Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The phonology (pronunciation system) of American English.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Humanities » Languages and Linguistics Group Donate to DU
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-03-09 11:19 PM
Original message
The phonology (pronunciation system) of American English.
In the Germanic Languages, including English, the distinction between P, T, and K on one hand and B, D, and G is not a simple voiceless-voiced distinction as in, say, French. Instead the first set, called "fortis", are unvoiced AND aspirated (have an H-like puff of air after it) at the beginning of a syllable and have glottal reinforcement (a catch in the vocal cords) and the end of the syllable. The latter set, called "lenis" is "just" voiced.

But in some dialects, including my own Upper Midwestern one, the voicing contrast has disappeared, B, D, and G can be either voiced or unvoiced depending on the sounds surrounding them, the contrast has become purely one of aspiration/glottalization in the "fortis" plosive consonants and lack of it in the "lenis" ones.

Something I noticed while working on my Spanish pronunciation.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
ZombieNixon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-23-09 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. The prevailing trend (in American English, at any rate)
is for word-final post-vocalic voiceless consonants to adopt a more voiced, or lenis articulation. Personally, I attribute this to the inherent "voiced" quality of a vower coupled with the laziness of the tongue.

Ex. The phrase "pick it up," when said rapidly, sounds more and more like "pig id ub" unless you consciously try to articulate the voicelessness of the final consonants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-25-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I find recently that I'm constantly
correcting my pronunciation of words that end in 'ing'. I'll drop the g, then correct myself. And in the somewhat distant past I'm certain that I almost always pronounced that final g. I think I'm experience part of the shift in pronunciation that is inevitable in language, except that I'm noticing it.

I've been watching the old Alfred Hitchcock Hour (it's available through the NBC website) which were originally aired in the early 1960's and especially if I watch them in close sequence (two in a row, or at least one each three days running) I become aware that there was a slightly different accent common to the actors then that doesn't seem to exist now. It's subtle, and I'd be hard pressed to describe it accurately as I'm not a linguist, but there's a slight difference in vowels sounds and emphasis that again, I only notice if I watch several shows in close time to each other.

The shift in American accents is somewhat more noticeable if you go back and watch movies made before 1950. And it's not just the actors, try to find recordings of ordinary citizens from back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-26-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Actually, "-in' " was the original pronunciation for the present participle suffix.
The -ing suffix had two origins in Old English:

The present participle ending -ende

The Gerund (verbal noun) ending -unge



by Middle English they had simplified to -in' (spelled -en, like in German) and -ing and the pronunciations began to become confused (partly because of Welsh influence, Welsh uses the same ending for both the present particle and gerund). Status-conscious middle-class Early Modern English speakers eventually settled on -ing as the "proper" pronunciation because it matched the spelling. But in reality EVERYONE except the pronunciation Nazis normally says -in'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 12th 2014, 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Humanities » Languages and Linguistics Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC