tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post5780121206350497677..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: strong and weakJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-7270273860573474572020-07-10T11:57:32.471+01:002020-07-10T11:57:32.471+01:00Thankfully there all
At wlan Port 21 right?
Ftp://...Thankfully there all<br />At wlan Port 21 right?<br />Ftp://1021123:8021/TCP/port/2400MSAZAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17867895990937401861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-53133279116801111402015-06-01T21:27:16.351+01:002015-06-01T21:27:16.351+01:00"Some analysts (particularly Americans) argue..."Some analysts (particularly Americans) argue in the other direction, claiming that the presence of a strong vowel is sufficient evidence that the syllable in question is stressed. In the British tradition we regard them as unstressed."<br /><br />As an American currently doing Ph.D. research in the U.S. on English word stress, I have anecdotal evidence that your statement above does indeed represent a common stance taken by American English pronunciation researchers. However, I have not yet been able to find any published analysis/research by American English pronunciation analysts actually demonstrating this is the case. Do you happen to know of specific papers and/or American English researchers making this claim? It would be very valuable for my research if I were able to read and cite them. Thanks for any guidance you can give!<br /><br />Gratefully yours,<br /><br />Monica Richards<br />Ph.D. Student in Applied Linguistics and Technology<br />Iowa State University<br />Ames, Iowa, USAAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08499901525735642003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-6581301522728530662011-03-29T11:31:28.294+01:002011-03-29T11:31:28.294+01:00vp,
«do you have /i/ in "Rosie"? Or in a...vp,<br />«do you have /i/ in "Rosie"? Or in any non-word-final environments?»<br /><br />If that's John's all-purpose unadorned i I will disregard the solidi, as that is some sort of shape-shifting polyphone/allophone/allomorphophone/archiphoneme/morphophoneme! So I'll say that not only do I have [ɪ] in "Rosie", which may or may not be a realization of /i/, depending on your analysis, but having it in "rosy", I do also have it in "rosier, rosiest", and other non-word-final environments. Offhand I'd say I have it wherever John has the mercurial i in LPD.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-852302551468075452011-03-28T20:53:22.842+01:002011-03-28T20:53:22.842+01:00For me the distinction between Andy's and Ande...<i>For me the distinction between Andy's and Andes is in tenseness: although I have happY-tensing, my happY vowel is not as tense as my unstressed FLEECE (which is not as tense as my stressed FLEECE, though obviously there are no minimal pairs there)</i><br /><br />For me it's length: the second syllable in "Andes" is about twice as long as that in "Andy's". As far as I can tell both are identical in quality with FLEECE.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-17013510686861956112011-03-28T20:49:59.421+01:002011-03-28T20:49:59.421+01:00@mallamb:
Rosie's - roses - Rosa's. No tha...@mallamb:<br /><i>Rosie's - roses - Rosa's. No thanks, Wikipedia. Not for JHJ's reason, but because I have /ɪ/ in "Rosie's" and "roses".</i><br /><br />Interesting -- do you have /i/ in "Rosie"? Or in any non-word-final environments?vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-81503060720132170352011-03-28T16:23:01.140+01:002011-03-28T16:23:01.140+01:00For me the distinction between Andy's and Ande...For me the distinction between <i>Andy's</i> and <i>Andes</i> is in tenseness: although I have happY-tensing, my happY vowel is not as tense as my unstressed FLEECE (which is not as tense as my stressed FLEECE, though obviously there are no minimal pairs there). The distinction is just barely perceptible to me, unlike <i>Rosa's/roses</i>, which is nonexistent: both are the same lax vowel, whereas <i>Rosie's</i> is happY-tensed.<br /><br />For me, the second vowel of <i>starlit</i> is strong, as if it were <i>star-lit</i>.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-36075786269392504842011-03-28T10:55:26.019+01:002011-03-28T10:55:26.019+01:00Sorry:
