モダンRPの時代に、あえてクラシックRPへ戻る

イギリス英語の発音、いわゆるRPを学ぶ必要は、本当にあるのでしょうか。

通じればそれでいい。そう言い切れる人も、確かにいるはずです。

家族に、人工知能を専門とする大学教授がいます。世界レベルで活躍し、海外の複数の大学に留学もしてきた人です。では発音が正確かと言えば、そうではありません。それでも彼の話を聞きたいという人は、世界中にいます。ロンドンで出会った腕のいい鍼師も同じでした。言葉が完全には聞き取れなくても、この人に診てもらいたいと思わせる何かがある。専門性と人間的な信頼があれば、発音は二の次になる場面が、確かにあるのです。

ただ、ここで立ち止まってほしいことがあります。この二人は、発音以外の圧倒的な何かを、すでに手にしている人たちです。世界に通用する専門性、人を惹きつける力。それらが揺るぎないからこそ、発音が前に出る必要がない。

でも、もしそうでないのなら。

英語と深く関わる人生を選ぶなら——これから自分の強みを英語の上に築いていこうとするなら——話は別です。人は、話の中身を理解する前に、まず音を聞きます。そして、最初の数秒で、無意識に「この人はどういう人か」を判断してしまう。発音ひとつで、信頼される。機会が増える。第一印象が変わる。綺麗な発音には、それだけで人生の景色を変える力があると、私自身が感じてきました。

では、その発音を、どこに基準を求めるか。私が選んでいるのはRPです。

クラシックなRPを耳にする機会は、今では限られています。話者は人口の2〜3%程度。正直に言えば、少し古めかしく響く音もあります。それでも私は、あの品のあるRPの響きが今でも好きです。

当然、こう思われるはずです。なぜ少数派の発音を、今わざわざ目指すのか、と。

本来、言葉は変わるものです。17世紀、イギリス各地から訛りの異なる移民が新大陸へ渡り、その訛りが接触してならされる中で、英語は自然に別の音へと変わっていきました。制度的な錨を持たないアメリカ英語は、こうして時代とともに姿を変えていったのです。

一方、クラシックRPには錨がありました。BBCや辞書、英語教育、そしてごく一部の層がその音に拘り続けた。本来なら移ろっていくはずの発音を、ある層が意図的に守り抜いた。だからこそ録音にも記述にも残り、今も参照できる足場として生き続けています。

そして実は、アメリカと同じことがイギリスのRPでも起きているのです。

現代イギリスのRP——モダンRPは、今なお移行の途中にあります。同じ単語でも、世代によって母音の響きが変わりつつある。動く標的は、基準にできないのです。

その点、クラシックRPは違います。母音の区別が明確で、調音が精密で、音声学的に最も体系化されている。だから誰が参照しても、同じ音にたどり着ける。これほど信頼できる足場はありません。

私が教えるのは、クラシックRPをベースに、現代へ寄せたRP、とイギリスのパブリックスクールで主に使われているSynthetic Phonicsの考えを多く取り入れています。
なぜそれでもRPをクラスに入れるか、それは極端なほど正確な型を徹底的に体に入れるからこそ、力が抜けたときに初めて自然な発音が生まれる。ノンネイティブだからこそ、必要なことだと経験から思います。
ノンネイティブは最初から自然体を目指すと、自然体にすらたどり着けないのです。だからこそ私は、クラシックRPを手放さないのです。

3. 参考文献

• Gimson, A.C. An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English

• O’Connor, J.D. & Arnold, G.F. Intonation of Colloquial English（第2版、1973）

• Sethi, J. & Dhamija, P.V. A Course in Phonetics and Spoken English（第2版）

• Lindsey, G. English After RP（2019）

【付録】動く標的、とは

これはnoteの記事ですね。長文ですので少し時間がかかります。翻訳を始めます。

Does learning Received Pronunciation — RP — truly matter?

Some people would say: as long as you’re understood, that’s enough. And honestly, they’re not wrong.

I have a family member who is a university professor specialising in artificial intelligence — someone who operates at a global level and has studied at multiple universities abroad. His pronunciation is far from perfect. And yet, people around the world seek him out to hear what he has to say. I once met a highly skilled acupuncturist in London in a similar situation. Even when his words weren’t entirely clear, something about him made you trust him completely. When genuine expertise and human credibility are present, pronunciation can become secondary. That is simply true.

But here is where I want you to pause.

