Re: Pronunciation keys

On 1/29/07, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
...
> approximations to try and figure out what is meant...).  With other features
> the author is using the standard linguistic terminology even where it is no
> longer valid, just to avoid confusing the reader who goes on to read other
> books in the field; why does that same logic not also suggest JUST USING THE
> @#$! IPA?
Try reading the archives of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28pronunciation%29>,
paying close attention to American views.

As for using the IPA, most Australian school dictionaries use a
pronunciation respelling system, but serious ones use a scheme called
the "IPA" which uses IPA symbols in non-IPA ways. A similar system is
also used by most linguists when the phonemic value is the
relevant.[*] When the phonetic value is relevant, they use graphs.
(The system was based on one used for RP in the 1960s, and modified in
minor ways to show some irrelevant differences, like using /oU/
instead of /@u/ for a diphthong which is today prononuced somewhat
like [Vu\]~[Ou], then more like [@u\]~[Ou].) The necessity of a
revision is shown by the difficulty linguistics students have in
learning the real IPA as used in real languages, because e.g. /a/ and
/V/ represent the same quality (differing in length), essentially that
of Japanese or Italian /a/ (the qualities of /a/ and /V/ were the same
at the time the particular IPA-like scheme was created, but the vowel
is now a bit lower than it used to be; in the 1960s it was probably
more like the current RP value of /V/).

IOW, even IPA schemes need to be revised, and even linguists are
reluctant to pursue the revision. For the purposes of pronunciation in
a dictionary aimed at native speakers, I'm not sure the IPA adds a
whole lot, and probably makes the above situation worse. What would be
nice is if the online dictionaries used real Unicode characters (or at
least pictures), not the dodgy hard-to-read asciifications they seem
to love.

[*]: A footnote I've seen in a few articles goes something like "We
will use the traditional system because no revised system has caught
on, in spite of the fact that it poorly represents Australian
pronunciation".

Replies