In realizational terms this -lət alone mak...Sorry:<br /><br />In realizational terms this -lət alone makes the first set distinctive with respect to the second, but not vice versa.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-45152474913871143872011-03-28T10:50:42.212+01:002011-03-28T10:50:42.212+01:00Oh John, you don't believe me! But I did try t...Oh John, you don't believe me! But I did try to be careful and change "this is actually distinctive" to "this can actually be distinctive". I fumbled it, but for me this would only have been a belt-and-braces job, because I think the concept of distinctiveness already covers cases where they are <i>not</i>consistently perceived as different. To establish different lexical identities for them we only need to demonstrate that one set of allomorphs contains a form with -lət and the other doesn't. The rest is ising on the cake. In realizational terms this -lət alone makes the first set distinctive with respect to the first, but not vice versa.<br /><br />As for perception tests on a speaker who uses ɪ rather than ə in the allomorphs in question, speaking as one myself I would say the degree of distinctiveness would depend on the prominence of the secondary stress (in what after all are obviously compounds) and the difference in tempo, and even for me it's only a potential distinctiveness: I doubt if it's consistent in rapid speech, and these pairs are not exactly commonplace. I couldn’t even guarantee to perceive it in artificial instances such as snippets of my own speech, but if people like me did get significantly significant results, you seem to have been implying all along that you would say the difference is attributable to [±strong], in conformity with the British tradition of not attributing these things to stress. And the only way you could actually <i>determine</i> which of the alternatives you mention it's attributable to is the way you set your phonology up.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-3804896187722943522011-03-28T08:35:01.618+01:002011-03-28T08:35:01.618+01:00To take a pair involving a more familiar word, I&#...To take a pair involving a more familiar word, I'd love to see someone carry out perception tests on <i>starlit</i> vs. <i>starlet</i> (choosing a speaker who uses <b>ɪ</b> rather than <b>ə</b> in the latter). But I'm not really sure how, if they are consistently perceived as different (which is by no means certain), we would then determine whether the difference is attributable to [±stress] or [±strong], or to the effect of different kinds of morphological boundary.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-49964538942156710362011-03-27T23:37:14.841+01:002011-03-27T23:37:14.841+01:00For a lot of people, including me, this is can act...For a lot of people, including me, this is can actually be distinctive in moonlit ˈmuːnˌlɪt ~ moonlet ˈmuːnlɪt, and not including me, but I think in some AmE, for ˈperˌmit (permission) ~ ˈpermit (the fish). Again with cases like these Australian Rules give ɪ~ə for strong~weak. I don't see how the British tradition can regard them all as unstressed.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-63242556350021282772011-03-27T21:15:37.962+01:002011-03-27T21:15:37.962+01:00Yes, I think you've identified an interesting ...Yes, I think you've identified an interesting bit of optionality there. I am aware of both possibilities even without t-voicing. Again it's a question of the possibility of secondary stress for me, with the manifestation of that being apparent in the possibility of greater length for both vowels and a slower tempo overall. Like Lipman I have always got the impression that AmE has a stronger tendency for secondary accent, and not just because of less reduction, which I think would be getting the cart before the horse-and-cart. What to him sounds like a compound sec-'n-dairy sounds to me like a compound of two phonological words sekn-derj (to be really annoying and treat the i analogously to the n), and I call it two phonotagms with the paraphonotactic stress on the first. I have no idea how this pans out for the Australian Proof, but it would be nice if it correlated with the ɪ~ə alternation for strong~weak.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-57981509291312455732011-03-27T13:17:11.119+01:002011-03-27T13:17:11.119+01:00So is there a strong ɪ in autism? I say [ˈɑtɪzm̩] ...So is there a strong ɪ in autism? I say [ˈɑtɪzm̩] even though I have t-voicing elsewhere, like in nautical. Maybe this has to do with morpheme boundaries?<br /><br />Pretty sure I've heard other Americans say autism with the voiced version, however. Actually both ways sound a little weird to me.elishanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-76986026507275398242011-03-26T11:41:15.634+00:002011-03-26T11:41:15.634+00:00vp,
