American refusal of the IPA: why?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Are there any historical or political reasons for the rather consistent refusal of the International Phonetic Alphabet on the part of American academics?
Did Mark Twain's home-made-English-spelling-centred phonetic rendering of regional pronunciations set a trend?
american-english dictionaries phonology phonetics ipa
edited Jan 6 '14 at 0:32
tchrist♦
110k30298479
asked Jan 5 '14 at 21:47
user58319user58319
2,13773368
|
show 18 more comments
Are there any historical or political reasons for the rather consistent refusal of the International Phonetic Alphabet on the part of American academics?
Did Mark Twain's home-made-English-spelling-centred phonetic rendering of regional pronunciations set a trend?
american-english dictionaries phonology phonetics ipa
edited Jan 6 '14 at 0:32
tchrist♦
110k30298479
asked Jan 5 '14 at 21:47
user58319user58319
2,13773368
8
"Americans academics" do not reject the IPA - I learned it in college in the 1960s. Most American dictionary publishers don't employ it, probably because few linguists buy mass-market dictionaries, and everybody else is perfectly happy with what they've got.
– StoneyB
Jan 5 '14 at 21:54
12
Precisely. Webster's pre-steampunk notation system is the one that nobody ever understands or learns, because it makes no sense. Therefore it's perfect for an American dictionary. Merriam-Webster has published Kenyon & Knott's Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, with excellent IPA-based phonemic notation, since the 1950s, but they continue to not use it anywhere else, for fear Americans might learn something. It's like the metric system; "not invented here".
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:05
6
Therefore the rule I suggest to any English learner: DON'T buy a monolingual English dictionary published in the United States. Make sure that the English pronunciations are in IPA; if you see anything else, don't trust the book.
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:08
3
@John, StoneyB: I'm comparatively ignorant in such matters, obviously. But surely if IPA is an international symbol set, it must include many sounds that don't even occur in spoken AmE? And perhaps others where different speakers do indeed pronounce certain sounds differently because of regional accents, but those differences are consistent, and known to the natives. So in the context of a "pronouncing dictionary", they only need to know this is sound X (unlike you, John, they don't usually need to know about dialectal variations in how "sound X" is actually articulated).
– FumbleFingers
Jan 5 '14 at 22:32
3
@Fumble, there are implementations of IPA that work very well for that as well (just look at any pronunciation hint given on Wikipedia, for example—or any Oxford dictionary, for that matter). IPA comes in varying degrees of broad- and fineness, and for dictionary purposes, broad IPA for English would be so much more efficient than Webster Spaghetti.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jan 5 '14 at 23:59
|
show 18 more comments
Are there any historical or political reasons for the rather consistent refusal of the International Phonetic Alphabet on the part of American academics?
Did Mark Twain's home-made-English-spelling-centred phonetic rendering of regional pronunciations set a trend?
american-english dictionaries phonology phonetics ipa
edited Jan 6 '14 at 0:32
tchrist♦
110k30298479
asked Jan 5 '14 at 21:47
user58319user58319
2,13773368
Are there any historical or political reasons for the rather consistent refusal of the International Phonetic Alphabet on the part of American academics?
Did Mark Twain's home-made-English-spelling-centred phonetic rendering of regional pronunciations set a trend?
american-english dictionaries phonology phonetics ipa
american-english dictionaries phonology phonetics ipa
edited Jan 6 '14 at 0:32
tchrist♦
110k30298479
asked Jan 5 '14 at 21:47
user58319user58319
2,13773368
edited Jan 6 '14 at 0:32
tchrist♦
110k30298479
asked Jan 5 '14 at 21:47
user58319user58319
2,13773368
edited Jan 6 '14 at 0:32
tchrist♦
110k30298479
edited Jan 6 '14 at 0:32
tchrist♦
110k30298479
edited Jan 6 '14 at 0:32
tchrist♦
110k30298479
110k30298479
asked Jan 5 '14 at 21:47
user58319user58319
2,13773368
asked Jan 5 '14 at 21:47
user58319user58319
2,13773368
asked Jan 5 '14 at 21:47
user58319user58319
2,13773368
2,13773368
8
"Americans academics" do not reject the IPA - I learned it in college in the 1960s. Most American dictionary publishers don't employ it, probably because few linguists buy mass-market dictionaries, and everybody else is perfectly happy with what they've got.
– StoneyB
Jan 5 '14 at 21:54
12
Precisely. Webster's pre-steampunk notation system is the one that nobody ever understands or learns, because it makes no sense. Therefore it's perfect for an American dictionary. Merriam-Webster has published Kenyon & Knott's Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, with excellent IPA-based phonemic notation, since the 1950s, but they continue to not use it anywhere else, for fear Americans might learn something. It's like the metric system; "not invented here".
