# pronunciation: Intrusive 'r'



## moodywop

panjandrum said:
			
		

> As with most pronunciation, the further you get from London, the more likely you are to find that all sounds are pronounced , and no additional unwritten sounds are added.


 
Panji's remark brought to mind a peculiar phonetic feature which I first encountered in my Phonetics classes at college and later noticed not only in the pronunciation of English friends but also on the BBC.

I am referring to the so-called intrusive 'r' which is used to link words where there is no 'r' in the spelling:

_the idea (r) of it_

_India (r) and China_

_a media (r) event_

I've also often heard it in the middle of words, one very common case being _drawing, _pronounced as /dro:ring/

Is this pronunciation only heard in England?


----------



## danielfranco

No, I've heard people of the Texan-drawl conviction say "idear".


----------



## la reine victoria

moodywop said:
			
		

> Panji's remark brought to mind a peculiar phonetic feature which I first encountered in my Phonetics classes at college and later noticed not only in the pronunciation of English friends but also on the BBC.
> 
> I am referring to the so-called intrusive 'r' which is used to link words where there is no 'r' in the spelling:
> 
> _the idea (r) of it_
> 
> _India (r) and China_
> 
> _a media (r) event_
> 
> I've also often heard it in the middle of words, one very common case being _drawing, _pronounced as /dro:ring/
> 
> Is this pronunciation only heard in England?


 
Well Moodywop,

I can't speak for all natives of other English speaking countries.  As for communications with an American friend, I've never heard him speak in that way.  He enunciates very clearly without using the intrusive 'r'.  

I have a feeling Australians might use it.

I don't use it myself (normally) but have to confess that when saying 'the idea of it' I do hear a faint 'r' creeping in.  I think that's because there is a liaison of two vowels 'a' and 'o'.  I prefer to say, 'The very idea, my dear!'

One could say that the same goes for 'India and China' and 'a media event' (liaison of vowels) but personally I don't have an intrusive 'r'.

Drawring is definitely a 'no no', but is frequently heard among the London Cockneys.


LRV


----------



## germinal

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Well Moodywop,
> 
> I can't speak for all natives of other English speaking countries. As for communications with an American friend, I've never heard him speak in that way. He enunciates very clearly without using the intrusive 'r'.
> 
> I have a feeling Australians might use it.
> 
> I don't use it myself (normally) but have to confess that when saying 'the idea of it' I do hear a faint 'r' creeping in. I think that's because there is a liaison of two vowels 'a' and 'o'. I prefer to say, 'The very idea, my dear!'
> 
> One could say that the same goes for 'India and China' and 'a media event' (liaison of vowels) but personally I don't have an intrusive 'r'.
> 
> Drawring is definitely a 'no no', but is frequently heard among the London Cockneys.
> 
> 
> LRV


 

It's not limited to your Cockney subjects your Maj - I often hear it from BBC types who should know better!


----------



## moodywop

Thank you for your replies. I suppose that the "intrusive" label adopted by phoneticians suggests that this pronunciation feature is frowned upon.

I've heard public-school educated friends pronounce /dro:ring/. It might be a feature of "Estuary English".


----------



## Kelly B

Most Americans do not add that r, but you can hear it in some parts of the Northeast.


----------



## Aupick

Peter Roach (a phonetician) calls this the 'linking r' to avoid any stigmatisation of the phenomenon. He seems to think it's common in 'proper' standard accents, and specifically addresses its use in the 'BBC accent':


> BBC speakers often use *r* in a similar way to link words ending with a vowel, even when there is no "justification" from the spelling [...].


He does go on to mention how it's frowned upon, and that it's often called the 'intrusive _r_'.

David Crystal (a historian of the English language) is even more specific. The tendency apparently arose in the 18th century, amid condemnation, probably in Cockney first of all:


> Educated speakers were recommended to avoid it; doubtless it carried some echoes of the Cockney pronunciation of such words as _window_, which would often be written as _winder_.


He quotes a phonetician from 1889 saying how widespread it is, and concludes:


> all phoneticians since have concurred that it is especially common in [rapid colloquial speech], even in Received Pronunciation.


 
I myself have been mocked by Americans for pronouncing _r_s where they don't exist and not pronouncing them (after a vowel) where they do, but it just kind of happens. I can't help it!


----------



## cuchuflete

Kelly is correct, and the Northeast extends all the way to the Pacific coast at times.  Remember Richard M. Nixon?
He, and others from points west, were known to say 'idear'.


----------



## moodywop

I checked the original _Fowler's_, which does not mention the intrusive 'r'. The latest edition (rev. by Burchfield) devotes a whole entry to _law and order_, suggesting that a linking 'r' is very common in this phrase.

Interestingly, the only dictionary in my possession which includes the controversial pronunciation of _drawing _is the _SOED_, which has an optional "(r)" in the phonetic transcription.


----------



## CAMullen

John F. Kennedy's "Boston accent" was frequently the butt of jokes. People would often have him say "Cuber is" when referring to the island 90 miles from Key West, FL, when what he would actually say was "Cuba ris..."


----------



## DaleC

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Kelly is correct, and the Northeast extends all the way to the Pacific coast at times. Remember Richard M. Nixon?
> He, and others from points west, were known to say 'idear'.


 You seem to be describing a slightly different 'r' phenomenon, a nonlinking 'r'. 

The occurrence of either type of extra 'r' among natives of the western U.S. is statistically insignificant, especially the Pacific coast. In 14 years in southern California, I never hear it except from people with thick eastern New England or thick Southern accents. I am amazed that Nixon, a native of coastal southern California, said "idear". But I'm not sure that people who add 'r' to the end of certain words necessarily use the linking 'r'. 

