The discussion referred to in my last post has developed further, as you can see here. It is now claimed that there is no proposal to remove IPA transcriptions altogether, but editors want to remove them from the "lede" and put them somewhere else. I have to say that I am still in favour of keeping things as they are.
For a long time Wikipedia has been including IPA transcriptions of words and names in the opening paragraph (see for example 'apoggiatura'), but there is currently a discussion among WP editors about a proposal to remove them as "unnecessary clutter" that is confusing to readers who don't know how to interpret the symbols. You can see the discussion going on here.
In WP, the opening paragraph is very important. It is often referred to as the "lede" (a rather pretentious spelling of "lead"), and its job is to enable the reader to judge if the article is likely to be worth reading. Some editors have suggested that if the transcriptions are retained, they should be removed from the lede and put in an "infobox", a little table usually situated at the top right of a page (see for example 'Henry Sweet').
Not surprisingly, I am strongly opposed to removing the IPA transcriptions, which I find extremely useful. Wikipedia has produced a lot of "help" material to allow users to familiarize themselves with IPA, so these transcriptions aren't inaccessible to the uninitiated (see for example here). The help pages aren't free of faults, but they are easy enough to follow.
If anyone reading this blog knows how to edit Wikipedia pages, I would urge them to add a note to the discussion to oppose the removal of IPA from WP ledes. The discussion is free for anyone to join in.
I'm pleased to say that an article I wrote for Wikipedia on the topic of the English Pronouncing Dictionary has been accepted, and can now be read here. It's only a rough first version - I hope to improve it, and I invite anyone interested to make their own improvements to it.
This comes at a time when I am quite busy with EPD-related work. I recently examined a PhD at the University of Poitiers, on research by Jeremy Castanier based on a longitudinal study of all editions of EPD from 1st to 18th, looking particularly at stress changes - a very educational experience for me. (Jeremy worked also on a bewildering range of other English pronunciation dictionaries, some of which I had never heard of). And I'm now working on a paper to be given (jointly with Jane Setter) to kick off the pre-conference event organized by the PronSIG for the 2017 IATEFL Conference at Glasgow in April. The paper will be part of a modest celebration of the centenary of the EPD, which was (you've guessed it) first published in 1917.
I notice that the Wikipedia article on Brexit doesn't yet give pronunciation guidance for this word. Is anyone out there counting how many people say /breksIt/ and how many /bregzit/? I get the feeling that the latter is gaining ground within the BBC.
There are two Wikipedia articles comparing British and American pronunciation. One is called “American and British English pronunciation differences” and the other is “Comparison of General American and Received Pronunciation”. Both of them are flawed, and have health warnings pinned to them by Wikipedia editors.The obvious question is why two separate articles should be felt necessary. The “Comparison of General American and Received Pronunciation” article is much shorter than the other, and its Talk page contains almost nothing. This makes it look like an afterthought, or some WP editor’s personal flight of fancy. WP has signalled concern over the fact that there is almost no reference to published sources in it. No reference seems to have been made to “proper” pronunciation dictionaries – everything is based on free web-based dictionaries. The writer seems not to have a clear understanding of the difference between dialect and accent (see for example the reference to “the Received Pronunciation dialect”). Although the purpose of this article would seem to be to focus on the two specific standard accents, it actually rambles on to other accents a bit (e.g. in the section on rhoticity). The glaringly obvious problem here is that the other article – the big one called “American and British English pronunciation differences” seems to be entirely based on GA and RP anyway, so the smaller article seems completely redundant.
The big article (Comparison of General American and Received Pronunciation) seems much more substantial. Indeed, it takes a long time to get to grips with what it has to say. It starts with a comparative treatment of stress differences. The writer introduces a system of superscript and subscript letters and numbers so that s/he can indicate cases where, for example, the pronunciation given as BrE is also the most common variant in AmE, while subscript a or b means that “the relevant unstressed vowel is also reduced to /ə/ or /ᵻ/ in AmE or BrE, respectively” (I don’t understand the last sentence). The stress section starts with French loanwords, and we are told “French loanwords that differ in stress only are listed below”. However, examples such as ‘beret’ don’t seem to fit this – the word is given pronunciations in a note “ US /bəˈreɪ/, UK /ˈbɛreɪ/”, which in addition to the stress difference looks pretty much like a vowel difference to me. Further on, we get words cited as loanwords that only qualify as such if you can go back many centuries – e.g. ‘address’, ‘decade’. The inclusion of vowel reduction in this treatment is pretty hard to interpret – try this one (where American is initial-stressed and British is final-stressed): ((bi)p)artisana.B1/2[nb 18] seems to cover ‘bipartisan’, ‘partisan’ and ‘artisan’, if I interpret the bracketing correctly; subscript a means there is vowel reduction, then B1/2 seems to mean that “the pronunciation given as AmE is also the most common variant in BrE” while at the same time “the AmE pronunciation of the word is a common variant in BrE”. NB18 takes us to a note that “Only the middle vowel is reduced in the BrE pronunciations”, but I can’t see any sign of vowel reduction here.
