The Alignment of IPA in Learner's Dictionarys

eito   Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:58 pm GMT
Generally, the alignment of IPA(International Phonetic Alphabet) is irrelevant to correspondence between spelling and pronunciation. Surely IPA exists for the purpose of checking propper pronunciation(s) of each word, but I think that the list of symbols should not give learners the impression that English spelling has nothing to do with pronunciation at all.

I was also wondering why learner's dictionarys did not use convenient terms, such as "Short-A" and "Long-O". The alignment of IPA should be based on fundamental recognition in the target language.

What do you think?
greg   Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:07 pm GMT
eito : les symboles phonétiques que j'utilise ici sont ceux du système de transciption X-SAMPA dont le détail est disponible ici > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA

L'utilisation de termes tels que « a bref » ou « o long » ne permet pas de caractériser les voyelles en général (ni a fortiori de les distinguer) avec toute l'exactitude ou la précision requise.

Par exemple [A] et [a] peuvent être tous les deux brefs ou tous les deux longs ou l'un long et l'autre bref, il n'en reste pas moins que [A] et [a] sont deux phonèmes vocaliques distincts : le premier est une voyelle postérieure, ouverte et étirée tandis que le second est une voyelle antérieure, ouverte et étirée. La distinction fondamentale entre [A] et [a] est donc la position de la masse du dos de la langue à l'avant (antérieure) ou l'arrière (postérieure) du palais. On l'a vu, [A] et [a] sont toutes deux ouvertes et étirées. Elles peuvent en outre être toutes deux brèves ou longues (ou l'une brève et l'autre longue) : ce facteur vient de surcroît. Il ne suffit à définir ni [A] ni [a].

De la même manière, la longueur (ou brièveté) affectant les phonèmes [O] et [o] est susceptible d'être alternée ou simultanée (c'est-à-dire, dans ce dernier cas, inopérante en tant qu'élément différenciateur). C'est la raison pour laquelle dire « o long » ou « o bref » est dépourvu de sens tant qu'on ignore de quel « o » il s'agit. Ce qui différencie [O] et [o] c'est plus la notion de fermeture ou d'ouverture (de l'espace laissé libre entre le sommet de la langue et le palais) : la longueur ou la brièveté vient ensuite. La voyelle [O] est toujours plus fermée que la voyelle [o] quelle que soit la longueur de chacune.
Mezzina   Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:40 pm GMT
IPA is much superior to any other phonetic/phonemic alphabet.

Sometimes I start laughing when I read: O in Portuguese word AVÓ is read like O in English Word DOG, and A is reas like O in English word DONE...

dog can have many possible pronunciations in English:
[dOg] (British), [dO:g] (East USA), [dOwg] (Southern USA), [dQg] (Midwestern USA), [da:g] (Western USA)

done can have many possible pronunciations in English:
[d@n, dVn, d6n, dun, don, d-n, dan]...

So, I think we should stick to symbols...

To complicate even more, IPA symbol upside-down V is used for back vowel (by default), but it is used for central vowel in English, which is often fronted (as in Australian English), or has variable pronunciation in AMerican English (it can be pronounced as simple shwa)...So we have upside-down V symbol for in English (done, some, sun, gun, for at least 5 or 6 different sounds....hm...In this case, IPA description of English is more phonemic than phonetic...
Mxsmanic   Sat Sep 10, 2005 8:37 am GMT
Many dictionaries used distorted versions of the IPA, in order to conform to long-held but incorrect ideas about English pronunciation.

A typical example is the highly artificial distinction between "long" and "short" vowels in English. In modern English, vowel length is quite irrelevant to comprehension; it is not phonemic. Vowel quality is phonemic. And yet some dictionaries will use the same vowel symbol for two different vowels of two different timbres, and distinguish between them only with a length mark. This is extremely misleading, as the student who actually knows how the IPA works will think that they only difference between sip and seep is in the length of the vowel—when in fact the real difference is in the quality of the vowel, and length doesn't matter.

There are other transgressions that are less damaging. One common practice is to use an ordinary 'r' for the English r-sound, even though, technically, this corresponds to a trilled 'r' of the type heard in Spanish perro. Since there is only one r-sound in English, though, it's not too serious a mistake (and it used to make typesetting a lot easier, although today that's not really an issue).

In any case, as Mezzina points out, just about any use of the IPA is vastly superior to other home-baked pronunciation keys. English dictionaries have a habit of using their own keys, rather than the IPA; a lot of non-English dictionaries seem to be more willing to use the IPA.
Mxsmanic   Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:17 am GMT
Many dictionaries used distorted versions of the IPA, in order to conform to long-held but incorrect ideas about English pronunciation.

A typical example is the highly artificial distinction between "long" and "short" vowels in English. In modern English, vowel length is quite irrelevant to comprehension; it is not phonemic. Vowel quality is phonemic. And yet some dictionaries will use the same vowel symbol for two different vowels of two different timbres, and distinguish between them only with a length mark. This is extremely misleading, as the student who actually knows how the IPA works will think that they only difference between sip and seep is in the length of the vowel—when in fact the real difference is in the quality of the vowel, and length doesn't matter.

