I haven't been able to find much info on this subject. If someone knows about it or can direct me to some good resources, I'd appreciate it.
When did British English become predominantly non-rhotic?
Well, non-rhoticism arose originally probably somewhere during the 1600s, but even a good way into the 20th century much of rural England was still rhotic. Even around 1950 large portions of England were still rhotic. It is really only relatively recently that non-rhoticism has truly triumphed over rhoticism in England, with the loss of rhoticism in many rural dialects, even though the prestige varieties in England have been non-rhotic for a long time.
So does that mean that when aristocratic people talk with very posh non-rhotic British accents in eighteenth century period films, it is not inaccurate?
That is accurate at least with respect to non-rhoticness, but at the same time it would be inaccurate to have rural people from, say, the southwest or north of England during the same period to be non-rhotic as well. (However, it would be accurate to have common people from London at that period to be non-rhotic.)
<<When did British English become predominantly non-rhotic?>>
It might be more accurate to say that English English is predominantly non-rhotic.
<<However, it would be accurate to have common people from London at that period to be non-rhotic.>>
That's true since non-rhoticism was a characteristic feature of urban working-class dialects / accents that time. It started out from London and began to spread slowly but surely - so you can blame the Londoners on that, too! :-)
It might be more accurate to say that English English is predominantly non-rhotic.
<<However, it would be accurate to have common people from London at that period to be non-rhotic.>>
That's true since non-rhoticism was a characteristic feature of urban working-class dialects / accents that time. It started out from London and began to spread slowly but surely - so you can blame the Londoners on that, too! :-)
The speech of the Londoners in the days of Shakespeare (who was extremely rhotic himself - he hailed from Warwickshire, Central England) and that of Pepys - who apparently was rhotic in the accent of his home region (he hailed from Huntingdonshire - as was, it's now part of Cambridgeshire - in Eastern England) was extremely rhotic.
How cool it would be if the speech of a fair wee number of present day Londoners reverted to rhoticism instead of the grotesquely glottally-stopped Estuaryised form of bastardised Mockney Cockney it is today.
I hear it on London's King's Cross train station as I board the train for Edinburgh Waverley, and it's fantastic getting out of the train there four and a half hours or so later and hearing the soft tones of my own home city accent all around me once again - if you can hear them above the multitude of accents of all the tourists.
How cool it would be if the speech of a fair wee number of present day Londoners reverted to rhoticism instead of the grotesquely glottally-stopped Estuaryised form of bastardised Mockney Cockney it is today.
I hear it on London's King's Cross train station as I board the train for Edinburgh Waverley, and it's fantastic getting out of the train there four and a half hours or so later and hearing the soft tones of my own home city accent all around me once again - if you can hear them above the multitude of accents of all the tourists.
<<The speech of the Londoners in the days of Shakespeare (who was extremely rhotic himself - he hailed from Warwickshire, Central England) and that of Pepys - who apparently was rhotic in the accent of his home region (he hailed from Huntingdonshire - as was, it's now part of Cambridgeshire - in Eastern England) was extremely rhotic.>>
Yes, it was. They started to lose their r-s a bit later. What a pity. :-)
Edinburgh Waverley??? Couldn't they find a more pleasant name? :-) I have to admit that I've never really enjoyed the poor old (young) Edward Waverleys wavering and wandering through Scotland (beautiful landscape, though :-)). However, it might be due to the fact that it was compulsory at uni and was one of the beloved topics of a professor of mine. What's more, we were required to remeber the whole book in meticulous detail as she liked to ask us questions at exams like "What colour was Waverley's pyjama?" I know this was a stupid example - I doubt if Sir Edward's pyjamas were ever mentioned in the novel! But her questions were very similar to that.