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:05
6
Therefore the rule I suggest to any English learner: DON'T buy a monolingual English dictionary published in the United States. Make sure that the English pronunciations are in IPA; if you see anything else, don't trust the book.
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:08
3
@John, StoneyB: I'm comparatively ignorant in such matters, obviously. But surely if IPA is an international symbol set, it must include many sounds that don't even occur in spoken AmE? And perhaps others where different speakers do indeed pronounce certain sounds differently because of regional accents, but those differences are consistent, and known to the natives. So in the context of a "pronouncing dictionary", they only need to know this is sound X (unlike you, John, they don't usually need to know about dialectal variations in how "sound X" is actually articulated).
– FumbleFingers
Jan 5 '14 at 22:32
3
@Fumble, there are implementations of IPA that work very well for that as well (just look at any pronunciation hint given on Wikipedia, for example—or any Oxford dictionary, for that matter). IPA comes in varying degrees of broad- and fineness, and for dictionary purposes, broad IPA for English would be so much more efficient than Webster Spaghetti.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jan 5 '14 at 23:59
|
show 18 more comments
8
"Americans academics" do not reject the IPA - I learned it in college in the 1960s. Most American dictionary publishers don't employ it, probably because few linguists buy mass-market dictionaries, and everybody else is perfectly happy with what they've got.
– StoneyB
Jan 5 '14 at 21:54
12
Precisely. Webster's pre-steampunk notation system is the one that nobody ever understands or learns, because it makes no sense. Therefore it's perfect for an American dictionary. Merriam-Webster has published Kenyon & Knott's Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, with excellent IPA-based phonemic notation, since the 1950s, but they continue to not use it anywhere else, for fear Americans might learn something. It's like the metric system; "not invented here".
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:05
6
Therefore the rule I suggest to any English learner: DON'T buy a monolingual English dictionary published in the United States. Make sure that the English pronunciations are in IPA; if you see anything else, don't trust the book.
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:08
3
@John, StoneyB: I'm comparatively ignorant in such matters, obviously. But surely if IPA is an international symbol set, it must include many sounds that don't even occur in spoken AmE? And perhaps others where different speakers do indeed pronounce certain sounds differently because of regional accents, but those differences are consistent, and known to the natives. So in the context of a "pronouncing dictionary", they only need to know this is sound X (unlike you, John, they don't usually need to know about dialectal variations in how "sound X" is actually articulated).
– FumbleFingers
Jan 5 '14 at 22:32
3
@Fumble, there are implementations of IPA that work very well for that as well (just look at any pronunciation hint given on Wikipedia, for example—or any Oxford dictionary, for that matter). IPA comes in varying degrees of broad- and fineness, and for dictionary purposes, broad IPA for English would be so much more efficient than Webster Spaghetti.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jan 5 '14 at 23:59
8
8
"Americans academics" do not reject the IPA - I learned it in college in the 1960s. Most American dictionary publishers don't employ it, probably because few linguists buy mass-market dictionaries, and everybody else is perfectly happy with what they've got.
– StoneyB
Jan 5 '14 at 21:54
"Americans academics" do not reject the IPA - I learned it in college in the 1960s. Most American dictionary publishers don't employ it, probably because few linguists buy mass-market dictionaries, and everybody else is perfectly happy with what they've got.
– StoneyB
Jan 5 '14 at 21:54
12
12
Precisely. Webster's pre-steampunk notation system is the one that nobody ever understands or learns, because it makes no sense. Therefore it's perfect for an American dictionary. Merriam-Webster has published Kenyon & Knott's Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, with excellent IPA-based phonemic notation, since the 1950s, but they continue to not use it anywhere else, for fear Americans might learn something. It's like the metric system; "not invented here".
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:05
Precisely. Webster's pre-steampunk notation system is the one that nobody ever understands or learns, because it makes no sense. Therefore it's perfect for an American dictionary. Merriam-Webster has published Kenyon & Knott's Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, with excellent IPA-based phonemic notation, since the 1950s, but they continue to not use it anywhere else, for fear Americans might learn something. It's like the metric system; "not invented here".
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:05
6
6
Therefore the rule I suggest to any English learner: DON'T buy a monolingual English dictionary published in the United States. Make sure that the English pronunciations are in IPA; if you see anything else, don't trust the book.
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:08
Therefore the rule I suggest to any English learner: DON'T buy a monolingual English dictionary published in the United States. Make sure that the English pronunciations are in IPA; if you see anything else, don't trust the book.
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:08
3
3
@John, StoneyB: I'm comparatively ignorant in such matters, obviously. But surely if IPA is an international symbol set, it must include many sounds that don't even occur in spoken AmE? And perhaps others where different speakers do indeed pronounce certain sounds differently because of regional accents, but those differences are consistent, and known to the natives. So in the context of a "pronouncing dictionary", they only need to know this is sound X (unlike you, John, they don't usually need to know about dialectal variations in how "sound X" is actually articulated).
– FumbleFingers
Jan 5 '14 at 22:32
@John, StoneyB: I'm comparatively ignorant in such matters, obviously. But surely if IPA is an international symbol set, it must include many sounds that don't even occur in spoken AmE? And perhaps others where different speakers do indeed pronounce certain sounds differently because of regional accents, but those differences are consistent, and known to the natives. So in the context of a "pronouncing dictionary", they only need to know this is sound X (unlike you, John, they don't usually need to know about dialectal variations in how "sound X" is actually articulated).
– FumbleFingers
Jan 5 '14 at 22:32
3
3
@Fumble, there are implementations of IPA that work very well for that as well (just look at any pronunciation hint given on Wikipedia, for example—or any Oxford dictionary, for that matter). IPA comes in varying degrees of broad- and fineness, and for dictionary purposes, broad IPA for English would be so much more efficient than Webster Spaghetti.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jan 5 '14 at 23:59
@Fumble, there are implementations of IPA that work very well for that as well (just look at any pronunciation hint given on Wikipedia, for example—or any Oxford dictionary, for that matter). IPA comes in varying degrees of broad- and fineness, and for dictionary purposes, broad IPA for English would be so much more efficient than Webster Spaghetti.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jan 5 '14 at 23:59
|
show 18 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
I don't know, but here's an interesting quote from Abercrombie's book Fifty years in Phonetics.
In America phonetic notation has had a curious history. Bloomfield
used IPA notation in his early book An Introduction to the Study
of Language, 1914, and in the English edition of his more famous
Language, 1935. But since then, a strange hostility has been
shown by many American linguists to IPA notation, especially to
certain of its symbols.
An interesting and significant story was once told by Carl Voegelin
during a symposium held in New York in 1952 on the present state of
anthropology. He told how, at the beginning of the 1930s, he was
being taught phonetics by, as he put it, a "pleasant Dane", who made
him use the IPA symbol for sh in ship, among others. Some while later
he used those symbols in some work on an American Indian language he
had done for Sapir. When Sapir saw the work he "simply blew up",
Voegelin said, and demanded that in future Voegelin should use 's
wedge' (as š was called), instead of the IPA symbol.
When I used this quote in my dissertation, I got the following interesting response from a committee member:
Sapir probably knew how hard it is to see the difference between esh
and s-wedge in handwriting. This is the main reason Howie Aronson
cited in a class ... relating it
to the tradition of doing fieldwork versus creating nice printed
books. Like other IPA propagandists, Abercrombie seems to want to link
this to American exceptionalism, infelicitously conflating
"Americanist" with "American". Fortunately, you don't use "esh" but,
rather, curly-tailed c...
answered Jan 6 '14 at 3:23
jlovegrenjlovegren
12.3k12147
Personally, I think it's related to the desire to keep monoglot Americans ignorant of the phonetic values of the Latin alphabet in almost all other languages that use it. :) They don’t want people to be confused that we've shifted everything during the Great Vowel Shift so that the letters and sounds no longer match up, like the sound /i/ being what they think of as the letter E not I, or the sound /e/ being what they think of as the letter A not E, or that the name of the letter I is pronounced /ai/ etc. It's so scrambled that this keeps monoglots from pronouncing other languages correctly.
– tchrist♦
Jul 30 '18 at 0:02
add a comment |
People who say IPA system does not work are just liars. This is not true. I have been teaching English as a Foreign Language for more than 40 years and the improvements in pronunciation are just amazing from the first basic lesson. What English students need are real tools to help them learn by themselves. The International Phonetic Alphabet works and it is easy to learn.
answered Jul 29 '18 at 23:40
Enrique GuerraEnrique Guerra
311
add a comment |
Mike Pollard is correct regarding the impracticality of the IPA for the overwhelming majority of monoglot speakers of American English. Unlike polyglot Europeans, most Americans are quite content using the simpler systems of phonetic symbols presented in American dictionaries and would not benefit from the investment of time necessary to familiarize themselves with the significantly greater complexity of the IPA. For better or worse, it’s the nature of the dominant culture.
answered Apr 21 at 17:04
Steve FrerichsSteve Frerichs
1
In my experience, most Americans don't bother learning any system of phonetic symbols, whether IPA or otherwise. And I don't think the non-IPA systems are simpler: you don't have to learn the entire IPA to learn the subset of it that is used to transcribe English.
– sumelic
Apr 23 at 19:54
add a comment |
Likely because IPA is a joke. In a standard non translation dictionary (i.e. not french to english) the native english speaker is using the book to conferm spelling and look up meaning. Accent is not a consideration. While written english is non phonetic compared with alphabets that use visual accents, IPA is in itself a separate language that would require lessons to decipher.
Basically, IPA is in no way, shape, or form helpful to people looking for phonetic pronunciation. It's more helpful to break down words into segments and liken the sections to generally understood words or sounds. Best example of this is the Wikipedia entry on "Roosevelt". The IPA would be unhelpful to 99% of people looking it up. Far easier would be "rose-a-velt".
answered Apr 29 '16 at 15:36
mike pollardmike pollard
111
6
If pronunciation is "not a consideration" for native English speakers when they look up words in dictionaries, why do dictionaries include pronunciation at all? IPA is in no way "a separate language." It's a separate alphabet, and it's no harder to learn than most foreign alphabets. It's certainly useful for people if the pronunciation resource they're using transcribes words in IPA. Many dictionaries do so, such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
– sumelic
Apr 29 '16 at 15:44
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144717%2famerican-refusal-of-the-ipa-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I don't know, but here's an interesting quote from Abercrombie's book Fifty years in Phonetics.
In America phonetic notation has had a curious history. Bloomfield
used IPA notation in his early book An Introduction to the Study
of Language, 1914, and in the English edition of his more famous
Language, 1935. But since then, a strange hostility has been
shown by many American linguists to IPA notation, especially to
certain of its symbols.
An interesting and significant story was once told by Carl Voegelin
during a symposium held in New York in 1952 on the present state of
anthropology. He told how, at the beginning of the 1930s, he was
being taught phonetics by, as he put it, a "pleasant Dane", who made
him use the IPA symbol for sh in ship, among others. Some while later
he used those symbols in some work on an American Indian language he
had done for Sapir. When Sapir saw the work he "simply blew up",
Voegelin said, and demanded that in future Voegelin should use 's
wedge' (as š was called), instead of the IPA symbol.
When I used this quote in my dissertation, I got the following interesting response from a committee member:
Sapir probably knew how hard it is to see the difference between esh
and s-wedge in handwriting. This is the main reason Howie Aronson
cited in a class ... relating it
to the tradition of doing fieldwork versus creating nice printed
books. Like other IPA propagandists, Abercrombie seems to want to link
this to American exceptionalism, infelicitously conflating
"Americanist" with "American". Fortunately, you don't use "esh" but,
rather, curly-tailed c...
answered Jan 6 '14 at 3:23
jlovegrenjlovegren
12.3k12147
Personally, I think it's related to the desire to keep monoglot Americans ignorant of the phonetic values of the Latin alphabet in almost all other languages that use it. :) They don’t want people to be confused that we've shifted everything during the Great Vowel Shift so that the letters and sounds no longer match up, like the sound /i/ being what they think of as the letter E not I, or the sound /e/ being what they think of as the letter A not E, or that the name of the letter I is pronounced /ai/ etc. It's so scrambled that this keeps monoglots from pronouncing other languages correctly.
– tchrist♦
Jul 30 '18 at 0:02
add a comment |
I don't know, but here's an interesting quote from Abercrombie's book Fifty years in Phonetics.
In America phonetic notation has had a curious history. Bloomfield
used IPA notation in his early book An Introduction to the Study
of Language, 1914, and in the English edition of his more famous
Language, 1935. But since then, a strange hostility has been
shown by many American linguists to IPA notation, especially to
certain of its symbols.
An interesting and significant story was once told by Carl Voegelin
during a symposium held in New York in 1952 on the present state of
anthropology. He told how, at the beginning of the 1930s, he was
being taught phonetics by, as he put it, a "pleasant Dane", who made
him use the IPA symbol for sh in ship, among others. Some while later
he used those symbols in some work on an American Indian language he
had done for Sapir. When Sapir saw the work he "simply blew up",
Voegelin said, and demanded that in future Voegelin should use 's
wedge' (as š was called), instead of the IPA symbol.
When I used this quote in my dissertation, I got the following interesting response from a committee member:
Sapir probably knew how hard it is to see the difference between esh
and s-wedge in handwriting. This is the main reason Howie Aronson
cited in a class ... relating it
to the tradition of doing fieldwork versus creating nice printed
books. Like other IPA propagandists, Abercrombie seems to want to link
this to American exceptionalism, infelicitously conflating
"Americanist" with "American". Fortunately, you don't use "esh" but,
rather, curly-tailed c...
answered Jan 6 '14 at 3:23
jlovegrenjlovegren
12.3k12147
Personally, I think it's related to the desire to keep monoglot Americans ignorant of the phonetic values of the Latin alphabet in almost all other languages that use it. :) They don’t want people to be confused that we've shifted everything during the Great Vowel Shift so that the letters and sounds no longer match up, like the sound /i/ being what they think of as the letter E not I, or the sound /e/ being what they think of as the letter A not E, or that the name of the letter I is pronounced /ai/ etc. It's so scrambled that this keeps monoglots from pronouncing other languages correctly.
– tchrist♦
Jul 30 '18 at 0:02
add a comment |
I don't know, but here's an interesting quote from Abercrombie's book Fifty years in Phonetics.
In America phonetic notation has had a curious history. Bloomfield
used IPA notation in his early book An Introduction to the Study
of Language, 1914, and in the English edition of his more famous
Language, 1935. But since then, a strange hostility has been
shown by many American linguists to IPA notation, especially to
certain of its symbols.
An interesting and significant story was once told by Carl Voegelin
during a symposium held in New York in 1952 on the present state of
anthropology. He told how, at the beginning of the 1930s, he was
being taught phonetics by, as he put it, a "pleasant Dane", who made
him use the IPA symbol for sh in ship, among others. Some while later
he used those symbols in some work on an American Indian language he
had done for Sapir. When Sapir saw the work he "simply blew up",
Voegelin said, and demanded that in future Voegelin should use 's
wedge' (as š was called), instead of the IPA symbol.
When I used this quote in my dissertation, I got the following interesting response from a committee member:
Sapir probably knew how hard it is to see the difference between esh
and s-wedge in handwriting. This is the main reason Howie Aronson
cited in a class ... relating it
to the tradition of doing fieldwork versus creating nice printed
books. Like other IPA propagandists, Abercrombie seems to want to link
this to American exceptionalism, infelicitously conflating
"Americanist" with "American". Fortunately, you don't use "esh" but,
rather, curly-tailed c...
answered Jan 6 '14 at 3:23
jlovegrenjlovegren
12.3k12147
I don't know, but here's an interesting quote from Abercrombie's book Fifty years in Phonetics.
In America phonetic notation has had a curious history. Bloomfield
used IPA notation in his early book An Introduction to the Study
of Language, 1914, and in the English edition of his more famous
Language, 1935. But since then, a strange hostility has been
shown by many American linguists to IPA notation, especially to
certain of its symbols.
An interesting and significant story was once told by Carl Voegelin
during a symposium held in New York in 1952 on the present state of
anthropology. He told how, at the beginning of the 1930s, he was
being taught phonetics by, as he put it, a "pleasant Dane", who made
him use the IPA symbol for sh in ship, among others. Some while later
he used those symbols in some work on an American Indian language he
had done for Sapir. When Sapir saw the work he "simply blew up",
Voegelin said, and demanded that in future Voegelin should use 's
wedge' (as š was called), instead of the IPA symbol.
When I used this quote in my dissertation, I got the following interesting response from a committee member:
Sapir probably knew how hard it is to see the difference between esh
and s-wedge in handwriting. This is the main reason Howie Aronson
cited in a class ... relating it
to the tradition of doing fieldwork versus creating nice printed
books. Like other IPA propagandists, Abercrombie seems to want to link
this to American exceptionalism, infelicitously conflating
"Americanist" with "American". Fortunately, you don't use "esh" but,
rather, curly-tailed c...
answered Jan 6 '14 at 3:23
jlovegrenjlovegren
12.3k12147
edited Jan 6 '14 at 3:34
answered Jan 6 '14 at 3:23
jlovegrenjlovegren
12.3k12147
answered Jan 6 '14 at 3:23
jlovegrenjlovegren
12.3k12147
answered Jan 6 '14 at 3:23
jlovegrenjlovegren
12.3k12147
12.3k12147
Personally, I think it's related to the desire to keep monoglot Americans ignorant of the phonetic values of the Latin alphabet in almost all other languages that use it. :) They don’t want people to be confused that we've shifted everything during the Great Vowel Shift so that the letters and sounds no longer match up, like the sound /i/ being what they think of as the letter E not I, or the sound /e/ being what they think of as the letter A not E, or that the name of the letter I is pronounced /ai/ etc. It's so scrambled that this keeps monoglots from pronouncing other languages correctly.
– tchrist♦
Jul 30 '18 at 0:02
add a comment |
Personally, I think it's related to the desire to keep monoglot Americans ignorant of the phonetic values of the Latin alphabet in almost all other languages that use it. :) They don’t want people to be confused that we've shifted everything during the Great Vowel Shift so that the letters and sounds no longer match up, like the sound /i/ being what they think of as the letter E not I, or the sound /e/ being what they think of as the letter A not E, or that the name of the letter I is pronounced /ai/ etc. It's so scrambled that this keeps monoglots from pronouncing other languages correctly.
– tchrist♦
Jul 30 '18 at 0:02
Personally, I think it's related to the desire to keep monoglot Americans ignorant of the phonetic values of the Latin alphabet in almost all other languages that use it. :) They don’t want people to be confused that we've shifted everything during the Great Vowel Shift so that the letters and sounds no longer match up, like the sound /i/ being what they think of as the letter E not I, or the sound /e/ being what they think of as the letter A not E, or that the name of the letter I is pronounced /ai/ etc. It's so scrambled that this keeps monoglots from pronouncing other languages correctly.
– tchrist♦
Jul 30 '18 at 0:02
Personally, I think it's related to the desire to keep monoglot Americans ignorant of the phonetic values of the Latin alphabet in almost all other languages that use it. :) They don’t want people to be confused that we've shifted everything during the Great Vowel Shift so that the letters and sounds no longer match up, like the sound /i/ being what they think of as the letter E not I, or the sound /e/ being what they think of as the letter A not E, or that the name of the letter I is pronounced /ai/ etc. It's so scrambled that this keeps monoglots from pronouncing other languages correctly.
– tchrist♦
Jul 30 '18 at 0:02
add a comment |
People who say IPA system does not work are just liars. This is not true. I have been teaching English as a Foreign Language for more than 40 years and the improvements in pronunciation are just amazing from the first basic lesson. What English students need are real tools to help them learn by themselves. The International Phonetic Alphabet works and it is easy to learn.
answered Jul 29 '18 at 23:40
Enrique GuerraEnrique Guerra
311
add a comment |
People who say IPA system does not work are just liars. This is not true. I have been teaching English as a Foreign Language for more than 40 years and the improvements in pronunciation are just amazing from the first basic lesson. What English students need are real tools to help them learn by themselves. The International Phonetic Alphabet works and it is easy to learn.
answered Jul 29 '18 at 23:40
Enrique GuerraEnrique Guerra
311
add a comment |
People who say IPA system does not work are just liars. This is not true. I have been teaching English as a Foreign Language for more than 40 years and the improvements in pronunciation are just amazing from the first basic lesson. What English students need are real tools to help them learn by themselves. The International Phonetic Alphabet works and it is easy to learn.
answered Jul 29 '18 at 23:40
Enrique GuerraEnrique Guerra
311
People who say IPA system does not work are just liars. This is not true. I have been teaching English as a Foreign Language for more than 40 years and the improvements in pronunciation are just amazing from the first basic lesson. What English students need are real tools to help them learn by themselves. The International Phonetic Alphabet works and it is easy to learn.
answered Jul 29 '18 at 23:40
Enrique GuerraEnrique Guerra
311
answered Jul 29 '18 at 23:40
Enrique GuerraEnrique Guerra
311
answered Jul 29 '18 at 23:40
Enrique GuerraEnrique Guerra
311
answered Jul 29 '18 at 23:40
Enrique GuerraEnrique Guerra
311
311
add a comment |
add a comment |
Mike Pollard is correct regarding the impracticality of the IPA for the overwhelming majority of monoglot speakers of American English. Unlike polyglot Europeans, most Americans are quite content using the simpler systems of phonetic symbols presented in American dictionaries and would not benefit from the investment of time necessary to familiarize themselves with the significantly greater complexity of the IPA. For better or worse, it’s the nature of the dominant culture.
answered Apr 21 at 17:04
Steve FrerichsSteve Frerichs
1
In my experience, most Americans don't bother learning any system of phonetic symbols, whether IPA or otherwise. And I don't think the non-IPA systems are simpler: you don't have to learn the entire IPA to learn the subset of it that is used to transcribe English.
– sumelic
Apr 23 at 19:54
add a comment |
Mike Pollard is correct regarding the impracticality of the IPA for the overwhelming majority of monoglot speakers of American English. Unlike polyglot Europeans, most Americans are quite content using the simpler systems of phonetic symbols presented in American dictionaries and would not benefit from the investment of time necessary to familiarize themselves with the significantly greater complexity of the IPA. For better or worse, it’s the nature of the dominant culture.
answered Apr 21 at 17:04
Steve FrerichsSteve Frerichs
1
In my experience, most Americans don't bother learning any system of phonetic symbols, whether IPA or otherwise. And I don't think the non-IPA systems are simpler: you don't have to learn the entire IPA to learn the subset of it that is used to transcribe English.
– sumelic
Apr 23 at 19:54
add a comment |
Mike Pollard is correct regarding the impracticality of the IPA for the overwhelming majority of monoglot speakers of American English. Unlike polyglot Europeans, most Americans are quite content using the simpler systems of phonetic symbols presented in American dictionaries and would not benefit from the investment of time necessary to familiarize themselves with the significantly greater complexity of the IPA. For better or worse, it’s the nature of the dominant culture.
answered Apr 21 at 17:04
Steve FrerichsSteve Frerichs
1
Mike Pollard is correct regarding the impracticality of the IPA for the overwhelming majority of monoglot speakers of American English. Unlike polyglot Europeans, most Americans are quite content using the simpler systems of phonetic symbols presented in American dictionaries and would not benefit from the investment of time necessary to familiarize themselves with the significantly greater complexity of the IPA. For better or worse, it’s the nature of the dominant culture.
answered Apr 21 at 17:04
Steve FrerichsSteve Frerichs
1
answered Apr 21 at 17:04
Steve FrerichsSteve Frerichs
1
answered Apr 21 at 17:04
Steve FrerichsSteve Frerichs
1
answered Apr 21 at 17:04
Steve FrerichsSteve Frerichs
1
1
In my experience, most Americans don't bother learning any system of phonetic symbols, whether IPA or otherwise. And I don't think the non-IPA systems are simpler: you don't have to learn the entire IPA to learn the subset of it that is used to transcribe English.
– sumelic
Apr 23 at 19:54
add a comment |
In my experience, most Americans don't bother learning any system of phonetic symbols, whether IPA or otherwise. And I don't think the non-IPA systems are simpler: you don't have to learn the entire IPA to learn the subset of it that is used to transcribe English.
– sumelic
Apr 23 at 19:54
In my experience, most Americans don't bother learning any system of phonetic symbols, whether IPA or otherwise. And I don't think the non-IPA systems are simpler: you don't have to learn the entire IPA to learn the subset of it that is used to transcribe English.
– sumelic
Apr 23 at 19:54
In my experience, most Americans don't bother learning any system of phonetic symbols, whether IPA or otherwise. And I don't think the non-IPA systems are simpler: you don't have to learn the entire IPA to learn the subset of it that is used to transcribe English.
– sumelic
Apr 23 at 19:54
add a comment |
Likely because IPA is a joke. In a standard non translation dictionary (i.e. not french to english) the native english speaker is using the book to conferm spelling and look up meaning. Accent is not a consideration. While written english is non phonetic compared with alphabets that use visual accents, IPA is in itself a separate language that would require lessons to decipher.
Basically, IPA is in no way, shape, or form helpful to people looking for phonetic pronunciation. It's more helpful to break down words into segments and liken the sections to generally understood words or sounds. Best example of this is the Wikipedia entry on "Roosevelt". The IPA would be unhelpful to 99% of people looking it up. Far easier would be "rose-a-velt".
answered Apr 29 '16 at 15:36
mike pollardmike pollard
111
6
If pronunciation is "not a consideration" for native English speakers when they look up words in dictionaries, why do dictionaries include pronunciation at all? IPA is in no way "a separate language." It's a separate alphabet, and it's no harder to learn than most foreign alphabets. It's certainly useful for people if the pronunciation resource they're using transcribes words in IPA. Many dictionaries do so, such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
– sumelic
Apr 29 '16 at 15:44
add a comment |
Likely because IPA is a joke. In a standard non translation dictionary (i.e. not french to english) the native english speaker is using the book to conferm spelling and look up meaning. Accent is not a consideration. While written english is non phonetic compared with alphabets that use visual accents, IPA is in itself a separate language that would require lessons to decipher.
Basically, IPA is in no way, shape, or form helpful to people looking for phonetic pronunciation. It's more helpful to break down words into segments and liken the sections to generally understood words or sounds. Best example of this is the Wikipedia entry on "Roosevelt". The IPA would be unhelpful to 99% of people looking it up. Far easier would be "rose-a-velt".
answered Apr 29 '16 at 15:36
mike pollardmike pollard
111
6
If pronunciation is "not a consideration" for native English speakers when they look up words in dictionaries, why do dictionaries include pronunciation at all? IPA is in no way "a separate language." It's a separate alphabet, and it's no harder to learn than most foreign alphabets. It's certainly useful for people if the pronunciation resource they're using transcribes words in IPA. Many dictionaries do so, such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
– sumelic
Apr 29 '16 at 15:44
add a comment |
Likely because IPA is a joke. In a standard non translation dictionary (i.e. not french to english) the native english speaker is using the book to conferm spelling and look up meaning. Accent is not a consideration. While written english is non phonetic compared with alphabets that use visual accents, IPA is in itself a separate language that would require lessons to decipher.
Basically, IPA is in no way, shape, or form helpful to people looking for phonetic pronunciation. It's more helpful to break down words into segments and liken the sections to generally understood words or sounds. Best example of this is the Wikipedia entry on "Roosevelt". The IPA would be unhelpful to 99% of people looking it up. Far easier would be "rose-a-velt".
answered Apr 29 '16 at 15:36
mike pollardmike pollard
111
Likely because IPA is a joke. In a standard non translation dictionary (i.e. not french to english) the native english speaker is using the book to conferm spelling and look up meaning. Accent is not a consideration. While written english is non phonetic compared with alphabets that use visual accents, IPA is in itself a separate language that would require lessons to decipher.
Basically, IPA is in no way, shape, or form helpful to people looking for phonetic pronunciation. It's more helpful to break down words into segments and liken the sections to generally understood words or sounds. Best example of this is the Wikipedia entry on "Roosevelt". The IPA would be unhelpful to 99% of people looking it up. Far easier would be "rose-a-velt".
answered Apr 29 '16 at 15:36
mike pollardmike pollard
111
answered Apr 29 '16 at 15:36
mike pollardmike pollard
111
answered Apr 29 '16 at 15:36
mike pollardmike pollard
111
answered Apr 29 '16 at 15:36
mike pollardmike pollard
111
111
6
If pronunciation is "not a consideration" for native English speakers when they look up words in dictionaries, why do dictionaries include pronunciation at all? IPA is in no way "a separate language." It's a separate alphabet, and it's no harder to learn than most foreign alphabets. It's certainly useful for people if the pronunciation resource they're using transcribes words in IPA. Many dictionaries do so, such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
– sumelic
Apr 29 '16 at 15:44
add a comment |
6
If pronunciation is "not a consideration" for native English speakers when they look up words in dictionaries, why do dictionaries include pronunciation at all? IPA is in no way "a separate language." It's a separate alphabet, and it's no harder to learn than most foreign alphabets. It's certainly useful for people if the pronunciation resource they're using transcribes words in IPA. Many dictionaries do so, such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
– sumelic
Apr 29 '16 at 15:44
6
6
If pronunciation is "not a consideration" for native English speakers when they look up words in dictionaries, why do dictionaries include pronunciation at all? IPA is in no way "a separate language." It's a separate alphabet, and it's no harder to learn than most foreign alphabets. It's certainly useful for people if the pronunciation resource they're using transcribes words in IPA. Many dictionaries do so, such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
– sumelic
Apr 29 '16 at 15:44
If pronunciation is "not a consideration" for native English speakers when they look up words in dictionaries, why do dictionaries include pronunciation at all? IPA is in no way "a separate language." It's a separate alphabet, and it's no harder to learn than most foreign alphabets. It's certainly useful for people if the pronunciation resource they're using transcribes words in IPA. Many dictionaries do so, such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
– sumelic
Apr 29 '16 at 15:44
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144717%2famerican-refusal-of-the-ipa-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
"Americans academics" do not reject the IPA - I learned it in college in the 1960s. Most American dictionary publishers don't employ it, probably because few linguists buy mass-market dictionaries, and everybody else is perfectly happy with what they've got.
– StoneyB
Jan 5 '14 at 21:54
12
Precisely. Webster's pre-steampunk notation system is the one that nobody ever understands or learns, because it makes no sense. Therefore it's perfect for an American dictionary. Merriam-Webster has published Kenyon & Knott's Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, with excellent IPA-based phonemic notation, since the 1950s, but they continue to not use it anywhere else, for fear Americans might learn something. It's like the metric system; "not invented here".
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:05
6
Therefore the rule I suggest to any English learner: DON'T buy a monolingual English dictionary published in the United States. Make sure that the English pronunciations are in IPA; if you see anything else, don't trust the book.
– John Lawler
Jan 5 '14 at 22:08
3
@John, StoneyB: I'm comparatively ignorant in such matters, obviously. But surely if IPA is an international symbol set, it must include many sounds that don't even occur in spoken AmE? And perhaps others where different speakers do indeed pronounce certain sounds differently because of regional accents, but those differences are consistent, and known to the natives. So in the context of a "pronouncing dictionary", they only need to know this is sound X (unlike you, John, they don't usually need to know about dialectal variations in how "sound X" is actually articulated).
– FumbleFingers
Jan 5 '14 at 22:32
3
@Fumble, there are implementations of IPA that work very well for that as well (just look at any pronunciation hint given on Wikipedia, for example—or any Oxford dictionary, for that matter). IPA comes in varying degrees of broad- and fineness, and for dictionary purposes, broad IPA for English would be so much more efficient than Webster Spaghetti.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Jan 5 '14 at 23:59