There are other transgressions that are less damaging. One common practice is to use an ordinary 'r' for the English r-sound, even though, technically, this corresponds to a trilled 'r' of the type heard in Spanish perro. Since there is only one r-sound in English, though, it's not too serious a mistake (and it used to make typesetting a lot easier, although today that's not really an issue).

In any case, as Mezzina points out, just about any use of the IPA is vastly superior to other home-baked pronunciation keys. English dictionaries have a habit of using their own keys, rather than the IPA; a lot of non-English dictionaries seem to be more willing to use the IPA.
Jim   Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:34 am GMT
"In modern English, vowel length is quite irrelevant to comprehension;" writes Mxsmanic "it is not phonemic."

I disagree with this. See

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t443-15.htm
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/5719.htm
Uriel   Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:29 am GMT
I'm confused by Mxsmanic's definition of "long" and "short" vowels.

To me, those terms describe the sound of the vowel, not the length of time you hold it.

Long a = the a in RATE
Short a =the a in RAT

...and those differences would be quite relevant to comprehension.
Kirk   Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:35 am GMT
<<To me, those terms describe the sound of the vowel, not the length of time you hold it.>>

Yeah, that's how I always thought of it too. It's 'cuz you and I don't have phonemic vowel length in our dialects. Growing up I never had a clue that "long" and "short" for vowels referred to how long they were held out--I just assumed it was an arbitrary designation (which it effectively is from my point of view and my dialect). What Mxsmanic is pointing out is this--that to people with no phonemic vowel length labeling things as "long" or "short" vowels in dictionaries is deceptive and inaccurate to say the least. However, Mxsmanic is ignoring those dialects which do have phonemic vowel length (a not insignificant amount of speakers, by the way).
Lazar   Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:36 am GMT
Well in phonetics, "long" and "short" just refer to the amount of time that you say a vowel.
Lazar   Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:37 am GMT
(My last post is responding to Uriel.)
Uriel   Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:48 am GMT
Yeah, well in grade school, which is the last time I heard these terms discussed, "long" and "short" had nothing to do with duration at all; they were arbitrary terms for the different sounds, no matter what your dialect. "Phonemic vowel length" would be a different matter altogether.
Kirk   Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:59 am GMT
<<Yeah, well in grade school, which is the last time I heard these terms discussed, "long" and "short" had nothing to do with duration at all;>>

Yeah, that's how it was for me too (and pretty much anyone in North America).

<<they were arbitrary terms for the different sounds, no matter what your dialect.>>

Well, actually, they're not arbitrary for some dialects. Take British English, for instance. British "ee" (which is /i:/ in XSAMPA) is actually held out longer than the "ih" sound (as in "bit" which is /I/ in XSAMPA). So actually, at least in traditional British English (I don't know about Estuary or anything) "beet" has a vowel that's longer than the one in "bit." So that's /bi:t/ for "beet" (/:/ represents a long vowel) and /bIt/ for "bit." So, it's understandable to call "ee" a long sound when dealing with such a dialect.

However, in North American English the vowel in "beet" (/bit/...not */bi:t/) is held just as long as the one in "bit" (/bIt/) so it makes no sense to call one "long" over another. If you do it's entirely arbitrary. And that's what we grew up with--it seeming like an arbitrary designation for different sounds, because it was.
Mxsmanic   Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:10 pm GMT
In phonetics, long and short refer exclusively to duration, not to timbre or quality (time-frequency distributions). While references to "long" and "short" in English-speaking schools have traditionally been legion, the sad fact is that they are all incorrect and misleading. The real, phonemic differences among English vowels are in their quality, not their length. There are no minimal pairs in English that are distinguished solely by vowel length.

These serious errors in transcription and teaching seem to be very deeply rooted in English instruction throughout the world. I'm not sure how it got started, or how it managed to stray so far and so egregiously from reality. Whatever the circumstances, though, I don't intend to propagate the myths. Vowel length is not phonemic in English, and all phonemic vowels are distinguished by quality not length—no matter what you were taught in school.

This is an especially serious problem for non-native students of English who actually _do_ know something about phonetics, as they see bit transcribed as /bit/ and beet transcribed as /bi:t/ and think that they can pronounce or hear the difference between the two based on vowel length alone. They are puzzled when nobody understands them, and when they cannot understand anyone else.

A lesser problem arises when English-speaking students of other languages discover that almost everything they learned about vowels is wrong.
Markus Moser   Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:24 pm GMT
My teacher of (American English) says SUCKS has a short a: [saks] while SOCKS has a long a: [sa:ks]. Is it true? Many times I hear this.
Uriel   Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:28 pm GMT
I would say sucks has a short U and socks has a short O, and neither have an A of any kind. But apparently I would be wrong.