Tuesday 28 June 2011

Internet and j’s

I’ve acquired a copy of a recently published Italian book entitled Viva la Grammatica (pictured right), by Valeria Della Valle and Giuseppe Patota (Sperling & Kupfer, 2011). According to the authors, the book is for anyone interested in discovering “il lato sconosciuto, insospettabile, sorprendentemente divertente della grammatica” (‘the unknown and unusual, but also surprisingly entertaining aspects of grammar’) (blurb).

Valeria Della Valle is Professor of Italian Linguistics at the Università la Sapienza, Rome, whereas Giuseppe Patota teaches History of the Italian Language at the Università degli Studi di Siena, Arezzo. Both our academics stress in the introduction to their book (p.XVI) that they prefer to be called descriptive linguists:

“Noi, come abbiamo dimostrato nei libri precedenti, e come potranno constatare i nuovi lettori, preferiamo le regole [...] non quelle che prescrivono, ma quelle che descrivono come è fatta e come funziona la nostra lingua”.

(‘As we have many times stated in our books, and as our readers will notice in this one, we prefer descriptive to prescriptive rules, because they can tell us exactly how our language works.’)

On page XVII of the introduction they conclude by making the following remark:

“a molte delle domande e a molti dei dubbi sull’uso corretto o sbagliato di una forma spesso siamo obbligati a rispondere: si può dire in tutti e due i modi. La regola è che non c’è una sola regola...”.

(‘when we get questions concerning the correct usage of one form or another, we often answer that there is no single way of expressing a particular concept. The rule is that there isn’t only one single rule...’)

I’m sorry to say, though, that none of what you’ve just read is what you’ll find in the book. The entire 267-page volume is dismayingly riddled with expressions like “la pronuncia corretta è” (‘the correct pronunciation is’), “bisogna usare” (‘one has to use’), “bisogna dire” (‘one has to say’), etc. The authors are far from being descriptive!

In the first chapter, dedicated to the alphabet, Ms Della Valle and Mr Patota discuss the names of some of the letters which are quite unusual in Italian spelling (j, k, w, x, y). As far as the letter j is concerned, they make it absolutely clear that “in italiano questa lettera va chiamata i lunga, non jay” (‘in Italian this letter is to be called i lunga [=’long i’], not jay [=as in English j]’). Why? There’s no reason why j should be called in only one way. After all, the overwhelming majority of younger people today call it dʒɛi! Even Canepàri, who is usually very prescriptive, lists this as a possible pronunciation in his DiPI (2009, p.294): ilˈlunɡa,ˈdʒɛi, ˈdʒei, ˈjɔd, ↓ˈjɔta. (The symbol ↓ indicates that the last variant, according to the author, is to be regarded as ‘slovenly’ and thus to be avoided.)

On page 20, the authors provide the readers with a list of 30 words which in Italian have two (or more) possible pronunciations. But in their opinion only one of these is right. So, for instance, amaca (‘hammock’) is aˈmaka not ˈamaka; cosmopolita (‘cosmopolitan’) is ˌkozmopoˈlita, not ˌkozmoˈpɔlita; dissuadere (‘to dissuade’) is ˌdissuaˈdeɾe, not ˌdissuˈadeɾe or indeed ˌdisˈswadeɾe. Why such useless rigidity? In Italian all these variants are perfectly possible and indeed extremely common!

Among these words there’s also a relatively recent one: Internet. But how does one pronounce it? Is the main stress on the first syllable or on the last one? Well, the authors of Viva la Grammatica (pp.25-26) say that

“la pronuncia originaria è Internèt, con l’accento sulla e: non solo negli Stati Uniti e in Gran Bretagna, ma anche in Spagna, America Latina, Francia e Germania si segue questa pronuncia”.

(‘the original pronunciation is Internèt [=with stress on the last syllable]: this pronunciation is used not only in the USA and Great Britain, but also in Spain, Latin America, France and Germany.’)

