Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Eye-rack and Eye-ran
Here’s a nice little video from YouTube. It’s an advertisement for CNN, in which Christine Amanpour purports to attempt to teach the approved pronunciation of Iraq(i) and Iran to a would-be presenter who wants to say them with /aɪ-/.
The last two seconds of the clip is nice, too. We’re supposed to say /tʃetʃˈnjɑː/.
While on the subject of mispronunciations, a few weeks ago I saw the former US presidential candidate John McCain pronouncing infectious as /ɪnˈfektʃuəs/. Put that in the same box as prenuptial (blog, 9 June 2006) and rumbustious (blog, 27 Nov 2008).
The last two seconds of the clip is nice, too. We’re supposed to say /tʃetʃˈnjɑː/.
While on the subject of mispronunciations, a few weeks ago I saw the former US presidential candidate John McCain pronouncing infectious as /ɪnˈfektʃuəs/. Put that in the same box as prenuptial (blog, 9 June 2006) and rumbustious (blog, 27 Nov 2008).
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
irritating hamburgers
Emilio Marquez writes
This question relates to possible posttonic secondary stress, which is bound up with the important distinction in English between strong and weak vowels.
To recap, the weak vowels in English are i, u, and ə. The strong vowels are all the rest. (Exceptionally, ɪ and ʊ can be either strong or weak. Under ə we include all the syllabic consonants, including AmE ɚ.) In irritating ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ the vowels are strong, weak, strong, weak respectively.
Because of this, native speakers tend to perceive the penultimate syllable, teɪt, as being more strongly ‘stressed’ than the final syllable ɪŋ. But what they want to call ‘stress’ is arguably no more than a way of saying that the vowel is one of the strong ones.
Actual rhythmic beats following the main word stress accent are all pretty optional, which is why the British tradition is not to show any secondary stress in words like this: ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ, not *ˈɪrɪˌteɪtɪŋ. The alternative tradition, usually followed in the States and (for example) Japan, is to recognize a secondary stress on the penultimate, írritàting.
To answer the specific questions:
(1) Introspectively, worship(p)er (ˈwɜːʃɪpə, strong-weak-weak) is rhythmically different from hamburger (ˈhæm(ˌ)bɜːɡə, strong-strong-weak). In hamburger the penultimate vowel is long; in worship(p)er it is short. Both are also different from educate (ˈedjukeɪt or ˈedʒəkeɪt, strong-weak-strong). The last vowel of worshipful can be pronounced strong or weak, so this one can go either way, like worshipper or like educate.
(2) Qualificative is a pretty rare word. I would pronounce it ˈkwɒlɪfɪkətɪv (strong-weak-weak-weak-weak). Such a long string of weak vowels is unusual, and some people avoid it by saying ˈkwɒlɪfɪkeɪtɪv (strong-weak-weak-strong-weak). Prejudices is ˈpredʒudɪsɪz (s-w-w-w). Accompanying is əˈkʌmpəniɪŋ (w-s-w-w-w).
(3) As you are aware, people are divided about participle. I give it initial stress and say ˈpɑːt(ɪ)sɪpl (s-(w-)w-w).
However… despite all this apparent hair-splitting, my advice to Spanish-speaking EFL learners is not to attempt any degree of stress after the main stress in a word. Ignore all posttonic stresses. This applies even in compounds like washing machine ˈwɒʃɪŋ məˌʃiːn. As Emilio is aware, attempts at a conscious secondary stress are likely to lead only to mispronunciations of the type ˌwɒʃɪŋ məˈʃiːn.
I would like to ask you about the rhythmic patterns of … words [such as irritating].
If Spanish speakers are asked to place the primary stress in the correct place…, they will invariably make the last syllable "pulse[d]". If they are asked to pulse lightly on any vowel between the primary stress and the last syllable, they will turn this light pulse into the primary stress of the word, i.e. they will say either IRritaTING or irriTAting, but not IRriTAting).
1) Do "worshiper" and "worshipful" resemble "hamburger", or perhaps "educate"?