Rosie's - roses - Rosa's. No thanks, W...vp,<br />Rosie's - roses - Rosa's. No thanks, Wikipedia. Not for JHJ's reason, but because I have /ɪ/ in "Rosie's" and "roses".<br /><br />«… account for potential minimal pairs such as "Andy's - Andes" by postulating secondary stress in the latter.»<br /><br />I did that last time round, and I think I explained even then that I would have to treat the latter type as two phonotagms, which is how I account for secondary stress, among all the other things. I am delighted to say I can now reveal that I think both "Andy's" and "Andes" have two syllables.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-55496393516611549152011-03-25T18:20:32.707+00:002011-03-25T18:20:32.707+00:00@vp: pretty much everywhere (modernish) RP has it,...@vp: pretty much everywhere (modernish) RP has it, I think, <i>except</i> in -es and -ed plurals and verb forms. (Certainly in every other example mentioned in JW's blog today and the comments. The other group of exceptions would be words where I have a strong DRESS vowel before a consonant cluster, like one word in this sentence.)<br /><br />Northern English, "near RP". TRAP=BATH, but not FOOT=STRUT. Also not NORTH=FORCE.JHJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257258313943639485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-59107208657784658032011-03-25T18:12:27.376+00:002011-03-25T18:12:27.376+00:00vp
with the proviso that some accents merge unstr...vp<br /><br /><i>with the proviso that some accents merge unstressed KIT with commA.<br /></i><br /><br />Most accents merge NORTH with FORCE, but John still gave us the two lexical sets.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-64154690131323055462011-03-25T18:10:23.039+00:002011-03-25T18:10:23.039+00:00@JHJ:
there are many of us who retain the schwa/w...@JHJ:<br /><br /><i>there are many of us who retain the schwa/weak /ɪ/ distinction but have the former in "roses" (and "taxes" and "waited")</i><br /><br />Oh, really? I did not know that. What words would have unstressed /ɪ/ in your variety? And what kind of accent would you describe yourself as having?vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-51786508735798350062011-03-25T17:40:06.505+00:002011-03-25T17:40:06.505+00:00@vp: that's not dialect-independent, because t...@vp: that's not dialect-independent, because there are many of us who retain the schwa/weak /ɪ/ distinction but have the former in "roses" (and "taxes" and "waited").<br /><br />I also don't think it makes much sense to talk about the second vowel in "rabbit" as weak, at least in accents like mine. The rhythm of that word seems to me to be the same as that of "Nissan", which has the same two vowel phonemes in the opposite order. (I've probably now demonstrated that I'm neither Australian nor American.) Similarly, I feel the first /ɪ/ in "armistice" is weak but the second one is strong.<br /><br />In general, is there any hope of a rule which tells us when an /ɪ/ is weak, just based on the stress pattern, the other phonemes and morpheme boundaries? If not it always seems like a somewhat messy point.JHJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257258313943639485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-69065976676466613902011-03-25T16:15:26.476+00:002011-03-25T16:15:26.476+00:00I would describe the second vowel in rabbit as a s...<i>I would describe the second vowel in rabbit as a strong but unstressed KIT vowel — distinct, as you say, from both the happY vowel and the commA vowel</i><br /><br />That would be fair enough -- with the proviso that some accents merge unstressed KIT with commA.<br /><br />If we're going down that road, we may as well describe happY as an unstressed FLEECE vowel (with the proviso that some accents, such as traditional RP, merge unstressed FLEECE with unstressed KIT). One could account for potential minimal pairs such as "Andy's - Andes" by postulating secondary stress in the latter.