Lily Price:
It's true that pronunciation tends to vary across the many different accents and dialects that English features, which could contribute to the supposed "messy" state of English. I would first consider, for example, how dialects change written language. As an example, the Northern, Eastern, and Southern Middle English dialects often caused a vast difference in writing that, though readers may not have recognized one dialect while were able to identify with another, was discernible enough to at least recognize different dialects and therefore impart, sometimes, socio-economic class and what such a trait would contribute to the character who spoke that dialect (in literature) (A History of the English Language, van Gelderen).
In terms of accents, it is often these variations that become most stigmatized and are accused of being related to socio-economic class when, in fact, it's not just how rich or poor someone is but rather where they grew up or have spent the most time and with who, an influence based the most on geography and community. With examples of phonological changes, there are numerous cases that have affected some of the "standard" features of English phonology: syncope has occurred with Wednesday where the 'd' is no longer pronounced though we still spell it the same with respect to Woden, the Norse god the day is named after, and in spite of many people still having to sound out the way it's spelled in order to spell it correctly; due to their French origins, many words that used to have silent 'h's in them (hospital, humor, horrible) recently have begun to be pronounced, which causes [l] in the middle of words to become silent – ‘folk’ becomes /fok/ – or change the way they’re pronounced before labial consonants – ‘wolf’ becomes /wƱf/.
Still, it’s important to recognize that it’s accents which create these variations – the pronunciation of the velarized ‘wolf,’ for example, is often attributed to African American Vernacular English and certain Southern accents. Knowing that various accents and dialects cause variation in pronunciation can help validate them and create acceptance of them, at the very least, especially in helping to eradicate discrimination and stigmas against certain groups of people, even entire regions, and ideally eliminate stereotypes in relation to language.
Thus, if anything were to contribute to language change, it seems overwhelmingly that it would be the integration of accents, and then dialects, into the language - so it may become acceptable for words affected by velarization (like the stigmatized 'wolf') to become more visible and no longer hold negative connotations. The social perceptions of those accents and dialects would then become obsolete, though realistically they might move on to target another community or region, for imperialism has historically proven to be never-ending.
But in the mean time, when faced with linguistic discrimination , "Who ya gonna call? PHONOLOGICAL BUSTERS."
---------------
Edith Meija
Pronunciation of well
/wɛl/ /wʊl/: well
I have heard people say “well” at the beginning of a sentence sound like they are saying ‘wool’. I found this interesting and researched why people use it as a starter for a statement in the first place.
"Well" does not serve any grammatical usage in this sentence. That's because, in this context, "well" is an interjection, a word that expresses emotion. Depending on how it is enunciated, "well" could indicate impatience, surprise, nervousness, and a variety of other emotions.
However, here it seems to function as a filler, similar to "uh." It doesn't have any true meaning. People type it for the same reason as they type the interjections "oh" or "uh" - to convey emotion or to fill space while thinking of what to say.
It seems akin to an "um" or "uh", serving as a vocal void filler while the speaker collects their thoughts and puts their words together before actually speaking them. If that's the case, why do people actually type it? People clearly have time to think about what they're going to say before posting a comment on a blog or replying to an email (What, exactly, is the point of beginning a sentence with “Well…”?).
I think that people might be pronouncing it as “wool” because of the vowels in um or uh because these fillers express uncertainty or doubt most of the time. When someone is stuck on what to say next the position of the mouth might probably be in favor to the back close/near close vowels especially when the moth is open. I also ear it when news reporters switch to another reporter on the scene. "We now go to John Smith, our reporter at the scene--what's happening, there, John?" "Well, George, we're at the site of..." It doesn’t necessarily have to be in the context of doubt because people start with it in conversations, telling stories, etc.
a. Used for replying to someone when you think that there is something slightly wrong with what they have said; Well, I wouldn’t have put it quite like that.
In most sources it is described as emphasizing something, pausing(Well, let’s see now, I could meet you on Thursday.), accepting a situation, showing surprise/ anger, final remark, expressing doubt, changing something, and continuing a story.
I did not find much on how it’s pronounced and how it has evolved its vowel pronunciation. But I know in the OED there are several definitions, it is an early old English word meaning a spring of water rising from the surface of the earth. It is definitely pronounced this way in the northwest (Washington, Oregon, California etc.)
--------
Ezra Owen-Kloor
The letter "h" and its pronunciation has been contentious in Romance languages and English for hundreds of years. Although in modern American English the presence or absence of /h/ in pronunciation is not often a loaded or social issue, in England and even in ancient Rome people have been criticized for either including or dropping the sound.
The phone originally came into Latin from Greek through Greek colonies, and ever since this poor glottal fricative has been trouble for Romance language speakers the world over. Michael Rosen, author of Alphabetical, found in his research that in Rome /h/ insertion was considered unfashionable. Catullus, a poet writing around 50 BCE, wrote a derisive poem about a contemporary of his named Arrius (though in the poem Catullus called him Harrius) who added /h/ to words beginning with vowels, apparently because he wished to sound more Greek. Fast-forward to the the late 19th century, when the New York Times described people to dropped their /h/'s as "h-less socialists". In the interim, /h/ as been alternatingly included and omitted at various times. Currently in Britain, even the pronunciation of the letter's name ("aitch" in General American) is a source of contention. The h-less variety is considered posh and prescriptively correct, and the h-yes pronunciation is considered undesirable. In Northern England these two varieties were even associated with religion-- "aitch" was used by Protestants and "haitch" by Catholics. Using the wrong variety in this circumstance could have had greater consequences than simply not sounding posh.
