Why these English phonetic symbols are all WRONG
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2021
- An explanation of the REAL, EVIDENCE BASED categories of English vowels, and why familiar symbols for Standard Southern British English are misleading.
John Wells:
www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells...
The /ɪː/ vowel by TH-camrs:
• BRITISH ENGLISH PRONUN...
• English Pronunciation ...
CUBE dictionary:
• CUBE Pronunciation Dic...
cube.elte.hu
www.cubedictionary.org
Women Know Your Limits sketch
• Video
English Phonetics & Pronunciation Practice by Carley, Mees & Collins
www.routledge.com/English-Pho...
English After RP
www.englishspeechservices.com...
Brilliant stuff! I regret that I have but one like to give.
I teach English pronunciation to Japanese students, whose language DOES have vowel length distinctions like /i/ and /iː/. Yet when you listen to them pronounce an English word like , it's jarringly different from what a native speaker would produce. But when I teach them that it's not a "long vowel" but a vowel with a glide, /ij/, lo and behold, they've got it in moments. I could cite a dozen similar issues for each of the points you raise in this video.
Thank you so much for this clear and evidence-based presentation!
Thanks so much Jeff. Can I quote you? :-)
Jeff, the symbols are perfect to convey any variants, any phonetic or allophone variants. There’s nothing wrong with the phonemic symbols. It’s the teacher’s job to make the right use of them.
"The symbols cannot fail us, we can only fail the symbols!"
The symbols were made up by human beings no wiser than you or I. If they don't fit our purposes a hundred years later, we should change them. I find that /ij/ better captures the phonology than /iː/, and my students have better outcomes learning to transcribe the vowel that way. Likewise /aw/ serves Japanese English learners much better than /aʊ/.
As you say, I could teach them with any symbol, /🤡/ could represent the sounds as easily as IPA. I choose a particular transcription style based on a decade of my own research and teaching experience, and several decades of data gathered by phoneticians like those cited in Dr. Lindsey's book.
Ha ha. Good one. For those who didn't notice, Jeff alluded to, "I regret that I have but one life to give."
@@mcilleagle ""The symbols cannot fail us, we can only fail the symbols!"" is an allusion to something, but Google won't tell me what I should substitute for "symbols".
I am only a hobby linguist, but I've been asking myself why ʊ is used where w should be, and wondering about the overuse of quirky vowel symbols in English in a way I've never found in another language. I am glad I found a professional who verifies I wasn't wrong and explaines it thoroughly. The video is great.
Thank you so much. Can I quote you?
@@DrGeoffLindsey Of course, it would be an honor. Sorry for the late response.
Sanh, I guarantee you’re even more confused now. I think you never had a real teacher of phonetics.
What an insult for Daniel Jones- the inventor/ founder of the perfect phonetic system. How ridiculous!
@@mihaliprefti2507 ok, so why does /aɪ/ make more sense than /aj/? why does english /i:/ sound different from german /i:/? how does sanh get even more confused from a notation that answers many questions well?
edit: oops should have used /ɑj/ instead of /aj/ but you see my point
I’ve often wondered why english-speakers have such trouble with pure vowels (monophthongs) in other languages (like french or swedish) and insist on turning them to diphthongs, even though english actually has those vowels. This video explains some of that. Thanx! 😊👍🏻
Yes, /pa'jələ/ 😂
I have troubles in languages that have two vowels together , like Polish, as I can't resist sticking in a 'y' or a 'w' between the vowels.
Personally monophthongs are really easy in other languages
The example that is harder for me to process is how a Spanish 'e' becomes 'ey' when English speakers try to sound it out phonetically.
@@louis1001 jajajajaja tengo amiga mexicana que me enseñó hablar español y eso la molestó tanto pero ahora lo tengo claro 😂😂
I recognize that your work focuses on British english, but this is also very helpful to me as an American English speaker. Not everything applies, but much does. Thank you very much!
You're very welcome.
I actually would be interested in an explicit discussion of how these features differ between British and American English (since I was also wondering how much of this strictly applies to my native AmE pronunciation).
@@MrArsGravis GenAm English vowel sounds are made only with 9 phonemic symbols, there are 17 vowel sounds, not 21 or 20, there are no triphthongs, this is the easiest and simplest way
@MrArsGravis It's mostly exactly the same. Many Americans have higher vowel sounds then british speakers, but we both use the same-ish glides.
All of it applies to at least some varieties of American English, if you know where to look!
I've been teaching phonetics for about three years at university and I'm absolutely mind-blown right now. I knew some things were just too tricky to grasp and explain, but I always thought it was just me not being thoroughly familiar with the IPA. Now everything seems to make a ton of sense. I'll make sure to take corrective actions and ultimately implement this new system. I cannot thank you enough. We must certainly get rid of that flawed system which unfortunately gained too much ground.
Okay, so as a Kindergartener, I was introduced to syllables, and to help me learn they wanted me to guess how many syllables were in my given name, "Dale" and I always pronounced it in a way that added that hidden e sound before the "l" that you described here.
So I told them my name was two syllables long. But due to conventions, they insisted it was a single syllable name. I just kinda accepted it, never really thought about it since. But this video introduced me to the existence of pre-L breaking and my kindergarten brain never felt more validation.
It was the name I was given so I should know best how it is actually pronounced as it was mine. That pre-L break was always there, they just didn't recognize it was there for various reasons
I only became aware of these things in English after learning some European languages that actually have pure vowels where they say they do. Then the extra w's and y's in English where hardly anyone notates them become really apparent
Quite right. Similarly, a lot of English speakers only realise they are using a 'schwa' sound at all when they try to pronounce Spanish (for example) words and use schwa when doing so.
Yeah. English speakers are absolutely atrocious at pronouncing vowels. Having no idea of what they are when not diphthongs
@@stevencarr4002 Exactly, from a speaker of Portuguese(European) the schwa sounds became noticeable for me as well, since we use the 'schwa' sound(also the crossed 'i' sound, like the 'e' in rose).
Yeah. As an L2 English speaker I've always found it frustrating. Anglophones even take it with them when pronouncing foreign words because they are so unaware of it, so they diphthongise vowels that be monophthongs.
This is clearing years of confusion for me as a non-native speaker. This is why recondings are far more valuable than IPA transcripts for learning pronunciation .
Thank you for publishing valuable, critical and evidence-based insights into the pronunciation issues so many non-native speakers struggle a lot with. The logical clarity and coherence of the content masterfully presented make the video exquisit. Thank you, Dr Lindsey.
Thank YOU for your kind words, Róża.
I got corrected for transcribing something as /aj/ instead of /aI/ on an assignment which felt strange to me at the time, but I just went with it. Thanks for validating what I’m hearing!
To be brave and to keep to one's judgement sometimes pay off well.