Of course this is absolute nonsense! Internet in both British and American English is stressed on the FIRST syllable; in Spanish and French it is stressed on the last; and in German again on the FIRST, like in English. In Italian both ˈin- and -ˈnɛt occur, the former variant being more common than the latter.

The explanation furnished by the authors for the preference in current Italian for the stress on the first syllable is that “chi parla avverte Inter come parola a sé, separata da net, e la pronuncia con l’accento sulla i” (p.26) (‘native speakers regard the word as a compound made up of Inter and net, and thus put the stress on the i’). I think this is not the case, particularly since the term Internet came into Italian from the English. When Italians first started using it (about 1995, according to the Devoto-Oli 2011), they borrowed it directly with its original English stressing.

(If you’re brave enough to watch a video clip in Italian, here’s Ms Della Valle on the TV programme Le Storie, discussing grammatical and pronunciation matters.)

Tuesday 21 June 2011

ə kɑːpɪt ə flaʊəz

flaʊəz ə defənətli wʌn əv neɪtʃəz məʊs bjuːtəfl̩ krieɪʃn̩z. iːkwəli əz bjuːtəfl̩ ɪz wɒʔ ðə piːpl̩ əv Tarquinia (aɪ spəʊz wi kəd æŋɡlɪsaɪz ɪt tə tɑːˈkwɪniə) kəŋ krieɪt wɪð ðiːz flaʊəz. aɪm rɪfɜːrɪŋ spəsɪfɪkli tə ði infiorata, ðə festɪvl̩ ə flaʊəz.

mʌtʃ tə maɪ əmeɪzmənt, ðə tɜːm infiorata ɪz nɒt ɪŋkluːdəd ɪn eni əv ði ɪtæljən prənaʊntsɪŋ dɪkʃənriz aɪ hæv tə hænd, wɪtʃ ɪz streɪndʒ sɪnts ðɪs ɪz kwaɪt ə kɒmən wɜːd hɪər ɪn ɪtəli (ðerə ʌðə feɪməs “infiorate” θruaʊʔ ðə pənɪntsjʊlə: ɪn Genzano (dʒenˈtsano), frɪɡzɑːmpl̩, nɪə rəʊm, ənd ɪn Spello (ˈspɛllo), ʌmbriə). meɪbi, ðɪs ɪz bɪkɒz ɪts prənʌntsieɪʃn̩ ɪz kwaɪt ɒbviəs fə neɪtɪv spiːkəz: ˌinfjoˈɾata.

ðə Devoto-oli 2011, nɒt ə prənʌntsieɪʃn̩ dɪkʃənri, treɪsəz ði ɒrədʒɪnz əv ðə wɜːd bæk tə 1862 ən dəskraɪbz ðə festɪvl̩ əz eɪ “profusione di fiori disposti come motivo di festoso ornamento; festa floreale”. (peɪdʒ 1407)

('prəfjuːʒn̩ ə flaʊəz əreɪndʒd ɪm pætənz ɒn ðə striːts əv taʊnz; flaʊə festɪvl̩'.)

ði infiorata ɪz ə festɪvl̩ wɪtʃ teɪks pleɪs evri jɪə ɒŋ kɔːpəs krɪsti deɪ, ðət ɪz tuː wiːks ɑːftə wɪt sʌndeɪ. flaʊə petl̩z ə juːzd tə krieɪt əmeɪzɪŋ wɜːks əv ɑːt ɪn ðə striːts əv taʊnz. ɪn sʌm pleɪsəz, ði infiorata ɪz ə sɪmpl̩ flaʊə-petl̩ dɪzaɪn ɪm frʌnt əv ðə taʊnz meɪn tʃɜːtʃ. əʔ mɔːr ɪlæbərət “infiorate”, sevrəl dɪfrənt tæpəstriz ə krieɪtəd, iːtʃ wɪð ə dɪfrənt pɪktʃə, bət ɒftn̩ sentəd əraʊnd ə sɪŋɡl̩ θiːm.

tə krieɪt ðə pɪktʃə, ðə dɪzaɪn ɪs fɜːst sketʃt ɪn tʃɔːk ɒn ðə peɪvmənt. sɔɪəl ɪz juːʒəli juːzd tu aʊʔlaɪn ðə dɪzaɪn, ən ðen ɪts fɪld ɪn wɪð θaʊzn̩dz əv petl̩z ən siːdz, mʌtʃ laɪk ðə meɪkɪŋ əv məʊzeɪɪks. ði ɪntaɪə prəʊses teɪks ə hɒʊl naɪt tə kəmpliːt.

