Medical English pronunciation

One of the courses I teach in Rome is called ‘Medical English Pronunciation’. It is a course designed to help medical students prepare for an attachment in an English-speaking country as well as medical professionals who want to work in English or take part in conferences conducted in English. It is, I think, the only course of this kind that we have in Italy.

The textbooks I use in class are Peter Roach’s English Phonetics and Phonology (2009; 4^th edition. Cambridge, CUP) and Collins & Mees’ Practical Phonetics and Phonology (2008; 2^nd edition. Routledge). My students also own a copy of J. Wells’ LPD.

It being a medical English pronunciation course, when I started in April I recommended that my students also have a book covering a wide variety of medical vocabulary in English. After spending almost a month thinking carefully about a suitable one, I chose Professional English in Use: Medicine by Eric H. Glendinning and Ron Howard (2007. Cambridge, CUP). The book has 60 two-page units and “topics include diseases and symptoms, investigations, treatment, examining, and prevention”. As far as I know, this is the only medical English textbook which contains a glossary with the pronunciations of most of the words/phrases/idiomatic expressions mentioned in the units. 

Having been using the book for nearly two months now I’ve realized I should have warned my students at the beginning of the course that some of the IPA transcriptions provided in the index are not always consistent or are indeed entirely wrong. Have a look at the following expressions (pp.168-175):

approximation əˈprɒk.sɪ.meɪ.ʃ^ən

blood culture ˈblʌd ˌkʌltʃa

book into ˌbʊk ɪnˈtuː

bowel baʊ.^el

cadaver kəˈdæv.ə^r, kəˈdaːv.ə^r

chiropodist kɪrˈɒp.ə.dɪst

coeliac disease ˈsiː.liː.æk dɪzˌiːz

empty the bladder ˌemp.ti ðə bˈlædə^r

example ɪgzˈɑːm.pl

malabsorption ˌmæl.əˈbzɔːp.ʃ^ən

metastasis ˌmətæˈstæsɪs

orthotist ɔː.ˈθə.tɪst

persistent vegetative state pəˌsɪs.t^ənt ˈvedʒ.ɪ.te.tɪv ˌsteɪt

pins and needles ˌpɪnz ənd ˈniː.dlˌz

prosthetist ˈprɒ.θə.tɪst

purulent ˈpjʊəruːl.ənt

stitches ˈstɪtʃiz

One of the difficulties students encounter when dealing with English pronunciation is the stressing of compounds. My students know that, for example, medical history usually has late stress, ˌmedical ˈhistory, but medical school is different since it is early-stressed: ˈmedical ˌschool. 

What about the expression terminally ill, as in the phrase a hospice for the terminally ill? Glendinning & Howard give ˈtɜː.mɪ.nə.li ˌɪl in the index (p.175), but I suppose this is incorrect. Don’t English native speakers say the ˈterminally ˈill?  

And what do you make of panic attack, transcribed as ˈpæn.ɪk əˌtæk (p.172)?

Epenthesis?

What do you make of the following statement? 

Is epenthesis really possible in English in the phonetic environments described above? (Click on the picture to enlarge it.) Any comments most gratefully received.

NB The symbol with the l upside down simply stands for ‘dark l’, whereas the letters i, a and b are to be taken to mean ‘International English’, ‘American English’ and ‘British English’ respectively.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The scan above is taken from Luciano Canepari's English PronunciationS (2010; 2nd edition. Aracne. Volume 1, p.127). You can take a look at parts of his book here.


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


I shall be busy throughout the whole month of May. So my next post will be Saturday 26th May. (In the meantime, keep your comments coming!)

maɪ fənetɪks tɔːk ɒn vaʊlz

ðə riːzən waɪ aɪ dɪdm̩ pəʊst eni ɑːtɪkl̩ lɑːs wiːk wəz bɪkəz aɪ wəz ɪŋkredəbli bɪzi prɪpɛːrɪŋ fər ə tɔːk aɪ wəz ɑːs tə ɡɪv ɒm wenzdeɪ ðə twenti-eɪtθ əv mɑːtʃ əʔ ði Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, wɛːr aɪv bɪm wɜːkɪŋ əz ə lektʃərər ɪn ɪŋɡlɪʃ fənetɪks sɪnts lɑːst ɒktəʊbə.