In the U.S., the linking 'r' is limited to eastern New England (e.g., the cities of Boston and Providence) and certain portions of the Southeast.


----------



## timpeac

moodywop said:
			
		

> Panji's remark brought to mind a peculiar phonetic feature which I first encountered in my Phonetics classes at college and later noticed not only in the pronunciation of English friends but also on the BBC.
> 
> I am referring to the so-called intrusive 'r' which is used to link words where there is no 'r' in the spelling:
> 
> _the idea (r) of it_
> 
> _India (r) and China_
> 
> _a media (r) event_
> 
> I've also often heard it in the middle of words, one very common case being _drawing, _pronounced as /dro:ring/
> 
> Is this pronunciation only heard in England?


 
I remember discussing this phenomenon in non-rhotic (specifically English) accents in a phonetics class. It was presented to us as having become an unconscious marker between words preventing hiatus of the vowels in certain circumstances. When I say between words that also includes across separate morphology such as Verb -ing. I know, for example, in my accent there is no difference at all between soaring and sawing. I had never thought of it as a hypercorrection, and can certain say that in my accent (southern English) it is not.


----------



## DaleC

Just to elaborate on my understanding that the pronunciation "idear" for "idea" is a distinct phenomenon from the one in question. It seems that the phenomenon of epenthetic R ("linking R") usually coocurs with a second R phenomenon. The two phenomena are: 

1. R-lessness: R is not allowed at the end of a syllable ('muhduh' for 'murder' and 'ca-uh' for 'care'); 
2. intrusive R: R is spuriously added in between adjacent words or between a stem and a grammatical ending, in the event that the first part ends with a vowel and the second part begins with a vowel. 

Phenomena (1) and (2) *can *be independent, they don't have to cooccur. But my understanding is that they in fact do: that by and large, the "R-intrusion" dialects, the ones that say 'soarit' for 'saw it' and 'soaring' for 'sawing', are precisely the so called "R-less" dialects. Not only in southern England do they largely (if not totally) cooccur, but in Boston, too. Therefore, adding R at the end of a word that ends in a vowel is the *reverse *phenomenon. "R-adding" occurs in southern England (in Cockney?) and in Australia: Australian author Thomas Kenneally has his Aborigine characters say "yair" for "yeah". 

But now I'm suspecting that there do exist in southern England some dialects that only drop syllable final R and some that only have R-intrusion. And some that combine R-intrusion with R-adding.


----------



## timpeac

R-dropping is standard in England, but the syllable end -r is found in some dialects, such as west-country.

The R-adding is not as wide-spread but is certainly much more common than cockney. I think that in the speech of the younger generation in South East England (probably the most populous quarter of the country) it is quite normal.


----------



## moodywop

DaleC said:
			
		

> "R-adding" occurs in southern England (in Cockney?) and in Australia: Australian author Thomas Kenneally has his Aborigine characters say "yair" for "yeah".
> 
> But now I'm suspecting that there do exist in southern England some dialects that only drop syllable final R and some that only have R-intrusion. And some that combine R-intrusion with R-adding.


 


			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> The R-adding is not as wide-spread but is certainly much more common than cockney


 
Timpeac

I think that DaleC doesn't mean "intrusive 'r'" by "R-adding". His example of "yair" for "yeah" implies that he is talking of an 'r' added at the end of a word which is not followed by one beginning with a vowel.

I lived in London for ten years. I don't think there is any "R-adding" in Cockney or anywhere in South East England. The intrusive 'r', on the other hand, is, as you say, very common among the younger generation


----------



## timpeac

moodywop said:
			
		

> Timpeac
> 
> I think that DaleC doesn't mean "intrusive 'r'" by "R-adding". His example of "yair" for "yeah" implies that he is talking of an 'r' added at the end of a word which is not followed by one beginning with a vowel.
> 
> I lived in London for ten years. I don't think there is any "R-adding" in Cockney or anywhere in South East England. The intrusive 'r', on the other hand, is, as you say, very common among the younger generation


 
Moodywop - yes, rereading what he wrote I think you're right. I was confused by his final comment that "R-adding" occurs in southern England.

It does not - and most definitely not in cockney (as you say Moodywop). We are utterly devoid of syllable final "r" unless a vowel follows (and even then it is not _necessarily_ pronounced). There is not even the tiniest doubt at the back of our minds that we are missing something - even though I was into languages it didn't occur to me I didn't pronounce an r at the end of a word until I was at university, and the thought that I actually _add_ one in sawing was gobsmacking to me.

Intrusive -R most definitely occurs in much of southern England and certainly occurs in cockney.


----------



## moodywop

I would like to emphasize that I'm just fascinated by language variation _per se _and my purpose in starting this thread was just to learn more about a phonetic feature which has always intrigued me. Since I have a non-standard Southern Italian pronunciation I am the last person on earth who would encorage stigmatization of regional pronunciations.

To get back on track it would appear that Australian English is similar to Southern English in that "it is non-rhotic and has linking and intrusive /r/"(P. Trudgill, _International English_). I get the impression that AustrE shares many features with Cockney, especially in the pronunciation of /ei/, /i:/ and /ou/.


----------



## Brioche

<< Relating to now-deleted posts. >>

Many Aboriginals do have a distinctive way of speaking, but adding Rs is not a characteristic. I don't think Thomas Kenneally's Aboriginal characters pronounced an R at the end of Yair. I would read that as a _lengthening R_, compare the difference between _cat_ and _cart_ in RP and other southern English.

Australian does have some intrusive and linking R.


----------



## aurilla

You know,many native New Yorkers have the intrusive "r" in their particular accent.


