Archive 21 of JWL Blog

Readers who need explanations of any of the abbreviations used may find them at Section 1 of the Home Page.

RSS Feed

SCEP2009 Transcription (ii) Model

Here’s something like what I’d regard as a competent EFL-oriented version:

1.    ˋaɪ θɪŋk wi kəd duː wɪð ə bɪt əv ə ˎʧeɪnʤ.
2.     'lets get əˎweɪ fər ə fjuː deɪz ðɪs iːstə.
3.    `raɪt ju ˏɑː. ˋweə ʃəl wi ˎgəʊ. ˊskɒtlənd?
4.    ˋnəʊ. 'tuːˎfɑː. ən ɪts 'ɔːlwəz ˎreɪnɪŋ. ˋnɪəli əz ˎbæd əz         ˋaɪələnd.
5.    'haʊ əbaʊt ˋkɔːnwɔːl?
6.    'm. ˋðæts kwaɪt ə gʊd weɪ ˏɒf. ən ɪts 'wet ˋðeə, ˋtuː.
7.    'ʃæl wi 'traɪ ˋweɪlz, ˏðen?
8.    ˌplenti əv ˌreɪn ˋðeə.
9.    ðə ˋleɪk dɪstrɪkt, ðen.
10.    ˊiːvn ˋwetə. ɪf ˏpɒsəbl.
11.    'ðə ˎdeɪlz, ðen.
12.    'ɔːl ˏraɪt. səʊ ˋlɒŋ əz wi teɪk ɑː ˋmæks n̩ 'saʊ ˋwestəz.

You can hear this passage and read my transcription of how the actors performed it at People Speaking 4.1.17. For the title /trævəlɪŋ/ with a medial schwa wou'dnt be wrong but it might sound over-careful to many (certainly middle-aged) people.

In line 1 the man has a very minute hesitation at could which is almost only detectable by his clearly making it /kəd/ whereas very fluent articulation mightve me'nt that he had only one /d/. Substituting /ʊ/ for its /ə/ wd tend to make it sound a bit unnaturally deliberate coz with full fluency the schwa might even be almost undetectable. Notice /bɪt əv ə/ is so fluent the word-final /t/ is quite without any trace of aspiration and not completely distinct from a /d/.

In line 2 a blip in the recording makes it uncertain whether /fər ə/ or /frə/ has been sed. Sorry! In line 3 what we hear at least cou'd well be represented as /`raɪʧu ˏɑː/ which is perfectly normal. For shall it’d be at least as valid to write /ʃl/.
In line 3 she makes an elision of the /l/ of shall which is very common in fully fluent delivery of such a phrase. Something that wd be unwise to recommend as an EFL target.

In line 4 always is also sed very fluently so the /l/ gets lost and the vowel we expect in the second syllable might be /ə/ or /ɪ/ or not there at all!
Line 5 begins with a smoothing of what wou'd be moderately paced /haʊ əbaʊt/ to very fluent [hɑ(ː)baʊt]. It ends with the word Cornwall which she sez as I shd say it. This is still a perfectly unremarkable usage but the three pronouncing dictionaries all to my surprise agree that /-wɔːl/ is more usual. Daniel Jones hadnt noticed the existence of such a version until 1937 and he and Gimson both labelled it as “rare” but a change seems to have taken place that I can’t personally say I’ve been aware of or vouch for — or praps even believe in. Of course I am rather ancient.

In line 7 she has a weakform of shall /ʃə/ before we (which wou'dnt be possible before I) tho she makes the word fully prominent in a way that may upset the rule makers but is perfectly commonplace. The same goes for her use of a prominent/stressed/accented (call it what you like) weakform /ðə/ for the first word (The) of line 11.
The word then, which is best considered by EFL users as not able to take a weakform, at least when it comes at the end of a sentence, more-or-less gets one from her in line 9. Tho she doesnt give it one in lines 7 or 11.

In line 10 he sez even wetter with probably closed lips from the /v/ onward which probbly means that the /n/ which follows is both an [n] and an [m] simultaneously — all from the influence of the approaching /w/! We can still regard it reasonably as an allophone of /n/ because the alveolar closure is, I think, detectable. In line 12 notice he uses the “optional” fully fluent weakform of so.

