Linguistic Discussion of Pronunciation Issues
From LiteracyTentWiki
This discussion is a complilation of two discussion threds posted to the English Language discussion list (EnglishLangauge@nifl.gov) in January, 2007
Bonnita,
You West Coast accent has nothing to do with saying a [t] at the end of "jumped". As you know, the [t] ending is the correct one following the voiceless sound [p] + "ed". "Precious" could have variations. How do you pronounce "groceries"? I say [grosheries].
Nicole B. Graves The Center for New Americans Amherst, Greenfield, Northampton, MA
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 8 19:04:45 EST 2007
Hi Nicole: I strongly believed the "t" of "ed" sound after the voiceless "p" was pretty much universal in the US, but I was giving the benefit of the doubt. I agree about precious; I pronounce "groceries" as "groshries". I know there are variations, but it seems to me this system has too many "variations". Have you looked through "Truespel"? Does your program serve ESl students; if so, what pronnciation system do you use? And what is your opinion of TrueSpel for ESOL adults? Bonnita
From: Tom Zurinskas truespel at hotmail.com Tue Jan 9 11:37:30 EST 2007
Nicole is right (I think) that most accents replace the d with a t-sound for
"jumped" (~jumpt or even ~jumt). Perhaps those who say the "p" also say the
"d", but I think most folks don't say the "p" either. Sooo I left the "d"
in there to show past tense as per usual tradspel (traditional spelling).
There are a lot of t/d switches and truespel's "Beginner's Dictionary of USA
English" (authorhouse.com) shows them as alternative pronunciations. Most
prevalent is the d for t switch in USA accent, such as "budder" for
"butter". This book is actually the complete Voice of America intermediate
dictionary with a truespel pronunciation guide inserted where no guide was
prevalent (with permission).
Tom Zurinskas, USA
From: mary mschnec at localnet.com Tue Jan 9 16:56:35 EST 2007
Regarding the various pronunciations of our past tense "ed":
The widely used Wilson reading program which I taught for many years teaches one signifier or spelling for our regular past tense: ed, but it teaches three pronunciations for this single spelling:
T as in jumped, walked, cooked
D as in spilled, watered
ED as in pasted, posted, completed
Mary
From: Steinbacher, Mikal msteinbacher at cascadia.ctc.edu Tue Jan 9 17:17:12 EST 2007
I give my students one simple rule .. if the verb you are adding "ed" to ends in the sound /t/ or /d/, then it is pronounced /id/. If the verb ends in any other sound, "ed" is not pronounced /id/. The /t/ and /d/ pronounciations of "ed" are hard to mess up because the voiced/unvoiced pronunciation of "ed" some how just happen right. But /id/ is very easy to add to any verb! I have a handout that gives them practice and the "rules" in writing ...
From: Thomas N. Robb trobb at cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp Sat Jan 13 21:50:37 EST 2007
What is happening with the /d/, compared with /t/, endings is technically
called "devoicing". The "voiced consonants" such as /b/, /d/, /g/ and /v/
tend not to be fully voiced at the end of words, so they end up sounding
pretty much like their unvoiced counterparts /p/, /t/, /k/, and /f/. We
can't really say that they become the same, however, because if the
following word begins with a vowel, then the full voicing is heard.
Compare:
He jumped.
He jumped in.
Cheers, Tom Robb, Japan
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 14 22:35:31 EST 2007
Thomas: I got it! Thanks for bringing in the academic/technical aspect of this conversation. The practitioner positively benefits from a context to surround their wisdom. I am learning a lot just being on this list. Bonnita
From: Tom Zurinskas truespel at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 10:51:56 EST 2007
Thanks Tom, good points. My problem was how to phonetically spell "jumped"
in truespel. (Someone said the books say ~jumpt, which started this
discussion). I decided on ~jumpd. It retains the "d" to show past tense.
It is mostly spoken "d" in flowing speech. Saying ~jumpt four times fast is
much more a strain (to get that aspiration in at the end of "t") than
~jumpd. This shows that ~d is easier to say, and speech tends to lean to
the easiest pronunciation.
Tom Zurinskas, USA
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 15 17:31:02 EST 2007
The "t" sound of "ed" at the end of a word indicates past tense, as does the sound "d" or "ed" or "id". I have not heard anyone in an American English conversation say "jumped" four times in a row, so this point escapes me. Although the sound "d" for "ed" at the end of a word is, in some cases, easier to say, this example does not support that "sometimes." In this case it is a contortion of American English to say "jumpd", which is neither easy or used in "flowing" speech.