----------



## Moogey

Quite a lot of text for my short attention span but I will add, flying over all those collections of letters, that my grandma said "idear" and I think my grandfather, too. I've heard this from many people in the USA but it's not very common in New Jersey. It's kind of regional. Pretty much every US state has its own accent! Some are closer to next, others are quite different, like a Texan accent!

-M


----------



## boozer

While watching the F1 race in China today, I heard some radio communication between (if I remember correctly) Mark Webber (Australian) and his racing engineer (Englishman). The pilot complained about something and his racing engineer said "Yes, we saw r it". 

This is called the intrusive "r". Perhaps some of you know about it and others even tend to insert it here and there between two vowel sounds although it does not quite belong there. I suppose some native speakers even use it without being aware of it 

I'm just curious to know how many of you would, in similar situations, say /wɪ'sɔːrɪt/ instead of /wɪ 'sɔː ɪt/ and whether you are actually aware of saying it or it simply goes unnoticed in fast speech. I'm also curious to find out whether AE speakers are also affected by it


----------



## Richard Beevor

I certainly use it, it's a natural way of connecting two vowel sounds.

I suspect you'll find it's common all over the English speaking world but it would be interesting to investigate. Good luck!

P.S. I'm from Derbyshire in England, near Manchester


----------



## audiolaik

boozer said:


> I'm also curious to find out whether AE speakers are also affected by it



As far as I remember, this intrusive /r/ is common only in BrE (RP and other non-rhotic accents). It's worth remembering that it doesn't have anything to do with this historical /r/ (fa*r* *a*way, nea*r* *e*nough -- in fast speech, /r/ is pronounced before a vowel sound.) Of course, I might be wrong....

Audio


----------



## sound shift

I don't think I would use an intrusive "r" in "saw it", but I probably use one in some other environments.


----------



## boozer

audiolaik said:


> As far as I remember, this intrusive /r/ is common only in BrE (RP and other non-rhotic accents)


That's the theory, of course. But is that the case really these days?


----------



## ewie

I've no idea if I'd say _saw it_ or _saw[r]it_, Boozie.  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't register it if someone else said it, though.

I do, however, register intrusive _*r*_'s in words like _draw[r]ing_.


----------



## preppie

Boozer, I'm afraid not.  New Yorkers have bee adding and deleting R's for all of my years.  They, indeed, sawr it in their draws  (that's a drawer)  (lose and R, gain an R.. at least they keep it balanced.)


----------



## Hermione Golightly

'Sorit', 'drorit'...... ugh. I _register_ it every single time I hear it from any native speakers who do not have full regional variations as an excuse and I have do my blood pressure reducing deep breathing exercises. I try hard to feel more pity than disgust.

I'm just half kidding - I think.


Hermione


----------



## jpyvr

Richard Beevor said:


> I suspect you'll find it's common all over the English speaking world but it would be interesting to investigate. Good luck!
> 
> P.S. I'm from Derbyshire in England, near Manchester



It is definitely NOT common in AE Midwestern variety, nor in standard Canadian English.

I understand the rationale for the intrusive R between two vowel sounds, but what about when it's placed between a vowel and a consonant? For some reason that one really grates in my ears, as when someone says they are going to "warsh" their car, or they have a cousin who lives in "Warshington, DC."


----------



## boozer

jpyvr said:


> I understand the rationale for the intrusive R between two vowel sounds, but what about when it's placed between a vowel and a consonant? For some reason that one really grates in my ears, as when someone says they are going to "warsh" their car, or they have a cousin who lives in "Warshington, DC."



Oh, that's veeeery interesting, jpyvr! Would that also be considered "an intrusive R"?  I think so. In fact, it sounds even more intrusive than the R that comes between two vowel sounds!


----------



## Richard Beevor

I think there's a difference between connecting two vowel sounds together and the pronunciation of separate vowels. 
I'm not sure "Wa(r)shington" would count as an intrusive "r", it's really just a particular pronunciation of a vowel sound on it's own. 

I would say "I saw(r) it"  but not "I saw(r) the dog"

You're right boozer, in fact, the r between two vowels doesn't seem intrusive at all to me, it helps me to connect the words with less vocal gymnastics, a bit like the "thee" (the elephant) instead of the.


----------



## Hazard

I'm from Boston, MA, USA, and we use the intrusive 'r' between words that end/begin with vowels, but not within words.  I'll say "I saw[r] it," but not "draw[r]ing."


----------



## Einstein

I was at primary school in SE England, maybe only 6 years old, when the teacher pointed out that there is no "r" in "saw", so there is no reason to say "sor it". So maybe a lot of intrusive Rs were removed from my speech at that time. I can understand that glottal stops are not so nice, for example in "Africa' and Asia" and so there is a tendency to add an R, even though personally I have no difficulty in maintaining the vowel flow from "Africa" to "and."
However, when I started studying phonetics it was pointed out that the R is not the only consonant for linking. If you can say "wing" and "wit", there is no difficulty in saying "drawing" and "saw it" with a light W. A particular object of hate for me is "withdroral".

But the main point I want to make is that in British speech the R that _could_ be used for linking is often removed, so that those who insert an R to say "lore and order" and "Africa rand Asia" carefully steer round the R when it is actually present, substituting it with a glottal stop, as in "it's fuh' us", "mothah' and father", "the centah' of London" and "the I.Ah.A". Those who say "withdroral" are quite likely to say "inta'action".
Can anyone explain these opposing tendencies in the speech of one and the same person?


----------



## nzfauna

Bring back the glottal stop, I say!


