Wednesday 21 May 2014

Assiduity

The term assiduity can be pronounced in all sorts of ways in General British (GB). It can be said as ˌasɪˈʤuːəti ~ ˌasəˈʤuːəti (more formally/in a slightly old-fashioned way, also ˌasɪˈʤʊəti ~ ˌasəˈʤʊəti); and without yod coalescence, in a more formal and old-fashioned manner, ˌasɪˈdjuːəti ~ ˌasəˈdjuːəti. (Even more out-dated/formal are the renderings ˌasɪˈdjʊəti ~ ˌasəˈdjʊəti.) Other completely out-of-date variants, which Alan Cruttenden would probably describe as falling within what he has termed 'Conspicuous General British' (see Gimson's Pronunciation of English, 2014, p. 81), have -ɪtɪ or -ɪti as the last two syllables, and æ in the first. 
 
The corresponding adjective, assiduous, can be əˈsɪdjuəs (compressed, also əˈsɪdjwəs) or assimilated, əˈsɪʤuəs (also optionally compressed to əˈsɪʤwəs). 

Unlike GB, in General American (GA) the only possibilities are əˈsɪʤuəs ~ əˈsɪʤ(ə)wəs for assiduous: yod coalescence in GA is compulsory if, within a word, the vowel after GB tj/dj is weak, i. e. u or ə. On the other hand, coalescent assimilations of the type tj → ʧ and dj → ʤ at the beginning of a stressed syllable before a strong vowel sound, albeit increasingly common in GB, are (still) considered as non-standard in GA. assiduity in GA is normally pronounced with yod-dropping, that is as ˌæsɪˈduːət̬i ~ ˌæsəˈduːət̬i (also, less commonly/more formally, ˌæsɪˈduːəti ~ ˌæsəˈduːəti). Variants with yod in the third syllable are also possible, though less frequent: ˌæsɪˈdjuːət̬i ~ ˌæsəˈdjuːət̬i (or again ˌæsɪˈdjuːəti ~ ˌæsəˈdjuːəti). See, for example, John Wells's Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (LPD), p. 52 and p. 843.

For some unknown reason, and to my complete amazement, the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary Online (OAAD) includes a pronunciation with -ˈʤu- (= -ˈʤuː-) for the term assiduity, which all the other dictionaries I own or use frequently either don't acknowledge or rightly describe as non-GA. See the screenshot below:


Those who understand Italian can read what I say about the topic of this post on page 27 of my recently published book:
 

20 comments:

  1. I've cast my vote now. Good luck, Alex!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not a word I say much, but I have what you describe as the "completely out of date" pronunciation. What's your evidence for saying that?

    (btw, the variation between ash and "a" in the first vowel is merely a matter of transcriptional convention)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, for example, Cruttenden's Gimson (2014), p. 114 and pp. 119-121.

      Delete
    2. I looked at Cruttenden p. 114 via Google Books and found the following:

      "A trend towards /ə/ in unaccented affixes, rather than /ɪ/, is becoming increasingly noticeable among younger GB speakers ... In some affixes [including "-ity"], /ə/ is most common".

      I'm not sure how you get from

      X is increasingly noticeable among younger GB speakers

      or even

      X is the most common form [among GB speakers]

      to

      Anyone who doesn't use X is completely out of date

      A bit of exaggeration, no?

      Delete
    3. "Anyone who doesn't use X is completely out of date"

      Never said that! We all use some old-fashioned variants in our idiolect and other variants that are the predominant ones. That doesn't necessarily make us out of date.

      Delete
    4. "Other completely out-of-date variants, ... have -ɪtɪ or -ɪti as the last two syllables, and æ in the first. "

      Delete
    5. Dear vp, I think it is clear from my answer above that I'm talking about VARIANTS that are old-fashioned, not PEOPLE that are old-fashioned because they use old-fashioned pronunciations. In my post I don't say "Anyone who doesn't use X is completely out of date".

      Delete
    6. OK -- so what's the evidence that the pronunciation is "completely out of date"?

      Delete
    7. I think that if you reject something because it is slightly out of date, then it will automatically become completely out of date as long as you don’t use it anymore. When I go through the dictionary and I come across an expression labelled “becoming dated”, I understand that, for a certain number of speakers, that expression is actually “completely out of date”.

      Delete
    8. Vp, if you look up the term 'assiduity' in Jack Windsor Lewis' "A Concise Pronouncing Dictionary of British and American English" (OUP, 1972), the only transcription you find for GB is with a schwa in the penultimate syllable. No /-ɪt-/ is given by the author.
      Gimson says in the Foreword to the dictionary (p.v): "The forms given by Mr Windsor Lewis consistently reflect current usage".
      And Jack W. L. writes in his Preface (p.vi): "Two broad types of English have been recorded, a British and an American. Each represents the fluent, spontaneous, everyday usage of those educated speakers on either side of the Atlantic whose speech is of the most generally accepted kind ...".
      Finally, here's what the same author says on p.xiv about the pronunciations supplied:
      "... [T]his dictionary excludes any British pronunciations which are associated specifically and only with a public boarding-school or any socially conspicuous background. In general it also excludes pronunciations which clearly represent the usage solely of a relatively small minority (say less than 20%) of British speakers... Also excluded are usages of even very slightly old-fashioned types and usages of any type associated solely with any particular, even very broad, regional subdivision of Great Britain".

      Delete
    9. Still no evidence it's "completely out of date".

      You're welcome to say whatever you want on your own blog, of course, but if you use phrases like "completely out of date" without adequate evidence, don't be surprised if people get a tiny little bit pissed off.

      Delete
    10. If you are a native speaker, vp, perhaps you could tell us how you feel about those expressions (Do you or anyone you can think of still use them?, that sort of thing). It would be much more constructive than simply getting angry.

      Delete
    11. Sorry, I mean "... those pronunciations".

      Delete
  3. "in General American (GA) the only possibilities are əˈsɪʤuəs ~ əˈsɪʤwəs for assiduous"

    I would add əˈsɪʤəwəs and a less reduced əˈsɪʤʊwəs to these possibilities. A matter of transcriptional convention, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Akito! I've now added /əˈsɪʤəwəs/ as another possible variant. As far as /əˈsɪʤʊwəs/ goes, it's already included in /əˈsɪʤuəs/ as the symbol /u/ in my transcription can stand for both /uː/ and /ʊ/ or something intermediate or indeterminate.

      Delete
  4. Ahh, this was such a great read! I'm always so fascinated with these little nuances in language - I'm in advertising, so when it comes to translating messages across language and cultural barriers, things like this are extremely important when it comes to maintaining authenticity and capturing the attention of your audiences. Great job!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Re the /-ˈʤu-/ AmE variant for assiduity, the same dictionary gives the same affricate for (in)credulity too, so it's not an isolated case. Since words like duty are not given this treatment, it appears that it is given only when a reduced syllable involving affrication is reaccented. On the voiceless side, fortuitous has only the yod-dropped, unaffricated sound. Not sure if voicing makes any difference, though.

    ReplyDelete