0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
Usage
No [d] in my speech?
The recent AUE discussions about the pronunciation of the consonants in a word like "ditty" have led me to the tentative conclusion that I have no (d) in my speech.
{d} is defined by the International Phonetic Association to be a voiced alveolar plosive. (See
http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/pulmonic.html .)
Now "plosive" is a relative term. There are sounds, like the first "p" in "pop", that have an unmistakable expulsion of air when the stop is released. Then there is the pronunciation of my first "d" in "ditty": If there is a plosive present in that sound, it's so small as to be hardly noticeable, and it seems doubtful that the consonant should be called plosive.
It follows from that that I have no pronunciation of "d" that meets the IPA definition of (d), and that in turn implies that I have no (d) in my speech.
Whether either of the consonants in my "ditty" should be called a flap seems questionable. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has the following relevant definition of "flap":
b Phonet. A consonantal sound produced by a single fast flapping motion of the tongue or other organ.
A very significant word there is "fast". When I pronounce the consonants in "ditty", I feel I'm pronouncing both of them with the same tongue activity. The tongue rises unhurriedly to my alveolar ridge, stopping the air flow, then releasing it. I'm not conscious of such a fast motion of the tongue as to warrant calling it a flap. And when the stop is released, I'm not conscious of the release of air being in the nature of an explosion. In contrast with that, when I pronounce a truly plosive consonant like the first "p" in "pop" or the first "t" in "top", I'm well aware of the sudden release of a significant amount of air.
This seems to be yet another case where there's no "it is or it isn't", but a continuum, here a continuum of plosives ranging from vanishingly small to substantial.
I believe that my plosive in the pronunciation of an initial "d" is near the vanishingly small end of that continuum, and so is best considered to be absent.
With the plosive absent, my "d" in initial position doesn't qualify as an IPA (d).
My pronunciation of "d" in an intervocalic position, like the second consonant in "ditty", consists of about the same unhurried tongue motion and air release that is found in the initial "d". So it can't be called (d) either, and it can't properly be said to be significantly different from my initial "d".
If I have a voiced alveolar plosive consonant in my speech, I can't think of a word that would convincingly illustrate it. Therefore, I feel led to conclude that I have no (d) in my speech.
In passing, and for what it's worth, I note with interest that the consonant chart of the IPA has no provision for an unvoiced alveolar flap.
{d} is defined by the International Phonetic Association to be a voiced alveolar plosive. (See
http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/pulmonic.html .)
Now "plosive" is a relative term. There are sounds, like the first "p" in "pop", that have an unmistakable expulsion of air when the stop is released. Then there is the pronunciation of my first "d" in "ditty": If there is a plosive present in that sound, it's so small as to be hardly noticeable, and it seems doubtful that the consonant should be called plosive.
It follows from that that I have no pronunciation of "d" that meets the IPA definition of (d), and that in turn implies that I have no (d) in my speech.
Whether either of the consonants in my "ditty" should be called a flap seems questionable. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has the following relevant definition of "flap":
b Phonet. A consonantal sound produced by a single fast flapping motion of the tongue or other organ.
A very significant word there is "fast". When I pronounce the consonants in "ditty", I feel I'm pronouncing both of them with the same tongue activity. The tongue rises unhurriedly to my alveolar ridge, stopping the air flow, then releasing it. I'm not conscious of such a fast motion of the tongue as to warrant calling it a flap. And when the stop is released, I'm not conscious of the release of air being in the nature of an explosion. In contrast with that, when I pronounce a truly plosive consonant like the first "p" in "pop" or the first "t" in "top", I'm well aware of the sudden release of a significant amount of air.
This seems to be yet another case where there's no "it is or it isn't", but a continuum, here a continuum of plosives ranging from vanishingly small to substantial.
I believe that my plosive in the pronunciation of an initial "d" is near the vanishingly small end of that continuum, and so is best considered to be absent.
With the plosive absent, my "d" in initial position doesn't qualify as an IPA (d).
My pronunciation of "d" in an intervocalic position, like the second consonant in "ditty", consists of about the same unhurried tongue motion and air release that is found in the initial "d". So it can't be called (d) either, and it can't properly be said to be significantly different from my initial "d".
If I have a voiced alveolar plosive consonant in my speech, I can't think of a word that would convincingly illustrate it. Therefore, I feel led to conclude that I have no (d) in my speech.
In passing, and for what it's worth, I note with interest that the consonant chart of the IPA has no provision for an unvoiced alveolar flap.
Top answer
[/nq] In plosives, the airstream is completely blocked and then released, producing a temporary burst of overpressure. [/nq] Maybe you are not using a plosive, but most people do. [/nq] That's certainly a possibility.
- [/nq] In plosives, the airstream is completely blocked and then released, producing a temporary burst of overpressure.
- [/nq] Maybe you are not using a plosive, but most people do.
- [/nq] That's certainly a possibility.
- That doesn't make it the rule for English pronunciation.
- [nq:1]A very significant word there is "fast".
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
78 Answers
0
[nq:1]Now "plosive" is a relative term.[/nq]
In plosives, the airstream is completely blocked and then released, producing a temporary burst of overpressure.
[nq:1]Then there is the pronunciation of my first "d" in "ditty": If there is a plosive present in that sound, it's so small as to be hardly noticeable, and it seems doubtful that the consonant should be called plosive.[/nq]
Maybe
In plosives, the airstream is completely blocked and then released, producing a temporary burst of overpressure.