C T ONIONS and OED Phonetics

Charles Talbut Onions was born at Edgbaston, a prosperous suburb of Birmingham on the 10th of September 1873. He died in 1965. He received all his formal education at that city initially at one of the King Edward VI foundation day schools. At Mason College, which later became part of Birmingham University, he obtained a degree in French, with third class honours, taking an external London University BA examination. He had followed that with an MA when James Murray met him in 1895 on a visit to Birmingham as an external examiner. He instantly recognised the brilliance of this 22-year-old polymathic young scholar and very shortly afterwards invited him to become the last of the four co-editors of the great Oxford English Dictionary. Onions spent the rest of his life at Oxford on a variety of publications the bulk of which were lexicographical. He was an intensely religious man. He married a clergyman’s dauter by whom he had ten children. He was noted among his colleagues for the astringency with which he expressed his opinions. He accepted appointment to Reith’s BBC Advisory Committee on Spoken English in 1930 but resigned from it four years later from dissatisfaction with its lack of professionalism.

In 1922 on the death of the Oxford scholar William Little, who had almost completed a reduction of the OED’s 15,000 "large quarto" pages to 2,500 slightly smaller "quarto" pages, Onions took on the completion and editing of what became known as The Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Phonetics was not a major concern for Onions but his work notably on its introductory matter, and on that of his final great achievement, The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology of over a thousand pages, are not entirely without some int'rest as regards pronunciation matters. They provide a few modest sidelights on Murray’s treatment of them in the OED. Later scholars have tended to speak dismissively of Murray’s phonetic notation in that great work but it deserves far more sympathetic treatment than it has received. An exception is Michael MacMahon who (at p.74 of a brilliant TPS article) remarks of Murray "in some respects, his achievement went beyond anything his contemporaries (and even his successors in lexicographical phonetics) had accomplished".

One problem is that Murray’s notations were not at all adequately explained in the OED introductory matter. It was regrettable that, dying before the OED was complete, he cou'dnt keep his promise in its first volume at p.xxxiv: "The reference of the symbols to a permanent standard, such as the Visible Speech of Mr A. Melville Bell will be made elsewhere". The table of symbols on the page following that promise unfortunately merely explained his notations by words which exemplified the sounds. This was very far from completely satisfactory. One can hardly believe that by "elsewhere" Murray only me'nt the prefatory comments made at the individual letters of the alphabet. These are now understandably in some measure abandoned.

The admirable MacMahon exegesis of the so inscrutable 1884 "NED" notation ("OED" began to be substituted for NED from 1895) refers to items which are liable to be misinterpreted "or not interpreted at all". He remarks at p. 74 that "no work on English pronunciation since Murray’s day, excluding the [OED] Supplements, has used his notational system". This of course shou'dve added the SOED. In the SOED Onions carried on using the exact OED symbols but his comments on them contained some noteworthy differences from what Murray’s had been. He didnt repeat or even summarise Murray’s explanations of their origins and/or reasons for the choice of each one but de'lt with points that Murray hardly if at all mentioned. These included the ordering of alternative individual word forms and the variant values of certain composite symbols. He remarked "allowance is made for local or class divergence from the standard range, but not, as a rule, for dialectal, colonial, or American varieties". He referred to the "divergent pronunciations of the vowels of such words as fast, bath and cough, lost, soft having special symbols "to indicate that such local or individual varieties exist". He also referred to the NED distinct symbols for fir and fur "where south-of-England speakers make no distinction".