ðə tɔːk aɪ prɪzentɪd wəz ɪntaɪtl̩d “ði ɪŋɡlɪʃ vaʊl sɪstəm: wiːk fɔːmz, smuːðɪŋ əŋ kəmpreʃn̩”. aɪ tʃəʊz ðɪs tɒpɪk bɪkəz, əʒu nəʊ, rekəɡnaɪzɪŋ əm prədʒuːsɪŋ vaʊlz ən vaʊl siːkwəntsɪz ɪŋ kənektɪd ɪŋɡlɪʃ spiːtʃ ɪz ə veri trɪki ɛːriə fə nɒn-neɪtɪv spiːkəz.

aɪ stɑːtɪd maɪ prezn̩teɪʃn̩ baɪ ɪləstreɪtɪŋ ðə θriː kætəɡəriz ɪntə wɪtʃ ði ɪŋɡlɪʃ vaʊlz ə juːʒəli dɪvaɪdɪd: tʃekt vaʊlz, friː vaʊlz, ən dɪfθɒŋz. aɪ ðen tɔːkt əbaʊʔ dʒɒm welzɪz stændəd leksɪkl̩ sets ən ðə vaʊlz əv kəntempri stændəd brɪtɪʃ ɪŋɡlɪʃ. sʌbsɪkwəntli, aɪ dɪskʌs ði ʌnsteɪbl̩ steɪt əv sɪləbl̩z ɪn spəʊkən ɪŋɡlɪʃ ənd ɪɡzæmɪnd wiːk (ɔː rɪdʒuːst) əz əɡenst strɒŋ (ɔː fʊl) sɪləbl̩z. aɪ ɔːlsəʊ ɪntrədʒuːs ðə kɒnsepts əv stres ən æksent ən ðə dɪfrənts bɪtwiːn wɜːd stres ən sentəns stres. faɪnli, aɪ dɪskʌs ði ɪkstriːmli friːkwənt juːs əv wiːk fɔːmz ɪn ɪŋɡlɪʃ ən ðə təʊtl̩ æpsənts əv sʌtʃ fɔːmz ɪn ə læŋɡwɪdʒ sʌtʃ əz ɪtæljən.

ðə pɑːt əv ðə tɔːk ði ɔːdjənts laɪk məʊst, aɪ θɪŋk, wəz wen aɪ ʃəʊd ðəm ə sɪəriːz əv vɪdiəʊz əv ɪtæljən neɪtɪv spiːkəz huːz spəʊkən ɪŋɡlɪʃ kənteɪm bɛːli eni rɪdʌkʃn̩z/wiːk fɔːmz ət ɔːl. ðə fɜːs klɪp wəz ðæt əv wʌŋ kəmɑːndə nɪkæstrəʊ (=Nicastro), ɪntəvjuːd baɪ biːbisiː njuːz prəzentə nɪk ɡaʊɪŋ ɒn ðə hʌb suːn ɑːftə ðə kɒstə kɒŋkɔːdiə dɪzɑːstə bæk ɪn dʒænjʊri. ðə ʃtʃuːdn̩ts ən tiːtʃəz prezənt əʔ ðə tɔːk dɪskraɪbd ɪz prənʌntsieɪʃn̩ əz ‘terəbli ʌn-ɪŋɡlɪʃ’ (ɪm pətɪkjʊlə ðeɪ nəʊtɪs ðə wɜːd environment, prənaʊnst əz sʌmpθɪŋ laɪk ɛɱˈvirɔmɛnt) ən ɔːlsəʊ pɔɪntɪd aʊʔ ðəʔ mɪstə ɡaʊɪŋ, ɪn ɔːdə fər ɪz ɪntəvjuiː tu ʌndəstænd betə, hæd tə ‘rɪdʒuːs ðə nʌmbər əv wiːk fɔːmz’ ɪn ðə kwestʃənz i wəz ɑːskɪŋ. tuː ɪɡzɑːmpl̩z əv ðɪs kəm bi faʊnd ɪn What do you think the danger is now for the ship? (0:55) ən What is the forecast now for the weather? (1:31), ɪm wɪtʃ ðə prepəzɪʃn̩ for ɪz prənaʊnst əz fɔː rɑːðə ðən ðə mɔː juːʒəl fə.

