Differences in stress transcription

Lazar   Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:51 am GMT
I've noticed that British dictionaries tend to mark only a primary stress on words like "civilize" ["sIvIlaIz] and "indicate" ["IndIkeIt], whereas American dictionaries mark a secondary stress as well: ["sIvI%laIz] and ["IndI%keIt]. This difference can be seen by clicking on the Cambridge "Advanced Learners" and "American English" dictionaries: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=13767&dict=CALD I've noticed it in other AmEng and EngEng dictionaries as well. Is this some difference between American and British English that no one told me about, or is it just a case of differing transcription preferences?
SANAN_KHALIL   Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:37 pm GMT
H
What about American langauage?
Jim   Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:15 am GMT
I can't be 100% sure but my guess is that is it just a case of differing transcription preferences.
Kirk   Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:32 am GMT
I haven't noticed a difference before, and I could've sworn I've seen British sources also transcribe secondary stress. Still, I often don't even transcribe secondary stress myself unless they're really long words and I feel like giving that much detail.
Lazar   Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:14 am GMT
<<I haven't noticed a difference before, and I could've sworn I've seen British sources also transcribe secondary stress.>>

Yeah, it's not uniform. It just seems that in EngEng dictionaries may be more likely than AmEng ones to omit the secondary stress. To answer my own original question, I'm sure now that it isn't a dialectal difference - just different transcription preferences. I think I read something about Peter Ladefoged preferring not to show secondary stress in words like "indicate".

I can't think of any minimal pairs caused by secondary stress, but there are some near-minimal pairs like "selfish/shellfish" and "Dustin/dustbin".