15

This is a well-written argument, but I think it's mistaken to conclude that they are the same phoneme; or, more to the point, I think this is a case that highlights a limit of phoneme/allophone analysis. Indeed, the same argument can also be used to show that /ə/ and /ʊ/ are allophones of the same phoneme: there cannot be a minimal pair because of the ...


11

Unfortunately, there is no straightforward syllabification method that is accepted by a majority of linguists. As you pointed out, different dictionaries provide different syllabification methods. Usually, syllabification is considered from a phonological point of view (a phonetic perspective is possible but less common, see below). Most linguistics can ...


8

This style of counting is often used when the one counting aloud is in an adversarial relationship to other listeners. The addition of the "filler" word is, no doubt, at the request of the adversary to slow down the speaker. Imagine two children. They both agree that one will close his eyes and "count to 10" or "count for 10 seconds" while the other hides....


7

The dirty little secret of English is that syllable boundaries mostly do not matter (unlike other languages). What is important is the syllable nuclei which are easily identified either as the vowel or a syllabic consonant (such as / n / in 'sudden'.) As @robert says, the Onset Maximization Principle is most commonly adopted when trying to determine which ...


7

PIE isn't particularly relevant, because logic is a borrowed word, not a word that has been transmitted to English by inheritance from PIE. The Oxford English Dictionary's earliest citation for the noun logic is from 1362 (with the spelling "logyk"). It gives the etymology as follows: Etymology: < French logique (13th cent.), < medieval ...


6

BE like is not an integrated collocation meaning SAY. Rather, like is a “discourse marker” which signals that what follows is worthy of particular emphasis or peculiar interpretation. John was [like [totally excited about it]]. John was [like [jumping up and down]]. John was [like [“I’ll come”]]. In the ‘quotative’ version, like indicates that what ...


6

[ə] and [ʌ] are allophones of a single phoneme. Schwa appears in an unstressed syllable and wedge appears in a stressed syllable. Because of this complementarity, it is not possible to find minimal pairs distinguishing the vowel. However, the analysis has to be performed on phonetic transcriptions and not an assumed phonemic reduction of the phonetics, thus ...


6

My guess is that this is not a matter of the language, but rather of the sound quality. Most films come with the original audio in (American) English where the actors speak right during the acting into the microphone placed somewhere in the background at the set. Synchronisations in other languages, however, are recorded in a studio where the synchronisers ...


6

The problem is that "minimal pair" refers to two distinct words in one language signified by the choice of one vs. another sound. So minimal pairs are not what you want. You want a list of "same word" pair between the dialects. The Oxford English Dictionary is pretty much the definitive work on English (you may need to access the online version, which gives ...


6

It is well documented that a schwa can be very reduced, and significantly decreased in duration so that it is under 20 msc. The amplitude of the vowel is significantly greater than that of preceding [ð], which gives you a diagnostic for identifying a remnant of a vowel. The test would be to look an numerous tokens of "the bus" to see if the vowel is ever ...


5

There is a good rule for determining whether to use a [j] (like the first sound in yes) or [w] to link two words like this. The first thing you need to know is that the choice depends on the first vowel and not the second. Therefore in terms of the Original Poster's question, the choice is determined by /i/ at the end of the word be, and not by the beginning ...


5

The technical terms in articulatory phonetics for "tipper" and "dipper" are apical and laminal. They are both voiceless alveolar fricatives (IPA: [s]), but since "alveolar" only describes the passive place of articulation, voiceless alveolar fricatives can take many forms, as the Wikipedia article you linked to discusses in detail. Whenever the distinction ...


4

There is generally no single policy across different countries as to what English is taught across the board. Countries in Europe and Asia default to British English - the most popular textbooks (Headway, Matters, etc.) are based on British English. I imagine this may be different in Latin American countries - but I have no data on this. A very common ...


4

I could find no studies looking at the closeness of British and American dialects of English. But I would say that the question is formulated too nebulously to make it possible to answer easily. There are studies that show dialect leveling (or reduction in regional variation) within British and American English. But this is always illustrated on specific ...


4

For a minimal pair to contrast /ə/ and /ʌ/, how about: "subversion" meaning an act of subverting, and "subversion" as in version 1 subversion 1.2.