From: Steinbacher, Mikal msteinbacher at cascadia.ctc.edu Tue Jan 16 16:27:53 EST 2007
And I agree .. the unvoiced/voiced rule works automatically for /t/ and /d/ "ed" pronunciation .. to try to twist the unvoiced "ed" to /d/ is not logical and darn near impossible to do ... I'm not familiar with truspel but from what I've read here, it is a phonetic system of spelling and every dictionary I've every used has the phonetic spelling of jumped as /jumpt/ .
From: Tom Zurinskas truespel at hotmail.com Tue Jan 16 21:55:19 EST 2007
Dictionaries can be consistently wrong on some issues. I found this out by
respelling English in truespel phonetic notation. Maybe our pronunciation
has evolved. For instance listen to m-w.com's (a great resource)
pronunciation of butter and better. Those t's are spoken as d's and this
does sound like typical USA pronunciation. But the m-w.com phonetics has
"t" not "d". Truespel Beginner's Dictionary (authorhouse.com) possibly is
the only dictionary that gives the "d" pronunciaton as an alternate.
As for "jumped", if you follow it with a preposition such as in, on, over, across, which is often done, you need the d to get the spoken sound right before the vowel beginning the next word, not t as someone pointed out. That's enough for me to keep it ~jumpd not ~jumpt.
Tom Zurinskas, USA
From: Bruce Moon bmoon at teachertech.us Wed Jan 17 09:09:17 EST 2007
When I took an advanced linguistics class many years ago, we used an
acoustical spectrograph to analyze these kinds of issues. For example, I worked with a Korean speaker to look at plosive stops and compared them to the English stops. I can't help but believe that someone has already done that with final "d" or the books would have been changed long ago. The graphic analysis of speech/music that appears in the free program, Audacity, resembles an acoustical spectrograph; perhaps you could use that to look at the sounds yourself. Record some speakers of English other than yourself, making the various final sounds in context of sentences and see what the analysis shows. You talk about using "d" to get the sound of prepositions with initial vowels "right". What is "right"? I would think that "right" is the way that native speakers of the language speak the sound. When I try to insert the "d" sound, I don't get a standard sound. Is this different for speakers of other varieties of English besides American? I am not sure, but I doubt it.
Bruce Moon ESL Teacher Rio Linda, CA
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 17 10:51:28 EST 2007
I understand you have vested interest in keeping your system as you have developed it in truespel, but even this example does not hold true to your expectations. If "jumped" is followed by a prepostion, it maintains its sound of "t" else it would be contorted into "jummed over". In American English, the sound of "p" is lost with the final sound of "d". Across the board, "jumped" is pronounced "jumpt" in American English. Is m-w.com based on British English? The sound of "tt" as "dd" in butter and better is the first pronunciation, not an alternate pronunciation, in American English.
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 17 11:05:56 EST 2007
Addendum: I searched for m-w.com to access the Mirraim Webster Dictionary. Interesting: m-w writes the sound of "tt" as "t', but when I clicked on the sound button, it was pronounced as a "d" sound, not a "t".
From: John Nissen jn at cloudworld.co.uk Thu Jan 18 12:03:19 EST 2007
Hello Bonnita and all,
I think I can speak for British English.
Here we do not soften the 't'. So there's no problem distinguishing 'matter' from 'madder'. When teaching to spell and to read, we would separate words and speak them clearly. So 'laughed' would definitely sound with /t/. And you'd hear the /p/ in 'jumped'.
For spelling you have to teach that the /t/, /d/ and /i,d/ endings are nearly always spelt 'ed' for verbs in the past tense or past participle. Note that, if you remove the ending you should be left with the root verb. We allow 't' for /t/ for some verbs, as in 'learnt', 'leant', 'spelt', 'smelt', 'spilt', and (as in US) 'dreamt', although the 'ed' are OK, as in 'learned' etc. Where the root verb ends in 'll', the past is either 'lt' or 'lled'.
Words like 'blessed' and 'learned' can be with /t/ or /i,d/, but this can change the meaning slightly. This is for advanced learners!
Words ending /i,d/ which are _not_ verbs will usually have 'id' as in 'rapid'. (Shouldn't this be 'rappid' to keep the sort /a/?) But 'wicked' is spelt with 'ed'. (Any other examples?)
Note that 'varied' has root 'vary' with /i/, so a second /i/ for the 'ed' ending is not necessary.
