Yes, ime too. At first, I kept hearing /d/, so that's how I would pronounce it, but my Japanese colleagues would soon correct me with again what I heard as /d/. I had a professor of phonetics who taught that every phone had a range of variants that were neither phonemic nor allophonic. They were just 'static' that speakers learned to accommodate. Japanese /r/, for example, is not within the static range, so non-Japanese speakers hear the closest variant, which for English speakers is /d/ or /dl/. For Japanese speakers of English, English /r/ is not within their static range, so they hear the closest sound, which to them is a kind of /l/--or rather, and in keeping with the topic, is what native English speakers hear as /l//Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
By the by, in pronouncing the Japanese name Ryou, a male's name, I consciously form /d/ and then say [r]. The result, a Japanese /r/ that sounds like something inbetween the affricate in garage and /dl/, but it's neither. It's Japanese /r/, so say my Japanese colleagues.
There are people who have this knack for knowing how to pronounce a language as if it were their native tongue. I gather those people have an ear for static.
Good point. Speakers do indeed know that, say, an /r/ is an /r/ because they can discriminate sounds in their language. Other r's in other languages, no; i.e., English <r> v. Japanese <r>. Intention, yes. The ear discriminates sound based on a variety of features, distinctive features. If a feature is unknown, then the closest sound is chosen. So, in other words, discrimination is a form of intentionallity.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
No result at all, more likely. How does that factor in here?Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
Back to discrimination. The assumption that each speaker maps and decodes distinctive features in the same way is erroneous, right?; i.e., auditorily dyslexic learners. Within a given language, not just across languages, there also exists variations of intentionallity, call 'em nano-phones.
Bad science is the foundation of good science. Try, try, again, right? Mistakes happen. In fact, most hypotheses end up serving only one purpose, to cancel out what something isn't.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
Escape...? I'm lost. Sorry.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
They describe what is clearly biological.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
A phoneme is a bundle of distinctive features. The features themselves describe physiological states: articulation and manner, which are not to my present knowledge--I could be behind in my reading, though--"processes that make a hypothesis a hypothesis (memory for example)." Place of articulation and manner are not connected to how memory works. (Does anyone know yet how memory works?) I may have missed your point.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
I'd rather not step into that minefield, if that's OK with you.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
Phonemes describe physiology. It is in that sense that they are connected to our biology.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
I doubt speakers consciously focus on phonemes, or for that matter the innerworkings of their DNA.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
Again, you've lost me.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
But we have. Distinctive features.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
The same can be said about any field, say, the idea that the earth is flat--some people to this day still believe that you know.Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
Where's the connection?Originally Posted by Dawnstorm