Re: THEORY: Ray on ambisyllabicity

Adrian Morgan:
> At one point last year I emailed people here at Flinders who should have
> been able to give me definitive information on what sounds I really use,
> but I did not get a reply. I have no computer with both internet and
> sound card, so online research is not the solution. I'm open to
> suggestions. I'd be prepared to pay the cost of an international phone
> call for definitive guidance.
What is it you want? Probably the most useful would be the cassette or CD
"The sounds of the IPA" which might be available from the IPA site,
phon.gla.ac.uk, and should be available from the UCL site ling.ucl.ac.uk
or phon.ucl.ac.uk. Available for order, that is, for about six quid.

I imagine that the phoneticians at your University would be happy to
give you help too. After all the typical undergraduate appears to study
somewhat grudgingly, so when an enthusiast comes along it's a big treat
for the teacher. (I especially envy Kristian's lecturers in Denmark...)

[...]

> > > Near the bottom of your message, which I answered first, you tell me that
> > > I've had [u]/[U] confused all this time and that my belief that _book_ is
> > > [buk] and _boot_ is [bUt] is incorrect.
> >
> > I wonder whether you're confusing phonetic representation with phonemic
> > representation? /bUk/ and /bu:t/ are the norms I'm aware of for phonemic
> > representation. For phonetic representation of Aus E, [bUt] seems dead
> > wrong, but [buk] seems in the right ballpark, tho I'd prefer [bok].
>
> I understand [U] to be the very rounded vowel as in _who are you_
> (hU a: jU); lips very constrained and pointing forward, back of tongue
> raised.
>
> I understand [u] to be one of a family of vowels related to the consonant
> [w] but with the lips a bit looser, e.g. _woof!_ [wuf].
The problems here are that you can't say "as in _who are you_" or whatever
without specifying the accent you're talking about, and that your articulatory
descriptions are a bit too vague. That said, your description of "[u]" does
sound pretty much like [U].

> I understand [o] to be a more poetic sound, the realisation of _oh_ in
> those dialects (e.g Irish English) in which the word is a vowel.
>
> > I tentatively -- and with no disrespect and with every desire not to be
> > thought to sound patronizing -- reckon you've a very good ear, but have
> > made the common mistake of assuming that standard symbolizations of
> > phonemes accurately represent the phones that realize the phonemes.
>
> I understand that phonetic transcription is a more 'pedantic' description
> of speech, taking into account all the features that a speaker is not
> aware of, such as how sounds are unconsciously modified by the practical
> realities of moving the mouth.
It's not as specific as this. The phonetic transcription is simply a
representation of actual sound and motor activity, as pedantic as you want
it to be.

> Whereas phonemic transcription captures only the sounds that actually
> play a part in communication, using the same symbol for two sounds that
> have identical 'information content' in the particular language.
Yes, but perhaps instead of "sounds" you should say something like "units
of contrast that are expressed by sounds".

> The symbol used in a phonemic transcription is, presumably, its most
> common phonetic realisation.
This is merely a loosely observed convention, not a principle. Furthermore,
there is equally a convention of using the same symbols for equivalent
phonemes in different accents even when these accents realize these
phonemes with very different phones.

> When I want to accurately describe how I pronounce a word with regard to
> the important sounds, but I don't want to have to ask myself pedantic
> questions (like whether stops are aspirated or not), I use phonemic
> transcription.
If you tell us, e.g., you say /gra:s/ (& we don't know you're Australian)
then we will know that for you (as for people from SE England) _grass_ has
the vowel of _father_ and not the vowel of _hat_. But we will not know how
it sounds when you say it (unless we already know how /a:/ sounds in
Australian). If you want us to know how it sounds, you need to write [gRa:s]
which tells us that (unlike people from SE England) you say it with a
front vowel not a back one.

You can write stuff in [ ] brackets without fussing with aspiration & so
forth. The unfussy transcription is called 'broad'. The fussy transcription
is called 'narrow'.

--And.