H in Modern English generally fits into one of four categories: missing (able, from Latin habile), silent (heir, honour), formerly silent and now vocalized (humble, humor, herb), and unetymological.
Adding h in orthography and/or pronunciation has often been done for the sake of "etymological correctness." However, the newly h'ed form is not always closer to whatever etymon people were trying to emulate. So, in Modern English we have words that are spelled and pronounced with h that historically never were: hostage and hermit are good examples of this unetymological phenomenon.
-------------
--------------
Kila Hogan
The traditional “ae” sound is changing. Words like “bag” and “lag” are going through a phonological shift; generally “correctly” or commonly pronounced with an “ae” sound, younger speakers of English are starting to pronounce such words with more of an “e” sound.
Nicole Rosen, a linguist in Canada, says that this change is happening much faster in urban areas, and in Calgary specifically, the change is led by young women. She points out that rural communities tend to be tight-knit, leading to less changes. According to her estimates, “bag” and “beg” will become homophones within a few generations, similar to “marry” and “merry” in many dialects.
These changes happen without us even realizing it. The Northern Cities Vowel Shift is the shift happening from about New York to Milwaukee. In an experiment done by Rice University professor Nancy Niedzielski, 50 NCS speakers were exposed to a recording of a Michigan native pronouncing the word “bag”. However, none of the 50 participants said that that person sounded like they were speaking the way someone from the NCS area would. Dennis Preston, a linguist at Oklahoma State University, hypothesized that this is because people believe they speak “normally,” and reject being told that they are different.
And this could very possibly be true. We subconsciously judge people based on their pronunciations of words, but it can be a totally different story to turn that scope in on ourselves. And so maybe next time you are at the grocery store, you can listen to the cashier ask you “would you like a bag?” and be able to notice the similarities and differences with your own pronunciation, and what that might mean.
--------------
Elizabeth Rimar
Phonological Change occurs on a scale that is impacted by the diversity in peoples and languages they use. It is important to look into pronunciation, sound, and change and the social attitudes that arise alongside changes. English in its various forms is a treasure trove of phonological change, and American English is a form that holds tons of variation as well.
A particular place to look for phonological change and its influence is in features of English language and Creoles used in Southeastern United States. An instance of distinct Pronunciation feature in regions of Southern United States English, known as Southern American English, is non-rhoticity. Rhoticity is the pronunciation of /r/ in a word. (Ex. 1) A rhotic-speaker might say, “Dear old Sally is comin’ over.””dear =/ dɪr/; over= /ˈoʊvər/”.
A non-rhotic speaker might say, “Dear old Sally is comin’ over.” “dear= /dıə/ ; over= /oʊvə/”.
Rhoticity is part of a Phonological feature of various pronunciations in Southern English and works into the picture of what a “Southern Drawl” could sound like. The phenomenon of a drawl is also a feature of Phonological change; its impact on sound, variation, and social spheres makes for a fascinating research project.
Another feature in Southern American English variations is vowel change at the end of certain words with long /o/, that is also a phonetic element of Appalachian English.
(Ex.2) Considering long /o/; words /potato/, /tomato/ may be pronounced /tater/, /tomater/.
+note+ Words with long /o/, like /cameo/ or /patio/ may have different pronunciation rules by speaker or community.
A third example of a phonological feature variation is the pronunciation of /well/.
(Ex. 3) Some General American English pronunciations of “well” may include /wʊl/;/wɛl/.Some pronunciations in Southern American English variations could have in internal glide such as /weːɪl/, or /wejəl/. This is associated with vowels inside the word.
+A note on accent and social attitudes+
Appropriation is not synonymous with appreciation! To appropriate, in this case, is to change a feature into a trend, joke, or style that could possibly diminish people associated with the usage of a social feature. Making fun of accents can be easy to do, but it is damaging as well. In many cases, such as Southern American English, the speech and its styles can be associated with class working systems as well as ethnic or racial identity. People speak with generalized and specific “Southern Accents”, and communities have variations of speech and language that are closely tied in to lifestyle systems into the present. Some speakers who may seem to use phonological features in a speech system may be speaking Creoles or Dialects of English. People who use American Sign Language may also utilize distinct features inside a regional dialect. Confusing speech or sound pattern features in accents inside a region such as the American South is not usually meant to be a direct jab at the users; yet if a particular accent is negatively associated with a social stereotype it could become a mockery. Standardization of accent is a current social issue that impacts media and broadcast communication. Like in showbiz, a “more general American” accent might be preferred--speech experts may be called in to coach the person “out” of an accent. When is it okay to “have” versus “lack” an accent? Will it impact the future of communication and social media?
It is important to understand the features that show the changes in phonology of language to understand the values of language diversity.
+Further Reading
dialectblog.com
+Sources & References:
van Gelderen, A History of the English Language
David Graddol, Dick Leith, and Joan Swann. English history, diversity and change
Ethnologue online
Oxford English Dictionary online
American Heritage Dictionary online
438 ENG Class Materials
No comments:
Post a Comment