Slovenly Diction in UK English

[Sancho Panther]

These last few years (coincident with retirement) I have become increasingly irritated by the prevalence of poor pronunciation, especially among the younger members of the UK popuation. I refer specifically to the mispronunciation of "Th"; i.e. saying the 'soft' form (thin) as "F" and the 'hard' form (that) as "V".

We also have to tolerate those who pronounce "R" and "L" as "W", surprisingly this is quite common as an affectation among the well-educated, although it is also heard from lesser mortals too!

A while back I initiated a thread on another forum on this topic and the responses included some from a number of speech therapists and elecutionists who confirmed that it was sloppy diction and not palate, tongue or dental problems; and could be eradicated with a bit of education and effort.

I don't believe I have ever heard it from any speaker of US English, nor from any other denizen of any of our other former colonies. Am I right, or are some norteamericanos prone to this annoying habit?

[poli]

Originally Posted by Sancho Panther

These last few years (coincident with retirement) I have become increasingly irritated by the prevalence of poor pronunciation, especially among the younger members of the UK popuation. I refer specifically to the mispronunciation of "Th"; i.e. saying the 'soft' form (thin) as "F" and the 'hard' form (that) as "V".

We also have to tolerate those who pronounce "R" and "L" as "W", surprisingly this is quite common as an affectation among the well-educated, although it is also heard from lesser mortals too!

A while back I initiated a thread on another forum on this topic and the responses included some from a number of speech therapist and elecutionists who confirmed that it was sloppy diction and not palate, tongue or dental problems; and could be eradicated with a bit of education and effort.

I don't believe I have ever heard it from any speaker of US English, nor from any other denizen of any of our other former colonies. Am I right, or are some norteamericanos prone to this annoying habit?

L's and R's pronounced as W is common. Barabara Walters, a famous
television personality is noted for it, and she's wealthy and educated- almost British. On the contraty Elmer Fudd a cartoon character whose problem with R is funny can be googled. Elmer shows no signs of being wealthy or well educated.

The well-known (because of TV and movies) Brooklyn/Jersey City Italian-American accents often substitute the TH of this with D so it's pronounced dis. The TH of thin becomes tin. Dese(these) guys have a rep for being real knuckle heads. There's none of the V and F subsititute
on this side of the Atlantic that I have heard.

[Sancho Panther]

I fink vat wiv some of 'em lazy and sloppy is 'cool', so vey do it all ve more.

The pronunciation of the two forms of 'th' as a simple 't' is widespread in Ireland - Louie Walsh (who is a judge on "The X Factor" on both sides of the Atlantic, I think) invariably pronounces it thus. To my English ears that sounds really uncouth and ill-educated.

[Rusty]

From what you wrote, poli, I got the idea that substituting a 'w' sound for the 'l' and 'r' is common. This isn't widespread. What you probably meant to say is that when these sounds are mispronounced, you've heard 'w' used as a substitute. The Chinese and Japanese immigrants have a very difficult time with 'l' and 'r' and will say something close to the 'l' sound for both.

Very few native speakers of AmE mispronounce or confuse these two very different sounds.

The 'th' sounds are not present in some of the world's languages, so a native speaker of those languages will usually substitute a 'd' or a 'z' for them. I know of no AmE native speakers who mispronounce the two very different sounds of 'th', unless they have a speech impediment. I've never heard 'f' and 'v' substitutions used, as mentioned in the first post.

The American English 'r' is unique in the world of languages, so those learning the language will usually substitute another sound.
Even those who speak AmE natively have different ways to pronounce the letter 'r' when it isn't separating vowels (look up rhotic and non-rhotic discussions). This largely depends on where we live.

American English, when spoken by native speakers of the language, does have variations in pronunciation. It's quite easy to detect where some people live just by listening to the way they speak, for example. But, this variation is not so prevalent as in the UK.


My rant doesn't center in the differences in pronunciation so much as in the way the language is used. You're not "with it" if you don't use 'got' as a substitute for 'do you have'. I'm appalled at how many people mix the 'past participle' and the 'past tense' forms - "I seen it" instead of "I saw it"; "must have went" instead of "must have gone"; "you should have saw it" instead of "you should have seen it." Revolting!

[wrholt]

Originally Posted by Rusty

My rant doesn't center in the differences in pronunciation so much as in the way the language is used. You're not "with it" if you don't use 'got' as a substitute for 'do you have'. I'm appalled at how many people mix the 'past participle' and the 'past tense' forms - "I seen it" instead of "I saw it"; "must have went" instead of "must have gone"; "you should have saw it" instead of "you should have seen it." Revolting!