ðə sekən vɪdiəʊ wəz ðæt əv ɪtəliz eks fɒrəm mɪnɪstə fræŋkəʊ frætiːni (=Franco Frattini) biːɪŋ ɡrɪld baɪ biːbisiː prɪzentə dʒerəmi pæksmən əbaʊʔ ðə sɪtʃʊeɪʃən ɪn ɪtəli ənd ɪn lɪbiə bɪfɔː kɜːnl̩ ɡədɑːfiz deθ. ɪn ðɪs klɪp hi kən, frɪnstənts, bi hɜːd tə juːz ðə ʌnrɪdʒuːst fɔːmz əv can, to ən that ɪn Nobody can consider him as an interlocutor (0:18), *Nobody can guarantee to him the impunity (1:10), ... *no hesitation to support me... (2:48), ænd ... the people of Benghazi that we are supporting strongly... (3:25). 

“wɒʔ dʒu θɪŋk əv mɪstə frætiːniz  prənʌntsieɪʃn̩?”, aɪ ɑːskt. – wɒʔ dju θɪŋk ðɛːr ɑːntsə wɒz?

aɪ ðen muːvd ɒntə smuːðd əŋ kəmprest prənʌntsieɪʃn̩z ən juːzd sʌm əv ðə saʊɱ faɪəlz kənteɪnd ɪn ðə siːdiːrɒm ðəʔ kʌmz wɪð LPD3: flower, flowery, fire department, fire drill, fire extinguisher, ənd hour hand. sevrəl dɪɡriːz əv smuːðɪŋ kən ɔːlsəʊ bi hɜːd ɪn ði ʌtrəntsɪz scientists (00:08), shower (00:42), our (00:52), ourselves (01:05) ən scientist (03:35) ɪn ðɪs ʌðə biːbisiː vɪdiəʊ wɪtʃ traɪz twɪkspleɪn ðə sɑːənts əv ðə hɪɡz bəʊsɒn, ðə səʊ kɔːl ɡɒd pɑːtɪkl̩. tiːtʃəz ən stʃuːdn̩ts əlaɪk siːm twəv ɪndʒɔɪd ðɪs klɪp, tuː.

faɪnli, aɪ wɒntɪd tə pleɪ ənʌðə vɪdiəʊ dʒʌs tə riːkæp ðə meɪm pɔɪnts əv maɪ tɔːk bət aɪ rɪəlaɪzd aɪd rʌn aʊt əv taɪm, səʊ aɪ tɒʊl ðə piːpl̩ prezənt aɪ wəz ɡənə pəʊst ɪt ən dɪskʌs ɪt ɒm maɪ blɒɡ. ɪn ðɪs lɑːs klɪp wɪð lʌndən mɛː bɒrɪs dʒɒntsn̩, wi kən hɪə ðə freɪz youth violence prənaʊnst wɪð ə smuːð dɪfθɒŋ ɪn violence əp bəʊθ 02:32 ən 03:07. ɔːlsəʊ nəʊʔwɜːði ɪz ði ʌtrənts we’re, rɪəlaɪzd baɪ mɪstə dʒɒntsn̩ əz ðə les juːʒəl wiːk fɔːm wə(ː) ət 01:31, 03:38, 05:20 ən 05:30. ɪts ɪntrəstɪŋ tə nəʊʔ ðəʔ ði ODP ɪz ði əʊnli prənaʊntsɪŋ dɪkʃənri tə lɪst ðɪs rɪdʒuːs fɔːm əz ə pɒsəbl̩ vɛːriənt (siː peɪdʒ 1180).

maɪ tɔːk wəs səʊ səksesfl̩ ðəʔ ðə ʃtʃuːdn̩ts ɑːst mi tə kʌm əɡen əŋ ɡɪv ənʌðə lektʃə leɪtə ðɪs mʌntθ. ðə neks tɒpɪk wl̩ bi ɪŋɡlɪʃ ɪntəneɪʃn̩.

