Talk:English phonology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Phonetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to phonetics and descriptive phonology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Archives
  1. February 2005 to February 2008


Contents

[edit] Why isn't the voiceless palatal fricative (ç) included?

I don't understand why the voiceless palatal fricative (ç) is not included on the list of English sounds. It occurs in English whenever an h occurs before a u, for example, in the word "human" (the first syllable is pronounced çu). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should mention that somewhere but not in the table, which is a list of phonemes. Keep in mind, too, that a number of people say human like [jumən]. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I added it, along with a couple others that occurred to me while doing so. However, I'm not familiar with this article and only had a few minutes, so I won't be insulted if it's inappropriate and you revert me. kwami (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I for one do not pronounce human as either [çumən] or [jumən], but as [hjumən] (or to be ultra-narrow in transcription, [j˳jumən]), with an approximant gradually moving from voiceless to voiced but not a fricative at the beginning. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If we can't include the ç, then how can we justify including the x? I'm almost 100% sure that more English speakers use the ç than use the x, yet the x is included and the ç isn't. Just about the only people who use the x are Scottish people, whereas virtually all Americans (who number approximately 2/3 of all native English speakers) use the ç.205.246.153.217 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The difference is, for the people who use /x/ (which includes not only Scottish people, but also Welsh people, Irish people, and American Jews), /x/ is unambiguously a separate phoneme. [ç], on the other hand, is not a phoneme, but an allophone of /h/ before /j/. Anyway, [ç] is included now. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's saying that we can't include [ç] in the article, only that the table, which is about phonemes should only have phonemes. I wonder if the accents/varieties described as having [ç] are actually like Angr and simply have a voiceless [j]. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
On a similar note, I think that whatever is decided on /ç/ should also be applied to /ɾ/. I, and most Americans, I believe, say [bjuɾi] for 'beauty' and [waɾr̩] for 'water'. Speakers tend to be quite unaware of it, as it is an allophone of /t/ and /d/. I've been in Spanish classes with students that claim to be unable to produce the sound of Spanish 'r', but happily use it in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.63.100 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stress is phonemic

I'm not disagreeing with this claim, but the examples given don't seem to prove the point. "record (vb)" /rɪ'kɔ(r)d/ and "record (noun)" /'rɛkɔ(r)d/ are distinguished by the initial vowel as well as by the stress. Are there any minimal pairs? Grover cleveland (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about permit? /pɜ(r)ˈmɪt/ vs /ˈpɜ(r)mɪt/. Initial-stress-derived noun has more examples. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If you allow phrases, there's a white house vs. the Whitehouse. Overlook, overturn, etc. are also good, if you don't mind compounds. Misprint. Reset. Transform. Monomorphemic examples are hard to come by, due to the tendency for unstressed vowels to be reduced except in compounds or phrases where analogy with the independent morpheme helps retain a full vowel. Torment isn't bad, and perfume works because a /juː/ can't reduce in English, though the /ɝ/ is arguable. I'm not coming up with a monomorphemic word with two vowels that can't reduce. Maybe there isn't a perfect example. kwami (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As for labialized /r/, which you tagged, the conditioning environment may well be wrong. Were you tagging it for that, or for the labialization itself? kwami (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate for a minute, one could argue that "permit" and "torment" are not minimal pairs because of the presence vs. absence of aspiration after the initial "p" and "t". Grover cleveland (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't notice a difference in aspiration. Even if there were, though, it would be sort of backwards to suggest that somehow English makes a distinction between unaspirated and aspirated /p/ and that an allophonic process puts stress on syllables with aspiration. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I tagged labialization of "r" simply because I hadn't heard of it before (except, of course, in the context of speakers who realize all rs as a labiodental approximant). Thanks for finding the citation. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Does it have to be in the onset of a stressed syllable? What about arrogant? Seems kinda labialized when I say it. We should find a source either way. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, for me that isn't the least labialized; it's like air. But you're right, we do definitely need a ref. I believe that Ladefoged mentions this in A course in phonetics, but I don't know if he covers the conditioning environment. I just checked SOWL, which I happen to have with me, but it's not there. (Not much on English is.) kwami (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't discuss it at length in A Course on Phonetics. He just says, "In many people's speech /r/ also has some degree of lip rounding. Try saying words such as 'reed' and 'heed'. Do you get some movement of the lips in the first word but not in the second? Note also whether you get anticipatory lip rounding so that the stops [t, d] are slightly rounded in words such as 'tree, dream.'" —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's just say 'in some environments', then, unless we can be sure. Or whichever wording works for you. kwami (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For me, it isn't somewhat labialized. I have as much rounding for reed as I do for quick. But best to stick with our source. kwami (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For me, it's definitely only somewhat labialized. I do still make a distinction between Rhonda and Rwanda. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I make a distinction between Rhonda and Rwanda but that's because I've got a whole /w/ in the latter so it's sort of like [ɻʷəwɑndə]. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone maintains a distinction between write and rite. kwami (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
According to an unsourced claim at Phonological history of English consonant clusters#Rap-wrap merger, there are dialects of Scots that maintain the distinction, but as /vr/ vs. /r/, not /wr/ vs. /r/. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syllabic sonorants