ɒn sʌndi mɔːnɪŋ, ðə belz əv tʃɜːtʃɪz wl̩ stɑːʔ tʃaɪmɪŋ ən ðə bɪʃəp ənd ɪz ɒntʊrɑːʒ wəl ɪmɜːdʒ frəm mæs əmɪd mjuːzɪk ən sɪŋɪŋ tə liːd ðə feɪθfʊl ɪm prəseʃn̩ θru ðə striːts əv tɑːkwɪniə ənd əʊvə ðə stʌnɪŋ flɔːrəl kɑːpɪts, wɪtʃ suːn tɜːn tu ə mæs əv krʌʃt petl̩z ən ʃredəd peɪpə. ə fliːtɪŋ məʊmənt əv bjuːti, pruːf ðəʔ nʌθɪŋ lɑːsts, ənd ɪŋkʌrədʒɪŋ əs ɔːl tu ɪndʒɔɪ iːtʃ məʊmənt əz ɪʔ pænz aʊt bəfɔːr ɑː veri aɪz.

ɪf jɔː sʌmweər ɪn ɪtəli ðɪs wiːk, meɪk ʃɔː ju kʌm tə tɑːkwɪniə bətwiːn sætədeɪ n̩ sʌndeɪ: ju wəʊnʔ rɪɡret ɪt!

(ɪf ju wɒnt tə siː pɪktʃəz əv ðə taʊn aɪ lɪv ɪn, hæv ə lʊk ət ðɪs websaɪt: ðə fəʊtəʊz ər eksələnt bət ði ɪŋɡlɪʃ trænzleɪʃn̩z ə veri bæd!)

Thursday 9 June 2011

Glottal stops (and other stuff) yet again!

I’ve found a video on YouTube of an English teacher called Richard answering the question “What is a glottal stop and when is it used in English?” put to him by one of his students. After introducing some technical terms, Richard provides simple examples of the possible use of the glottal plosive in English: the word cat, he says, can be pronounced both as kæt and kæʔ, and but as bʌt and bʌʔ. So far, so good.

At some point towards the end of the clip (04.27), though, he states that

“in informal speech the /t/ sound is often replaced with the glottal stop when the /t/ sound is at the end of a syllable and the sound before the /t/ sound is a stressed vowel sound, or a syllabic /l/, /m/ and /n/ sound and the next syllable or word begins with a consonant sound.”

Before syllabic /l/, /m/ and /n/? In informal speech? What language is he talking about? And did you notice how he pronounced the adjective syllabic? ˈsɪləbɪk. I must admit it is the first time I’ve heard this type of pronunciation!

And here’s another example he furnishes:

It’s pointless becomes it’s poinʔless because a glottal stop replaces the /t/ sound after the ˈsɪləbɪk /n/.”

What? The /n/ in ˈpɔɪnʔləs is NOT syllabic!!! And that’s sɪˈlæbɪk, NOT ˈsɪləbɪk! ARRRRGH!

Quite connected with the above is the pronunciation used by BBC reporter Raphael Rowe. According to information provided by the BBC, Raphael

“was born and brought up in south-east London and he joined the BBC in 2001 as a reporter for the radio news programme, Today. His tone, style and accent was different to that normally heard on the flagship programme and caused an immediate stir amongst the Traditional Radio 4 audience. But Raphael’s path to becoming a reporter has been unique and remarkable indeed. [...] Through his singular background, and as the first person of mixed race to report for Today, the Six O’Clock News and now Panorama, Raphael has helped re-write the rules on what makes a BBC reporter.”