  

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

hæpi iːstə! neks pəʊstɪŋ: sætədi ðə twenti-fɜːst əv eɪprəl.

Italian compression

How do you pronounce words like piano, pieno, genio and riunire in Standard Italian Pronunciation (SIP)? Are they ˈpjano, ˈpjɛno, ˈpje-, ˈdʒɛnjo and rjuˈnire, -ɛ or piˈano, piˈɛno, piˈe-, ˈdʒɛnio and (ˌ)riuˈnire, -ɛ?

This is prompted by reading the phonetic transcriptions contained in the Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana (DiPI) for the following utterances: abiogenesi, abituandosi, abituo, accentuale, accentuo. How do Italians say these words? 

Here’s what we find in DiPI:

abiogenesi abioˈdʒɛnezi, -jo-

abituandosi abituˈandosi; -ˈtwa-; ↓-zi

abituo aˈbituo; -wo

accentuale atʃtʃentuˈale, -ˈtwa-

accentuo atʃˈtʃɛntuo; -wo

(Note: the comma before a transcription indicates that the following pronunciation is to be regarded as “acceptable”; the symbol (;) stands for “tolerated” though also “not particularly recommended”; the downward-pointing arrow means “slovenly”.)

I find the above transcriptions somewhat inconsistent. Why would a compressed pronunciation be “acceptable” in accentuale but “tolerated”/”not particularly recommended” in accentuo? What’s the reasoning behind this decision on the part of the author?

In SIP, sequences of i/u plus another vowel are normally pronounced as rising/crescendo diphthongs (=compressed), the close vowels being realised as j and w respectively. But in less hurried/more emphatic speech, the uncompressed variants with vowel hiatus are always possible. Thus for dizionario I can say ˌdi(ts)tsioˈnario, ˌdi(ts)tsjoˈnario, ˌdi(ts)tsioˈnarjo, and ˌdi(ts)tsjoˈnarjo. The same for italiano: (ˌ)italiˈano, (ˌ)itaˈljano. 

The town in which I was born is called Tarquinia. Again this can be both tarˈkwinia and tarˈkwinja (perhaps also (ˌ)tarkuˈi- in carefully articulated speech).

So that's how I would transcribe the five words above:

abiogenesi (ˌ)abioˈdʒɛnezi, →(ˌ)abjo-, -ˈdʒɛnesi

abituandosi (ˌ)a(ˌ)bituˈandosi, →-ˈtwan-

abituo aˈbituo, →-two; aˈbituɔ, →-twɔ

accentuale (ˌ)atʃ(ˌ)tʃentuˈale, →-ˈtwa-

accentuo atʃˈtʃɛntuo, →-two

(Note: the comma and the (;) symbol here are used only to separate out the different pronunciations and don't imply any degree of ‘acceptance’/’tolerance’.)

The symbol (→) could be taken to mean the same as in John Wells’s LPD: 

“For some speakers, a form shown with → may correspond to the way a word is stored in the mental lexicon, whereas for others the same form may be derived by phonological rule”. (p.xxviii)

What I’ve tried to describe here is what we might call la ˌkompresˈsjone‿itaˈljana.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Next post: Saturday 7 April.

Speec-h-less!

I’m sorry I wasn’t able to post any article last week and the week before. This was due to serious family problems.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What do you make of the following newspaper headline? (Click on the picture to enlarge it.)

Look at the expressions I have highlighted. I’m sure most Italians will be able to spot the mistakes and correct them.

The article dates back to Friday 30^th September 2011 and is about a meeting, organized by the Italian Institute of International Affairs Ipalmo, which was held to discuss the situation in Libya before Colonel Gaddafi’s death.  

Translated into English the headline would sound something like this: “The meeting organized by Ipalmo focussed on Italy’s attitude (towards Libya)”. In Italian it reads: “Il meating organizzato dall’Ipalmo ha messo ha fuoco la posizione dell’Italia”. 

Yes, you probably noticed that the word meeting is spelt as *meating. The (incompetent!) journalist confused the noun meat with the verb (to) meet, and that’s because these lexical items are homophonous in most (all?) varieties of English. 