These two people already possess something overwhelming — beyond pronunciation. A level of expertise that speaks for itself on the world stage. A quality that draws people in. It is precisely because those things are unshakeable that pronunciation does not need to lead.

But what if that isn’t your situation?

If you are choosing a life deeply connected to English — if you are building your strengths on a foundation of English — the calculation changes entirely. People hear the sound before they process the meaning. Within the first few seconds, they form an unconscious impression of who you are. Pronunciation alone can build trust, open doors, and change first impressions. I have seen it, and felt it myself: a refined pronunciation has the power to change the entire landscape of a life.

So where do we set the standard? For me, the answer is RP.

Opportunities to hear classical RP are now limited. Its speakers make up perhaps two to three percent of the population. Some of its sounds, I will admit, carry a slightly old-fashioned quality. And yet — I still love the sound of it. That particular quality of refinement has never left me.

You may well ask: why aim for a minority accent in this day and age?

Language, by nature, changes. In the seventeenth century, settlers with varying regional accents crossed to the new world, and as those accents met and blended, English shifted naturally into something different. American English, without any institutional anchor, continued to evolve with the times.

Classical RP, by contrast, had an anchor. The BBC, dictionaries, English education, and a small but determined community of speakers who refused to let it go. What would otherwise have drifted was deliberately preserved. And because it was preserved, it was recorded, described, and documented — and it remains available today as a reliable reference point.

What is interesting is that the same drift happening in American English is now happening to RP in Britain.

Modern RP is still in transition. The same word sounds different depending on the speaker’s generation. A moving target cannot serve as a standard.

Classical RP is different. Its vowels are clearly distinguished. Its articulation is precise. It is the most systematically documented variety in phonetic terms. Anyone who studies it carefully can arrive at the same sounds. There is no more reliable foundation.

What I teach is a classical RP base, brought closer to the present day. The reason I insist on the most precise and exacting version of the form is this: only by building that rigorous foundation into the body does a natural pronunciation eventually emerge. If you aim for naturalness from the beginning, you never actually reach it. That is why I will not let go of classical RP.

Appendix: The Difference Between J.D. O’Connor’s RP and Modern RP

1. O’Connor/Gimson versus the Lindsey school

There are two major currents in English phonetics.

The O’Connor/Gimson tradition defines RP normatively — as the pronunciation of educated British speakers — and describes vowels, consonants, and intonation with precise IPA notation and vowel diagrams, including analysis at the allophonic level. Its emphasis is on giving learners an accurate articulatory target.

The Carley/Lindsey tradition takes a different stance. In his 2019 book English After RP, Lindsey declares that “RP is dead” and proposes the term General British for the contemporary speech of BBC presenters and younger educated speakers. This approach prioritises description over prescription — documenting the sound as it actually exists rather than as it once was defined.

FeatureO’Connor/GimsonCarley/LindseyFOOT-STRUT distinctionCentral; treated with precisionRetained but peripheral variation permittedGOAT vowel /əʊ/Back diphthongDescribed as fronting toward /ɛʊ/Happy tensingRarely mentionedNoted as a feature of modern RP/juː/ (tune, etc.)/tjuː/ as the norm/tʃuː/ shift describedThe term “RP”Used without reservationTreated with scepticism; alternatives preferred

2. Why this distinction matters for teaching

Lindsey’s argument that “RP is dead” carries real influence. But this is an observation from a descriptive linguist — it is a separate question from where a teacher chooses to place the normative target.

Whether it is genuinely effective to offer Japanese learners “the fluctuating sounds currently spoken by young Londoners” as a goal is an entirely different debate.

My reliance on the precise analytical tradition of classical RP phonetics is consistent with a philosophy of building physical foundations for sound production — not teaching variation. The purposes are fundamentally different from the description-first approach of the Lindsey school.

3. References

• Gimson, A.C. An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English

• O’Connor, J.D. & Arnold, G.F. Intonation of Colloquial English (2nd ed., 1973)

• Sethi, J. & Dhamija, P.V. A Course in Phonetics and Spoken English (2nd ed.)

• Lindsey, G. English After RP (2019)

Appendix: What is a “moving target”?

Take the vowel in goose — /uː/. In classical RP, this was a fully back, rounded sound produced deep in the mouth. In modern RP, the tongue position has shifted forward and the lip rounding has relaxed. The same word sounds subtly different across generations. This is the moving target: the moment you try to fix it as a standard, it has already moved.