His inclination to mention such matters very probably reflected some preoccupation with differences between his own, at least earlier, habits and those of his many public-school-educated colleagues. He refers similarly to the notation of a "northerly pronunciation ... of vowels of words like fort, port, mourn"... being "recognized, where the southerly has ... the general sound in form, short and morn". Some readers may welcome being  reminded that in linguistic terms Birmingham may be sed to be "northerly". The controversiality of such matters is alive today when we see the third edition of the OED appearing online with a pretty arbitrary selection of northernisms appearing in what its Preface refers to disquietingly as "a revised model of Received Pronunciation". This includes a set of IPA symbols with differences of highly questionable value from those of the second edition and most other authorities including, particularly deplorably, grossly inappropriate correlative representations of the price and mouth diphthongs. (Section 12 Item 5 and Section 5 Item 1 on this website are relevant to these matters). The Onions comments included a useful statement of one major reason why the Murray transcriptions were so very complex. "An outstanding feature of the phonetic system is the recognition of the primary or ideal value of the many vowels that undergo obscuration or reduction in unstressed positions, but which may at any time revert to their full quality, as in rhetorical utterance, in singing and in any cases of deliberate or affected precision". This was mostly effected by use of superscript breves as he exemplified clearly.

Finally it’s of int'rest to observe how, still definitely using Murray’s basis, he simplified it (albeit somewhat idiosyncratically) for the notation he devised for his Dictionary of English Etymology. He had, unfortunately, omitted any explanation of the mystifying mixture of italic and non-italic vowel symbols of the OED and SOED. This had reflected Melville Bell’s complicated categorisation of vowels into "narrow" and "wide" types which was adopted also by Sweet but has since been universally rejected (see MacMahon p.87). Onions abandoned that type of symbolisation completely and reserved italics only for the representation of French non-nasal vowels (excepting one curiously idiosyncratic ø/œ differentiation) which was the only forei'n language his etymological dictionary provided vowel transcriptions of. He retained a composite symbol (à) for bath and chant words and superscript breves for alternatively clear and obscure vowels. He kept Murray’s turned ɹ that catered for "rhotic" accents. He abandoned all raised letters for variably present second elements of diphthongs. He showed no influence of the alphabet of the International Phonetic Association, which he never joined, except perhaps in his use of ʌ for the cup vowel. It was probably more the influence of Onions, his revered mentor, than anything else that decided Robert Burchfield to stay with the NED notation for all his four great supplementary volumes thus giving Murray’s creation over a hundred years of life, 1884 to 1986.

SCEP 2009 Transcription (ii)

1.    ˋI think we could do with a bit of a ˎchange. 'Let’s get                 aˎway for a few days this Easter.
2.    ˋRight you ˏare. 'Where shall we ˎgo. ˊScotland.
3.    ˋNo. ' Too ˎfar. And it’s 'always ˎraining. ˋNearly as ˎbad as         ˋIreland.
4.    'How about ˋCornwall.  
5.    'Mm. ˋThat’s quite a good way ˏoff. And it’s 'wet ˋthere ,             ˋtoo.
6.    'Shall we 'try ˋˏWales, ˳then.
7.    ˌPlenty of ˌrain ˋthere.
8.    The ˋLake District, then.
9.    ˊEven ˋwetter. If ˏpossible.
10.    'The ˎDales, then.
11.  'All ˏright. So ˋlong as we take our ˋmacks and 'sou’                     ˋˏwesters.

This passage has 102 words (including the title — which is expected to be transcribed) of which 25 are on the cautionary shortlist of danger words we gave at the end of our Blog 201. The ones to be most careful of are the prepositions for and of and the verb shall. Don’t forget that any syllable preceded by a tone mark — which has the same message as a stress mark — is very unlikely to be suitable to take a weakform. An exception (that as we say “proves the rule”) occurs in line 10, however, on its first word (“ˈThe”). It’s best to regard the word then as having no weakform. Be sure, when you copy the tone marks onto your transcription, that you dont introduce any inappropriate ones you may find in your dictionary.