I wonder how this spelling mistake could have occurred, meeting being an extremely common word in Italian. The Devoto-Oli dictionary (2011) says it has been in the language since 1819 (p.1681). I’ve never seen it spelt wrongly.

The second dreadful mistake is to be found in the phrase “ha messo ha fuoco”. This should be ha messo a fuoco, the preposition a having no h in the spelling. 

As my readers will know, h is not part of the Italian phoneme system since it is only sometimes used paralinguistically in exclamations or interjections such as hai!/ahi! (‘ouch!’), (h)ai, or poh! (‘oh, no!’), pɔ(h), p(h)ɔ. In writing h is used to distinguish the verb forms ho, hai, ha, and hanno from o, ai, a, and anno. These are all homophones except potentially for the pair ho – o, the former being pronounced ɔ whereas the conjunction is usually o. (The name of the letter o, though, is generally ɔ, like the verb.)

The letter h is also written after c, g and sc before i and e to represent the sounds k, g, and sk respectively: ci – chi, tʃi – ki; Gerardo – Gherardo, dʒeˈɾaɾdo – ɡeˈɾaɾdo; scena – schema, ˈʃɛna – ˈskɛma.

It is shocking to hear that some primary school teachers in Italy, when having to explain the difference between ha (from avere) and a (the preposition), sometimes get their pupils to ‘aspirate the verb’, thus producing the extremely unnatural ha. Don’t they know that writing is one thing and speech is another?

_ _ _ _ _ _

English native speakers interested in Italian will be glad to know that the new edition of Practical Phonetics and Phonology (Routledge) soon to be published will include an article on Italian phonetics which B. Collins and I. Mees have co-authored with me. This new section will also feature audio clips with my own voice.

A shocking revelation from one of my students

John Wells, on Friday 17 February 2012, had an article on Daniel Jones’s Cardinal Vowels accompanied by a very nice picture of an eagle owl. This got me thinking about English stress patterns again. How do you pronounce the expression eagle owl? Where does the stress fall here: on eagle or on owl? 

This may sound like a ridiculous question to most of you but it wasn’t so for one of my students, who noticed that in the Hazon Garzanti Dictionary of English this compound is given late stress: ˌiːɡlˈaʊl (p.381). Is this a misprint or another howler on the part of the authors? Are there native speakers of English who have main stress on owl here? 

I have to admit that I have only ever heard eagle owl pronounced front-stressed, thus ˈiːɡl̩ aʊl, and this is also confirmed by the entry we find in CEPD 18 (see p.155) and by the OALD online (listen here).

Surprisingly, for barn owl Hazon Garzanti has the correct ˈbɑːn aʊl (p.92). So where does ˌiːɡlˈaʊl come from? (And why do we find ˈblækaɪs rather than the correct ˌblæk ˈaɪs?)

Leafing through the dictionary it isn’t hard to find other baffling phonetic transcriptions. Just take a look at the following:

according as əˈkɔːdɪŋæz (p.9 – Please note that the length mark I use here is not what you find in the dictionary: the authors use round dots (:) rather than the IPA ‘triangles’, [ː].)

according to əˈkɔːdɪŋtuː (p.9)

after ˈɑːftə* AmE ˈæftə* (p.23 – “The asterisk at the end of the phonetic transcription of a headword indicates that the final “r” is only pronounced when followed by a vowel sound” (p.XVII).)

afternoon (AmE) ˌæftəˈnuːn (p.24)

afterward ˈɑːftəwɔːd AmE ˈæftəwɔːd (p.24)

afterwards ˈɑːftəwədz AmE ˈæftəwɔːdz (p.24)

allegedly əˈledʒdlɪ (p.33)

amniotic ˈæmnjˈɒtɪk (p.39)

answer (AmE) ˈænsə* (p.47)

anywhere (AmE) ˈenɪhweə* (p.52)

apple pie ˈæplˌpaɪ (p.55)

belly-dancer (AmE) ˈbelɪdænsə* (p.105)

century ˈsentjʊrɪ (p.190)

chop tʃɔp (p.206)

colourfast (AmE) ˈkʌləfæst (p.232)

comprehensive school ˌkɒmprɪhensɪv ˈskuːl (p.243)

Why is classlessness transcribed as ˈklɑːsləsnəs (p.214) but completeness kəmˈpliːtnɪs (p.241)?