All I can say is... I wish I saw this video 2 years ago!! I built an entire pronunciation course to teach my students American pronunciation, and it was so DIFFICULT because a lot of the material available (even textbooks that teach this stuff!) was clearly wrong and misleading. Thankfully, I went with my gut and my own observations and figured out a lot of this on my own and taught it from that perspective... but it feels so good to know I wasn't IMAGINING these things and that they are really in the language!! Again, thank you for your work. It's so important and more people need to know about it!
Thank you so much for letting me know. Can I quote you?
Absolutely!! @@DrGeoffLindsey
Many thanks for this! In China, conscientious EFL practitioners like myself have to adopt a rather 'zigzag route' to teach the REAL sounds of modern English. That is, I shall first go through the traditional symbols. Then, in a painstaking way, explain to students how those sounds are 'varied/altered/changed' in actual speech -- mostly attributable to the defective traditional phonetic symbols as you have rightfully pointed out. A quick question: when will the CUBE transcription be adopted in mainstream learners' dictionaries? I would be thrilled to see that happen in the foreseeable future. Thanks again!
What do you mean by "the traditional symbols"?
@@matthewbartsh9167 The ones Geoff outlined as 'all wrong' in the video.
Incidentally are you showing how accents make the true IPA change?
For an international language having to learn 2 scripts, which fail in different ways to represent the spoken language must be frustrating.
Learning other European languages I haven't needed IPA at all, forvo helps to hear a variety of native speakers, but the challenge of widely varying accents and dialects still exists.
I'm thinking some difficulty I've had with IPA might be caused by looking at misleading representation of English.
The video with recording reversed is shocking, my MIND hears the vowel and ignores the /w/ & /y/, but I know I say due/dew the same where US speakers I think tend to just say something like do with a diphthong.
Your approach seems to be the rational one given that the traditional IPA symbols for English are the standard phonemic notation used now in dictionaries around the world. It's important to note that since they are only a phonemic notation, it's not fatal that they are slightly misleading. The errors, if you like, are an indication of how RP was used to create the system, long ago, and don't affect the fact that it works well for more or less *every* accent of English, as long at that accent uses the same phonemes, regardless of how those phonemes actually sound in that accent.
Having said, that, it is awesome to find out how those phonemes are actually said in modern standard British English. I love how you can think of it as an anticlockwise rotation on the vowel chart. If feel like I am twice as good as phonetics as I was. Hooray for Doctor Lindsey.
@@matthewbartsh9167 I share/shared this take, and have always just seen the usage of the traditional representations of the English vowels as a consequence of broad transcription trying to encapsulate the myriad pronunciations of each word in English's many dialects, just like actual English spelling manages to. However, this video has definitely persuaded me that these alternative/modern representations are much more salient and accurate, and lend themselves well to constructing narrow transcriptions more easily for learners of IPA and English alike.
Although there are a few things I disagree with this video on, such as the use of /oː/ rather than /ɔː/ for the "o" of "or" and "tourism"; that vowel seems very much distinct from the "o" of "pot" and "contact". I find it simply inaccurate to transcribe "forgot" as /foːˈgot/ rather than /fɔːˈgot/ (though in practice it is usually /fəˈgot/) - the vowels there are clearly different, no?
I was expecting something true, but merely pedantic. This is not just pedantic. This is far more practical than I had expected. Amazing.
In one video you've answered all the questions that I've asked myself ever since I began to study English pronunciation.
English after RP was an epiphany for me. It kept me going "what???" and "oh, of course!" alternatively all the way through. I used to believe that IPA described British English fairly accurately but ever since I read your explanations, I can see that the continued use of innacurate symbols for English prevented me from comparing the pronunciations of various languages accurately. The description of the shift of English "o" sounds towards more closed pronunciations finally made me understand why the transcriptions vary so much between English and French. And learning about the legitimacy of describing English sounds as "aj" and "oj" has led me to simplify the way I transcribe vocabulary for my students. I used to use pure IPA but now I use a more understandable (for my students) mix of Czech letters and actual phonemic symbols where necessary. I used to dislike that approach but now I know the use of IPA for English isn't accurate anyway, so I might as well use more understandable symbols provided that they accurately represent the standard pronunciation. Thank you!
Thank you for your detailed comment, Tereza! I'd love to quote from it in future: "the continued use of inaccurate symbols for English prevented me from comparing the pronunciations of various languages accurately." I couldn't put it better myself.
May I just clarify one point? You seem to be using the term 'IPA' to mean the RP phoneme symbols familiar to EFL teachers; that use of 'IPA' is very common. Of course the IPA is the International Phonetic Alphabet, which is an essential tool for all phoneticians. The symbols I use in English After RP, the CUBE dictionary and this video are all IPA symbols. The difference is that [eə æ uː ɔː] etc. are *inaccurate* IPA symbols for contemporary SSB, while [ɛː a ʉw oː] etc. are relatively *accurate* IPA symbols for SSB. I hope that helps.
@@DrGeoffLindsey
Oh yes, I understand that, I just expressed myself rather clumsily. I meant that the IPA symbols that you use describe the language better than those that are usually used. Of course, you're free to bring up my point about comparing the languages. Many people must have the same issue (meaningful comparison blocked by inadequate symbols). I'm in awe you replied to my comment - I'll be fangirling over it now. You're awesome 🙂
I know I've seen "aj" used by Polish people transcribing English as if it were Polish.
In some dialects, the indefinite article "a" started being pronounced as a long vowel /ei/.
As a result, "a egg" and "a apple" no longer cause a hiatus. I have noticed that SOME people that speak that way have stopped using "an" in writing altogether..
I usually pronounce it /ej/ but still feels wrong to say a apple. The n just flows so much better. I speak american english though.
edit: actually after some introspection, I think I pronounce it with the schwa uh more than anything else. But in my inner voice I always use /ej/ when thinking I use /ej/ outloud more when it conflicts with the vowel sound of the previous word. So any verb ending with -er, -ar or -a is going to be followed by /ej/ instead of uh
Im an American, I not only cannot say those in a way that sounds acceptable to my ears, i cannot even bring myself to type them. Ill probably be using "an" my whole life.
@@Justowner Me too!
Although, I do have fun with a friend that does say it like that. When speaking to her and she says "a apple", in my reply I would use "a wapple", LOL.
Interesting enough, because of the a/an confusion, this is how we got the word "apron" and "auger". They lost the initial "n" because people thought that it belonged to the article.
a naperon -> an apron
a nauger -> an auger
@@aichujohnson8444 huh, weird. But believable.
@@aichujohnson8444 that's so interesting, i didn't know that! iirc the opposite happened with "nickname" which came from "an eke name"
Super interesting, and enlightening. I studied English in the early 90's, and so am rather familiar with the usual phonemic transcription of it, but it never seemed to occur to anyone in their academic ivory towers to point out how different it actually is from phonetic reality - to the extent they even realised - and how that explains so many things about how English sounds.
