• HOME
  • Publications
  • BLOG
  • English Phonetics and Phonology
  • The English Pronouncing Dictionary
  • RESOURCES
  Peter Roach

Phonetic transcription

29/12/2019

4 Comments

 
[NOTE: I have now made a lot of changes to the sections mentioned below, so you will find the text different from what is referred to in this post.]

I have been re-reading Wikipedia's article on Phonetic transcription. It's a huge subject, and the article does a reasonable job of covering the basics, but I have some problems with the sections “Versus orthography”, “Narrow versus broad transcription” and “Types of notational systems”. I'll be going through these one by one, so here I'll just comment on the first one.

I believe there are a couple of oversimplifications in  “Versus orthography”.  The statement “Other languages, such as Spanish and Italian have a more consistent (but still imperfect) relationship between orthography and pronunciation (phonemic orthography)” implies that no language has an orthography that is genuinely "phonemic", but the Wikipedia article Phonemic orthography states that “That ideal situation is rare but exists in a few languages”. There is another oversimplification in the statement “phonetic transcription can provide a function that the orthography cannot. It displays a one-to-one relationship between symbols and sounds, unlike traditional writing systems”. But phonetic transcriptions of a single utterance may identify different numbers of sounds: Lodge (2009, pp. 67-8) shows five different phonetic transcriptions of the word ‘cab’, some of which contain a  symbol for the aspiration component of the initial /k/ and others a symbol for the final release of /b/. Laver (1994, p. 558) gives an illustration of successive efforts at transcription of a Czech utterance by a transcriber who was an expert in phonetics but not a speaker of Czech. Three transcriptions of the word [prɒstʃi] (“simpler”) have different numbers of symbols. This shows that the principle of one-to-one correspondence between a phonetic symbol and a single sound is not strictly true in practice: what we identify as “a sound” is often arbitrary. The other part of this claim, that orthography is not able to offer a one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds, is shown to be incorrect by the statement quoted above from the phonemic orthography article. I hope to modify this section to take account of these points.


4 Comments
Simon Vickers link
30/12/2019 04:06:15 pm

I understand what you are saying. However, it does appear to me that the whole point of phonetics is to have symbols to represent the sounds of a language. If that is not possible, they are pointless. As I see it language is a code, a bit like Morse code, for transmitting information that uses certain characteristic speech sounds, of which English uses a standard set. If a speaker can make these sounds accurately enough for the standard sounds to be perceived, that’s good enough. By the same token, trying to achieve greater accuracy than is necessary for understanding is wasted effort and pointless. I call this falling for the philosopher’s fudge fallacy. More here: http://phonetics.livecodehosting.com/S4phonetics/HowGood.html
Please don’t attempt to change the Wikipedia entry.

Reply
Peter
30/12/2019 06:07:23 pm

Thanks for your comment. All I am trying to do is make it easier for readers to understand what the article is saying, not to provide a different viewpoint on the usefulness of phonetic transcription. I can see what you mean in the article you referenced, but the analogy with Morse Code is not perfect. There was only ever one set of M.C. characters, but there are different sets of phonetic symbols used for a given language.

Reply
Seghir link
17/7/2020 09:01:51 am

Mr Prof peter's Roach viewpoint is absolutely right.He's my best teacher in phonetics &Phonology area.I have ever seen,and so will he be.

Reply
Seghir link
17/7/2020 12:13:58 pm

I'm really proud of you.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    A blog that discusses problems in Wikipedia's coverage of Phonetics

    Peter Roach

    Emeritus Professor of Phonetics,
    ​University of Reading, UK

    uArchives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2019
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    July 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.