2) Which are the strongest (potentially "pulsed") "sit" or "me" vowels in the words "qualificative", "prejudices", "accompanying"?
3) What is the rhythmic pattern of the word "participle" when this shows initial primary stress?
This question relates to possible posttonic secondary stress, which is bound up with the important distinction in English between strong and weak vowels.
To recap, the weak vowels in English are i, u, and ə. The strong vowels are all the rest. (Exceptionally, ɪ and ʊ can be either strong or weak. Under ə we include all the syllabic consonants, including AmE ɚ.) In irritating ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ the vowels are strong, weak, strong, weak respectively.
Because of this, native speakers tend to perceive the penultimate syllable, teɪt, as being more strongly ‘stressed’ than the final syllable ɪŋ. But what they want to call ‘stress’ is arguably no more than a way of saying that the vowel is one of the strong ones.
Actual rhythmic beats following the main word stress accent are all pretty optional, which is why the British tradition is not to show any secondary stress in words like this: ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ, not *ˈɪrɪˌteɪtɪŋ. The alternative tradition, usually followed in the States and (for example) Japan, is to recognize a secondary stress on the penultimate, írritàting.
To answer the specific questions:
(1) Introspectively, worship(p)er (ˈwɜːʃɪpə, strong-weak-weak) is rhythmically different from hamburger (ˈhæm(ˌ)bɜːɡə, strong-strong-weak). In hamburger the penultimate vowel is long; in worship(p)er it is short. Both are also different from educate (ˈedjukeɪt or ˈedʒəkeɪt, strong-weak-strong). The last vowel of worshipful can be pronounced strong or weak, so this one can go either way, like worshipper or like educate.
(2) Qualificative is a pretty rare word. I would pronounce it ˈkwɒlɪfɪkətɪv (strong-weak-weak-weak-weak). Such a long string of weak vowels is unusual, and some people avoid it by saying ˈkwɒlɪfɪkeɪtɪv (strong-weak-weak-strong-weak). Prejudices is ˈpredʒudɪsɪz (s-w-w-w). Accompanying is əˈkʌmpəniɪŋ (w-s-w-w-w).
(3) As you are aware, people are divided about participle. I give it initial stress and say ˈpɑːt(ɪ)sɪpl (s-(w-)w-w).
However… despite all this apparent hair-splitting, my advice to Spanish-speaking EFL learners is not to attempt any degree of stress after the main stress in a word. Ignore all posttonic stresses. This applies even in compounds like washing machine ˈwɒʃɪŋ məˌʃiːn. As Emilio is aware, attempts at a conscious secondary stress are likely to lead only to mispronunciations of the type ˌwɒʃɪŋ məˈʃiːn.
Monday, 28 September 2009
interpreting stress
There are two English words beginning inter- which have an unexpected stressing: interpret and interstice. Looking at the spelling you might expect *ˈɪntəpret and *ˈɪntəstɪs. What we actually have is ɪnˈtɜːprɪt and ɪnˈtɜːstɪs.
I am not clear what the historical reason for these oddities is. Consider first interpret: nearly all other trisyllabic verbs in inter- have final stress: interact, interbreed, intercede, intercept, interdict, interfere, interject, interlace, interleave, interlink, interlock, intermix, interpose, interrupt, intersperse, intertwine, intervene, interweave. The only other exceptions seem to be the initial-stressed interest and interview: both are presumably to be explained as denominative.
The best explanation that I can come up with for interpret is that the word may originally have been borrowed as a noun, from Latin interprēs, interprĕt-. Then, if we apply the SPE main stress rule for nouns, we disregard the final vowel because it is short (in the Latin oblique stem) and place the main stress on the preceding vowel, followed as it is by a strong cluster (-rpr-). This stressing is unaffected when we convert it to a verb.
Unfortunately the OED shows the verb interpret as first attested in English in 1382, two hundred years before the noun interpret ‘interpreter’, now obsolete, which has only a single citation, from 1585.
Turning to interstice: the OED gives an alternative stressing (initial), but eveyone else shows it only with penultimate stress. All other trisyllabic nouns in inter- have initial stress: interchange, intercourse, interface, interlude, internet, interplay, Interpol, interval, interview.
My first thought on interstice was that it is what we get if we apply the SPE main stress rule for nouns (and this one really is a noun). Again, we disregard the final short vowel and place the main stress on the preceding vowel with its following strong cluster (-rst-).
The only problem with this solution is that it doesn’t explain why the same rule doesn’t apply to internet and interval, which by this logic ought to be ɪnˈtɜːnɪt and ɪnˈtɜːvəl. (They are the only nouns in our list with a short vowel in the final syllable.)
As so often with Chomsky and Halle, you find that the rules work beautifully some of the time, but you have to tie yourself in knots to explain why they don’t apply to all cases that apparently meet the structural description.
I’m not going to mention interment, in which there is an etymologically different inter, not the prefix but a different prefix (in-) plus stem (-ter-).
I am not clear what the historical reason for these oddities is. Consider first interpret: nearly all other trisyllabic verbs in inter- have final stress: interact, interbreed, intercede, intercept, interdict, interfere, interject, interlace, interleave, interlink, interlock, intermix, interpose, interrupt, intersperse, intertwine, intervene, interweave. The only other exceptions seem to be the initial-stressed interest and interview: both are presumably to be explained as denominative.
The best explanation that I can come up with for interpret is that the word may originally have been borrowed as a noun, from Latin interprēs, interprĕt-. Then, if we apply the SPE main stress rule for nouns, we disregard the final vowel because it is short (in the Latin oblique stem) and place the main stress on the preceding vowel, followed as it is by a strong cluster (-rpr-). This stressing is unaffected when we convert it to a verb.
Unfortunately the OED shows the verb interpret as first attested in English in 1382, two hundred years before the noun interpret ‘interpreter’, now obsolete, which has only a single citation, from 1585.
Turning to interstice: the OED gives an alternative stressing (initial), but eveyone else shows it only with penultimate stress. All other trisyllabic nouns in inter- have initial stress: interchange, intercourse, interface, interlude, internet, interplay, Interpol, interval, interview.
My first thought on interstice was that it is what we get if we apply the SPE main stress rule for nouns (and this one really is a noun). Again, we disregard the final short vowel and place the main stress on the preceding vowel with its following strong cluster (-rst-).
The only problem with this solution is that it doesn’t explain why the same rule doesn’t apply to internet and interval, which by this logic ought to be ɪnˈtɜːnɪt and ɪnˈtɜːvəl. (They are the only nouns in our list with a short vowel in the final syllable.)
As so often with Chomsky and Halle, you find that the rules work beautifully some of the time, but you have to tie yourself in knots to explain why they don’t apply to all cases that apparently meet the structural description.
I’m not going to mention interment, in which there is an etymologically different inter, not the prefix but a different prefix (in-) plus stem (-ter-).
Friday, 25 September 2009
centralization
In response to Wednesday’s blog Eric Armstrong wrote:
The 1989 IPA Convention in Kiel that I mentioned yesterday also attempted to clarify what was meant by “centralization”. There it was decided that the superposed umlaut means centralization in the sense of moving horizontally towards the centre line of the vowel diagram.
But the IPA never attempted to define how much centralization is involved. Common sense suggests that [ä] would generally be still somewhat front of the centre line, and [ɑ̈] somewhat back of it. They would straddle the proposed [A].
A new diacritic, the superposed small ×, was introduced to indicate a “mid-centralized” vowel, i.e. one that was modified towards [ə] — not only fronter/backer than implied by the base vowel, but also opener/closer. So the current official IPA doctrine is that [u] with the × diacritic means the same as [ʊ], whereas [ü] shows modification merely in the direction of [ʉ].
I have to say, however, that I have never seen this “mid-centralization” diacritic in actual use. Has anyone?
And I notice my browser won’t render it properly.