These are not new issues, of course: they are all typical of rural and small-town working folks in many parts of the US, including the small town in eastern upstate New York where I grew up and all of the neighboring towns.

[poli]

Originally Posted by Rusty

From what you wrote, poli, I got the idea that substituting a 'w' sound for the 'l' and 'r' is common. This isn't widespread. What you probably meant to say is that when these sounds are mispronounced, you've heard 'w' used as a substitute. The Chinese and Japanese immigrants have a very difficult time with 'l' and 'r' and will say something close to the 'l' sound for both.

Very few native speakers of AmE mispronounce or confuse these two very different sounds.

The 'th' sounds are not present in some of the world's languages, so a native speaker of those languages will usually substitute a 'd' or a 'z' for them. I know of no AmE native speakers who mispronounce the two very different sounds of 'th', unless they have a speech impediment. I've never heard 'f' and 'v' substitutions used, as mentioned in the first post.

The American English 'r' is unique in the world of languages, so those learning the language will usually substitute another sound.
Even those who speak AmE natively have different ways to pronounce the letter 'r' when it isn't separating vowels (look up rhotic and non-rhotic discussions). This largely depends on where we live.

American English, when spoken by native speakers of the language, does have variations in pronunciation. It's quite easy to detect where some people live just by listening to the way they speak, for example. But, this variation is not so prevalent as in the UK.


My rant doesn't center in the differences in pronunciation so much as in the way the language is used. You're not "with it" if you don't use 'got' as a substitute for 'do you have'. I'm appalled at how many people mix the 'past participle' and the 'past tense' forms - "I seen it" instead of "I saw it"; "must have went" instead of "must have gone"; "you should have saw it" instead of "you should have seen it." Revolting!

The TH sound is often pronounced a
D (as in this) and T ( as in thin). Three is sometimes pronounced tree.
This is well documented on TV and the movies and it pertains to one of New York City's accents. I believe I have heard Irish, Namaican and African immigrants use it too The l/r substitution among
some Asian Americans is something completely different. I really think the
l and r substituted by w famously used by Barbara Walters and the cartoon character Elmer Fudd is a speech impediment, but it's a common one.

[Sancho Panther]

The substituting of L and R with 'W' is fairly common in the UK, and regional accents in the UK are enormously varied, e.g. Manchester and Liverpool are as different as chalk and cheese, in spite of only being thirty miles apart.

[poli]

Regional accents prevail in the US too, although things are staRting to homogenize at least among young women with the advent of the transcontinental (and horrendous) valley girl accent.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

@Sancho: Do you have any examples of this kind of pronunciation? It would be interesting for us strangers to learn to identify.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Sancho Panther

These last few years (coincident with retirement) I have become increasingly irritated by the prevalence of poor pronunciation, especially among the younger members of the UK popuation.

It would be interesting to know whether there has in fact a deteriation in speech over the last 50 years. One other possibility is that the media have become less critical and are prepared to tolerate bad speech in people who appear on TV. Whereas in the good old days (when presenters on radio had to turn up to work in evening dress) you would never hear an uncultured voice on BBC, these days you hear all kinds of oiks. Perhaps it is just the exposure which has changed, rather than the quality of language itself.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

That could be so, Perikles, and it would be a worldwide epidemic.
Once upon a time, people who spoke in Mexican television or radio would have agreeable voices and good diction. Nowadays there are screeching voices and people who can't be understood at times (and who don't even make an effort to be understood).

[Sancho Panther]

It would be interesting to know whether there has in fact a deteriation in speech over the last 50 years. One other possibility is that the media have become less critical and are prepared to tolerate bad speech in people who appear on TV. Whereas in the good old days (when presenters on radio had to turn up to work in evening dress) you would never hear an uncultured voice on BBC, these days you hear all kinds of oiks. Perhaps it is just the exposure which has changed, rather than the quality of language itself.

That sounds about right - it's that that I most deplore. Well that and news readers adding wholly unncessary great urgency into their bulletins, especially the pronuncation of the indefinite article as a diphthongized 'a' (i.e. to rhyme with day). I have occasionally heard "Another" pronounced as "A-nother".

It drives me crackers when local news bulletins include something on the lines of "Today in Warrington a small dog ran into the road into the path of an oncoming cyclist. Neither was injured but the bicycle's front wheel was buckled", but delivered with all the intensity that would accompany a report that China had launched an amphibious invasion of Japan accompanied by missiles on Tokyo!