Yes, it was. They started to lose their r-s a bit later. What a pity. :-)
Edinburgh Waverley??? Couldn't they find a more pleasant name? :-) I have to admit that I've never really enjoyed the poor old (young) Edward Waverleys wavering and wandering through Scotland (beautiful landscape, though :-)). However, it might be due to the fact that it was compulsory at uni and was one of the beloved topics of a professor of mine. What's more, we were required to remeber the whole book in meticulous detail as she liked to ask us questions at exams like "What colour was Waverley's pyjama?" I know this was a stupid example - I doubt if Sir Edward's pyjamas were ever mentioned in the novel! But her questions were very similar to that.
I'm so glad you've read the works of one of our most famous novelists and poets Sir Walter Scott, born and educated in this city, which proudly displays his magnificent monument on Princes Street. I've always had a place in my heart for Edward Waverley - ever the incurable dreamer and romantic - and yes, our gorgeously glorious Scottish landscape does inspire those qualities in people who gaze upon it and appreciate it to the full. I will never take it, or this city, for granted as long as I draw breath. :-)
Actually, Waverley train station here in Edinburgh (the main train station in the city) was named after Scott's Waverley as you will see from the link below. It has always been a thrill for me to arrive back at Waverley no matter where I've been in the UK - but especially so when returning from London - leaving that accent far behind me! Ha! I'm (half) joking really.........secrety I do have a passion for London as well, really. Samuel Johnson could well have been right.
http://www.takemetoedinburgh.co.uk/sights/articles/32.html
There's a documentary about the Duke of Edinburgh -BBC2 this evening -in just over ten minutes' time - a gaffe prone irascible old duffer at times but as he is Mr Queen it should be interesting to watch.
Actually, Waverley train station here in Edinburgh (the main train station in the city) was named after Scott's Waverley as you will see from the link below. It has always been a thrill for me to arrive back at Waverley no matter where I've been in the UK - but especially so when returning from London - leaving that accent far behind me! Ha! I'm (half) joking really.........secrety I do have a passion for London as well, really. Samuel Johnson could well have been right.
http://www.takemetoedinburgh.co.uk/sights/articles/32.html
There's a documentary about the Duke of Edinburgh -BBC2 this evening -in just over ten minutes' time - a gaffe prone irascible old duffer at times but as he is Mr Queen it should be interesting to watch.
Non-rhoticity didn't really grip England until the 18th-century. Of course, there would have been non-rhotic dialects before this--the accent of East Anglia was posited to have been non-rhotic at least as early as the Elizabethan era, as evidenced by phonetic spellings of words.
But the great leap forward in terms of non-rhoticity was probably the industrial revolution, starting in the 18th-century. Towns like Birmingham and Liverpool became cities, and were often islands of non-rhotic speech, probably due to an influx of transplants from Eastern England, where non-rhoticity was clearly a more common phenomenon.
As to the question of where non-rhoticity came from in the first place, who knows? Non-rhoticity is found not only in English, but in several Germanic languages, as well as certain dialects of Spanish, French and Portugese (well, the first two have semi-rhotic dialects). It has something to do with the property of liquids, I'm assuming, since "l" is similarly vocalised in a few dialects of English and Brazilian Portuguese.
But the great leap forward in terms of non-rhoticity was probably the industrial revolution, starting in the 18th-century. Towns like Birmingham and Liverpool became cities, and were often islands of non-rhotic speech, probably due to an influx of transplants from Eastern England, where non-rhoticity was clearly a more common phenomenon.
As to the question of where non-rhoticity came from in the first place, who knows? Non-rhoticity is found not only in English, but in several Germanic languages, as well as certain dialects of Spanish, French and Portugese (well, the first two have semi-rhotic dialects). It has something to do with the property of liquids, I'm assuming, since "l" is similarly vocalised in a few dialects of English and Brazilian Portuguese.
>>several Germanic languages<<
Specifically most modern High German dialects, Low Saxon, East Low German, and Danish, just for the record.
Specifically most modern High German dialects, Low Saxon, East Low German, and Danish, just for the record.