And, as far as semantics goes, can someone please tell me why fatuous is translated as will-o’-the-wisp (p.447) when it actually means “silly” or “pointless”, as in a fatuous comment?

Aaaarrghhh!

Can pronunciation be taught?

On 1^st August 2010, Scott Thornbury posted a provocative article on his blog about the usefulness/uselessness of teaching pronunciation in the EFL classroom. Here’s what he had to say:

“As a teacher, I have to confess that I can’t recall any enduring effects for teaching pronunciation in class – but then, I very seldom addressed it in any kind of segregated, pre-emptive fashion. Most of my ‘teaching’ of pronunciation was reactive – a case of responding to learners’ mispronunciations with either real or feigned incomprehension. There are only two pron-focused lessons that I can remember feeling good about: one was where I used an inductive approach to guide a group of fairly advanced learners to work out the rules (or, better, tendencies) of word stress in polysyllabic words (the students seemed generally impressed that the system was not as arbitrary as it had appeared), and another where I used a banal dialogue that happened to be in the students’ workbook to highlight the different spellings of the /ay/ phoneme – a lesson that was more about spelling than pronunciation, really – but, again, one that helped dispel the myth that there are zero sound-spelling relationships in English”.

He continued:

“As a second language learner, any attempts to improve my pronunciation have fallen (almost literally) on deaf ears. I remember being told by a well-intentioned Spanish teacher: “Your problem is that you use the English ‘t’ sound instead of the Spanish one”. To which I replied, “No, the ‘t’ sound is the very least of my problems! My problem is that I don’t know the endings of the verbs, that I don’t have an extensive vocabulary, that I can’t produce more than two words at a time. ... and so on”. That is to say, in the greater scheme of things, the phonetic rendering of a single consonant sound was not going to help me become a proficient speaker of Spanish. Nor was it something I would be able to focus my attention on, when my attention was so totally absorbed with simply getting the right words out in the right order. And nor, at the end of the day, would I ever be able to rid myself of my wretched English accent, however hard I tried (assuming, of course, I wanted to)”.   

He then concluded:

“Hence, I’m fairly sceptical about the value of teaching pronunciation, and I suspect that most of the exercises and activities that belong to the canonical pron-teaching repertoire probably have only incidental learning benefits. A minimal pairs exercise (of the ship vs sheep type) might teach some useful vocabulary; a jazz chant might reinforce a frequently used chunk. But neither is likely to improve a learner’s pronunciation. Certain learners (a small minority, I suspect) with good ears and a real motivation to “sound like a native speaker” might just squeeze some benefit out of a pron lesson, but for the majority it will probably just wash right over them”.  

This is an interesting conclusion. Pronunciation teaching in EFL is a total waste of time, according to Mr Thornbury.

In a follow-up comment he also added:

“[R]andom, segregated activities that focus on the three pronunciations of the past simple inflection (-ed) – well, I’m not so sure. Teachers may teach these “pronunciation macnuggets”, but what evidence do we have that learners learn them?”. 

When the article was published I didn’t feel like providing a proper answer to these to me exaggerated claims, so I simply posted a comment saying

“I think teaching phonetics and phonology is absolutely essential in EFL. I believe it’s a matter of making your students aware of certain features which they may not find in their L1 and which may help them understand native speakers better”. 

I was obviously referring to exercises which can draw the students’ attention to problems they might encounter of both perception and comprehension, such as when the standard citation forms of words found in dictionaries are modified when they occur in natural English speech. 

I find that EFL teachers are often reluctant to mention processes such as reductions, assimilations, elisions, resyllabification, or cliticization, preferring, instead, to invest all their efforts in activities like teaching the correct articulation of individual sounds or doing boring minimal pair games, which – I agree – may produce few beneficial results.

I feel that what classroom teachers should be doing more of is promoting their students’ perception, telling them how to ‘listen better’ and what to listen out for. And that’s where pronunciation teaching comes in. 

Some students may find it 'easy'; others may find it more difficult, but for everybody it's a chance to find out more about how English really works and what it really sounds like.

Pronunciation CAN and MUST be taught!