Here’s a video in which Raphael introduces himself and talks about what it’s like working at Panorama. Notice how he produces glottal stops in getting, bottom, curiosity, reporters, presenters and democratic. This is of course admitted in his accent but not (yet) in RP.

Finally, here’s a short video of the Panorama programme Track My Trash, broadcast last Sunday night on BBC World News and on Monday on BBC One. As I was watching the programme, I couldn’t help noticing Raphael’s realization of gathering as ˈɡævərɪŋ (at 00.04 in the clip) and of thumb pronounced as fʌm (00.53, 0056). These are clear examples of th-fronting, a phonetic effect typical of the broad accent of London.

Also, if my memory serves me well, he regularly pronounced system as ˈsɪstɪm rather than the more common and (at least for me) less old-fashioned ˈsɪstəm.

Thursday 2 June 2011

I’m ɡənə clarify that!

On page 123 of the book Practical Phonetics and Phonology (2008, 2nd edition; Routledge), by Beverley Collins and Inger M. Mees, we read:

“When going to is used as a tense-former, it is typically pronounced /ɡənə/, e.g. What’s going to happen /ˈwɒts ɡənə ˈhæpən/. This form (sometimes shown as ‘gonna’ in dialogue) is often criticised by prescriptivists, but is in fact the norm in colloquial NRP [=current RP] and all other varieties of native-speaker English.”

I find this description of the contracted weak form of the phrase going to correct, but not totally. And now, I’m ɡənər – or ɡənu – explain why.

As my readers will know, going to, when it is used as a modal for expressing the future, can be pronounced in very many ways. Its ‘strong form’ is generally (ˈ)ɡəʊɪŋ tə/tu, usually depending on whether the following word begins with a consonant or a vowel sound. Its weak forms (the usual pronunciations) can vary, depending mainly on the rate of delivery and/or on more or less formal styles of speech. LPD (p. 344), for instance, has (ˈ)ɡəʊ in ə/u, (ˈ)ɡən ə/u, and (ˈ)ɡəʊ ɪnt ə/u for RP, and (ˈ)ɡoʊən ə, ənt̬ ə, for GenAm. Spelling pronunciations are sometimes possible, too, especially in reading: RP ˈɡɒnə(r), ˈɡʌnə(r); GenAm ˈɡɔːnə, ˈɡɑːnə.

Contrary to what we read in Practical Phonetics and Phonology, the use of (ˈ)ɡənə(r)/(ˈ)ɡənu is not at all restricted to colloquial RP. It can, in fact, also be found in more formal/less relaxed styles of speech. Here’s, for example, a selection of video clips from YouTube with Prime Minister David Cameron:

1) In this first video (28th January 2011), the Prime Minister is addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Notice how he pronounces the following utterances:

i) ...how are we ɡənə get... (02.37)

ii) ...it is never ɡənə happen... (12.10)

iii) ...are you ɡənu invest... (14.33)

iiii) ...or are you ɡənu invest where... (14.42)

2) In this second video (28th March 2010), Cameron, not yet Prime Minister, is asked a number of questions by a studio audience:

i) ...it’s not ɡənə be government... (02.32)

ii) ...it’s ɡənə be the private sector... (02.36)

iii) ...it’s ɡənə be business... (02.37)

iiii) ...our plans to recognize marriage aren’t ɡənə disadvantage anyone... (08.16)

iiiii) ...we’re ɡənə hear it during the election campaign... (10.08)

iiiiii) ...as we’re probably ɡənə talk about... (10.20)

iiiiiii) ...when are you ɡənə be saying... (05.20 – uttered by BBC presenter Jon Sopel)

3) And in this third video clip, Mr Cameron is being interviewed by Ben Lowe:

i) ...and you never know that when you’re ɡənə get the one that’s really... (0.51)

Finally, in connection with the possible pronunciations of going to, here’s another video (18th February 2011) in which the Prime Minister, as he’s explaining his opposition to the alternative vote (AV), pronounces the phrase want to as ˈwɒnə, a form which most teachers of EFL/ESL tend to shun because it is generally regarded as non-standard:

i) ...you wɒnə know the best thing... (11.27).