Grazie di tutto, Bev!

It's so desperately sad to hear you are no longer with us, Bev! The field of phonetics has lost a great man and a very knowledgeable phonetician.

I first met you at SCEP (Summer Course in English Phonetics) in 2011. On that occasion, between one coffee break and another, we had the chance to get to know each other and discuss what to include in the third edition of Practical Phonetics and Phonology as far as Italian pronunciation was concerned. Our discussions continued on Skype for a couple of months between January and February 2012. These resulted in the publication in 2013, together with Inger Mees, of a fascinating account of the pronunciation of current Italian.  

Practical Phonetics and Phonology was the first book that really sparked my interest in phonetics in 2003, when I was only 20. Back then, I kept repeating to myself "I hope one day I'll be able to write an article for this book". Well, the dream came true in 2013, thanks to your help (and that of Inger, of course!).

I was so happy when you decided to send me a copy of the book you had written with Anne-Marie Vandenbergen Modern English Pronunciation: A Practical Guide for Speakers of Dutch (2000; 2nd edition; Academia Press, Gent): I treasure it a lot and I want you to know that it very much provided the inspiration for my very own L'inglese medico-scientifico: pronuncia e comprensione all'ascolto (EdiSES, 2014). 

I'll never forget the extremely kind words you wrote to me in your last email you sent me on 16th February 2014, soon after you received a copy of my book:

"Hi Alex –

Many thanks for sending me your new book – which arrived here safely a couple of days ago. I must say it looks top-class, inasmuch as I can judge it through the dense mist of Italian! You've scored with a most impressive first publication. And you've hit upon an area where pronunciation is really crucial. After all, for doctors and their patients it's truly a matter of life and death. […]

It really is a piece of work to be proud of. Well presented in all ways, good diagrams, much pertinent illustrative exemplification, and appropriate translation where necessary. In about a hundred years from now, Alex, linguistic historiographers will be searching desperately for extra biographical detail about you – you'll appear to have risen dramatically on to the early 21st century articulatory phonetic scene from virtually nowhere!

I'm quite sure the book will achieve the success it deserves. 

Very best wishes,

Bev"

These words moved me to tears on that cold evening in February, and they still do today, especially when I think that you have gone forever and are no longer with us. 

Thank you very much for everything, Beverley! Rest in peace and pray for us – phoneticians need your support!

Grazie di tutto! 

NB: Readers of this blog might also like to have a look at Jack Windsor Lewis' personal remarks on the death of Beverley Collins here.

Horses and whores

 

Nice joke, isn't it! It plays with the pronunciation of the terms horse and whores. In General British (GB) the former is (phonetically) hɔˑs and the latter hɔːz̥. (Some General American (GA) might have hoʊɹz̥ or hʊ(ə)ɹz̥ for whores.) As you know, in horse the vowel is clipped (= shorter, pronounced more quickly) because it is followed by the fortis consonant s (hence the symbol ɔˑ in the transcription). In whores, on the other hand, the vowel tends to be longer as it is followed within the same syllable by the lenis z, which is devoiced because it is on the end of the word and there is no other voiced sound coming after it: z̥. Have a look at this amusing YouTube video clip.

Take the famous example sheep and ship: in both words the vowel sound is short(er) because both words end in the fortis consonant p. Phonetically speaking, the main difference between the two terms is not so much in the length of the vowels (they're both clipped) as in their quality: the former is (ɪ)i, the latter ɪ. The use of the lengthmark to represent the vowel in sheep (= iː) is therefore utterly useless in this case. Jack Windsor Lewis has already discussed the confusion the use of lengthmarks may cause for EFL students in this article of the 25th of April 2014. In his Concise Pronouncing Dictionary of British and American English (OUP, 1972), now sadly out-of-print, he transcribes sheep as ʃip (p. 184) and ship as ʃɪp (p. 184). 

Readers of my book can practise pre-fortis clipping and devoicing of the English lenis consonants on p. 13 of my L'inglese medico-scientifico: pronuncia e comprensione all'ascolto (EdiSES, 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:

 

 

Cambridge Linguistics

Followers of this blog this week might like to read an article of mine published last Friday on the website Cambridge Linguistics. It's a post about /t/-epenthesis in Standard Italian Pronunciation (SIP). Take a look at it here. 

 

Weak, strong, and contracted forms in my book

In my book I discuss weak, strong, and contracted forms in 18 pages, namely from p. 110 to p. 127. To my knowledge, my manual is the only textbook in Italy to deal with this for the EFL learner/teacher most important topic in such a detailed and thorough way. See below for some screenshots of pp. 114, 121 and 122. As ever, click on the pictures to enlarge them.

Cruttenden's 'extra' weak forms

In Cruttenden's new Gimson's Pronunciation of English, Routledge (2014), pp. 273-277 are devoted to the, for the EFL learner/teacher extremely important, topic of English weak and strong forms. In an improvement on the previous edition, this section now includes many more weak forms than in the past, several of which are also exemplified by sentences/phrases transcribed into GB. Some of the weak forms which now feature in Cruttenden (2014) and which are not to be found in the seventh edition of the book are:

a) the very common an for and;

b) bt for but;

c) fm̩ for from, as in The man from the...;

d) ɪz`self for himself, as in He did it himself;

e) (`)kədnt for couldn't;

f) (`)ʃədnt for shouldn't;

g) (`)wədnt for wouldn't.

On page 275, Cruttenden rightly states that in English common uses of reduced forms involve auxiliary verb plus not, and that

"a final /t/ may be lost before a word beginning with a vowel (sometimes with assimilation), e.g. /kɑːn `liːv/, /dʌzn `ʃəʊ/, /wəʊŋ `gəʊ/".

Although this kind of reduction in English is possible, it is probably much more frequent before a word beginning with a consonant sound, as is clearly indicated by the examples provided in the quote above.

  

NB: From now onwards, posts on this blog will be offered only in English.

Talcum

Have a look at this:

The above screenshot is taken from p. 173 of the book Pronuncia dell'Inglese, Zanichelli, 2009. (For more on this book, see this blog post of mine here.)

Notice anything untoward? Yes, the transcription of the word talcum. Is the l 'silent' in this word? And is the vowel in the first syllable ɑː? I don't think so. I've never come across such a pronunciation. The term talcum is normally pronounced ˈtælkəm, not ˈtɑːkəm as indicated above. The pronunciation ˈtɑːkəm is not included in any of my pronouncing dictionaries. 

Do you use ˈtɑːkəm, or do you know anyone who does?

Talco

La figura sopra è tratta da p. 173 del libro Pronuncia dell'Inglese, Zanichelli, 2009. (Per maggiori informazioni su questo testo si veda il seguente post del 21 gennaio 2013.)

Non notate nulla di strano? Sì, la trascrizione della parola talcum ('talco'). Ma la l è veramente 'muta' in questa parola? E la vocale della prima sillaba è realmente ɑː? No! Non ho mai incontrato una pronuncia così strana! Il termine talcum si pronuncia normalmente ˈtælkəm, non ˈtɑːkəm come indicato sopra. La pronuncia ˈtɑːkəm non è contemplata in nessuno dei miei dizionari di pronuncia. 

C'è qualche mio follower che usa ˈtɑːkəm o conosce qualcuno che utilizza questa insolita variante?