Tuesday, 6 September 2011

PT's transcription workbook - some observations, #3

The next chapter to be dealt with in greater detail is number 3 dealing with consonants. The transcription of plosives is practised first. The author rightly points to the fact that the letters <p, b, t, d, k, g> may lack a sound value as in receipt, debt, whistle, handkerchief, knee, gnome. However, to say that "<k> is silent at the beginning of words before <n>" (38) disregards words such as Knesset or Knopf.

According to Tench, the symbol for the voiced post-alveolar fricative /ʒ/ is "often called" (42) zhed. I must confess that I have never ever seen or heard this term before. The one I'm familiar with is 'yogh' (Jack Windsor Lewis proposes 'ezh', a term which is admittedly more transparent than the opaque 'yogh').

There is also a section on syllabic consonants dealing with the transcription of a few consonants in syllable nucleus positions: /n, l, m/.  To be able to indicate syllabicity the syllabicity stroke is introduced. To be precise, all the words transcribed with syllabicity marks should have been set between square brackets because no meaning distinction can be established between, for example, a syllabic and a non-syllabic /n/-sound in English. 
credit: IPA

No mention is made of /ŋ/ in syllabic positions as in broken or bacon when pronounced with elided schwa. And what about February pronounced as /febrri/? There are even syllabic plosives. The latter phenomenon is discussed and exemplified at some length in Jack Windsor Lewis's blog number 239 of the 16th of December 2009.
posted by at

8 comments:

  1. JWL7 September 2011 at 14:34

    I'm afraid I have to take issue with the claim "no meaning distinction can be established between, for example, a syllabic and a non-syllabic /n/-sound in English". I very much dou·t if there is a minimal pair to prove my point but I suggest that the words 'gluttony' /glʌtn̩i/ and 'chutney' (never /*ʧʌtn̩i/ show that a minimal pair cou·d exist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kraut7 September 2011 at 16:30

    English phonology has existed for over a century now, and as far as I know (limited as my knowledge is), no minimal pair has been found. If, however, there is such a pair, I'd be more than happy to revise my statement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Phillip Minden7 September 2011 at 19:57

    So how do you explain the (phonetic) difference between the ns of [glʌtn̩i] and [ʧʌtni]? Obviously, one might say the syllabic n in the first case is a variant of schwa + n, or the realisation of this underlying phonemic combination, but the same would be possible in case there were a perfect pair, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kraut7 September 2011 at 20:29

    ... that he is waiting for the perfect pair

    ReplyDelete
  5. Martin J Ball8 September 2011 at 05:23

    "lightening" and "lightning"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kraut8 September 2011 at 13:17

    @Martin: Congratulations! Very nice example, but not of a minimal pair proving that syllabic and non-syllabic n-sounds are representatives of different phonemes. I'm still waiting for the true, genuine, unequivocal pair ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Phillip Minden8 September 2011 at 15:42

    What would be a (fictional) example then? Wouldn't you always view the syllabic n as schwa + n? (I might be missing something here.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kraut8 September 2011 at 16:54

    @Lipman: Rest assured that you're not missing anything (important). I agree with you that the syllabic n has an underlying schwa + n. I don't believe there to be a true minimal pair.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)