An informal pronunciation survey

I recently took a quick straw poll among my Facebook friends to see what pronunciations they prefer of some of the Italian words and phrases I have been discussing on my blog. Unfortunately, only 8 people took the trouble to answer my questionnaire – which is a bit sad, I think. Of all the Italian native-speaker teachers I know, only one cared to answer, and of all the students I’ve taught, only one responded in a very enthusiastic way. Thank you all, anyway!

However tiny my sample of respondents might be, I suppose it’s always interesting to analyse what their answers were and speculate on Italian pronunciation trends. So here are my findings (I leave you to judge them in the light of what we’ve been covering so far on this blog):

zoo: 5 out of 8 people said they pronounce this word as dzɔ; 3 went for dzɔo

stage: 5 of my respondents said they pronounce it staʒ; 3, on the contrary, went for steidʒ

report: all my 8 Facebook friends pronounce it with stress on the first syllable: ˈrɛport, -pɔrt (I didn’t ask whether they use an open or a more close vowel in the second syllable.)

management: 4 people said they stress the first syllable, 3 the second – 1 person didn’t answer

performance: 5 respondents went for ˈpɛr-, 3 preferred -ˈfɔr-

decoder: 6 people pronounced it with an open ɔ vowel; only 2 said they prefer the closer variant with o  

internet/Internet: 7 people said they pronounce it with stress on the first syllable; 1 person didn’t answer

the letter ‘j’: 5 people pronounced it dʒɛi; 3 didn’t answer

all(-)inclusive: 3 said they pronounce it with stress on the second syllable of inclusive; 5 with main stress on in-

Of course, as I said, this is just an extremely informal survey which has very little in the way of “scientific validity”, but it does confirm one thing: in Italy people are not particularly interested in phonetic matters! I wish things were different!

Happy New Year!

Horsmonden nativity play

Apparently, Tarquinia is not the only town to stage a nativity play (see last week’s blog). According to this BBC article, “[a] nativity play with a difference has taken place on a village green” in Horsmonden, Kent: “[t]he production (...), which is held every Christmas, recreated the stable scene with three kings arriving accompanied by a camel”. (Very similar to what we’re going to see here in Tarquinia in the next few days, except that we’ve got three camels coming this year, not just one!)

This article in particular made me think about the pronunciation(s) of place names in English. As you know, names of people and places can sometimes have very unexpected pronunciations. For instance, how do you pronounce Horsmonden? Both LPD3 (p.387) and CEPD (18^th edition; p.238) have ˌhɔːzmənˈden for BrE, although the latter also notes

“old-fashioned local pronunciation: ˌhɔː.s^ən-“.

And what about Derby(shire), which also features in the text? Here BrE and AmE vary somewhat, with GA usually tending to reflect the orthography more closely: thus BrE ˈdɑːbi, GA ˈdɜ˞ːbi. The CEPD (18^th edition; p.134) also comments in one of its usage boxes:

“Note: American pronunciation sometimes uses US ˈdɑːr- for British references”.

A frequent question I get from my students is the correct stressing in the name Manchester. Does the stress always fall on the first syllable? Is it right to say Manˈchester, as some Italians pronounce it? All the pronouncing dictionaries I have show this word with initial stress, although in LPD3 (p.486) we also find it with secondary stress on the second syllable: ˈmænˌtʃestə. I suppose one of the reasons some EFL students think Manchester has main stress on the -chest- syllable is because they sometimes hear native speakers pronounce it with a full vowel e – or ɛ if you like – instead of (the perhaps more usual) ɪ or ə. A syllable with a full vowel tends to be clearer and thus may be perceived as strongly stressed by some non-native speakers. Obviously, much also depends on the rhythm of the utterance in which the name is contained. 