Today you said"If it is essential to symbolize the central quality explicitly, then we have diacritics available: [ä] or [ɐ̞] or [ɑ̈]. But it’s better to state such details once and for all in the transcriptional conventions, not repeatedly in a transcribed text."
My question for you is: does [ä] = [ɑ̈] ? Do those modified-by-a-diacritic symbols represent the same thing, meeting as they might in the middle? To me, I've always assumed that [ä] is more front, while [ɑ̈] is more back, that they *don't* represent the middle of the bottom of the chart. But that's just my assumption. What's the convention? Or am I confusing [a̙] and [ɑ̘] with those centralized versions, which should really be in the centre?
Or should I say [a̠] and [ɑ̟]? (that's a minus under the first and a plus under the second, if they didn't make it through the email unscathed.) Can you help clarify? I bet other blog readers might like to know...
The 1989 IPA Convention in Kiel that I mentioned yesterday also attempted to clarify what was meant by “centralization”. There it was decided that the superposed umlaut means centralization in the sense of moving horizontally towards the centre line of the vowel diagram.
But the IPA never attempted to define how much centralization is involved. Common sense suggests that [ä] would generally be still somewhat front of the centre line, and [ɑ̈] somewhat back of it. They would straddle the proposed [A].
A new diacritic, the superposed small ×, was introduced to indicate a “mid-centralized” vowel, i.e. one that was modified towards [ə] — not only fronter/backer than implied by the base vowel, but also opener/closer. So the current official IPA doctrine is that [u] with the × diacritic means the same as [ʊ], whereas [ü] shows modification merely in the direction of [ʉ].
I have to say, however, that I have never seen this “mid-centralization” diacritic in actual use. Has anyone?
And I notice my browser won’t render it properly.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
two symbols frequently confused
I have just had to remind someone not to confuse the phonetic symbols ɤ and ɣ.
The first, ɤ, is the symbol for a back close-mid unrounded vowel, cardinal 15. This is the vowel heard in Mandarin Chinese 刻 kè [kɤ] ‘carve’.
The second, ɣ, is the symbol for a voiced velar fricative. This, or the corresponding approximant, is the consonant heard in the middle of Spanish fuego [ˈfweɣo] ‘fire’, Greek εγώ [eˈɣo] ‘I’, etc.
Confusion of these two symbols was something I often had to correct in authors’ manuscripts when I was the editor of the Journal of the International Phonetic Association. Since other copy editors may not have been so symbol-obsessed as me, the confusion is found uncorrected in quite a few printed books.
At its 1989 Kiel Convention the IPA discussed this issue. At the time the vowel symbol was usually printed with straight sides (although on the line, x-height), making it very similar to the consonant symbol (which descended through the line). See this scan of the IPA Principles booklet (1949 edition). The recommendation of the Kiel Convention was to change the sides into a curly “rams-horn” shape, which is what we use today.
If you have installed Doulos SIL, you should be able to see what they look like in a serifed font:
The first, ɤ, is the symbol for a back close-mid unrounded vowel, cardinal 15. This is the vowel heard in Mandarin Chinese 刻 kè [kɤ] ‘carve’.
The second, ɣ, is the symbol for a voiced velar fricative. This, or the corresponding approximant, is the consonant heard in the middle of Spanish fuego [ˈfweɣo] ‘fire’, Greek εγώ [eˈɣo] ‘I’, etc.
Confusion of these two symbols was something I often had to correct in authors’ manuscripts when I was the editor of the Journal of the International Phonetic Association. Since other copy editors may not have been so symbol-obsessed as me, the confusion is found uncorrected in quite a few printed books.
At its 1989 Kiel Convention the IPA discussed this issue. At the time the vowel symbol was usually printed with straight sides (although on the line, x-height), making it very similar to the consonant symbol (which descended through the line). See this scan of the IPA Principles booklet (1949 edition). The recommendation of the Kiel Convention was to change the sides into a curly “rams-horn” shape, which is what we use today.