----------



## LV4-26

moodywop said:


> Panji's remark brought to mind a peculiar phonetic feature which I first encountered in my Phonetics classes at college and later noticed not only in the pronunciation of English friends but also on the BBC.
> 
> I am referring to the so-called intrusive 'r' which is used to link words where there is no 'r' in the spelling:
> 
> _the idea (r) of it_
> 
> _India (r) and China_
> 
> _a media (r) event_
> 
> I've also often heard it in the middle of words, one very common case being _drawing, _pronounced as /dro:ring/
> 
> Is this pronunciation only heard in England?


I realize this hasn't been pointed out yet, so maybe it's only me.

I wouldn't put the first example in the same category as the other two.
I wouldn't say the 'r' in _the idea of it_ is strictly "instrusive".
It seems almost inevitable to me. I think the final scwha in the word _ide*a*_, with a vowel sound to follow, sounds like an 'r', "by nature", regardless of the speaker's origin. 

I find I can perfectly pronounce the last two examples without adding a linking 'r' (same with _drawing_). But I keep hearing a 'r' in the first, although I try my best not to add one.


What do you think?


----------



## timpeac

Einstein said:


> I was at primary school in SE England, maybe only 6 years old, when the teacher pointed out that there is no "r" in "saw", so there is no reason to say "sor it". So maybe a lot of intrusive Rs were removed from my speech at that time. I can understand that glottal stops are not so nice, for example in "Africa' and Asia" and so there is a tendency to add an R, even though personally I have no difficulty in maintaining the vowel flow from "Africa" to "and."
> However, when I started studying phonetics it was pointed out that the R is not the only consonant for linking. If you can say "wing" and "wit", there is no difficulty in saying "drawing" and "saw it" with a light W. A particular object of hate for me is "withdroral".
> 
> But the main point I want to make is that in British speech the R that _could_ be used for linking is often removed, so that those who insert an R to say "lore and order" and "Africa rand Asia" carefully steer round the R when it is actually present, substituting it with a glottal stop, as in "it's fuh' us", "mothah' and father", "the centah' of London" and "the I.Ah.A". Those who say "withdroral" are quite likely to say "inta'action".
> Can anyone explain these opposing tendencies in the speech of one and the same person?


 As I was reading your post I realised that I was subconciously mouthing the words as I read - so I can confirm that as well as having an obtrusive "r" in "drawing" and "law and order", I also maintain the "r" in "mother and father" and "centre of London" etc.

I can't say that I've noticed that people who tend to have obtrusive "r" tend to remove written ones. But it does make sense to me that someone who doesn't have an obtrusive "r" wouldn't pronounce the "r" in "mother and father" (presuming them to be non-rhotic) since the final "r" of "mother" for them is just an etymological relic.


----------



## timpeac

LV4-26 said:


> I realize this hasn't been pointed out yet, so maybe it's only me.
> 
> I wouldn't put the first example in the same category as the other two.
> I wouldn't say the 'r' in _the idea of it_ is strictly "instrusive".
> It seems almost inevitable to me. I think the final scwha in the word _ide*a*_, with a vowel sound to follow, sounds like an 'r', "by nature", regardless of the speaker's origin.
> 
> I find I can perfectly pronounce the last two examples without adding a linking 'r' (same with _drawing_). But I keep hearing a 'r' in the first, although I try my best not to add one.
> 
> 
> What do you think?


No - sorry, I don't see what you mean at all. I don't see what separates "idea of it" from being in the same category as the others. For me "idea of it" without an intrusive "r" doesn't sound like "idea rov it" which it does with the intrusive "r". In the first you have a good long triphthong and in the second with the "r" the lips approach each other, the lips purse slightly and you have a veritable English "r".


----------



## Einstein

timpeac said:


> I can't say that I've noticed that people who tend to have obtrusive "r" tend to remove written ones.


Well, obviously not everyone, but it's something I've noticed on the BBC as part of a jerky, punchy, journalistic style of speech. I've also heard it on a recording used for English teaching (luckily my students didn't notice). It makes me wonder if they're afraid of sounding American!


----------



## timpeac

Einstein said:


> Well, obviously not everyone, but it's something I've noticed on the BBC as part of a jerky, punchy, journalistic style of speech. I've also heard it on a recording used for English teaching (luckily my students didn't notice). It makes me wonder if they're afraid of sounding American!


 
Given that from a phonological point of view the phenomenon of "intrusive r" comes from the fact that non-rhotic speakers can no longer differentiate how to treat the final schwa syllable I find this strange. 

I wonder if, rather than systematically pronouncing the intrusive "r" and missing out the linking "r" of words which used to end with one (which would suggest that their minds still kept the two categories of words perfectly separated) either it has become random or they are trying never to pronounce a linking "r" (whether intrusive or not) and find it easier to remember not to do so when reading an autocue and see one written there.


----------



## LV4-26

timpeac said:


> No - sorry, I don't see what you mean at all. I don't see what separates "idea of it" from being in the same category as the others. For me "idea of it" without an intrusive "r" doesn't sound like "idea rov it" which it does with the intrusive "r". In the first you have a good long triphthong and in the second with the "r" the lips approach each other, the lips purse slightly and you have a veritable English "r".


Thanks, Tim.
I think I've discovered the source of the problem.
It looks like I'm not pronouncing any audible 'r' in _here_, _year_, _ear_, _dear _....
For instance, ear ==> /ɪə:/. Only the length of the schwa makes for the written 'r'.
Therefore, I don't seem to make any difference in pronounciation between _idea_ and something that could be spelt as "_I dear_" if such a phrase could exist.
Which may be why _idea of it_ sounds exactly like _I dear ovit _to me.

PS: I see the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary gives /ɪə(r)/ as the IPA transcript for _ear_. Those brackets make me feel a little better.