Those of you interested in this topic might like to know that the new edition of the CEPD now includes a glossary of terms used in phonetics and phonology. Among them, there’s a section (p.570) entitled “names of people and places”. In it, you can find some useful information concerning difficult pronunciations of proper names and towns/cities, including notes on tendencies within BrE and AmE. 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Happy Christmas, everyone!

krɪsməs ɪm maɪ taʊn

krɪsməs ɪz kʌmɪŋ ʌp suːn ən tɑːkwɪniə, ðə taʊn aɪ lɪv ɪn ɪn ɪtəli, ɪz ɡetɪŋ redi əɡen fə ðə seləbreɪʃn̩ əv ðə kʌmɪŋ əv kraɪst. ðɪʃ jɪər ɒm bɒksɪŋ deɪ, əbaʊʔ fɔː hʌndrəd pəfɔːməz drest ɪm pɪərɪəd kɒʃtʃuːm wl̩ pəreɪd θru ðə kɒbl̩stəʊn striːts əv taʊn tə riːɪnækt ðə mərækjələs ɪvent.

tɑːkwɪniər ɪz əbaʊt tə bi træntsfɔːmd ɪntu ə fɜːs-sentʃəri-eɪ diː siːn əv lɪtl̩ beθlɪhem, wɪð wʊdm̩ bentʃɪz, strɔː, wʊdŋ̩ kærɪdʒɪz, əʊpən-eə mɑːkɪts əv ɡʊdz ən laɪvstɒk, æntiːks ʃɒps ənd ɔːl ðə trədɪʃnəl əkuːtrəmənts əv ə taɪm pɑːst.

ɒn ðə sɪkθ əv dʒænjuəri, ðen, sɪtɪzənz drest əz ðə meɪdʒaɪ, əkʌmpənid baɪ rɪəl kæml̩z, wl̩ wɔːk θru ðə striːts əv taʊn, ɪventʃuəli əraɪvɪŋ əʔ ðə meɪndʒə weə ðə beɪbi dʒiːzəs (ə tʃaɪld ɪn ðə fleʃ!) leɪz ɪn swɒdlɪŋ kləʊðz.

ɪf ju wɒnt tə nəʊ mɔːr əbaʊʔ ðə tɑːkwɪniə laɪv krɪb, ju kən vɪzɪt ðɪs websaɪt. hɪə jul faɪnd ə lɒt əv pɪktʃəz ən tuː ɪksaɪtɪŋ vɪdiəʊz əv ðə pɑːs krɪsməs ɪvents ɔːɡənaɪzd baɪ maɪ brʌðər ɪn ɑː fæsəneɪtɪŋ ɪtrʌskən taʊn.

ɡʊd lʌk, sɪriəʊ (=Sirio)!

(fə ðəʊz əv ju ɪntrəstɪd ɪm biːʔbɒksɪŋ, hɪəz ə naɪs vɪdiəʊ klɪp tə wɒtʃ. ɪts veri fʌni bət ɔːlsəʊ fənetɪkli ɪkstriːmli ɪntrəstɪŋ!)

“All(-)inclusive” yet again!

In my post of the 26th of July 2011 I said this about the phrase all(-)inclusive:

“We all know that the expression all-inclusive in English is pronounced ˌɔːl ɪnˈkluːsɪv, ˌɑːl-, -ɪŋ-, -ˈkluːz- when in isolation and that the main stress is never on the -ɪn- or -ɪŋ- of the second term of the compound, since this usually counts as a non-native learner’s error. In contemporary Standard Italian, though, this is not always the case. Pronunciations like ˌol inˈklusiv, -iŋ-, -ziv and -ˈin-, -ˈiŋ- are all possible and to be heard very frequently. The ones with main stress on the second syllable of inclusive are usually regarded as the traditional variants, that is the correct pronunciations which should be adopted in educated speech. The -ˈin-, -ˈiŋ- pattern, on the other hand, is slightly more recent and is considered by many as sloppy, although it is becoming increasingly common among educated native speakers and, in particular, among Italian travel agents”.

Take a look at this YouTube video. It’s a television ad for mobile phones which has been appearing on all major Italian TV channels for a week now. 

Did you notice anything “strange” about it?

Yes, we can hear the expression all(-)inclusive being pronounced in two different ways, and all in the space of only 2 seconds! The first time, at 00.12, actress Vanessa Incontrada pronounces it with main stress on the -ˈiŋ- syllable; the second time, at 00.14 into the clip, the voice-over says it with stress on the penultimate: -ˈkluziv.