ɤɣɤɣɤɣ
If you have installed Doulos SIL, you should be able to see what they look like in a serifed font:
ɤɣɤɣɤɣ
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
German [a(ː)]
Lipman asked (blog comments, 21 Sep):
I agree. I think the German vowel in aber is open, unlike the not-fully-open [ɐ] of STRUT, and is backer than cardinal 4 [a] but fronter than cardinal 5 [ɑ]: in fact, just about halfway between cardinal 4 [a] and cardinal 5 [ɑ].
Here is Mangold’s vowel chart for the oral monophthongs of Standard German (Dudenaussprachewörterbuch6, p. 37).
Some people want the IPA to approve the use of small-cap [A] for this quality. I do not favour this proposal, because no language as far as I am aware distinguishes three fully open unrounded vowels, [a] vs. [A] vs. [ɑ]. Just as the symbol [t] has to represent sounds that may be aspirated or unaspirated, dental or alveolar, according to the language, so we must demand flexibility in vowel symbols such as [a].
If it is essential to symbolize the central quality explicitly, then we have diacritics available: [ä] or [ɐ̞] or [ɑ̈]. But it’s better to state such details once and for all in the transcriptional conventions, not repeatedly in a transcribed text.
About [ɐ] - what would you say is the first vowel in German aber? The word is usually transcribed as [a:bɐ], but that [a] is probably a convention as well - it's not identical to mainstream English or even Italian /a/. I'd say it's in between [a] and [ɑ]. Northern German as [a] and South Eastern German has [ɑ], both of which are different from the vowel in Standard German.
I agree. I think the German vowel in aber is open, unlike the not-fully-open [ɐ] of STRUT, and is backer than cardinal 4 [a] but fronter than cardinal 5 [ɑ]: in fact, just about halfway between cardinal 4 [a] and cardinal 5 [ɑ].
Here is Mangold’s vowel chart for the oral monophthongs of Standard German (Dudenaussprachewörterbuch6, p. 37).
Some people want the IPA to approve the use of small-cap [A] for this quality. I do not favour this proposal, because no language as far as I am aware distinguishes three fully open unrounded vowels, [a] vs. [A] vs. [ɑ]. Just as the symbol [t] has to represent sounds that may be aspirated or unaspirated, dental or alveolar, according to the language, so we must demand flexibility in vowel symbols such as [a].
If it is essential to symbolize the central quality explicitly, then we have diacritics available: [ä] or [ɐ̞] or [ɑ̈]. But it’s better to state such details once and for all in the transcriptional conventions, not repeatedly in a transcribed text.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
O to be a polyglot
Here is an impressive video of an Englishman going by the name of Torbyrne, who can speak sixteen languages. (Thanks to Giridhar Rao for this.) He says
As far as I can judge from the languages I know myself, his pronunciation is excellent, in that he definitely achieves the goal of sounding native-like. However his general ability to speak clearly and articulately does arguably leave room for improvement.
Nevertheless, this should be an inspiration to us all: particularly on the day that the Guardian reports on the closure of UK university language departments.
UCL’s professor of German says
This is a video with me speaking some of the languages I have learnt over the years with captions in English. In this video I speak English, French, Spanish, Welsh, German, Macedonian, Swedish, Italian, Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian, Portuguese, Czech, Catalan, Russian, Dutch, Romanian and Albanian.
As far as I can judge from the languages I know myself, his pronunciation is excellent, in that he definitely achieves the goal of sounding native-like. However his general ability to speak clearly and articulately does arguably leave room for improvement.
Nevertheless, this should be an inspiration to us all: particularly on the day that the Guardian reports on the closure of UK university language departments.
UCL’s professor of German says
Monolingualism radically diminishes Britain's ability to compete in the international marketplace and disqualifies the British from many high-level posts that require linguistic fluency. It threatens our ability to look beyond our front doors. Foreign culture can only truly be accessed through a foreign language. Not having that exposure results in an inability to be a global citizen and limits otherwise intelligent people to cultural parochialism. At that point, we have abandoned, paradoxically in the age of globalisation, the desire to reach a certain level of intellectual development and the wish to truly count as world citizens.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)