BTW, the http://www.m-w.com/ is definitely American English. For example one meaning of "lift" is given as (mainly British) "elevator". (On my first trip to US, arriving very jet-lagged at the hotel, I asked for the lifts, and got very strange looks.)
Cheers,
John
John Nissen Cloudworld Ltd - http://www.cloudworld.co.uk maker of the assistive reader, WordAloud. Try WordAloud with synthetic phonics: http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/teaching-synthetic-phonics.htm
From: sandees32605 at aol.com sandees32605 at aol.com Thu Jan 18 12:17:11 EST 2007
Jumping into this thread at a late date, but......... why not use standard pronunciation texts/references intended for NNS or at least the material included in even a elementary linguistics course? Not that you need to burden your students with esoteric detail, but surely the teacher can use his/her own linguistic knowledge to inform explanations/modeling provided students.
Dictionaries/pronunciation systems developed for native speakers will of course be totally inadequate for ELLs as will any system that focuses on individual words/syllables and ignores the importance of stress and intonation in chunks of language.
Best, Sue Sandeen ESOL Gainesville, FL USA
From: Nicole Graves cnaamh at rcn.com Tue Jan 16 21:33:14 EST 2007
I agree with Bonnita.
Nicole
From: Nestor, Megan megann at seattleu.edu Tue Jan 16 19:18:10 EST 2007
Hi Thomas. What's happening in the pronunciation of the phrase "He jumped in" is a result of American English pronunciation and linking. If a word ends in a consonant sound, and the next word begins in a vowel sound, those two sounds are linked. Examples:
He's angry = He sangry Keep up = Kee pup
Also, in American English, when a "t" falls between two vowel sounds, it sounds like /d/. So, in speaking, the phrase sounds something like this:
"He jump din"
Another example where you hear a "t" become /d/:
Put it away = pu did away
Hope that helps,
Megan
From: Tom Zurinskas truespel at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:23:00 EST 2007
Thanks Megan,
Exactly. That's why truespel for "jumped" has ~jumpd, not ~jumpt as someone who started this thread said it should be according to "the books".
The "Beginner's Dictionary of USA English: Truespel Book 3" is the only dictionary I know of that shows at least an alternate pronunciation with the ~d for "t" substitution that you've pointed out.
Tom Zurinskas, USA
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 18 11:56:34 EST 2007
Megan: I understand your explanation of linking and "jumped in" is a case of linking. However, the pronunciation given is not usual American English linking. In your example of "jump din" you indicate the "p" is voiced, which it is not. The linked pronunciation in American English is "jum tin", with the /p/ unvoiced and "ed" pronounced /t/. To give this word a /d/ sound, it would be pronounced "jumm din". Bonnita
From: zazie zazee27 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 02:19:41 EST 2007
It is not the case that certain "accents" *replace*
the /d/ sound with a /t/ sound after an unvoiced
consonent (when spelling seems to indicate a /d/
sound, for example, in a past tense). The only way to
make a voiced sound would be to add another syllable.
We hear this today only in archaic language such as
that of the Christmas carol, "The First Noel":
They look-ed up and saw a star....
This is the only way a /d/ sound can be added to the unvoiced /k/. If these words originally had the extra syllable, that pronunciation has been lost over time, so that now the past tense is indicated with a /t/ sound (after unvoiced consonents K, F, P, S, although it is still written with "ed." looked laughed stopped erased After the unvoiced sound of T itself, we of course must make an extra syllable ("waited," for example) as it is impossible to say "waitd."
It helps to think of sound first, and writing (orthography) as what illustrates the sound (to some degree), rather than the other way around. English is not the only language that presents such problems. If you learned French by ear only, you'd have a shock when you then had to write it. What you might have expected to be written as (using English spelling for convenience):
seh lu pree
is really
c'est le prix
Were the final letters once pronounced and now lost? Or are they something separate from speech? Chicken or egg?
Zazie
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 10 10:10:40 EST 2007
Dear Colleagues: Pronunciation is such an important issue in ESL. This is the second time in the short time I have been a poster that this subject has come up and has received so many responses. Are telling ourselves something? Bonnita
From: Tom Zurinskas truespel at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 10 21:57:57 EST 2007
This probably is not the place for linguistic haggles, but I do take issue
with the idea that the ending d is pronounced as t as shown below. It may
be true of some accents, but I still think it is a d. The tongue is behind
the top gums (alveolar ridge) for an ending "d" and this is typical for an
ending d. For a t it's behind the teeth.
There is some linguistic theory that a "d" is voiced. So if the sound made at the end of a word (say "washed") is not voiced, it must be a "t". I don't agree with that either. I believe a "d" is unvoiced followed quickly by voice, but the plosive part (which is the d) is not voiced. Aslo, the "d" at the end of a word is said with tongue behind top gums and is not voiced.
Accents will vary, but if you say that plosive sound (at the end of "washed") with tongue behind top gums and without the aspiration that comes with a t (behind the teeth), then you're saying a d not a t.
I'll gladly take this up with linguists in another forum. Where shall we go.
Tom Zurinskas, USA
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 11 11:59:03 EST 2007
When the "d" of the unvoiced "p" is sounded, it a definite "t" sound with the teeth coming together, not the tongue held behind the top gums. If it is pronounced as a "d" sound, it becomes "jummd". The other difference is that the unvoiced "p" is almost a pause before the "t" is sounded, which is the way of unvoiced "p", thus the "m" is not held as long as for "d" is pronounced "d". With the sound of "d" it becomes "jummd" as in the word "summed", opposed to "jumt" with the "d" sounded as "t". That's my professional wisdom analysis.
From: Nicole Graves cnaamh at rcn.com Thu Jan 11 16:54:23 EST 2007
The last sound in "wash" before the ed is added is a [sh] sound which is
voiceless. Following a voiceless final sound before the past ending, the
[t] is produced. This is not a question of accent, it is an actual rule
that you can find in pronunciation books.
Nicole
From: Tom Zurinskas truespel at hotmail.com Thu Jan 11 18:05:31 EST 2007
Problem comes in sentences. If you say "I want a shirt" the "t" is loud and
clear in front of the word "a" (Unless it's said "wanna"). But if you say
"I washed a shirt", it's "d" not "t" in front of the word "a".
Tom Zurinskas, USA
From: Bonnita Solberg bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 11 23:20:21 EST 2007
The "t" sound in front of "a" (without saying "wanna") in the sentence "I want a shirt" is not loud and clear in American English, but is loud and clear in British English. It becomes, " I wan a shirt" in American English, with a slight hiatuse at the "n" before "shirt", a stop insted of pronouncing the "t". In the sentence, "I washed a shirt", the sound is still a "t". To make the "ed" sound as "d" is a feat of the tongue that I cannot perform without accentuating the "d" sound into a contortion of American English pronunciation. Bonnita
From: Missy Slaathaug mslaathaug at midco.net Fri Jan 12 11:27:05 EST 2007
I agree as well. It’s a good strategy and very useful for the students.
I also teach reduced and rapid everyday pronunciation for recognition
and stress that they shouldn’t try to speak this way themselves. When I
worked with university level students, we taught the same thing. Even
if the student can master the rapid pronunciation of some of the forms
(wanna and gonna) and sound half decent, it sets up a whole new set of
expectations from the conversation partner that the speaker is more
fluent than they really are. The native speaker shifts their speech to
a more natural everyday register and the international speaker may
quickly get lost.
Missy
From: zazie zazee27 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 02:09:46 EST 2007
I find the problem is actually this: students will have picked up the "wanna" and "gonna" verbalizations (for "want to" and "going to") either through their own perception or from being taught. But whereas native speakers use these when speaking in a rapid, more casual style, the ESL speaker uses them all the time (probably the ESL speaker only has one style of English, anyhow). So this person will be speaking clear, careful English, usually with some formal language, and then throw in "gonna" and it sounds very odd. I am not talking about people in my classes so much as more advanced speakers I have heard. When I taught ESL/EFL I too taught these as forms to recognize, not necessarily to emulate, for the same reasons mentioned: that you don't want to make it any harder for the native speakers to understand you.
From: Steinbacher, Mikal msteinbacher at cascadia.ctc.edu Fri Jan 12 11:01:09 EST 2007
This issue is mitigated if one consistantly reminds ESL students to "slow down" when speaking in English to make sure they get all of the sounds said. I find if students try to speak English with the speed they speak their own ... I have a problem understanding them, and if I, who am used to listening to non-native speakers, have a problem understanding them, others will too.
I also suggest to them that if they speak slowly and clearly, those they are talking to will respond in kind, thus helping them understand what is being said to them. I've had many students tell me that it works.
I demonstrate the reduced pronunctiation of want to, wanna; going to, gonna, etc. and advise them to NOT speak that way .. because it will make it more difficult for others to understand them. And I try to model slow and clear speaking in class, asking students to signal me when I'm speaking too fast for them to understand me clearly. It works.
Return to AleESOLWholeDiscussion