[nq:1]Then there is the pronunciation of my first "d" in "ditty": If there is a plosive present in that sound, it's so small as to be hardly noticeable, and it seems doubtful that the consonant should be called plosive.[/nq]
Maybe
00
[nq:2]Now "plosive" is a relative term.[/nq]
[nq:1]In plosives, the airstream is completely blocked and then released, producing a temporary burst of overpressure.[/nq]
"'Plosive' is a relative term" means that there's no reason the volume of the burst can't vary from one person to another, from one sound to another, and from one time to another over a continuous range of values.
[nq:2
[nq:1]In plosives, the airstream is completely blocked and then released, producing a temporary burst of overpressure.[/nq]
"'Plosive' is a relative term" means that there's no reason the volume of the burst can't vary from one person to another, from one sound to another, and from one time to another over a continuous range of values.
[nq:2
00
[nq:1]"'Plosive' is a relative term" means that there's no reason the volume of the burst can't vary from one person to another, from one sound to another, and from one time to another over a continuous range of values.[/nq]
It can't do that because if consonants were that loosely defined they'd be indistinguishable. It can vary over a range, but it cannot completely overlap the sounds of othe
It can't do that because if consonants were that loosely defined they'd be indistinguishable. It can vary over a range, but it cannot completely overlap the sounds of othe
00
[nq:1]{d} is defined by the International Phonetic Association to be a voiced alveolar plosive. (See http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/pulmonic.html .) Now "plosive" is ... sound, it's so small as to be hardly noticeable, and it seems doubtful that the consonant should be called plosive.[/nq]
It seems to me
It seems to me
00
[nq:2]"'Plosive' is a relative term" means that there's no reason ... one time to another over a continuous range of values.[/nq]
[nq:1]It can't do that because if consonants were that loosely defined they'd be indistinguishable. It can vary over a range, but it cannot completely overlap the sounds of other consonants.[/nq]
See here now, you seem to be confusing phonemes with phones. Or, y
[nq:1]It can't do that because if consonants were that loosely defined they'd be indistinguishable. It can vary over a range, but it cannot completely overlap the sounds of other consonants.[/nq]
See here now, you seem to be confusing phonemes with phones. Or, y
00
[nq:1]Bob Cunningham writes:[/nq]
[nq:2]In passing, and for what it's worth, I note with ... the IPA has no provision for an unvoiced alveolar flap.[/nq]
[nq:1]That would be the symbol for a flap with the voiceless diacritic. It's hard to imagine a voiceless intervocalic flap, though.[/nq]
Some, nonetheless, do seem to imagine it: not a few foreign learners of American-style English tr
[nq:2]In passing, and for what it's worth, I note with ... the IPA has no provision for an unvoiced alveolar flap.[/nq]
[nq:1]That would be the symbol for a flap with the voiceless diacritic. It's hard to imagine a voiceless intervocalic flap, though.[/nq]
Some, nonetheless, do seem to imagine it: not a few foreign learners of American-style English tr
00
[nq:1]See here now, you seem to be confusing phonemes with phones.[/nq]
By definition, phonemes cannot completely overlap.
[nq:1]Or, you're failing to consider that Bob's set of phonemes, and their use, could be different from yours.[/nq]
All I see him writing about is allophones.
[nq:1]How can a speech community be anomalous?[/nq]
In comparison to a larger society.
[nq:1]T
By definition, phonemes cannot completely overlap.
[nq:1]Or, you're failing to consider that Bob's set of phonemes, and their use, could be different from yours.[/nq]
All I see him writing about is allophones.
[nq:1]How can a speech community be anomalous?[/nq]
In comparison to a larger society.
[nq:1]T
00
[nq:2]"'Plosive' is a relative term" means that there's no reason ... one time to another over a continuous range of values.[/nq]
[nq:1]It can't do that because if consonants were that loosely defined they'd be indistinguishable. It can vary over a range, but it cannot completely overlap the sounds of other consonants.[/nq]
I didn't imply that it could. It should have been clear from what
[nq:1]It can't do that because if consonants were that loosely defined they'd be indistinguishable. It can vary over a range, but it cannot completely overlap the sounds of other consonants.[/nq]
I didn't imply that it could. It should have been clear from what
00
[nq:2]Speaking as a foreigner, I have certainly heard distinctly different accents and patterns of speech in AmE.[/nq]
[nq:1]There are some regions of the U.S. and Canada that have distinctive accents, but a vast swath of the continent shows virtually no variation at all, not even one noticeable to native speakers (much less non-native speakers).[/nq]
Maybe they're very subtle differences
[nq:1]There are some regions of the U.S. and Canada that have distinctive accents, but a vast swath of the continent shows virtually no variation at all, not even one noticeable to native speakers (much less non-native speakers).[/nq]
Maybe they're very subtle differences
00
[nq:2]See here now, you seem to be confusing phonemes with phones.[/nq]
[nq:1]By definition, phonemes cannot completely overlap.[/nq]
Phonemes are a useful theoretical tool. The real world isn't always so tidy, however. For example, I pronounce the word "lad" as (l&:d) and the surname "Ladd" as (l&d). You would have to analyse my speech as having both /&:/ and /&/. Given that I make no mea
[nq:1]By definition, phonemes cannot completely overlap.[/nq]
Phonemes are a useful theoretical tool. The real world isn't always so tidy, however. For example, I pronounce the word "lad" as (l&:d) and the surname "Ladd" as (l&d). You would have to analyse my speech as having both /&:/ and /&/. Given that I make no mea
0
Related Questions