When we watch TV or listen to the radio or any other audio media, we come across new words that we don't know how to spell (e.g. /jot/ for <yacht>). Is there a phonetic > English dictionary that gives the enteries in IPA. If not how can this problem be solved?
Phonetic > English Dictionary
You can go to dictionary.com, as Brennus suggested, or you can go to the Cambridge online dictionary ( http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ ).
The only problem with such is dialect variation which may make it hard to map sounds to "canonical" phonemes. For instance, [jAt] could be any one of canonical /jA:t/, /jQt/, or /jO:t/ in many North American English dialects, and one would just have to know that it is supposed to be <yacht> and thus should be canonical /jA:t/. This one is relatively simple, because across a good number of dialects at least /jA:t/ should be mapped to, but some cases may map to different dictionary words in different dialects; for instance [k_hat] could be canonical /k{t/ and thus <cat> in many northern English dialects or California Vowel Shift-affected dialects but could be either canonical /kA:t/ or /kQt/ in many NCVS-affected dialects, with the intended mapping most likely being that of canonical /kQt/ to <cot>. Consequently, one would have to be aware of the phonology of the particular dialect of the speaker in question to properly map the *sounds* of a given word being spoken to an actual dictionary word.
What I mean is that English writing system is not always phonemic. And since many foreign learners are exposed to aural English these days (TV, radio, etc), they need to check the meaning of the new words they aquire auraly. They have no idea, whatsover about the written form of these words. So the only way is look them up in a dictionary that gives the pronunciation first, followed by the spelling. They dictionary should look as follows:
/eip/ <ape>
/bo:l/ <ball>
/hed/ <head>
/krisps/ <crisps>
/kri:m/ <cream>
/tild@/ <tilde>
/zail@foun/ <xylophone>
/jot/ <yacht>
Does such a dictionary exist?
/eip/ <ape>
/bo:l/ <ball>
/hed/ <head>
/krisps/ <crisps>
/kri:m/ <cream>
/tild@/ <tilde>
/zail@foun/ <xylophone>
/jot/ <yacht>
Does such a dictionary exist?
<<So the only way is look them up in a dictionary that gives the pronunciation first, followed by the spelling...Does such a dictionary exist?>>
Oh - I misunderstood your question then. I don't know of any dictionaries like that.
Oh - I misunderstood your question then. I don't know of any dictionaries like that.
Brennus,
"Recently, I saw one book in the reference section of my local library which lists a few thousand English words in IPA but such books are very rare."
Do you remember the title, author etc. of this book? I would be grateful to you if you can check this.
"Recently, I saw one book in the reference section of my local library which lists a few thousand English words in IPA but such books are very rare."
Do you remember the title, author etc. of this book? I would be grateful to you if you can check this.
Thanks "Guest". This is what I request:
http://phonicspeller.com/how-to-use.html
However, we need a dictionary that caters for British English as well (c.f. R-T-R-K for British English and R-D-R-K for American for the word <rhetoric>). I think it is high time a that a purely IPA-to-English dictionary should be compiled for those who are familiar with IPA phonetic symbols.
http://phonicspeller.com/how-to-use.html
However, we need a dictionary that caters for British English as well (c.f. R-T-R-K for British English and R-D-R-K for American for the word <rhetoric>). I think it is high time a that a purely IPA-to-English dictionary should be compiled for those who are familiar with IPA phonetic symbols.
Travis alluded to the inherent weakness in using IPA to depict English pronunciation. IPA was not designed as a "phonetic" alphabet but rather as a linguistic tool to map the actual sounds made by language speakers.
Even a simple word such as "hat" would have several representations in IPA to cater for all the potential dialect pronunciations by English speakers.
Not very practical.
Even a simple word such as "hat" would have several representations in IPA to cater for all the potential dialect pronunciations by English speakers.
Not very practical.
05LN,
I agree with you that dialectal variation would be a problem. Remember, what we have in mind is a dictionary for English as a Foreign Language users, not native speakers. Foreign learners normally are interested in one major accent like General Amerian or Southern British. If we confine ourselves to one or two types of pronunciation, it would be easy to give one single "phonemic" transcription for the word and its equivalent in normal orthography.
I agree with you that dialectal variation would be a problem. Remember, what we have in mind is a dictionary for English as a Foreign Language users, not native speakers. Foreign learners normally are interested in one major accent like General Amerian or Southern British. If we confine ourselves to one or two types of pronunciation, it would be easy to give one single "phonemic" transcription for the word and its equivalent in normal orthography.
I don't believe IPA - a very specific language tool - should be used this way. It misrepresents its purpose.
That's just my view.
That's just my view.