Psychoacoustics also tells us that what you think you hear is what you perceive, and so when you have generations of academics who think of the phonemic symbols equating to acoustic reality, that is also what they subjectively hear, and they simply cannot perceive the j's and w's that are objectively there. It's the same kind of psychoacoustic phenomenon you get when you have allophonic variation, where a native speaker would not necessarily perceive any difference between allophones except, at most, to do with accent, whereas in a different language what are allophones in your own language might be distinctive phonemes.
My wife, for instance, upon moving to Norway and learning Norwegian, could not initially hear the difference between the vowels i and y. And it also took some getting used to vowel length distinctions since vowel length is mostly not distinctive in English with long and short vowels having very different acoustic qualities. And it's the vowel's quality rather than its length that creates the minimal pairs - also not a widely advertised feature of the language.
While I like the familiarity of RP transcription and know how to actually pronounce it, I must say I think going back to the more correct way of writing it as a universal standard would make a huge difference to language learners, and for native speakers to understand their own language better.
I as a student myself realised there were inaccuracies in the phonological system they teach at university so this video has been illuminating for that matter.
As an American in the Midwest, I don't really have a linking (or separating) r. Upon reflection, I realize that i some of our eastern accents do still have it, such as Bostonian and New Yorker.
That said, I do wish there was a small mention of non-r hiatus. You did a fantastic video about the so-called "invading r" on its own, but a brief mention here would not be amiss and may open up the idea to more learners.
Along this line, a final thought about how my accent treats hiatus. When I am pressed to say "a orange" without the connecting n, I instinctively insert a glottal stop. It's really difficult for me to force myself to not do it. It's curious and I thought with mentioning!
Americans pronounce Rs much more strongly than us, especially at the end of words. I guess they explains the difference in the effect?
I think the reason you insert the glottal stop (I do it too) is because otherwise it sounds too much like one word.
@@nicholasvinen That, and we often pronounce "a" as "uh", less commonly as "ay"/"ei". The only time I can think of when we follow "uh" with "oh" is in "uh-oh", which has a glottal stop.
On the linking r point, a question: All the examples in the first group have an r in the orthography, which proposes the option that it's not so much a linking r that is added, as an r was there originally and is dropped unless a vowel follows. Are there examples of these vowels without an r in the orthography, and with a linking r?
There are indeed. Your point has been understandably made by others here, so I'll quote my previous reply to Alon Eitan:
Check out law/r/ here: youglish.com/pronounce/%22law%20enforcement%22/english/uk? Or if you want lots and lots of audio examples, see my blog article www.englishspeechservices.com/blog/linking-r/. Presentationally, I could have re-thought this section for those think that the 'r' is actually there but sometimes dropped. But the video was already very long and I didn't want to go off into so-called 'intrusive r'.
@@DrGeoffLindsey Yep, that guy definitely says "withdrauring"! To me, using the /w/ sound that the orthography has in "withdrawing" feels more natural, but then I'm not from South England (and technically not even a native speaker, really, so what do I know 🙂)
I read the article and i still dont understand, isn't the difference just because the first set end in r and the others dont?
@@willdulevitz no, because "saw", "spa", and "Leia" (from the intrusive are video) also can trigger linking r like "sore", "spar", and "layer"
@@notwithouttext SPA is the word we've been looking for to describe the PALM vowel. It's certainly produced in my American dialect with [ä], the "German A" of "lot" or "taco".
The terminology problem is that I, like many Americans, have [pɔlm] for "palm". I've only recently realized some English speakers don't have the "German A" at all. It just seemed like it was what "naturally fell out of the mouth" as a low vowel, and didn't even know it was different from [a], which I don't have.
As a teacher of English as a foreign language I have never in my life heard of the "pre-L breaking" but it immediately made so much sense to be because that's exactly what I do. I've never even realised that I've been doing it for a very long time.
I'm English FL and I think I'm inconsistent, probably doing it in emphasised or slow speech but suspect it's often dropped naturally.
I'm used to varying vowels and began to notice when talking with other native speakers we'll make mistakes which are simply ignored.
The reversed recording was shocking, as I hear a vowel, so suddenly hearing /y/ was shocking. Yet I've seen learners asking about extra /w/ as well as intrusive /r/ which is spoken/heard without any thought.
@@RobBCactive intrusive R is something I've been taught to do at university, but mostly when it's between two words, the r in "starring" wasn't considered intrusive when I studied, we just learned to say it because it's between two vowels. And hearing Y isn't shocking to me since I'm a native Russian speaker and that's how we process all dipthongs anyway
@@atriyakoller136 Very true, the way most look at it is to look at non rhotic pronunciation rules, so "the star in the sky", it's strange to write an intrusion as that was describing the linking r, between vowels.
Geoff is saying star & to star don't have /r/ so it's linking within the word, which unifies the concept.
For me I feel st-ar HAS an r, because it turns the vowel sound into 'are' and staring and starring are different verbs.
English is the perfect International language for language schools, it is deceptive, seems easy but sucks you in before you realise the trickiness to reach C2 level
@@RobBCactive that's probably because it only occurs before a "dark" velarised l, which only occur postvocalically. Compare "Goalie" /gowli/ and "Goal" /gowə̯ɫ/ - Goalie has a clear (non-velarised) l because there's a vowel following it, and so no pre-L breaking
@@CraftingStudios1337 well I speak standard British English and goalie and goal usually have the same vowel, may be your futbol accent is influenced by Spanish? There's variation though, HUGE accent variations in Britain. Some people say gur-ell too.
Goal is often followed by vowels 😁
so how is goal keeper said?
My speech rhymes with foal, poll and hole, without the embellishment of unnecessary syllables. The /w/ addition appears ugly and gratuitous, but would fit an accent with many diphthongs
This is wonderful! It clears up so many issues I've had with the use of IPA symbols in ELT, and some issues I've had in phonetic transcription generally. Immediately bought your book!
Thank you so much. Could I quote you?
@@DrGeoffLindsey Yes of course :)
Dr Lindsey, I was having these exact arguments with my Phonetics teacher almost every day! 10:05 The symbols did NOT match perceived sound, yet I was told "this is the way it is!" What a refreshing feeling to see the discussion is indeed not settled and there are those out there diving deep into what is actually heard!!
I vividly remember debating my English teacher on whether smile had one or two syllables. I insisted that, in naturally spoken English, "smile" had two syllables (as opposed to fill which definitely only has one) but couldn't explain why. Treating that dipthong as a vowel gliding into a semivowel makes a lot of sense to me!
Тут дело в Шва, а не в Йот.
This video blew my mind, as a L2 speaker standard vowels symbols always confused me but your system of symbols make way more sense, great video!
