. Think, e.g., of the different ways _it+is_ are linked or not linked in _It *is *like than [rather than not]_ and _It is like *that *[rather than like something else]_.

The only compulsory (i.e. context-independent) "liaison effects" I am aware of are the pronunciations of of the definite and the indefinite article in front of words starting with a vowel.


----------



## Nino83

But this transcription and what Entangledbank said (In the accent that regularly vocalizes /l/, I believe it's vocalized even before the vowel of a following word, that is there isn't an alternation [o ~ l] comparable to the linking R) make me think.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> But this transcription and what Entangledbank said (In the accent that regularly vocalizes /l/, I believe it's vocalized even before the vowel of a following word, that is there isn't an alternation [o ~ l] comparable to the linking R) make me think.


The transcription shows that_ l_-vocalization in front of a new word starting with a vowel is* not* uniform with this speaker, as you rightly said. I am not quite sure what you mean.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure what you mean.



Yes, what you said. Often the "l" is vocalized also before a vowel of a following word, at least in London speech. 
It seems that this process is similar to what happened in Middle French with "l" vocalization, i.e "l" is (almost) always vocalized and it tends to shorten the lenght of the preceeding vowel. Obviously in French the historic "l" melted with the preceeding vowel, so, from this point of view it seems more similar to what happens in Brazilian Portuguese, in wods like "a*l*ternativa" or "Brazi*l*" (velar "l" is always vocalized, without any link effect).


----------



## berndf

So we agree that evidence from this speaker suggests that word-final _l_-vocalization is *not *unconditioned, contrary to the vocalization of word-final _l_ in Brazilian Portuguese.

As I said before, my surmise is that _l_-vocalization as such unconditioned but that the previous process of _l_-velarization is conditioned. To study this we would have to compare the conditions speakers that use l-vocalization and this those who don't but do use allophonic _l_-velarization.


----------

