Re: Obsessed with Mouth Noises

Gary Shannon wrote at 2004-04-09 18:02:14 (-0700)
 > OK, now don't get offended.  This is my devil's
 > advocate position.  I'm looking for some refutations
 > of my expressed opinion.
 >
 > Granted, pronunciation can be interesting, but I'll never
 > understand the seeming obsession with trivial nuances that seems to
 > grip some linguists.  Pronunciation is nearly irrelevant when it
 > comes to fulfilling the primary purpose of language; communication.
 >
 > Two people walk into a restaurant.  One orders "frahd chikin pleez"
 > and the other orders "vroit jigun pliss" and the both get the same
 > meal delivered to their table.  The power of language lies in the
 > fact that nuances of mouth noises are utterly irrelevant, so why
 > are so many people seemingly obsessed with something so irrelevant?
 > You say "I am going to the government meeting", pronouncing each
 > letter clearly and distinctly and I say "I'm gonta da gummit meedn"
 > and everybody understands us both.  It seems rather like obsessing
 > over whether the speaker has blue eyes or brown eyes.  It's not
 > relevant to the primary purpose of language.
 >

As well might you ask why syntax of interest is when Yoda audiences
can understand, hmmm?

Pronunciation nearly irrelevant to communication?  Obviously untrue.
Pronunciation is the _only_ thing distinguishing one utterance - out
of context - from another.  If your restaurant-goers had pronounced
their order as "The president of Chile has been assassinated" then
they would hardly have been understood.  But there is no difference
other than the sequence of sounds produced by the speaker.

What you mean is that certain perturbations can be applied to speech
without preventing communication.  What constitutes a "trivial nuance"
is not a simple matter, and is language dependant.  Every distinction
made in the letters of the IPA means the difference between one word
and another in at least one language.

Replies