I’ve been casually working on a phonetically accurate English mode of Tolkien’s Tengwar script because I felt commonly accepted phonetic English mode didn’t make any sense. Now I know why! It was so confusing! Especially because the Tengwar have enough symbols and combinations actually allow for such representation of the vowels, and are otherwise so cleverly and logically organised in the Tengwar table.
Afaik, early gramophone recordists deliberately mispronounced vowels due to the limitations of the recording technology; they had to make vowels crisper and higher than they might normally sound in everyday speech because the higher frequencies were more likely to be picked up by the recording and less likely to muffle or distort.
I've only seen a handful of your videos, but I can say with a great degree of confidence already that this is the best linguistics channel since The Virtual Linguistics Campus. Though, of course, that channel seriously fell flat on its face a number of years ago when they started refusing to upload anything longer than 90 seconds or so at a time, rendering it effectively dead as far as I'm concerned. I am so, so, so glad to have found this. I have been starved for material like this for a LONG time. This video-and also your "Schwa Is Never Stressed - False" video-have shed so much light on several things that have made me tilt my head for years, feeling like they just didn't quite add up, but being unable to properly put my finger on them. Thank you so much. ♥ And cute too. Hehe. Subbed af. It's just a shame you don't have more content; I'll probably burn through your whole inventory in a few days. lol
A small weird thing i was reminded of by the part with yes played backwards; when i was little, I thought that Spanish was some sort of backwards English purely for the fact that sí vaguely sounded like yes if said backwards. It quickly fell apart once I saw how most spanish words actually looked written out.
This is really quite interesting as it highlights the evolution of the English language in the past say 5 decades or so. My family still retains some of the old vowels when we speak so for example, we still retain the schwa in "ear" and "fear" as well which would sound pretty strange to modern English speakers. I think most interestingly, we've maintained the distinction between poor and pour which have merged in the modern version of RP (or Standard Southern British English as some would refer to it.) I would presume it's because our accent is based on a much much older version of RP from back in the 60's when my Nan taught English.
I just discovered you in the last couple of days. I absolutely love your videos. I'm not a linguist but I love studying the nuances and quirks of English. This is the best I've seen or read.
What an incredible video! I've seen alternatives of the updated transcription where the diphtongs ending in /w/ are instead written as /u̯/ (thus outdated /uː/ is written as /ʉu̯/), and similarly /j/ is instead written as /i̯/ (so outdated /iː/ is instead transcribed as /ɪi̯/). I've been told by a few people that for all intents and purposes, "falling" /u/ and /i/ in diphthongs are identical to the semivowels /w/ and /j/. Would you know anything about this? Again, great video!
Thank you! Yes, I would agree that i̯ and u̯ (non-syllabic i and u) are essentially the same as j and w. In fact the dictionary I co-edit, CUBE, allows you to display words like that if you want, for example: cube.elte.hu/index.pl?s=CEO&fullw=on&gli=on&t=&syllcount=&maxout=&wfreq=0-9&grammar=0
As an English teacher born and raised in Italy I feel the need to share my experience 'cause it has a lot to do with this video. I've studied pronunciation on my own for many years using the "wrong" alphabet. When I first learned about the linking r I immediately started paying attention to it and after a while I started pronouncing it without thinking about it too much. One day, I was in class and caught myself pronouncing the word "doing" as /du:ring/. I knew that a linking r wasn't right there and I asked myself why it came out so naturally. Now I know why. If you pronounce "do" as /du:/, it's only natural that you'll link the "ing" with an r. If you say it as /dw/, the linking r makes absolutely no sense. Thanks for this video
The wrong alphabet for sure! Time for change!
"If you pronounce "do" as /du:/, it's only natural that you'll link the "ing" with an r." Really?
@@matthewbartsh9167 because it doesn't end in a glide
@@notwithouttext I knew that's what you meant, but I'm not convinced. Ah, uh, and aw attract a linking r, but I don't think ooh (i.e u:) does, even when/though it doesn't end in a glide. I could be wrong, but I remain unconvinced.
@@matthewbartsh9167 words ending in /u:/ don't occur in english. but the non-closing diphthongs trigger linking r, so if /u:/ WAS an ending sound, it would probably trigger linking r. but those don't exist
This is really brilliant. I'm a non-native speaker, and this video has helped me tremendously with English pronunciation, explaining my feeling about IPA symbols in dictionaries, that I was reading one thing but actually hearing something quite different that I just couldn't figure out -- until now. Thank you so much!
Thank you for taking the time to make this video. It wasn't that long ago I found your channel and I have enjoyed all of the nuances and intricacies that you teach.
Prof Lindsey, thank you so much for this video. You have answered so many questions I’ve had for years and could not find clear, evidence-based answers to. Incredible video and editing. I cannot wait to incorporate so many of your teachings here into my Pronunciation courses. Please keep up the exceptional work.
Very insightful. I cannot believe this valuable resource is at my disposal free of charge.
this channel is so fantastic! you explain every possible difficult word to the laymans, while using correct jargon to be understood by the well informed!
Thank you. Mind blown. I've watched it twice now and it's starting to sink in. I've always thought this but was told (even on my MA TEFL) that I was confused because of my Welsh accent, which apparently adds vowel sounds everywhere they shouldn't be, and I could never pronounce 'tourist' etc the way that the coursebooks told me to pronounce it. Now I know why!
Thank you Fiona! Can I quote you?
@@DrGeoffLindsey Yes please do!
Dear Sir, I'm 59 years old. I've been learning English since I was 13, and teaching the language since I was 29. Along the years, my intuition has helped me discover some rules of thumb, however incomplete they've been.
I'll take the opportunity to congratulate you for such thoroughly systematic and immensely educational explanations.
By the way, my very first contact to phonetics & phonology was through the Longman's Learners Dictionary in 1979.
Thus, thumbs up, and profound thanks for sharing. From now on, my students and myself will most certainly benefit from this approach. As it's said in my language, thank you so much for existing. Warmest regards.
I took theoretical phonetics at uni about 20 years ago, and this was never mentioned. This system is so much better for non-native speakers as well. Love your videos :)
As a huge pronunciation nerd, this video was THRILLING. Your book has actually been on my Amazon Wishlist for a while now, back when I was using "Work on Your Accent" with several students of mine. Everything you described in this video were things I noticed but couldn't put into words; I just knew there was something wrong. Speaking of "Work on Your Accent", I would *love* something like that using your revised IPA (if I may call it that). Any chance of that being in the works?
All I can say now is: THANK YOU. I always hated when I was asked if I spoke RP as a way for potential students to assess whether they wanted to learn from me (there seems to be a fetish for it abroad!) and I always told them that so-called RP speakers today don't even speak like that. I hope this is the start of a domino effect in the field. Anyway, off I go to finally buy your book! I'm so excited to read it and use what I pick up from it in future English lessons!
Best of luck with everything in the future. I will be watching this space eagerly! Thanks again!
