[Vocabulary] Phonetics

[zainab shah]

Hello teachers!
There are different phonetics of a single word then how can we identify it that which phonetic is going to use.
Phonetic is the biggest problem for me in english.
Thanks in advance.

 

[hoang21anh]

I think the best way for now is that you look up more frequently in the dictionary. There are phonetic parts right beside every word. And after a period of time getting used to phonetic signs in dictionary, you'll be able to recognize a lot of words and can even have your own experience of how to recognize them

 

[5jj]

If more than one phonetic transcription is given in a dictionary, then it is possible to pronounce the word in more than one way. Dictionaries usually list the most common pronunciation first.

 

[zainab shah]

Hmmmmm
Right guys I will try this.thanks

 

[Soup]

Hello teachers!
There are different phonetics of a single word then how can we identify it that which phonetic is going to use.
Phonetic is the biggest problem for me in english.
Thanks in advance.

It would help if we had an example or two (or three) to work from so that we could look at the pattern (the reason for the various pronunciations). Do you have a specific dictionary listing (word) in mind?

 

[zainab shah]

It would help if we had an example or two (or three) to work from so that we could look at the pattern (the reason for the various pronunciations). Do you have a specific dictionary listing (word) in mind?

There are various words having a lot of phonetics but for the sake to understand let us have a look at the phonetics of " Necessity" a very common word with different phonetics like
1- nɪˈsɛsɪtɪ
2- nəˈsesəti
3- nə'səsiti etc
now which one is correct althogh we can pronounce it as we like by using any phonetic from these but when our youngers ask us then what we should say.It can create a bad impression of them on english .they will obviously say "we don't need to learn phonetic, we will pronounce as we like"I am saying this because my younger brother said to me.

 

[5jj]

1- nɪˈsɛsɪtɪ
2- nəˈsesəti
3- nə'səsiti etc

The unstressed first and second syllables can be pronounced /ɪ/, /ə/ or somewhere between. The stressed second syllable is pronounced with the same vowel that we hear in 'stress'. Some people use the symbol /ɛ/ for this phoneme, others /e/. I consider the use of schwa for this syllable in #3 incorrect. The unstressed final syllable can be /ɪ/, /i /, or somewhere between.

 

[Soup]

1- nɪˈsɛsɪtɪ
2- nəˈsesəti
3- nə'səsiti etc

The first one nɪˈsɛsɪtɪ is fairly standard and it's how I pronounce necessity. I also pronounce it nəˈsɛsɪtɪ, with schwa (ə), a common phonetic variation, which surprisingly isn't an option provided above.

The other two pronunciations (2- and 3-) sound odd to me. I wonder if others could join in and help us figure out which dialect of English 2- and 3- are representative of.

 

[5jj]

#1 and #2 are both standard BrE pronunciations, if we accept that /ɛ/ and /e/ represent the same vowel. I learnt the first symbol when I studied phonetics in the 1960s and early 70s. When I came back to it in the 90s, most British writers had changed to the second. I believe that the first is preferred by North American phoneticians. Similarly, the /ɪ/ we used to use for the terminal -y has been replaced by the non-phonemic /i /. #3 looks distinctly odd to me, and does not represent any British dialect that I know. The idea of having a stressed schwa syllable appears almost a contradiction in terms.

 

[Soup]

#1 and #2 are both standard BrE pronunciations, if we accept that /ɛ/ and /e/ represent the same vowel.

Do dictionaries do that, use two symbols for the same sound? Talk about inconsistency. No wonder the poster is confused. I'd be confused too if that were the case. I don't see it being the case though. The second pronunciation has /e/, as in said, which sounds like someone from Mississippi (USA), at least to me.

#3 looks distinctly odd to me, and does not represent any British dialect that I know.

You see, I would have pegged it for BrE. It sounds so very ...British.

 

[5jj]

Do dictionaries do that, use two symbols for the same sound?

No. They settle for one or the other. Most British dictionaries, especially those designed for learners, use /e/, but the COD uses /ɛ/ . The COD uses a couple of other symbols that are different from those used in other dictionaries, but that's not relevant here.

So long as you know this, you just check up with the list of symbols used in the dictionary, and there is no problem. The problem comes if you look up a word in two different dictionaries and don't realise that they are using different symbols for the same sound.

The second pronunciation has /e/, as in said, which sounds like someone from Mississippi (USA), at least to me.

If the symbol is used as it is by most British writers, then /e/ represents the sound in bed, said and necessity. These are all the same in standard BrE. I assume from what you wrote that said, at least in Mississippi, has a different vowel.

It would be helpful at this stage to know what dictionaries the original nɪˈsɛsɪtɪ, nəˈsesəti and nə'səsiti were taken from. Until we know that, we can't really tell exactly what the pronunciations are.

 

[thatone]

Using /e/ instead of /ɛ/ is a serious mistake if you're using IPA.
They're very different vowels.

/e/ does not exist in British and American English on its own. (I think you might find it in Australian English though.)

/nəˈsesəti/ would sound similar to /nəˈsɪsəti/.

I don't understand why some dictionaries use IPA-custom system hybrids. They just confuse learners.