4

Your question doesn't really have an answer. For me, there is a contrast between the weak form of just meaning recently, /dʒəst/, and the word just meaning fair, /dʒʌst/. I use the weak form of just almost all the time, and the vowel is definitely different from the one I use in just, meaning fair. So I perceive them as different phonemes. But many ...


4

There are obscure British accents where words spelled with eigh like eight can have a different vowel from words spelled with "long a" like late or words spelled with ay/ai/ey/ei. This is not technically a split, but the lack of a merger that is present in nearly all other accents of English. Historically, eight had a fricative consonant [ç] before the [t],...


4

In England the “Received Pronunciation” (RP) of “ate” is [ɛt], so it is not the same as “eight” [eit]. But the difference that you make, and that you perceive, is clearly based on the orthography: where you see a diphthong you pronounce (and imagine to hear) a diphthong.


4

The thing you call "double l" is more generally known as "dark l", and this topic has been researched (inconclusively) for decades. The classic study of the question is Sproat & Fujimura 1993 "Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation". One problem is that there isn't a well-defined and obvious boundary ...


4

In most dialects of American English, medial /t/ and /d/ are indistinguishable in most environments: both are realized as [ɾ]. Before a syllabic /n̩/, however, they remain distinct: /t/ becomes glottalized to some extent, while /d/ never does. For me, the glottalization is complete, and I realize "bitten" as [bɪʔn̩] (versus "bidden" [bɪɾn̩]). For others, it'...


4

Phonetically, I would say no. Here's a plot of this final vowel (taken from about 12.75 seconds into the linked video). It's not a great plot, since the recording quality I'm using isn't great, but it'll work for our purposes. Acoustically, vowels are determined by values called formants, which appear as horizontal black bars in the spectrum. The red dots ...


4

Both are dialects of the same language. It's impossible to establish which one is 'correct' scientifically. That's a matter of taste. The Received Pronunciation (a.k.a. standard British English) tends to have greater prestige than the Standard American English dialect. Still, there's no way to tell which one is correct objectively. You might want to read ...


3

Do you mean hard to pronounce after hearing how it's pronounced or after just seeing it written? If the latter, I must say as a Brit who's never seen that name before, I wonder how to break the word up. Do I say the 'uy' as in Spanish 'muy' or as in English 'buy', for example?


3

Phonetic changes ("sound changes") are generally arbitrary (or done under the influence of other languages, but we'll just say arbitrary for now, at least on the surface, and definitely for our needs as well) and this is fairly uncontroversial. Phonetic changes are also unavoidable, and are a constant, rather than an exceptional alteration, and all speaker ...


3

I'm a native speaker of American English, and none of the examples you have given strikes me as marked in any way. I don't know what the latest discourse-structure-based theories of focus would say about these examples, but my intuition is that they illustrate focus avoidance on "given" constituents. men, food, and guy are somehow "given" in their ...


3

There is no straightforward definition of what constitutes a native speaker. This is partly because there's no straightforward definition of what constitutes a language. There are vast differences between the ability of even highly educated monolinguals to utilize the complete resources of a given language. Once you factor in education, register and dialect, ...


3

I think the academic phonological analysis is true only to a small extent. It's more social than physiological: to be palatable to American audiences, and because of the American vernacular being strongly associated with blues and rock n' roll. You can't sing “ain't nothin' but a hound dog” in any accent other than the original, otherwise it sounds weird. ...


3

your America friends are having fun with you. Nobody does this, unless they have hearing problems, the soundtrack is muddy, or they're in a noisy environment like a bar. native speakers of American English are just people, no different than native speakers of any lsnguage. as for spelling, it is complete irrelevant. native speakers never need guidance ...


3

There is a clear dispreference for using contractions in term papers and journal publications, and a clear preference for using 'em in ordinary conversation. There's an extremely strong dispreference for contracting future will when the point is to deny a claim that some event won't happen, so it would be bizarre to say "No, he'LL bring it back". In mixed ...


3

In multiple languages, including French, Old English, and Italian, /ɡ/ generally palatalizes to [dʒ] before a high vowel or palatal sound. This is where the "soft G" in English comes from. In this case, Latin logica became Old French logike, and the /ɡ/ predictably palatalized. It was then borrowed into English with the [dʒ] sound. (In French, the [dʒ] ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible