Received Pronunciation

[Jamie (K)]

As to a completely written test of pronunciation: It is possible to write one that works very well, and I'm not the first one who's done it. You use various tricks involving homophones and rhymes, and see if the foreigner falls for them. Which traps the person falls into give an excellent indication of his pronunciation.

As to the "mystery" investigation of Englishuser's native language: It's a valid issue for understanding why a person thinks the way he or she does about English or about languages in general. People from countries where the standard language has been artificially reconstructed, is regulated by a central academy, is nobody's native dialect, and is in some way based on the speech of only one place, have a completely different idea of "correct" or "prestige" language than do most native speakers of English. English has no single standard, no academy to regulate it, and its standards are not determined by the speech of people in one small geographical area. It gives them a very different worldview.

School children as test subjects: School kids have more dialect prejudices than many adults do. The adults in my area have little or no prejudice toward people who speak southern US dialects, but the little kids in the neighborhood hear that speech and think "hillbilly" "uneducated", etc. Sociolinguists don't always do a good job of finding objective subjects, and sometimes they go out of their way to find subjects who ARE prejudiced.

Holy Scripture: It doesn't matter that Gimson's book has been updated. It obviously hasn't been updated enough, or it wouldn't have instilled you with such nonsensical conclusions and prejudices. Believe me, there is a lot more material out there, and English-speaking linguists have moved on. Englishuser, you make yourself sound like you've read only one book on phonetics and phonology.

[Englishuser]

Hi Jamie,

Please find some comments below.

You wrote:

As to a completely written test of pronunciation: It is possible to write one that works very well, and I'm not the first one who's done it. You use various tricks involving homophones and rhymes, and see if the foreigner falls for them. Which traps the person falls into give an excellent indication of his pronunciation.

My comment:

I'd be very anxious to learn more about testing like this. But I think you have to admit that many English words have most irregular pronounciations, and merely correct spelling does not mean that you actually know how to pronounce the word.

You wrote:

As to the "mystery" investigation of Englishuser's native language:

My comment:

This "investigation" is ridiculous. Discussing my idiolect certainly isn't worth very much. It might be interesting and tempting to point out on weaknesses and errors in my writing because I tend to write in a provocative way. But my writing as such is not very interesting for linguists: I could be a subject in linguistic research, one subject among hundreds, and that's it. There is no further need to discuss the way I use English or what my native language is. It simply lacks relevance.

You wrote:

It's a valid issue for understanding why a person thinks the way he or she does about English or about languages in general. People from countries where the standard language has been artificially reconstructed, is regulated by a central academy, is nobody's native dialect, and is in some way based on the speech of only one place, have a completely different idea of "correct" or "prestige" language than do most native speakers of English.

My comment:

This might be true, but I think you're assuming things to hastily. There are many purists in Britain that continually complain about the fact that e.g. RP is used even less amongst educated Englishmen. And these people certainly are native born Englishmen. I haven't followed the debate so much lately, so I cannot really tell whether it's highly topical anymore, but it certainly was in the 90's.

You wrote:

English has no single standard, no academy to regulate it, and its standards are not determined by the speech of people in one small geographical area. It gives them a very different worldview.

My comment:

Yes. Many people think so. Others don't. Why would people write letters to the editor in Britain about how poorly young people pronounce and use English in Britain? Perhaps because they find that there is a standard variety of English. It is true that no authority decides about English: yet many people trust the dictionaries in the Oxford series, for instance. In the US, Webster's Dictionary is considered an authoritative source by many people. Speaking of pronunciation, one could claim that Daniel Jones' pronunciation dictionary is an authority on pronunciation. This is all up to us as speakers and writers of English to decide.

You wrote:

School children as test subjects: School kids have more dialect prejudices than many adults do. The adults in my area have little or no prejudice toward people who speak southern US dialects, but the little kids in the neighborhood hear that speech and think "hillbilly" "uneducated", etc.

My comment:

Once again, this depends on what children you choose. The age factor is important. It must be remembered that many British children know very little about different dialects.

You wrote:

Sociolinguists don't always do a good job of finding objective subjects, and sometimes they go out of their way to find subjects who ARE prejudiced.

My comment:

It sounds as if you wouldn't trust sociolinguists. It'd be interesting to see what current authorities on phonetics in Britain would think about that.

You wrote:

Holy Scripture: It doesn't matter that Gimson's book has been updated. It obviously hasn't been updated enough, or it wouldn't have instilled you with such nonsensical conclusions and prejudices. Believe me, there is a lot more material out there, and English-speaking linguists have moved on. Englishuser, you make yourself sound like you've read only one book on phonetics and phonology.

My comment:

A good book deserves to be mentionned. Daniel Jones' works are not bad, either. It's a pity we can't really get the phonologist who updated Gimson's book to give her comments here in this forum. I'd be very curious to know whether she shares your views, but I dare say that I highly doubt it. The authors of the "Cambridge Pronounciation Dictionary", which was edited very recently, do imply that the best thing for a foreign learner is to use a 'standard accent' as his/her model accent. And these phoneticians are into phonological research at this very moment.

Additional question to Jamie:

I don't want to offend you or sound too curious or anything like that, and I leave it to you to decide whether you'll answer me or not, but are you a Professor of Linguistics and ESL or what we in Europe would call a University Lecturer (or Senior Lecturer or Acting Lecturer, respectively) in Linguistics and ESL? And, within the domain of linguistics, have you written your Ph.D.-dissertation on phonetics?

[Torsten]

[Jamie (K)]

[Englishuser]

Hi Jamie,

Our debate goes on... I hope you find it amusing.

You wrote:

Knowing your native language and culture will go a long way toward allowing us to understand where your attitude comes from, for reasons I've already stated.

My comment:

What attitude? What about those who grumble about the position of RP in British newspapers? Kindly do not assume that my attitude has anything to do with other languages I speak. Do you seriously think that I'm so very ignorant when it comes to cultures in English-speaking countries?

You wrote:

Their perceptions of what is standard are often based on folk mythology, or just simply what bothers them. This type of folk prescriptivism also exists in the US (where many people think forms like "burnt" and "spilt" sound "uneducated"), and it has been going on in all language communities since the beginning of time. There are even communities in the English-speaking world where people consider it a gross violation of language norms to use the suffix -ing (instead of -in') on a cuss word. They'll get very agitated about it!

My comment:

Yes, yet they are native speakers of English.

You wrote:

Which Webster's? Published by which company? There are a million of them. We consider the American Heritage dictionary, Random House and some others to be equally authoritative.

My comment:

I'm sure there are. I'm not an expert on American dictionary making tradition. I personally prefer dictionaries in the Oxford series.

You wrote:

You know what's funny? I discussed pronunciation dictionaries with authors of well-known books for teaching ESL phonology, and guess what! They don't use them! Almost never.

My comment:

Perchance... Do you think that Dr Peter Roach and Dr Jane Setter have wasted their time editing the "Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary?" I suppose you think they have when you imply that dictionaries like these aren't used to frantically by ESL-people.

You wrote:

If they watch TV, they know much more than you think they do.

My comment:

No wonder British English gets more and more American which is very sad.

You wrote:

I have never seen a sociolinguistic study -- even a famous, classic one -- that didn't have a lot of methodological holes and that didn't leave a lot of important issues unconsidered. I could go into detail here, but I won't.

My comment:

Let's drop the topic if you feel going to details would be a waste of time.

You wrote:

It would be even more interesting to get the opinions of authors whose books have eclipsed Gimson's.

My comment:

What authors? Don't you trust Gimson?

You wrote:

I would be very happy to answer your question, but you haven't answered MY question. After you answer mine, I'll provide you with information you're asking for.

My answer:

Let's forget about it, then. Just like you make assumptions regarding my native language I will make mine regarding your education and qualifications.

[Jamie (K)]

Here is a comment on Grimson that I have just gotten from a famous expert on English pronunciation. I won't reveal his name, but if you are concerned about issues of English pronunciation, you would recognize it immediately. He is hugely important.

[Englishuser]

Jamie,

Thank you very much for taking this discussion so seriously. I really appreciate it very much. Unfortuntaly the edition of Gimson's work that I've used is an older one, so I obviously am unaware of additions in newer editions of his work.

What is more, I need to clarify myself a bit. It is true that RP is no longer considered the ultimate accent of English: in fact, the term as such is considered 'archaic' by the editors of the Cambridge Pronounciation Dictionary (i.e. Dr Roach and Dr Setter). However, for instance glottal stops aren't recommended by the authors for some reason. The dictionary itself sticks to "BBC English" (with American pronunciations given where different from BBC ones).

I would also like to highlight that I have never claimed that people should listen to only a certain accent. I am only arguing that it's best to be consequent in a classroom setting when e.g. sounds are practised using traditional drills. It's a bit confusing for most beginners to start drilling five or six variants of a certain phoneme, but of course students can and should still get exposed to other accents so as to develop their listening comprehension skills.

Best wishes.

[Jamie (K)]

[Englishuser]

Jamie,

Please find my comments below.

It's a pity we can't really get the phonologist who updated Gimson's book to give her comments here in this forum. I'd be very curious to know whether she shares your views, but I dare say that I highly doubt it.

Comment I:

Yes, certainly, but like I mentioned in another post I've been using an older edition of Gimson's work. Therefore I cannot be acquainted with any changes made by the man you're quoting.

You asked for it, and now you've got it. He's a he, not a she. One of the coauthors has written me, and here are his comments:

As the co-author of the fifth and sixth (current) editions of Gimson, I have to echo the comments of Gerry, John, and Michael. RP is the central model of the book, but throughout there is emphasis on the wide variations within RP, on recent changes, on the many speakers of Regional RP (i.e. RP incorporating some features of other dialects), and on other standards like American, Australian and Scottish. Moreover the last chapter is entirely devoted to various 'simplifications' of RP which are potentially acceptable in English as an L2 in various parts of the world.

Comment II:

Yes, that's exactly why I find Gimson's work so good: RP is, like this co-author argues, the central model of the book, but other accents are represented as well. My older edition didn't include any chapter like that so I must assume that it has been written by someone else than late Dr Gimson.