Dr Lindsey, I have to say that the instant I saw you had a new video, I clicked! I am so excited I cannot even wait to dig in...I know you have a way of cutting through the fog and allowing us to clearly see what is really going on with the English language. Thank you for your work.
Thank you so much. Your words are very encouraging.
Very eye-opening and informative. It explains so many things I, an amateur, had no explanation for beyond "it just is". Thank you.
I've just started my work as a linguist in Australia and this video has articulated a lot of thoughts I had during the phonetics and phonology sections of my degree. Thanks for providing such a clear and concise resource. I'm interested to take a look at how some of the concepts here manifest themselves in Australian English dialects, do you think they're largely apply in the same ways, probably lining up with the South-Eastern English rules you've outlined?
Yes, broadly speaking it's the same system. A couple of points:
1. FLEECE is even more diphthongal in AusE. It's comically absurd that the Wikipedia article on AusE (currently) puts it on the 'monophthong' chart: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_phonology This has obviously been done because the symbol /iː/ has brainwashed people into thinking that somehow it 'is' a monophthong, which it isn't.
2. AusE GOAT obviously ends much fronter than in SSB, for which [w] isn't very accurate (of course, neither is [ʊ]). However, it seems to me that Australians pronounce it more like [w] before a vowel: knowing, and so‿on.
@@DrGeoffLindsey hi geoff, so are you saying that [schwa, w] is still accurate for the AusE GOAT sound, or would you replace it with something else?
Geoff
Tried to apply this principle to group the vowels of my own (American) accent in a similar way to this. I'm going to be using traditional symbols because I frankly don't know exactly how I realize my vowels.
- the "clipping" point is entirely moot for at least my American English - all vowels have a length change before voiceless and voiced consonants that at least to my ear is identical: "back" is as long as "bake" is as long as "balk". As such, no meaningful groupings exist on that front.
As for /i/ and /u/ (no length markers as mentioned above) I think they pattern fairly well with /aj/ /ej/ and /oj/ as sweet and you both say. But in their exact realizations they don't seem as strongly diphthongal - I'd group my /i/ with the /iː/ from the vinyl before yours. It's a very clear monophthong. But "seeing" has a little bit of a j in it so it still patterns with aj oj ej. /u/ as i say it doesn't match either of the English examples (and nor should it, I'm American) but it's closer to the modern variant, but even then the offglide can be lost when the vowel is "short" (will have to analyze the formants of my /u/ to confirm).
By and large the groupings work - /æ ɛ ɪ ʊ ʌ/, /aj ej i oj aw ow u/ and /ɑ˞ ɛɚ ɪɚ ɝ ɔ˞/, and lonely /ə/. But I've left a vowel out, /ɑ/ (the merged PALM-LOT-CAUGHT vowel) because it is the only stressed vowel which DOES allow hiatus. [sɑː.ɪʔ] "saw it" [dʒɹɑːɪŋ] "drawing" etc. So I guess it's its own thing.
Also that transcription of Iowa /aɪəʊə/ felt very wrong to this American because I obviously converted it in my head to /aɪoʊə/ and I don't say it that way (the onset of GOAT and schwa are different in American English of course) - I would definitely have said /aɪəwə/ even if I didn't use /aj/ for PRICE.
Of course it astonishes me how much better your vowels pattern together - all the diphthongs in your system start with existing short vowels. My dialect still has short vowels and first halves of diphthongs that aren't the same as each other.
I'm quite late, but have you considered transcribing your FLEECE vowel as /ij/? For many Americans, that vowel is not so much a monophthong as much as a slight diphthong in most position, which I've seen narrowly transcribed as /i̞i/. (I would offer my speech as an example, but the precise vowel qualities don't perfectly match most Americans)
@@primalaspie my FLEECE is [i] pretty much exactly, as said. I use /ij/ to pattern with diphthongs, though
Under close inspection I think what happens with "saw it" is /sɑɰ.ɪʔ/. not sure if the transcription is quite right but more or less the glide is unrounded, turning it into something that might be described as a velar approximate? whatever an unrounded w would be.
For context though, I am from somewhere affected by the northern cities vowel shift so my intuition might be different from yours.
I say /aɪəwə/, but I don't think I use the same sound for PRICE. It may have something to do with being Canadian, or maybe I'm just perceiving a distinction that isn't actually there.
With FLEECE, I honestly can't tell if it's a monophthong or a diphthong. With "saw it" though, it feels like they merge together into a single syllable with a diphthong. /sɑɪ(t)/; either that or there's a smooth transition between the two without any other sounds.
I'm more of an amateur interested in the field of linguistics, but I found this video both easy and relatively easy to follow. This really helped me understand some thing I had been struggling with. Great video.
This video is awesome, but why do you use words with historical R in your linking R examples? Why not something like "I saw-r a film today, oh boy" from A Day in the Life, where it's more obvious that the R appears there just to separate sounds and not because it has secretly always been there?
Got what I wanted! Thanking you very much for making such a wonderful video on vowel sound system in English pronunciation.Hats off to you sir.
Wondering if you could make another informative video on consonantal sound system. This will be very useful for us.
I find it extremely interesting that as a native speaker (growing up in Texas), I was never once exposed to any symbol presented in this video other than ə. Somehow we learned roughly the same English (as native speakers) without it (though I do recall a teacher trying to convince a room full of Texan sixth graders that "sure" was supposed to rhyme with "sewer" unsuccessfully). I'm really enjoying how your videos are opening my eyes to sounds I never realized I was making while speaking English. I really liked the symbols you presented in this video, but as someone lumped in "general american" in your videos, I would love to see less of that generalization since there were at least four accents that I can count in the area of Texas that I was raised, for example, and many more as you travel through other cities and states.
Lmao I don't know any part of the United States where "sure" and "sewer" are said the same
I've graduated as a TEFL teacher 3 years ago and I studied with Héctor Ortiz, who was my Phon&Phon teacher in 2014 and I cannot believe how the way of teaching phonetics, I've always been interested in, has changed through time. Not only is it imperative for TEFL teachers to see from a different perspective to teach this to prospective teachers, but it is a must for us to update and to not be misleading to our students. I am extremely grateful for watching your video and I am looking forward to buying your book and having a better understanding of an accent and area I appreciate a lot. Greetings from Chile.
Absolutely great and highly logical set of explanations for a non-native speaker like me. I just NEEDED to pause this video at 10:15, to give this comment. I've been taught according to RP, as I guess, and publically (I need to give a lot of interviews, and the more some lectures) I hopefully do sound quite like you (in my best days...) - but here comes the "u" -thing. I've been introduced to only one particular sign of this vowel in phonetic possibilities, (it was 1968-1979), and it was just: "u". "steij ku:l. ju: and mi:, änd wi o:l tuge(?)ö." Ok, it was over-grotesque, but just this horse-shoe shaped phonetic sign of "u" has opened kind of a new universe of native English for me quite lately, and hereby that adorably being explained in this lesson.(I am from 🇪🇪 , btw; cheers!) R.
i know this isn't the point but this transcription is allot more aesthetically pleasing imo
Hi Dr. Lindsey. Thank you for an interesting and much-needed video.