I wonder whether the director noticed these variant stressings and why he/she didn’t “correct” the pronunciation used by Ms Incontrada.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I shall be busy with a conference next week. Next post in two weeks’ time.

On phonetics and elocution

Imagine you’re a non-native speaker of Italian at quite an advanced level of the language and want to learn more about Italian pronunciation. What do you do? What book can you consult? 

I’m afraid, there’s no easy answer to these questions. This is essentially because, as you already know, in Italy there is NO REAL book about Italian phonetics! OK, there are many manuals on elocution, some on general phonetic matters, and some which DO contain information about Italian pronunciation, but they are all written from a prescriptive point of view. Basically, there is NO book which presents an objective account of what native speakers of (“standard”) Italian really say.

These thoughts of mine are triggered by the recent release of a book published by HOEPLI entitled Manuale professionale di dizione e pronuncia (2011; Milano: HOEPLI). The authors are Giancarlo Carboni, a professional actor, and Patrizia Sorianello, Professor of General Linguistics at the Università degli Studi di Bari.

Their book is not just a speech training manual but also a volume on general phonetics and on aspects of Italian pronunciation. In it, one can also find a chapter on phonetic transcription and the principles of the IPA, plus a page (p.28) showing the 2005 IPA chart in full.

The book, which also comes with an audio CD, is not only aimed at managers, actors, singers, lawyers, TV and radio presenters, journalists and politicians – the authors stress in the introduction (p.viii) – but at teachers and students as well. In Italy, they point out, all schools and universities should teach the “correct” pronunciation: it is only by doing this – they conclude – that we can accomplish the task of unifying Italy.

How patriotic!

In several chapters the authors furnish lists of “rules” for “correctly” pronouncing words containing e, o, s, and z in their spelling. They also stress, though, that in reality the situation is much more complicated, especially as far as e and o are concerned. As you know, Italians vary a lot between e and ɛ and between o and ɔ, even in the same word. To give you just an example, collega is traditionally kolˈlɛɡa when it means ‘colleague’ and kolˈleɡa when it means ‘(it) links/connects’. I say kolˈlɛɡa for both, and like me many other native speakers of Italian! So why do Mr Carboni and Ms Sorianello insist that kolˈlɛɡa  for both meanings is wrong (p.135)? What’s the point of having  to differentiate the meanings of these two words on the basis of the pronunciation of the e when most native speakers just don’t do it?! – and we all understand each other perfectly well! The answer the authors provide in the book is: clarity. But, believe me, NO native speaker of Italian would get confused between the noun and the verb I’ve just mentioned! In this particular case, clarity seems to be just an excuse for keeping the Tuscan tradition alive. 

As far as s and z go, Carboni and Sorianello rightly say that z is now more common in intervocalic position, as is dz in initial position. So, for example, they correctly transcribe words like zio (‘uncle’) and zucchero (‘sugar’) dzio and ˈdzukkero (p.170) respectively. But why not allow tsio and ˈtsukkero (or indeed ˈtsukkɛro) as well? After all, these variants are still to be heard from native speakers across the length and breadth of the country and they do not bring about any difference in meaning or misunderstanding whatsoever!

And what’s wrong with ts instead of traditional s before n, r, l? After all, epenthetic t has now become increasingly widespread among native speakers and can frequently also be heard on all television channels. Why is, for instance, ˈpɛntso (penso, ‘I think’) not acceptable? Is it again because of clarity?   

Maybe Mr Carboni and Ms Sorianello just don’t know what ‘clarity’ means... To help them, here’s a quote by Daniel Jones (The Pronunciation of English; 1956, p.4-5) on the difference between “good” and “bad” speech:

“’Good’ speech may be defined as a way of speaking which is clearly intelligible to all ordinary people. ‘Bad’ speech is a way of talking which is difficult for most people to understand. [...] A person may speak with sounds very different from those of his hearers and yet be clearly intelligible to all of them, as for instance when a Scotsman or an American addresses an English audience with clear articulation. Their speech cannot be described as other than ‘good’”.    

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

There’ll be no post next week. Next posting in December.