 

[5jj]

Using /e/ instead of /ɛ/ is a serious mistake if you're using IPA. It depends on whether you are transcribing phonetically or phonologically.
They're very different vowels. That depends on which system or convention you are using.

/e/ does not exist in British and American English on its own. Well, actualy, it does. [e] may not exist, but that's different.

/nəˈsesəti/ would sound similar to /nəˈsɪsəti/. It depends on the system or convention you are using.

I don't understand why some dictionaries use IPA-custom system hybrids. They just confuse learners. There is no confusion if the learner takes the trouble to find out which system the compilers of the dictionary have chosen to use.

5

 

[thatone]

It depends on whether you are transcribing phonetically or phonologically.
That depends on which system or convention you are using.

If you're using IPA, then you have to use standard symbols. In IPA, they are two different sounds. So I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

Well, actualy, it does. [e] may not exist, but that's different.

What?

/nəˈsesəti/ would sound similar to /nəˈsɪsəti/. It depends on the system or convention you are using.

Again, if you're using IPA, then /e/ can represent one and only one sound. If you were to use that sound in necessity, since /e/ does not exist by itself in English, it would be probably percieved as /ɪ/ by most people.

There is no confusion if the learner takes the trouble to find out which system the compilers of the dictionary have chosen to use.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure a system that uses IPA symbols for everything but /ɛ/ would make the learner think it's real IPA.

 

[5jj]

The symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet can be used in different ways. If we are transcribing phonetically, then [ɛ] and [e] are indeed different vowels, cardinal vowels 3 and 2 respectively.

When writers make phonemic transcriptions, they generally choose IPA symbols representing sounds close to the sound in their own language, but they may choose a symbol that has the same appearance as a letter in their own language. For example, the vowel sound in the word bed in the standard BrE RP dialect is closer to cardinal vowel 3,[ɛ], than to 2, [e]. However, since this sound is often represented in English spelling by the letter e, it is normally represented by the symbol /e/ by most British writers. Some, however, including the editors of the COD settled on /ɛ/.

 

[5jj]

Further to my last post, the following, from [FONT=&quot]International Phonetic Alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [/FONT]may be of interest:[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Although the IPA offers over a hundred and sixty symbols for transcribing speech, only a relatively small subset of these will be used to transcribe any one language. It is possible to transcribe speech with various levels of precision. A precise phonetic transcription, in which sounds are described in a great deal of detail, is known as a narrow transcription. A coarser transcription which ignores some of this detail is called a broad transcription. Both are relative terms, and both are generally enclosed in square brackets.[1] Broad phonetic transcriptions may restrict themselves to easily heard details, or only to details that are relevant to the discussion at hand, and may differ little if at all from phonemic transcriptions, but they make no theoretical claim that all the distinctions transcribed are necessarily meaningful in the language. […[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example, the English word little may be transcribed broadly using the IPA as [ˈlɪtəl], and this broad (imprecise) transcription is an accurate (approximately correct) description of many pronunciations. A more narrow transcription may focus on individual or dialectical details: [ˈɫɪɾɫ] in General American, [ˈlɪʔo] in Cockney, or [ˈɫɪːɫ] in Southern US English.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is customary to use simpler letters, without many diacritics, in phonemic transcriptions. The choice of IPA letters may reflect the theoretical claims of the author, or merely be a convenience for typesetting. For instance, in English, either the vowel of pick or the vowel of peak may be transcribed as /i/ (for the pairs /pik, piːk/ or /pɪk, pik/), and neither is identical to the vowel of the French word pique which is also generally transcribed /i/. That is, letters between slashes do not have absolute values, something true of broader phonetic approximations as well. A narrow transcription may, however, be used to distinguish them: [pʰɪk], [pʰiːk], [pik].[/FONT]

 

[thatone]

However, since this sound is often represented in English spelling by the letter e, it is normally represented by the symbol /e/ by most British writers.

That's flawed logic. Why then, not use o instead of /ɒ/ since the sound is "often represented in English spelling by the letter o?" Wouldn't that make even more sense, since /o/ theoretically doesn't even exist in RP?
Besides, by using both /e/ instead of /ɛ/ and the diphthong /eɪ/ you're making the learner think that they both use the same vowel, when, in RP, they don't.

Either use simple IPA or your own system, don't mix the two, it just doesn't make any sense.

For instance, in English, either the vowel of pick or the vowel of peak may be transcribed as /i/ (for the pairs /pik, piːk/)

But that kind of transcription would only make sense if used in a custom spelling system, not the IPA-custom hybrid Oxford seems to use, because implying that peak and pick differ only in vowel length would be a grave mistake on the publisher's part.

 

[5jj]

That's flawed logic.
The phoneticians who do this have their reasons. I haven't the space (or current knowledge) to go into them here, but they include most of the people working in this field - in Britain, at least.

Why then, not use o instead of /ɒ/ since the sound is "often represented in English spelling by the letter o?" Wouldn't that make even more sense, since /o/ theoretically doesn't even exist in RP?
You'll have to ask the people who decide on this.

Besides, by using both /e/ instead of /ɛ/ and the diphthong /eɪ/ you're making the learner think that they both use the same vowel, when, in RP, they don't.
We do not use both in any one book, paper, etc. Some writers use one of them, some the other. Modern dictionaries have a section, usually at the front, saying how their pronunciation guide works. The COD tells us that it uses /ɛ/ for the vowel sound in 'bed', the OALD tells us it uses /e/.

Either use simple IPA or your own system, don't mix the two, it just doesn't make any sense.
We don't mix the two. With phonetic transcription, presented between square brackets [], we use the IPA system, which itself uses letters taken from the Roman and other alphabets. With phonemic transcription, presented between slashes //, we use some symbols from the IPA and some from the Roman alphabet.

But that kind of transcription would only make sense if used in a custom spelling system, not the IPA-custom hybrid Oxford seems to use, because implying that peak and pick differ only in vowel length would be a grave mistake on the publisher's part.
It would not be a 'grave' mistake. Indeed, in my 1967 edition of Daniel Jones's English pronouncing dictionary, 'peak' is transcribed phonemically /pi:k/, and 'pick' as /pik/. Phonemic symbols mean what the writers say they mean.

If a word is transcribed phonetically as [bed] then phoneticians trained in the use of IPA from anywhere in the world will pronounce it in exactly the same way, even if they understand not a single word of the language from which the word was taken. If a word is transcribed phonemically as /bed/, then only the people who know which system of symbols is being used can pronounce it accurately.

Phonemic transcription is extremely useful for teachers, and causes no confusion among people who know how it works. In the field of TEFL/TESOL, most teachers of BrE and publishers of BrE course books, grammars and dictionaries use the same system, (the one that uses /e/ for the bed vowel). For what they consider to be good reasons, the editors of the COD use a slightly different system. That's life.

If I read an American book, I have to get used to a different set of symbols with some writers. Some, for example use /y/ for the sound for which British writers use the IPA /j/. So long as they explain what their symbols represent, there is no problem.

 

[thatone]

We do not use both in any one book, paper, etc. Some writers use one of them, some the other. Modern dictionaries have a section, usually at the front, saying how their pronunciation guide works. The COD tells us that it uses /ɛ/ for the vowel sound in 'bed', the OALD tells us it uses /e/.

We don't mix the two. With phonetic transcription, presented between square brackets [], we use the IPA system, which itself uses letters taken from the Roman and other alphabets. With phonemic transcription, presented between slashes //, we use some symbols from the IPA and some from the Roman alphabet.

Well in the case of Oxford's Advanced Learner's, they do indeed mix the two systems:
Pronunciation guide | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

In fact, there's no ɛ at all on that page.

Also, I have an English book right here, Solutions by Oxford University Press to be exact, that uses the exact same system as the OAL. And I don't see any introductory section on pronunciation.

It would not be a 'grave' mistake. Indeed, in my 1967 edition of Daniel Jones's English pronouncing dictionary, 'peak' is transcribed phonemically /pi:k/, and 'pick' as /pik/. Phonemic symbols mean what the writers say they mean.

I would agree only if you're using a custom pronunciation system. Even then it would be misleading, but at least there'd be a valid rationale.

If a word is transcribed phonetically as [bed] then phoneticians trained in the use of IPA from anywhere in the world will pronounce it in exactly the same way, even if they understand not a single word of the language from which the word was taken. If a word is transcribed phonemically as /bed/, then only the people who know which system of symbols is being used can pronounce it accurately.

Phonemic transcription is extremely useful for teachers, and causes no confusion among people who know how it works. In the field of TEFL/TESOL, most teachers of BrE and publishers of BrE course books, grammars and dictionaries use the same system, (the one that uses /e/ for the bed vowel). For what they consider to be good reasons, the editors of the COD use a slightly different system. That's life.

Look, I have nothing against custom spellings. What I am against is IPA-custom hybrids.

If I read an American book, I have to get used to a different set of symbols with some writers. Some, for example use /y/ for the sound for which British writers use the IPA /j/. So long as they explain what their symbols represent, there is no problem.

American dictionaries usually use completely custom systems that use latin characters and symbols that go above them (the only "weird" one would be the schwa), never hybrids.
Wait, I can think of an exception, the New Oxford American Dictionary, which, surprise surprise, uses, along with its custom spelling, an IPA-like system that is almost completely like the IPA (it even has an /ɛ/!)...except it uses /ə/ for both the unstressed vowel it represents in IPA and for /ʌ/.

 

[5jj]

Well in the case of Oxford's Advanced Learner's, they do indeed mix the two systems:
Pronunciation guide | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

In fact, there's no ɛ at all on that page. Precisely .They are not mixing two phonemic systems.

The International Phonetic Alphabet uses letters and symbols from other alphabets and symbol systems. This works well for phonetic transcription.

The majority of British publishers use a phonemic system of letters and symbols from other alphabets. This has worked well, and still does so, for phonemic transcription used by hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of teachers and learners of English.

You appear to object to the latter. I suggest you pursue your arguments in specialist phonetics journals. I have nothing to add.