British upper-class pronunciation of words like "what" and "when"

Question

More from the BBC adaptation of Charles Dickens' Bleak House.

I've noticed in these sort of movies, when some very upper-class speakers talk, like the lawyer in the series, Mr. Tulkinghorn, they have a distinct way of pronouncing "wh" in what and when; the "wh-" sounds seems to be prefaced with an almost sharp whistling "h", so that it sounds like they are really saying hwat and hwhen.

I'd like to know three things: First, what is the specific name of this phoneme, as would be given by linguists? Secondly, what's the difference in articulation, in terms of tongues and throats, between this hwh- and wh-? And finally, the most difficult question of all: Is the hwhat these upper-class speakers produce a direct-line preservation of Anglo-Saxon pronunciation, through these many centuries? [I ask because I have seen the construction "hwæt hwæt" used playfully as an example of Anglo-Saxon speech, and figured that the "hw-" sound must have prominent in that language.]

Sarah Silverman (3:30): "My mother speaks very well and says, like, /ʍɛn/ and /ʍɛər/." (Manchester, New Hampshire) — Talia Ford, Oct 29 '13 at 02:11
Uticensis, that's strange. I've heard that pronunciation from Americans with southern US accents. — Tristan r, Mar 15 '14 at 13:26

score 12 · Accepted Answer · answered May 17 '11 at 20:22

Only a few dialects maintain the distinction between /hw/ and /w/, that is, distinguishing witch from which, wale from whale, and wine from whine. The WH sound, a voiceless labiovelar approximant, is written as /hw/ or sometimes /ʍ/ in the International Phonetic Alphabet. The W sound is a voiced labiovelar approximant. The difference between the two is that the WH sound is voiceless, meaning it is produced without vibration of the vocal cords (at least at the beginning), whereas the W sound is produced with voicing (vibration of the vocal cords) throughout.

Wikipedia has a good article summarizing the phonological history of the WH sound.

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Mar 15 '14 at 12:30

0

The sound /hw/ as a sequence of two clear separate phonemes is an affectation. In the few dialects that preserve the distinction, the sound is the voiceless w, or /ʍ/.

answered Mar 15 '14 at 12:30

hunter

1,395

3

I do believe that is what the asker was referring to—the simple unvoiced /ʍ/. For someone who is not a linguist or phonetician and does not have the sound in their phone[m/t]ic inventory, it descriptively sounds rather like /hw/, and I am not aware of any language or any accent that actually distinguishes /hw/ from /ʍ/. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Mar 15 '14 at 14:44
@JanusBahsJacquet yes, sorry, my answer was not so well-written. I just wanted to clarify that, at least in the US, some speakers very deliberately add a /h/ before /w/ in formal speech, but almost none of these speakers have this as a feature of the native dialect. I imagine the number of "wh-affectors" (who tend to make /hw/) outweighs the number of "born wh-ers;" (among whom I have only ever heard /ʍ/); that's what I was trying to communicate to OP with this answer, not that there is a phonemic distinction between the two sounds. – hunter Mar 15 '14 at 14:49
as for Britain, the wikipedia suggests that any w/wh distinction is an affectation as well – hunter Mar 15 '14 at 14:49
3

It’s not. It’s a natural part of some English dialects, and it’s very common in Scotland (and Ireland, but that’s not Britain). I’m not entirely sure about Wales off the top of my head, but Welsh does have /ʍ/, so it would make sense that Anglowelsh has it too. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Mar 15 '14 at 14:52
1

What is the phonetic difference between [hw] and [ʍ] anyway? From what I remember, /h/ in English is usually realized phonetically as a voiceless version of the following sound. So [hw] = [ẘw] (voiceless approximant), which seems awfully close to [ʍ] (voiceless fricative). Additionally, Wikipedia suggests that English /hj/ is often realized as [ç], which seems perfectly analogous to /hw/ = [ʍ]. I'm not convinced that the distinction between /ʍ/ and /hw/ is anything but notational. – herisson Jul 18 '15 at 19:50
I (UK speaker) would only use the 'hw' pronunciation if I wanted to distinguish clearly between, say, Wales and whales. – Kate Bunting Oct 02 '16 at 15:28

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered May 17 '11 at 19:01

0

I believe that the hwat is actually "proper English" and most of us slur it. At least that's what my (American) english teacher in elementary school would have us believe.

answered May 17 '11 at 19:01

Wayne

612

score 0 · Answer 4 · answered Jan 04 '23 at 00:11

0

If you listen to old CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) programs, you will hear the hw sound, but it has almost completely died nowadays, except among older people.

answered Jan 04 '23 at 00:11

ILEM World

207

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Apr 15 '23 at 16:47

0

My English teacher always pronounces such words as which, why, where differently from witch, y, wear. She explains that because people are lazy, they tend to ignore such nuances.

answered Apr 15 '23 at 16:47

John

26

1

Where and when did this occur? – tchrist Apr 15 '23 at 17:03
We live in Florida; she and I talked to each other within the last two months. – John May 06 '23 at 11:36

score 0 · Answer 6 · answered Oct 13 '23 at 16:14

0

I lived in California while growing up and everyone always pronounced the /wh/ sound. It wasn’t until decades later, when I was living in Pennsylvania, that I first heard people say whale as /wale/, which as /witch/, etc.

answered Oct 13 '23 at 16:14

Margaret D

1

Once you reach 50 reputation, you'll be able to share such anecdotes in comments- but 'answers' are expected to be answers. You could [edit] your answer to address the question itself, and consider taking the [tour]. – Heartspring Oct 13 '23 at 16:20

British upper-class pronunciation of words like "what" and "when"

6 Answers6

Linked

Related