----------



## Einstein

timpeac said:


> I wonder if, rather than systematically pronouncing the intrusive "r" and missing out the linking "r" of words which used to end with one (which would suggest that their minds still kept the two categories of words perfectly separated) either it has become random or they are trying never to pronounce a linking "r" (whether intrusive or not) and find it easier to remember not to do so when reading an autocue and see one written there.


The underlined part does sound fairly convincing. Food for thought...


----------



## natkretep

Einstein said:


> However, when I started studying phonetics it was pointed out that the R is not the only consonant for linking. If you can say "wing" and "wit", there is no difficulty in saying "drawing" and "saw it" with a light W. A particular object of hate for me is "withdroral".



I'm sorry, I think an intrusive /w/ sounds worse than an intrusive (linking) /r/! 



audiolaik said:


> As far as I remember, this intrusive /r/ is common only in BrE (RP and other non-rhotic accents).
> Audio



Potentially any non-rhotic accent, rather than just British ones. I think Boston and New York have already been mentioned. I can attest that it is widespread in Australian accents (_drawring_, etc.). I _don't_ think it's in Nigerian accents though.

And yes, it's in my accent too (_law rand order, India rand China, etc._)


----------



## Einstein

natkretep said:


> I'm sorry, I think an intrusive /w/ sounds worse than an intrusive (linking) /r/!


What's intrusive about the W in drawing? It's there!
An example of an intrusive W is in pronouncing "more and more" as "maw and maw". That's something I can't stand, I agree! It's part of the acrobatics people go through to avoid saying the "r" where it does exist, such as pronouncing "it's for us" as "it's fuh' us".


----------



## natkretep

Einstein said:


> What's intrusive about the W in drawing? It's there!



The <w> is _draw_ is only orthographic. I have no /w/ sound when I say _draw_ /drɔː/. So _drawing _is /ˈdrɔːɪŋ  /. If someone says /ˈdrɔːwɪŋ/, that's an intrusive w in my book.


----------



## Gwan

natkretep said:


> The <w> is _draw_ is only orthographic. I have no /w/ sound when I say _draw_ /drɔː/. So _drawing _is /ˈdrɔːɪŋ  /. If you say /ˈdrɔːwɪŋ/, that's and intrusive w in my books.



Yes, with all due respect I would probably assume someone who pronounced the w in drawing had a speech impediment. (I mean that sincerely, i.e. I'm not trying to have a go, I really would think that. I assume that's because r ---> w is a common speech impediment - or upper-class affectation at times, I suspect - and I would have the much-maligned r in there.)

I would also pronounce rs in things like law and order etc. (but only in the proper place between w and a ).


----------



## Einstein

> The <w> is draw is only orthographic. I have no /w/ sound when I say draw /drɔː/. So drawing is /ˈdrɔːɪŋ /. If someone says /ˈdrɔːwɪŋ/, that's an intrusive w in my book.


Well, I exaggerated a bit, but I did say a _light_ W. What I mean is that it's something between "draw wing" and "droing". I mean, how do people without an intrusive "r" pronounce "withdrawal"? With a glottal stop? I don't think so. There is a certain passage from the "aw" to the "al", which we needn't call a light W if you don't like the term.
I don't pronounce the "r" in "there". Does that mean it's intrusive when I pronounce it in "there it is"? So it seems, by analogy with the "w" in "draw", which you say is only orthographic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that pronouncing the "r" in "poor and needy" is _not_ intrusive; it's like the French liaison, where a letter normally silent at the end of a word is pronounced when the next word begins with a vowel. "Law" in British pronunciation sounds similar to "poor", which is why an "r" tends to be inserted in "law and order", even though there isn't one. And that _is_ intrusive.
If, however, you say that the "r" in "poor" is only orthographic because you don't normally pronounce it, then it must be intrusive also in "poor and needy". Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Alxmrphi

The interesting thing is many people won't realise they are doing it, but they are.
This is what interests and annoys me the most about subconscious phonological processes, the fact we do it without thinking about it, but people will demand they don't do it when a small clip of their speech will show that they do.

Take a look at this page, which shows the vowel chart and how glides (and 'r') interfere, depending on the place of production of the vowel. It's present almost everywhere. 



> If, however, you say that the "r" in "poor" is only orthographic because  you don't normally pronounce it, then it must be intrusive also in  "poor and needy". Is that what you're saying?


Hi Einstein, I don't mean this directed at you, it's a more in general comment but addressing the topic. I think the difference needs to be understood that non-rhotic accents/dialects used to be rhotic, so the orthography is a representation of what our ancestors used to say. However the intrusive side of it is present before vowels for us non-rhotic speakers.

It doesn't matter that it's there in the spelling (as examples like _Law and Order_, or _India and China_ can show us). Whenever you have a vowel followed by another vowel, the place of the vowel dictates what glide/approximant will be inserted in 'flowing speech'.

People often follow spelling and it leads them into a whole wonder of false realities about what they think is "correct" and what is "wrong", while failing to see other things like no * in thumb, no [k] in knife, so it always bothers me that people point to spelling as if it has some relevance to how we should speak today.

If you have a high back vowel, like , and another vowel following, you're going to have [w]-insertion. ............. "Let's have a Q&A session". [..ævakju:wæneɪ..]
If you have a high front vowel, like , and another vowel following, there will be [j]-insertion. .......................... "I need the key and licence". [..ðəki:jæn..]
If you have a mid/low vowel, like (numerous ones mentioned), then that's where [r]-insertion happens. ............... "Karma applies to everyone". [..kɑ:mərəplaɪz..]