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-3207355167143393572011-03-25T16:04:38.590+00:002011-03-25T16:04:38.590+00:00It's funny that gymnast ˈdʒɪmnæst and milkman ...It's funny that <i>gymnast</i> ˈdʒɪmnæst and <i>milkman</i> ˈmɪlkmən are given as examples; my pronunciations are exactly opposite: ˈʤɪmnəst and ˈmɪlkmæn. My pronunciations for <i>Finland</i> and <i>snowman</i> match, though.<br /><br />Incidentally, my AmE stressed <i>from</i> is frʌm.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14323047226383220102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-42625378739137236522011-03-25T15:35:52.152+00:002011-03-25T15:35:52.152+00:00As Veronica rightly points out, the KIT vowel seem...<em>As Veronica rightly points out, the KIT vowel seems to present something of a problem, since <strong>ɪ</strong> can be either strong or weak. In bridge it is obviously strong; but in the ending -ed, as in waited <strong>ˈweɪtɪd</strong>, it is obviously weak, competing as it does with the <strong>ed</strong> sometimes used in formal singing style.</em><br /><br />Funny you should mention strong and weak <strong>ɪ</strong>. I was just thinking the other day how pointless the <em>NED</em> (<em>OED</em>1) symbol <strong>ĭ</strong> was - a 'reduced' form of the ideal vowel <strong>i</strong> (IPA <strong>ɪ</strong>), the reduced form being pronounced <strong>ɪ</strong>! In theory, weak <strong>ɪ</strong> corresponds to <strong>ĭ</strong>, <strong><em>ĭ</em></strong>, or <strong>ė</strong> in <em>NED</em> transcription. Sadly, the editors don't seem to have been aware of the subtleties mentioned in this blog-entry: <em>finishing</em> is <strong>fi·niʃiŋ</strong>, <em>rabbit</em> is <strong>ræ·bit</strong>, and <em>armistice</em> is <strong>ā·ɹmistis</strong>.<em></em>Steve Doerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410868047916610730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-53488205063604255202011-03-25T15:31:29.839+00:002011-03-25T15:31:29.839+00:00vp
I would describe the second vowel in rabbit as...vp<br /><br />I would describe the second vowel in <i>rabbit</i> as a strong but unstressed <b>KIT</b> vowel — distinct, as you say, from both the <b><i>happ</i>Y</b> vowel and the <b><i>comm</i>A</b> vowel.<br />25 March 2011 15:22David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-87629243326467500672011-03-25T15:18:58.857+00:002011-03-25T15:18:58.857+00:00To me, AmE, even of the East Coast varieties, seem...To me, AmE, even of the East Coast varieties, seems to have a strong tendency for secondary accent, not just because of less reduction. Secondary sounds like a compound sec-'n-dairy.<br /><br />I like the idea that <i>gentlemen</i> is gentlem[ə]n in the basic form and gentlem[e]n in the vocative case. (The singular would be gentlem[ə]n and <i>sir</i>.)Phillip Mindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16801818752833289089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-54410670352840275532011-03-25T15:02:23.532+00:002011-03-25T15:02:23.532+00:00Although NID3 and its descendant m-w.com recognize...Although NID3 and its descendant m-w.com recognize <i>milkman</i> with a weak vowel as a secondary pronunciation, AHD4 and RHD2 do not, and a strong vowel is my own usage.<br /><br />VP: I don't think AmE has secondary stress any more than BrE does. Words in <i>-ary</i> are /-eɪri ~ ɛri/, with (in my view) a strong but unstressed vowel. Compare <i>infantry</i>, which had a very similar suffix <i>-ery</i>, but is now trisyllabic in both varieties.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-32189815333812959442011-03-25T14:27:41.071+00:002011-03-25T14:27:41.071+00:00can't think of a dialect-independent minimal t...<i>can't think of a dialect-independent minimal triple</i><br /><br />Rosie's - roses - Rosa's. Thanks, Wikipedia.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-22248236798830490502011-03-25T14:23:11.219+00:002011-03-25T14:23:11.219+00:00So why not speak of the KIT vowel and the happY vo...<i>So why not speak of the KIT vowel and the happY vowel?</i><br /><br />For some of us the <b>rabbIt</b> vowel is distinct from both the <b>happY</b> vowel and the <b>commA</b> vowel. For non-rhotics, a minimal triple would be "taxis-taxes-taxers" -- can't think of a dialect-independent minimal triple.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.com