As is well known, WP doesn’t allow material in an article that has not previously been published – such material is classed as “original research (OR)”. A WP editor has flagged an OR issue with this article, and you can see why. After a couple of sections dealing with affixes, the article moves on to segmental differences. Most of this material seems OK, though it is hard to see how it could be used easily since the table entries are given in an odd order (most WP accounts of English phonemes list them in an order that corresponds roughly to the symbols' resemblance to letters of the alphabet, so /a/ comes before /i/, /b/ before /p/ and so on.)
I have added references to the most important pronunciation dictionaries in the section “Further Reading”, but I don’t suppose anyone will take any notice, since they are not available free on line.
If you look into Wikipedia in the hope of learning about voicing and voice quality, you will find a rather confusing picture. There is a rather long and badly designed article on Phonation and this touches on most topics that one would expect to see in the description of the mechanism of vocal fold vibration. However, this article also has a paragraph on glottal consonants such as [h] and the glottal stop; this inclusion is apparently based on the unreferenced claim that “Some phoneticians have described these sounds as neither glottal nor consonantal, but instead as instances of pure phonation, at least in many European languages”. I can’t think of any reputable phonetician who would write of “pure phonation”, nor why the description should be restricted to European languages.
The article goes on to outline what it calls “Supraglottal phonation”. This is badly muddled: the list includes the terms ‘glottal’ and ‘ventricular’, which are mechanisms for producing vibration (voicing), ‘arytenoid’ (which is described as “sphincteric compression forwards and upwards”, something that makes no sense to me) and three articulations labelled ‘epiglotto-pharyngeal’, ‘raising or lowering of the entire larynx’ and ‘narrowing of the pharynx’, all of which seem to me to be modifications of phonation produced elsewhere in the larynx. There are a few useful examples of modal, breathy, faucalized, and harsh voice in Dinka. But overall, the treatment is far less transparent and comprehensive than the treatment devised by John Laver (see The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality, C.U.P., 1980).
By this stage in the article we have reached some rather esoteric material concerned with different voice qualities found in various languages. Rather abruptly we are then taken to a section on “European language examples” which is just a very simple treatment of contrastive voicing in a few languages and belongs much higher up in the article. The topic of linguistically contrastive voicing is covered by a completely different article on Voice (phonetics). The European languages section is followed by a little three-sentence section on “Phonology” and a very woolly section on ‘Pedagogy and speech pathology’; I suspect that ‘pedagogy’ here means something very different from ‘pronunciation teaching’ – there is a link to a different article on Vocal register which is very much better organised than the ‘Phonation’ article. The writer of the bit on speech pathology is clearly not aware of the vocal profiling work of Laver and co-workers.
My other major criticism concerns the sections on theories of the production of voicing, labelled ‘Myoelastic and aerodynamic theory’ and ‘Neurochronaxic theory’. Firstly, the neurochronaxic theory had been comprehensively demolished by the end of the 1950’s; it is astonishing that so many books and papers still drag out this decayed corpse for another kicking. It is as if geography textbooks routinely included a chapter on flat-earth theory, or astronomers felt the need to point out that the earth is not the centre of the universe. This should be removed from the article, and I have already told WP that I plan to do this unless there is an objection. The writer of this bit seems to think that there are two other theories, one myoelastic and the other aerodynamic, but suggests that the two might be in some way combined. As far as I know, the present-day account of how the vocal folds come to vibrate has always been known as the myoelastic-aerodynamic theory of phonation. You couldn’t just have one as a comprehensive theory of phonation. (Please correct me if I am wrong on this).
As a final headache, the topic of supralaryngeal effects on voice quality overlaps on to the topic of Articulatory settings, which I have mentioned several times recently. Some cross-referencing is clearly needed here, but I'm not sure if a separate article on Voice quality is needed if the Phonation article can be suitably reworked.
It's time to take another look at the issues raised by the coverage of Articulatory Settings and related matters in Wikipedia, which I first mentioned here. If you look at the very valuable comments that have been added by a number of contributors you can see that there's a lot to think about. The discussion started with the observation that WP had only a very short article on Basis of Articulation but nothing on Articulatory Settings. I added a bit of extra material to 'Basis of Articulation' and inserted a redirect so that anyone searching for 'Articulatory Setting' would be taken to 'Basis of Articulation'.
At present I feel there are some basic issues to consider, some of them suggested by email correspondence with Piers Messum and Jose Mompean. One is that it is by no means clear that a single article should cover both 'Basis of Articulation' and 'Articulatory Setting' - there is a good case to be made for treating them as separate subjects. Secondly, the subject of Articulatory Settings is by no means as neglected as I thought when I started looking at WP's coverage - a lot of very interesting research has been published in the last decade or so, and this needs to be reflected in the article. Thirdly, there is no WP article at all on the very important subject of Voice Quality despite the large body of work on the subject within phonetics, so another WP article is badly needed here. It's interesting that WP has separate articles on Phonation and Voicing which for many people are the same topic.