It's all part of the same process of making a smooth connection between vowels.
Whether the word actually ends in an orthographic "R" or not is irrelevant, it's the vowel before it that counts. In the non-rhotic accents, an 'r' at the end of the word only means the vowel before it fits the criteria to have R-insertion, which has been lost and these words usually indicate a movement to SCHWA when not followed by a vowel (which is exactly where r-insertion happens).*


----------



## boozer

I may be offtopic, but I cannot help saying: Excellent analysis, Alxmrphi! That's phonetics in its purest.


----------



## ewie

boozer said:


> I may be offtopic, but I cannot help saying: Excellent analysis, Alxmrphi! That's phonetics in its purest.


I second that


Alxmrphi said:


> This is what interests and annoys me the most about subconscious phonological processes, the fact we do it without thinking about it, but people will demand they don't do it when a small clip of their speech will show that they do.


(Also off-topic but  to this too.  If I had a £ for every time I've heard someone say _"I would never say that!"_ only to say it three sentences later)


----------



## Einstein

Hi Alex, an interesting contribution. I see you agree with me that there can be a linking "w". 

I understand what you mean about "thumb" and "knife", but are you saying there's no comparison with the French _liaison_? There are words ending in a "t" which is normally silent, but the French know it's there and feel it's there and it comes out when there's a link to be made. Isn't this the case with the English "r"? Otherwise we have to say that those who pronounce the "r" in "poor and needy" must necessarily pronounce it in "lore and order", while those who don't put an "r" in "law and order" won't pronounce it in "poor and needy" either. I'm not sure that's the case with all non-rhotics. Whaddya think?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Einstein said:


> Hi Alex, an interesting contribution. I see you agree with me that there can be a linking "w".



Yeah, definitely. But it's not just us, it's in every single (decent) book on English phonology, and taught on every (again, decent) phonetics/phonology course (in English). It's a categorical fact that it exists 



> Otherwise we have to say that those who pronounce the "r" in "poor and needy" must necessarily pronounce it in "lore and order", while those who don't put an "r" in "law and order" won't pronounce it in "poor and needy" either. I'm not sure that's the case with everyone. Whaddya think?


Well this is why there are different names for it,_ intrusive-R_ and _linking-R_. 
Linking-R occurs in non-rhotic accents that have a vowel that follow the vowel with the 'r' in the spelling (like 'poor and needy') while in 'law and order' it's called intrusive-R because it's not there in the spelling, but essentially it's exactly the same process. The only reason a distinction was made is due to spelling, people used to talk about "_putting the [r] back in_" and then had a different word for when an [r] appears that wasn't originally in the spelling.

I know what you mean about there being an underlying representation of sounds, I think I remember hearing about a different example in French, where sounds manifested themselves in very specific examples. It was also in a creole lecture about [m]s flying out of nowhere when vowels followed, things can be 'mentally there' but not 'phonetically represented'. But in this case it's such a blanket rule that, unless you stop all your sound production momentarily to then start the next vowel (i.e. careful slow speech), then this pattern is quite universal.

You made a distinction between "_people who put in R in law and order_" and "_ditto for_ _poor and needy_", but there would be no difference between speakers because of the universality of the process. The only difference we would see is rhotic speakers putting an [r] at the end of _poor_ when pronounced in isolation, and non-rhotic speakers not putting in an [r]. Sometimes it's easy to work in IPA and not be so distracted by the spelling:

*NON-RHOTIC SPEAKER*
[lɔ: ən ɔ:də]
[pɔ: ən ni:di] (excusing the fact there would not be two [n]s, just there for illustration)

That's what a rhotic speaker would say, before the relevant glides/approximants are added.
There is no distinction here between "those who say A" and "those who say B", rather, it's just dependent on low vowels being next to another vowel, which requires an [r].

[lɔ: *r*ən ɔ:də]
[pɔ: *r*ən ni:di]

There is a difference between intrusive-R and linking-R in rhotic accents though, as Wikipedia has just informed me.
Being British, and having only fully studied my own speech patterns, I think I might have overgeneralised the non-rhotic procedures to the rhotic ones.
I think I understand your question better now though Einstein, and while I'm not sure how much I believe Wiki on this (it seems to make categorical distinctions), I think it might be more complicated and varied than it actually seems. Anyway, hopefully a rhotic-speaker can give us an account of this process.


----------



## Phil-Olly

natkretep said:


> The <w> is _draw_ is only orthographic. I have no /w/ sound when I say _draw_ /drɔː/. So _drawing _is /ˈdrɔːɪŋ  /. If someone says /ˈdrɔːwɪŋ/, that's an intrusive w in my book.



How do you get on with "sew" and "sewing"?


----------



## Einstein

Phil-Olly said:


> How do you get on with "sew" and "sewing"?


Well, "sew" has a dipthong that closes at the end, while "draw" remains open.

But I'm thinking of the fact that I say "there it is" with the "r", but would never say "I sor it". Not because I stop to analyse the spelling of each word before I say it but simply because I grew up hearing these sounds from my parents and other adults. I got used to certain vowel passages with an "r" and others without, before I ever learnt to read and write. These things get passed on from generation to generation.
Comments?


----------



## natkretep

Thanks, Alx for explaining all of that so clearly for us and setting us right! 

I also really like the diagram that you linked us to. So, based on that the glide for _drawing_ is /r/ (if it is used) and the one for _sewing _is /w/.



Einstein said:


> Not because I stop to analyse the spelling  of each word before I say it but simply because I grew up hearing these  sounds from my parents and other adults. I got used to certain vowel  passages with an "r" and others without, before I ever learnt to read  and write. These things get passed on from generation to generation.
> Comments?



I can quite understand that, because the spelling can influence pronunciation and cause us to resist inserting a glide, which then becomes our habit and what is 'normal' for us.


----------



## Myridon

Alxmrphi said:


> Hi Einstein, I don't mean this directed at you, it's a more in general comment but addressing the topic. I think the difference needs to be understood that non-rhotic accents/dialects used to be rhotic, so the orthography is a representation of what our ancestors used to say. However the intrusive side of it is present before vowels for us non-rhotic speakers.
> 
> It doesn't matter that it's there in the spelling (as examples like _Law and Order_, or _India and China_ can show us). Whenever you have a vowel followed by another vowel, the place of the vowel dictates what glide/approximant will be inserted in 'flowing speech'.


I don't understood why people insist that this issue divides everyone into exactly two camps - rhotic and non-rhotic - as for example the Wikipedia article on "rhotic accent" does and I think you are trying to do here, i.e. that every person on the planet pronounces "law and order" and "lore and order" both with an /r/ or both without an /r/.
There really are people alive today (and I think it's a huge number of people - e.g. most American accents) who (for the most part with perhaps a few minor exceptions) really say R where there is orthographically an R and only where there is orthographically an R. We learned this from our parents not from reading so it's not artificial.


----------



## ribran

Myridon said:


> I don't understood why people insist that this issue divides everyone into exactly two camps - rhotic and non-rhotic - as for example the Wikipedia article on "rhotic accent" does and I think you are trying to do here, i.e. that every person on the planet pronounces "law and order" and "lore and order" both with an /r/ or both without an /r/.
> There really are people alive today (and I think it's a huge number of people - e.g. most American accents) who (for the most part with perhaps a few minor exceptions) really say R where there is orthographically an R and only where there is orthographically an R. We learned this from our parents not from reading so it's not artificial.



Exactly! This gives rise to the corny joke my dad tells me whenever he sees me watching _Law & Order_: Oh, the show for John Deere owners!


----------



## Einstein

The idea about the evolution of the intrusive "r" seems to be the following: that the "r" sound was lost from the pronunciation of "lore" so that in non-rhotic areas of Britain it became the same as "law". If either of these words is followed by a vowel, then an "r" link is re-inserted, independently of spelling.
But this means the "r" went away and then came back. Another explanation could be that (for some speakers) the "r" was _partially_ lost, disappearing where no link was required, but remaining where one was needed. This would make it understandable that the "r" of "poor and needy" is not an insertion but has simply not been eliminated entirely. As "saw" has never contained an "r", not everyone inserts one in "I saw it".
I remain convinced that the pronunciation of the "r" link is more common where there is an "r" in the spelling, not because the spelling influences the pronunciation but because it's not completely extinct.

PS Of course there has also been a mixing of the phenomena, so the situation is more complex with all kinds of speech variations from one individual to another.

That's my layman's view. Maybe the phoneticists know the history of the letter "r" better!


----------



## natkretep

Einstein said:


> I remain convinced that the pronunciation of the "r" link is more common where there is an "r" in the spelling, not because the spelling influences the pronunciation but because it's not completely extinct.



I have also heard this theory, Einstein. According to this theory, the underlying representation of the word in the mind of a non-rhotic speaker, a word like _lore_ has a /r/ sound, when this person says _lore from_, the /r/ is deleted because that person's production rules do not allow a /r/+consonant combination. It doesn't get deleted in _lore of_ because the production rules allow a /r/+vowel combination.

This might explain why some non-rhotic speakers why some non-rhotic speakers _do not_ have an /r/ in _law and order_: _law_ and _lore _have underlyingly different forms for them.

BUT it doesn't explain the presence of /r/ in _law and order_ for non-rhotic speakers.


----------



## JuicyJew

Ok I didn't manage to read everything, but I noticed one person voiced the way it is for me. And that is that the reason I pronounce the 'r' where it doesn't exist is because for me, there is no difference. As far as I'm concerned, I do pronounce the r in murder, it's just not a strong r and it sounds the same as muhduh. 

I would pronounce yair as yeah. So you may not hear any 'r' when I say "yeah", but for me it's not so bizarre to see "yeah" written as "yer" because I don't pronounce the r strongly anyway.

"Idea of it" and "idea rov it" sound exactly the same to me. And to what extent someone chooses to pronounce the "r" makes little difference to me. 

It is EXACTLY the same principle of the french liason (the difference is that the french is more extreme). It's not about finding a smoother way to link words, it's about certain phrases highlighting a sound that has always been there but made more noticeable. 

I'm australian by the way.


----------



## ocanada3933

Back to the original question, the intrusive [r] is definitely used in America.  You would hear it by many, _many_ speakers native to New England, including NY and New Jersey.


----------



## ocanada3933

JuicyJew said:


> "Idea of it" and "idea rov it" sound exactly the same to me.
> 
> I'm australian by the way.



I think this is a bit on the obvious side seeing that when non-North Americans try to "do" an American (or Canadian) accent they stress the [r]s, but in most American English (save what I commented on above) there is no [r] sound.  Rather, one of two things happens:

-there is a _slight_ glottal stop.
-the [a] at the end of 'idea' falls off and, in rapid speech, it becomes something like "idee-of it" with a sort of rocking between the /i:/ an /ʌ/ sounds.


----------



## JuicyJew

It's funny because my american friends always act so baffled at the way british drop consonants, but I think the american use of the intrusive r is almost an acknowledgement that the absence or presence of r's is really a bit inconsequential. It's a grey area for sure


----------



## ocanada3933

JuicyJew said:


> It's funny because my american friends always act so baffled at the way british drop consonants, but I think the american use of the intrusive r is almost an acknowledgement that the absence or presence of r's is really a bit inconsequential. It's a grey area for sure



Where are your friends from specifically?  Because I think that if they aren't in contact with Northeastern Americans too often then it would be natural that they are baffled.  But yes, definitely gray(US)/grey(Rest of world xD) area!


----------



## JuicyJew

ocanada3933 said:


> Where are your friends from specifically?



Vegas/Socal! And they're always paying out on bostonians for that! Haha


----------



## Einstein

natkretep said:


> This might explain why some non-rhotic speakers why some non-rhotic speakers _do not_ have an /r/ in _law and order_: _law_ and _lore _have underlyingly different forms for them.
> 
> BUT it doesn't explain the presence of /r/ in _law and order_ for non-rhotic speakers.


Well, I think it explains the origin of these phenomena, but then there's a process of mixing. As I said, it becomes quite complex and I don't think you can build a Chinese wall between rhotic and non-rhotic or between r-intruders and non-r-intruders (if I can coin a term).


----------



## TRINTYA

In my military travels, I have noticed that some New England natives add an "R" sound to words ending in "A".  Example.. the car Honda is pronounced like "hondur" I have also heard America pronounced as "Amerikur"  It is very odd to me to hear the "A" pronounced as "er", "ur" or "R"  Where does this accent come from and why if a word like HONDA that has no obvious "R" in it, pronounced with an "R" sound at the end?


----------



## JulianStuart

If those cases were where the word was followed by another that began with a vowel, you have experienced the "intrusive R" phenomenon.


----------



## TRINTYA

Thank you, the intrusive R, is very helpful.


----------



## Copyright

_Moderator note: Thread beginning with post #66 was moved to this previous thread on the subject. _


----------



## natkretep

Where I am, this phenomenon is also observed when people attempt a rhotic accent when their natural accent is not rhotic (for a variety of reasons). If /fɒndə/ (fonder) becomes /fɒndər/, your brain assumes that /hɒndə/ becomes /hɒndər/!

New England is one of those strange places where there has been movement between rhotic and non-rhotic accents, isn't it? This might partly explain it.


----------



## JulianStuart

natkretep said:


> Where I am, this phenomenon is also observed when people attempt a rhotic accent when their natural accent is not rhotic (for a variety of reasons). If /fɒndə/ (fonder) becomes /fɒndər/, your brain assumes that /hɒndə/ becomes /hɒndər/!
> 
> New England is one of those strange places where there has been movement between rhotic and non-rhotic accents, isn't it? This might partly explain it.


Interesting observation!  As an originally non-rhotic speaker, who has become semi-rhotic (at least ! My family say I have a strong American accent) I found myself occasionally doing exactly what you say -subconsciously putting in an r where it did not not exist, nor where there was something after it that might have called for an intrusive one.  I think it was only early on during my "local adaptation" to the US (i.e. as I was picking up some of the local accent) and I don't do it any more (anymore?? ) However, Americans still think I have a strong English accent, but that has nothing to do with rhoticity.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Back to the original question: I'm pretty sure that in the English West Midlands in the 1950s we all used the liaison-R (nothing intrusive about it, it was constant).  Why, until I was eleven, I thought Law and Order was the name of the Home Secretary, Mrs Laura Norder, MP!

I still use it in everyday speech, and find it much less irritating than the glottal stop; not that they're necessarily alternatives.


----------



## JulianStuart

Keith Bradford said:


> Back to the original question: I'm pretty sure that in the English West Midlands in the 1950s we all used the liaison-R (nothing intrusive about it, it was constant).  Why, until I was eleven, I thought Law and Order was the name of the Home Secretary, Mrs Laura Norder, MP!
> 
> I still use it in everyday speech, and find it much less irritating than the glottal stop; not that they're necessarily alternatives.



Keith, I don't think the word "intrusive" is being used here in its meaning of rude!!!



> *intrusive*
> 2 Phonetics (of a sound) added between words or syllables to facilitate pronunciation, e.g. an _r_ in _saw a film_.



This in turn comes from the literal/physical meaning of intrude (as in a consonant thrust into a pre-existing formation of vowels 



> *intrude*
> 2 Geology (of igneous rock) be *forced* or thrust *into (a pre-existing formation*).



The common meaning here is the fact that the entry is not invited by the recipient.

To your point, I agree it is/was very common, but I don't believe that everyone did it all the time, so "constant" goes a bit too far


----------



## Valvs

Not sure if anyone is still interested in the topic, but I've just heard "droring" (instead of _drawing_) in one of those "Ask the editor" videos on the Merriam-Webster's web site. The pronunciation of the guy in the video is surely rhotic, and, apparently, he is American (he doesn't sound like an Englishman).


----------



## wandle

Intrusive 'r' means an 'r'-sound present where it ought not to be, e.g. 'law*r* and order'.
However, in 'gore and offal' the 'r'-sound ought to be present, and is therefore not intrusive.

In 'gore and offal' the 'r' needs to be pronounced (in my view) just as clearly as the second 'r' in 'roaring forties'.
Saying 'gaw and offal' (no 'r'-sound) would be just as bad as saying 'rawing fawties'.


----------



## natkretep

Valvs said:


> Not sure if anyone is still interested in the topic, but I've just heard "droring" (instead of _drawing_) in one of those "Ask the editor" videos on the Merriam-Webster's web site. The pronunciation of the guy in the video is surely rhotic, and, apparently, he is American (he doesn't sound like an Englishman).


Thanks, Valvs. _Drawring_ is of course not too uncommon from non-rhotic speakers, but thanks for indicating that the intrusive _r_ could also be produced by rhotic speakers!


----------