Would you consider this overall transcription 'scheme' to be a good fit for American English as well, mutatis mutandis such as /ow/ for /əw/?
Yes, indeed it's in American linguistics that the /iy ey ay oy uw ow aw/ system has been used the most, e.g. Labov's Atlas (2006). The caveat is that AmE is a bit more tolerant of hiatus than SSB, lacking the linking r that SSB uses even when there was no historic r, e.g. Pizza/r/Express, law/r/enforcement. Note that American pronunciation teachers are just as likely as Brits to teach the so-called linking y/j and w (see Cook's American Accent Training).
Thank you so much! That was amazing! I am learning pronunciation and your video helped me a lot to sort it out! It is always so satisfying to find out that there is actually some logic on every level of a language
Fantastic video, every minute was great and the editing is very good as well. I've always found there was something very subtly off with certain phonetic resources but just shrugged it off as me not knowing quite enough.
Many thanks from Japan!
Your explanation is just awesome. It is so auditory evident based and gives L2 learners like us crystal clear clues for apparently mysterious phonlogical phenomena.
Just keep going, Professor Lindsey!
Thank you for this wonderful video. It is very much appreciated.
This video is fantastic and I, as both a teacher of the English language and a student of English Phonology, really need it. If you don't mind me doing so, I'll be using your vowel symbols; these make much more sence.
Dr. Lindsey, your videos are amazing. I teach phonetics at a teacher education course in Argentina and I really enjoy your insightful analyses. Thank you very much!!
I started noticing the phrase "year-on-year" recently, and I wonder if there is a difference in the way this phrase is used in the U.S. and the U.K. Outside of finance, I don't remember ever hearing this phrase used in the U.S., but it seems very common in the U.K. An equivalent phrase is available here, "year-over-year," which is occasionally used. It reminds me of the difference between the way people describe fractions: in the U.K., the fraction 3/2 is read as "3 on 2," and in the U.S., it is read as "3 over 2." It also seems like British people occasionally use "year-on-year" to mean the same thing as "year after year," but the phrase "year-over-year" is not really used that way in the U.S. (By comparison, "day after day" is used in both varieties of English, while "day-on-day" and "day-over-day" are virtually never used.)
But in finance specifically, apparently "year-on-year" has been very common in the U.S. for a long time. Although "year-over-year" is a more common reading of YoY than "year-on-year" here, both are found in references and even in textbooks. I wonder if this use was directly copied from British firms like Lloyd's and British markets like the LSE.
Fabulous. I didn't know any of this, despite listening to CNBC all the time.
Making a comparison with Mandarin, it might be illuminating to think of certain classes of Mandarin syllables as ending in [j] or [w]. These are the Mandarin syllables that in Hanyu pinyin transcription are spelt with -ui, -ei, -ai, -iu, -ou or -ao. Thus Mandarin syllables have four possible final consonants, which are [j], [w], [n] or the velar nasal -ng.
I've been waiting for such video for a very long time. I'm so glad I was finally able to witness the explanation of the oddities of these prescribed, and therefore most of the time incorrect, spellings of vowel sounds.
Great stuff, Geoff. many thanks!
What an amazing video!!!! it's nice to have you back on TH-cam : ), I really appreciate your explanation and examples, this video has made me want to reread your book, thank you very much! I hope to see more videos coming in the near future
I remember as a kid our teacher had us keep a dictionary of sorts where we'd put the English words we were supposed to learn in class, their transcriptions and their translations. I never bothered trying to understand the transcriptions back then, cause they were never explained to me and I never once opened that self-made dictionary to consult anything anyway, so I'd just write them down without giving it a second thought. Glad to see my younger self's approach paying off lol.
Eventually (once I figured it's time to work on my pronunciation a bit) I tried to figure out the "system" that British English uses for how people decide to pronounce certain sounds and emulate it best as I can. To my surprise, when repeating the examples you bring up, I've discovered that I already do a lot of these naturally, but I've never quite understood why, or even noticed it in the first place. Very cool video!
Thank you very much for your groundbreaking insight sir ! You have solved all my misunderstandings of English pronunciation over the years . Many warm greetings from northern Greece .
Great video! I teach (and speak) general American and while I'd seen Labov's transcription, the use of /y/ in that way (as a French speaker, no less!) turned me off it immediately. However, the use of /j/ and /w/ in your system is definitely something I'll be incorporating into my teaching.
There's actually an additional advantage for rhotic speakers, who "break" the vowels that end in glides before not only /l/ but /r/. Transcribing 'hire' as /haɪr/ is absolutely ridiculous! The PRICE vowel as /aj/ makes it much easier to understand why you actually get /hajər/, which in General American, is homophonous with 'higher'!
The one odd one out in GA would be the SQUARE vowel, which breaks but does not include a glide, something like /ɛər/ and which definitely contrasts with the vowel in 'mayor'. However, I'd say most speakers would pronounce even 'near' the same as 'knee-er' or add stress to the suffix in the second word, proof itself that the vowel quality is clearly not distinct.
I'm glad to see this system incorporated in dictionaries and hopefully, the same can be accomplished with GA. My only concern in implementing these changes is that students will struggle to understand the conventional symbols in dictionaries. Otherwise, I'd long ago have done away with /ʌ/ and /ɜr/ in favor of just /ə/ and /ər/.
Thanks for your comments. Your intuitions seem to correspond very well with the transcriptions of the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary, which has now confusingly rebranded itself as the Britannica Dictionary: hire /ˈhajɚ/, hair /ˈheɚ/. www.britannica.com/dictionary/hair
Dr. Lindsey thank you for this, I am reading your book, your blog, and I use your online dictionary almost everyday , your explanations are amazing . My main goal, as a non native speaker, is to sound like a brit, but I don't want to sound outdated, thank you so very much for your help. Maybe you can make a video about if it is possible or not for a non native to sound like a native speaker, I'd like to know your opinion on that .
I really appreciate your videos. They are long enough to be concise in the topic
For a moment I thought "mmm, where is this going, I hope he's not going to contradict John Wells", but then came the part he's literaly talking about John Wells 😄 Thumbs up!
I always wondered why ‘playing’ was transcribed so weirdly
This is fascinating. I’ve been casually interested in linguistics since at least high school (largely from reading Lord of the Rings). And I used to be a member of the Simplified Spelling Society. This will inform my future fiddling with spelling reform.
Wonderful video Geoff! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 It remided me of our amazing lessons every Wednesday.
Your videos are so wonderfully fascinating and engaging. Thank you!
I’m a native Turkish speaker. I am an English teacher and very passionate about linguistics. I 100% agree with you and this has been my question from long time ago wondering why in English phonetics “oj, aj and so on is transcribed as “oi” or “ai” while the sound we hear is a vowel + the consonant “j=y” or the consonant w which is wrongly transcribed as “u” in phonetic transcriptions
Great video. The one thing that I feel is missing here is an explanation as to the nature of many dictionary transcription, in that they are largely phonemic rather than phonetic transcriptions, or often a mix of the two. The concept of the phoneme v. phone/sound is one that non-linguists and non-phoneticians often find difficult to grasp and indeed a phonemic transcription has the broadness and a level of abstraction that can be likened to simply a more regularised ‘orthography’. In that sense I feel that a definition and description of a phonetic v. a phonemic transcription would have been a relevant introduction in this video. Otherwise, proper job and thanks for the content!
if it's phonemic it should write "eye" as "ī" not "aɪ"
Dr. L, I majored in theatre and Accents/Dialects were my focus. They come naturally to me, in the sense that I can just HEAR examples and do pretty well. I think it's my musical ear (piano player), but who knows?
My dialect coach described 4 levels of dialectic ability progression thusly: unconscious incompetence; conscious incompetence, conscious competence, and unconscious competence. I loved that. It makes so much sense.
Part of my training was a semester of learning IPA.
That's why your videos entertain me so. We just didn't have time to delve into it as deep as your videos do, but I learned so much that it's very easy to follow along. The best part is, I'm already doing the things you're describing when putting on a dialect; now I get to know the science (I'm at conscious incompetence, clearly!).
Thanks for the videos.
I also want to point out that I'm a USian, so the fact that I'm pretty okay at dialects and don't share yours gives me added information. I definitely don't say these words like you do. When I pause the video before the words, I just pronounce what I see in IPA as a British dialect. Once the words are revealed, I'm saying them in my own dialect and noticing how differently these words would be translated to IPA. I don't say things like you do. It's great to spot the differences.
@@SJActress I love your term "USian." I think I will start calling myself that. Calling myself " an American" feels as if I trying to claim an entire hemisphere as mine. "USAian" looks more correct, but it is unpronounceable for the reasons stated in this video. (At least according to my poor understanding of it.)
Brilliant! I have been confused about IPA for a long time and suspected that the people that came up with the transcriptions of English words had a different accent from me. Your version makes sense
This is so interesting to me as a German. In (standart) German, if we use diphtongs, we usually write them as such, otherwise we speak all our vowels without any glide. If we have two vowels next to each other that are not supposed to be spoken as a diphtong we deal with that by inserting a glottal stop between them (at least most speakers will do that).
The gliding nature of probably most English vowels is one of the things that are hard to grasp for many German people learning English. That's why one of the features of a German accent is, that we tend to pronounce the vowels too straight. On the other hand a typical feature of an English accent in German are gliding vowels (I would argue that this is the one key feature most Germans recognize an English accent by). It has happened a few times that people from English speaking countries who were learning German asked me to help them with their pronunciation and I found it quite interesting that most of those people didn't even realize that they put those glides on their wovels.
"standart"
that is revealing on so many levels
@@mattt.4395 Yes. German has many dialects and some of them are so different to each other that speakers will have trouble understanding each other. But we all lern the (standart) high German in school. What German speaking people usually do is that we associate a specific sound with each letter of the alphabet or sometimes with specific clusters of letters like "sch" or "ng". Because of that we can use the alphabet to closely reflect the way we are actually speaking, similar to the way the IPA-symbols are used, just not that precise. That way, if we speak a dialect, we can also write that dialect using standart letters and other Germans, unfamiliar with it, will likely be able to recreate the pronunciation just by reading it out loud.
Even in most dialects there's a clear distinction between vowels, which are usually spoken as a straight, unchanging sound and diphtongs. The Bavarian dialect for example has more diphtongs than standart German. But speakers of a Bavarian dialect usually can and will reflect that in their writing if they want to make clear that something should be spoken with a dialect. For example: the standart German word for "good" is "gut", Bavarians usually will write this as "guad" if they want to reflect the pronunciation of their dialect.
In many English dialects, like RP or General American, nost wovels in most words seem to have at least some gliding quality to them. That's completely different in German.
@@MrOmaIlse It's also revealing because the word is stand[əd] (standard) in English, not stand[ɐt] 😉 Same ending as drunkard, coward, mallard etc.
Thanks for your amazing explanation. What book or dictionary would you recommend that follow these standards "as close as possible" for American English?
Thanks for your kind words. We're planning to add American English to our CUBE dictionary, but that will take some time. Henry Rogers' The Sounds of Language covers both BrE and AmE, using a transcription system rather like mine (it also covers basic acoustic phonetics, which far too many books ignore).
If you're interested in phonological theory, the glide based approach was adopted widely in American linguistics, with important books being written by e.g. Bloch & Trager, Trager & Smith, Chomksky & Halle.
Note that to some extent AmE is less affected by the issues I discuss in the video: AmE has no linking r and no centring diphthongs, and is rather more tolerant of hiatus.
These videos are so engaging and interesting! Because I need to concentrate on the content, it’s actually quite a relaxing experience for my hyperactive brain.
Dr. Lindsey, thanks for another great content for learners. I wish you could make a video about General Northern English accent another one that is easier for foreigners to imitate and command.
Perfect stuff I expected! I haven't had this kind of joy since I read the arguments against the length mark by Jack Windsor Lewis years ago.
As of now, I still have to teach a more or less standard set of symbols because my job - in the context of mass English education in universities in Japan - is to enable my students to learn English (using such dictionaries as OALD) rather than teach the language itself. Until, that is, the day comes when standard English dictionaries (especially the ones that come with your iPhone etc) agree on a more rational set of symbols.
The Jones-type symbols have survived as long as they have perhaps because of their language-general appeal: vowel symbols look more or less like vowels, etc. They have done a lot of good; it is time we thanked them with respect and - improved on them.
Very interesting, especially to a lover and still learner of the English language like me. But I couldn't help wondering if this wasn't just another way of describing the same phonological phenomenons. In one system you sometimes have to add a small h, in the other you sometimes have to drop the j sound. Is it really different ? Also, all of those exceptions are probably too much for beginners. Have you ever taught a foreign language ? Learners need simple rules at the beginning. Especially regarding pronunciation. Thanks for your amazing videos, I subscribed to the channel, it's fantastic.
The most profound teaching I have ever heard regarding classification of English vowels. Thanks so much Dr. Lindsey!
This video made my day. So many times I wondered about the IPA symbols I saw to represent an English word whilst thinking that I would write them differently, especially comparing to the way of IPA-spelling French words.
Slightly late to the party, but I do want to leave an encouraging comment. Your illustration is much more accurate and evidence-based indeed.
🔹I’m not a linguist, I’m a geographer. I’m from Montreal and speak Canadian English and Québécois French, but I grew up listening to British television. The CBC was often a “best of Britain,” everything from The Goodies to Coronation Street.
🔹My wish is that good phonetic analysis should be done in French too. Unfortunately French is SO normative that analysis like you and others do in English is not done, certainly very little is done on TH-cam. Linguists in France seem to utterly ignore the other varieties of French as inconvenient variations, even those open to evolution (“Linguisticæ” for example). The old “there are no diphthongs in French” rule utterly ignores standard Québécois pronunciation.
Fantastic video. Friend of mine who loves linguistics linked me (he's from Turkey and he wishes they had taught this when he was learning English in school). I'm a native English speaker from Australia and only know basic IPA but I could follow your video very easily, thank you! I didn't even know anything about linking Rs and what phonotactics was but it all made sense! The yes/say and me/jim thing blew my mind lol. I also cringed at the first IPA examples for boyish and Iowa etc 😅 thanks again :)
Thanks so much -- this kind of reaction really makes it worthwhile. (And thanks for your channel. I'd never heard Michael Paynter before!)
@@DrGeoffLindsey you're very welcome! And glad you enjoyed Michael - he's an Australian singer who performs with Aussie band Icehouse. 👍
I did it using the reverse recorder. And it was spot on.
What a wonderful and clear explanation of what is obviously the right way to do it. At the end I was also pleased to see stress marked with an accent on the vowel, rather than the more confusing way of using a mark before the stressed syllable. I wish I'd had this model of English phonetics when I studied the subject at university in the 70s.
What a fantastic lecture! I've learnt so much about the disparities between conventional notation and actual pronunciation.
I’ve watched the video three times nonstop already, from beginning to end. Thank you SO much for taking the trouble to put together this insightful and fun video! A quality work, indeed … now I’m contemplating on how I should incorporate these pieces of ‘corrected’ (updated?) information and remove the outdated in my classes 🤔 (whilst citing the author and the book, of course)
Thanks for the kind words Rié! I hope it's useful.
actually we learned Engish in school by remembering how words would be pronounced although our teachers could not pronounce English correctly ... the little input we got was the radio or occassionally cassette recordings (which were pretty horrible - as far as I can remember) --- quite the opposite of what a child with Styrian and German language input thinks of as normal .... so after years in school you gotta learn English all over again and the only thing you can take with you is the spelling
Amazing work! Thanks for the lecture. Can’t believe it’s free
Thank you so much, Dr. Lindset, for this precious lesson. I teach English to native speakers of Portuguese and Spanish language and this will be of great value..
When you listen to Avril Lavigne's song "I'm With You" it's obvious "oo" is a diphthong when she sings "I'm with yeeeeewwwwww"
Never actually fell down the rabbit hole of phonetics, but have always been interested; growing up bilingual (Polis-English) I could hear the difference in speech and it fascinated me since. Now seeing this and learning French through secondary school and uni, my best layman's term to help non native English learners is to think of it like "le hockey". The French add an extra oh (voiceless o, like a breath) because the language also avoids hiatus. Yet it wouldn't be the same like "l'automatic" where (musically) its 'slurred'. Best advice, don't worry bout the speech, make it sound good poetically to your own ear and you will pronounce it well.
Edit-
Just un paused the video after 21:00 ish, and now I see why my interpretation is not only faulty and premature, but also explains why I did not go into linguistics. Though I still believe that my arbitrary TH-cam comment post about this topic is somewhat valid. Language is and can be a rigorously and scientifically determined pattern with rules that can be transcribed into clearly defined symbols (opposed to original script).
From a scientific background I applaud the explanation but I damn the meaning; because having a background in music and public speaking (not nearly as academic) I find that rhythm (Props to the Pink Panther vid, that earned a sub but this one was the true plunge into my rabbit hole for tonight XD) is the non empirical base of some language and dialects.
For instance, in the US, Polish Americans speak with an English rhythm. Working at my local Polish Deli in a predominantly Polish immigrant town, I have been snared in multiple conversations about my 'accent' or 'pronunciation'. Older generations would ask what part of Poland I came from only to be shocked I was born in the US. In Chicago we call in 'Panglish', we speak Polish in a way that sounds wrong and foreign to a native, but here it is the native (colloquial) way of speaking, yet it doesn't sound wrong (in the sense that word order or accentuation is [I would say] more flexible in Polish). It just sounds new, interesting, the best Polish immigrant workers I have heard speak English, do it in a way that follows a melodic style.
My band director always told us a story: The guy who voiced Darth Vader in the original trilogy had a speech impediment caused by some neural condition. Though the side of the brain dealing with fluid though and creativity was not affected. He always said anyone can sing, because an actor used it to talk. Music to my ears.
God Bless and Goodnight, oh..
Happy Halloween!
I never knew that about James Earls Jones, that's crazy! That man had such a voice, wow
A friend of mine had this fancy car that allows you to dial a phone number and call someone. Of course it took him several attempts. I remember him slowing down and say TWO as /TUW/ sooo clearly and since then I never understood why two was /tu:/ in the dictionary. Thank you for bringing me closure haha, after decades of perplexity
Thank you for the video. I'm an American English native with no clue why your UK English pronunciation video was suggested to me, but it alerted me to keep an ear out for traditional mistakes while learning the IPA for the purpose of learning French.
Many thanks for letting me know, Micah. Comments do help me out.
I knew the symbols were outdated but the glide explanation of diphthongs completely changed everything. I do have one question, however. As I've been paying more attention to different English accents lately, I noticed that the Northern Irish pronunciation of /aw/ is more like /ɑʏ/. I feel like /ɪ/ > /j/ and /ʊ/ > /w/ aren't appropriate here. Because it ends very fronted it seems like it should be written /ɑj/, but that would mean it sounded like a completely different diphthong, which it doesn't. Is there a way of writing this to show that although the tongue is much further forward than in most accents, the lips are still rounded? Like maybe /ɑʏj/. Do diphthongs end in glides in all English accents? I'm Australian by the way so my vowels are not too different from this video. Although we actually don't have a stressed schwa. STRUT is /ɐ/ and NURSE is /ø/.
the syllabic verson of /y/ is /ɥ/, so perhaps it's /ɑɥ/
I know your video is specifically for British English, but I'm struggling with rationalising why I have pre-L breaking in "feel" when "fee" has a monophthong for me (I checked by recording myself and playing it backwards). I certainly pronounce it very differently to when I say "fil" in French, but I think that has more to do with that it's a very different pronunciation of "l". In English "feel" I sense my tongue pull back (in almost a gulping motion) to a velar position for the l, but in French "fil" only the tip of my tongue moves. So is my pre-L breaking caused by a different phenomenon?
L at coda pos is velarized