To make a proper job of improving this complex area is going to be beyond my powers, but I am willing to make a start. Anyone can edit WP, of course, so please don't hold back if you want to contribute material. But I am starting work on a basic and brief outline of Voice Quality to submit for the WP refereeing process. Once this is accepted and added to WP, anyone interested can edit more material in, or correct errors. I will have to leave it to others to discuss whether 'Basis of Articulation' and 'Articulatory Setting' should be split into two articles.
It's a tradition of the IPA that its journal publishes "specimen" phonetic descriptions of different languages and accents. In 2004 it published my account of "British English: RP". The IPA recently gave permission for me to release the article's recording of an RP speaker for public use, and I put it in the Wikipedia article on Received pronunciation. It appears along with the transcriptions I made for the JIPA publication.
I've decided to put the whole paper on this website, and you can find it here. It's not a good-quality reproduction, just a photographed copy, but it might be useful to someone.
After posting the note here about the 'Conservative RP' article I left a very critical note on the Talk page of the WP article. Looking at it again just now, I find that someone has diligently gone through the offending article in the last few hours and done a thorough job of removing the mistakes. So unless you are prepared to track back through recent changes on WP, you'll have to take my word for it that the previous version was pretty dreadful!
[NOTE: A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR HAS NOW CORRECTED THE MAIN ERRORS NOTED BELOW, SO YOU WON'T NOW FIND THEM IF YOU LOOK AT THE ARTICLE]
I sometimes wonder what people who use the term mean when they talk about "Conservative RP". The word 'conservative' normally refers to an intention to preserve something from earlier times; in this sense, people who speak with an accent typical of an earlier generation rather than one of their own generation would be said to have a conservative accent. The late Brian Sewell was perhaps such a speaker. It’s possible to compare the accent of Jacob Rees-Mogg with that of near-contemporaries David Cameron and George Osborne and come to the conclusion that Rees-Mogg’s RP is more conservative than that of the other two. But when, for example, pronunciations recommended by Daniel Jones in his earlier works are referred to as conservative, all the word means is that he was describing the way RP was pronounced at the time. He himself was probably speaking with an accent that was no more conservative than that of his contemporaries from a similar background.
My reason for wondering about this is my having noticed recently that Wikipedia, as well as having a large article on Received Pronunciation, also has one on Conservative Received Pronunciation. The whole article appears to have been written recently by a single author, and contains no references except a link to the British Library’s page about RP, from which it has been inexpertly cobbled. Although many of the facts it presents as typical of old-fashioned RP are well-known it contains a load of elementary errors about phonemes, allophones and accents.
By way of introduction to the topic of Conservative Received Pronunciation (henceforth CRP) we are told that “Formerly the prestige model of pronunciation, it has declined in favour of other, less-conservative dialects, primarily Contemporary Received Pronunciation”. Speakers of CRP given as examples are members of the Royal Family, Sir Winston Churchill, Dame Vera Lynn and commentators of Pathé News and, prior to the 1960s, the BBC” (apparently the BBC stopped speaking with CRP at the end of the 1950’s). There is no mention of the fact that younger members of the Royal Family speak with an accent that is far from CRP; Dame Vera Lynn is undoubtedly old, but has never struck me as having a conservative RP accent (or, indeed, any sort of RP accent). It seems pretty clear from this list that this article is not really about conservative RP but the RP of earlier generations (now mostly dead). We are only given two examples of speakers of Contemporary RP, and these are David Cameron and Kate Maltby.
The characteristics of CRP are listed as “Phonological features”, but turn out to be almost entirely allophonic. The final vowel of ‘happy’ is said to be /ɪ/ in CRP, but “in Contemporary RP it is /i/, in common with most other accents (though not the accents of much of Northern England, which have /ɛ/ or /a/)”. Square brackets needed there, and I can’t think which Northern English accent has a final [a] in ‘happy’. The BED vowel is said to be /e/ in CRP and /ɛ/ in Contemporary RP. Rather unnecessarily, we are told that “The more open phoneme of Contemporary RP is demonstrated in the different realisation of Leicester and bed by speakers of the respective standards.” Next, the change of TRAP from /æ/ (Conservative) to /a/ (Contemporary) is wrongly described as a phonological change. More allophonic detail comes up in “The quality of the vowel in bird, nurse and curtain is realised as /ɐː/ by the most conservative speakers and /ɜː/ by the remaining speakers of Conservative RP. In Contemporary RP, /ɜː/ is the most common, with /əː/ also heard”.
It would take too long to list all the imperfections of this piece – read it for yourself and see what you think. Note ‘Boar’ being given as an example of CRP /ʊə/, and the strangely-worded observation that “Since the beginning of the 20th century … the /ʍ/ phoneme ceased to be a feature of Conservative RP, except by the most precise speakers who have learnt to differentiate” (my italics).
At the end we get two final bullet points, one of which tells us that Dame Vera has been heard to sing a /t/ in ‘Christmas’, while the other rambles off into some stuff about pronunciation of days of the week and spelling pronunciation.
I have a feeling that whoever penned this regrettable article is probably even now working on a companion piece on Contemporary RP. I do hope I’m wrong.
A blog that discusses problems in Wikipedia's coverage of Phonetics
Emeritus Professor of Phonetics,