Are there any examples of the following: /m/, /n/, /l/ and, in rhotic varieties, /r/ can be the syllable nucleus. Try as I might I can's think of any!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickterry (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 March 2008

/n/ and /l/ can be the syllable nucleus in unstressed syllables only, as in kitten and bottle. Some would say /m/ is a syllable nucleus in words like spasm and rhythm, but I think the people who claim that are being overly influenced by the spelling; when I pronounce those words I have a definite /ə/ between the preceding consonant and the /m/ in all but the quickest speech. Also in fast speech only, I could pronounce open with a syllabic /m/. As for syllabic /r/ in rhotic dialects, the rhotacized vowels /ɝ/ and /ɚ/ (the syllable nuclei of the two syllables of merger) are sometimes transcribed as being syllabic /r/. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Please type four tildes ~~~~ to sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks! —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omitted Codas

I see the voiceless fricative-voiceless plosive combinations like sp, st, and sk, and I see the voiceless plosive-voiceless fricative combinations like ps, ts, and ks, but I don't see voiceless fricative-voiceless plosive-voiceless fricative combinations like sps, sts, and sks (as in wisps, mists and musks). An oversight? Or am I just completely off my rocker and someone declared the final s syllabic or something. Come to think of, the voiceless fricative-voiceless plosive-voiceless plosive combinations like spt and skt (as in lisped and whisked) Someone should either fix it or explain to me why I'm wrong. --99.240.139.147 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The first part of the Coda section:

Most, and in theory all, of the following except those which end with /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /tʃ/ or /dʒ/ can be extended with /s/ or /z/ representing the morpheme -s/z-. Similarly most, and in theory all, of the following except those which end with /t/ or /d/ can be extended with /t/ or /d/ representing the morpheme -t/d-.

Apparantly this prose allows the table to be incomplete without incomplete coverage of possible coda clusters. Then again, /gs/, /fd/, /dʒt/, and /ʒt/ (to name a few) are not possible clusters in English because of constraints having to do with voicing. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Initial ʒ

Under phonotactics, where we say /ŋ/ does not occur initially, shouldn't we say something about /ʒ/ as well? It's the same kind of uncertain case as /pw/ in pueblo, and is often (maybe usually) substituted with /dʒ/. kwami (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triphthongs

Should some mention be made of triphthongs in RP as in the words 'hour' and 'fire'? Also, how about a mention of ascending diphthongs, as the sounds /juː/ or /jɑː/ are sometimes analysed?

Also, perhaps a mention of the palatal 'n' in, say, 'onion'? Petitphoque (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Velar

Why is the velar voiced stop represented as Y? Isn't it g? --Dakrismeno (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you have the buggy font MS Reference Sans installed. See Wikipedia:International Phonetic Alphabet#Voiced velar plosive. —Angr 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results of ae-tensing

I just find this part

 although the two occur largely in mutually exclusive environments

to be excessiv. It means exactly the same as "marginal contrast", only it sounds about twice as awkward. Yes, there is the possible concern that "marginal" may not be understood by the average layperson, but repeating the same in different words, without explaining that this is being done, isn't helping. --Tropylium (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be specific about where the two sounds appear. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)