SCEP 09 Transcription (i) Model

   1.  ðə ˋʤəʊnzɪz ᛁ əv 'gɒt ə njuː ˋkɑː.
   2. ˏˋhæv ðeɪ, ɪndiːd. 'wɒt ˎmɒdl ɪz ɪt, dɪə.
   3. əʊ, ˋaɪ dəʊnt ˏnəʊ. ˋɪts ə 'peɪl ˋbluː.
   4. ˏwel, ˋwel. 'əʊld 'ted ˋɪz ə dɑːk hɔːs.
   5. ˋhaʊz ˋðæt, ðen.
   6. aɪ wəz 'əʊnli ˋtɔːkɪŋ ˏkɑːz wɪð ɪm ᛁ ði 'ʌðə ˋnaɪt.
   7. ən i 'dɪdnt ˋ ˏmenʃn ɪt?
   8. nɒt ə ˋwɜːd.
   9. 'haʊ 'lɒŋ ᛁəd ðeɪ hæd ði ˋəʊld wʌn.
  10. ˏnɒt ə deɪ əʊvə 'tuː ˋjɜːz, aɪm ˋpɒzətɪv.
  11. ˋwel. 'ðæts ˋwʌn weɪ  wi ˌʃɑːnt bi ˌeɪbl tə kiːp ˌʌp wɪð     ðəm.

Compare this with People Speaking 15 at which (§4.1) you can hear it spoken by actors (non-phoneticians) who were simply asked to use the pronunciations they felt to be most natural to them.

1.    ðə ˋʤəʊnzɪz ᛁ əv 'gɒt ə njuː ˋkɑː.
2.    ˏˋhæv ðeɪ, ɪndiːd. 'wɒt ˎmɒdl ɪz ɪt, dɪə.
3.    əʊ, ˋaɪ dəʊnt ˏnəʊ. ˋɪts ə 'peɪl ˋbluː.
4.    ˏwel, ˋwel. 'əʊl 'ted ˋɪz ə dɑːk hɔːs.
5.    ˋhaʊz ˋðæt, ðen.
6.    aɪ wəz 'əʊni ˋtɔːkɪŋ ˏkɑːz wɪð ɪm ᛁ ði 'ʌðə ˋnaɪt.
7.    ən i 'dɪdnt ˋˏmenʃn ɪt?
8.    nɒt ə ˋwɜːd.
9.    'haʊ 'lɒŋ ᛁəd ðeɪ hæd ði ˋəʊld wʌn.
10.    ˏnɒt ə deɪ əʊvə 'tuː ˋjɜːz, aɪm ˋpɒzətɪv.
11.    ˋwel. 'ðæts ˊˋwʌn weɪ wi ˌʃɑːnt bi ˌeɪbl tə kiːp ˌʌp wɪð ðəm.

Comments
This is rather an easy exercise. The chief things which students are likely to go wrong on are the weakform words where native English speakers wd normally not use an /h/ of the spelling, namely have in line 1, him in line 6, he in line 7 and the first had in line 9. The second had there wdnt be weakened becoz it’s a main verb. In line 7 the /d/ of and isnt used, as is the case more than nine times out of ten, tho using it wdnt sound particularly unusual. As to the /d/ of old in line 4, altho most speakers wd omit it before a following plosive consonant, as it occurs here, such an elision isnt so invariable as to make keeping the /d/ sound unnatural so long as it isnt released (which wd produce the effect of saying something like older Ted). There’s a similar situation with only in line 6. When it's not clause-final, this word is far more often pronounced without /l/ than with it despite the dictionary writers’ reluctance to recognise the fact. They all fail even to record the existence of /əʊni/ except for Wells who refuses, surprisingly for such a usually sharp observer, to acknowledge it as an accepted usage. The word is commonly enough he'rd with its /l/ for EFL users to safely ignore the existence of this worldwide very normal form we hear from our speaker. The message here for the EFL teacher is on no account to criticise a student who uses /əʊni/ in the normal way just mentioned. The /t/ of /dɪdnt/ in line 7 wd very often be omitted, coming as it does within a sequence of consonants, but many wd utter it, as does our speaker here, even in the very fluent style of her delivery. Where old occurs agen in line 9 it comes before a non-closure consonant in the semivowel /w/ which makes its /d/ much more likely to be used. In line 10 our speaker uses the form /jɜː/ of the word year which Jones and Gimson always considered to be the dominant usage in their day. This is a perfectly normal and frequent form of the word but, insofar as it doesnt match the spelling so well as /jɪə/ does, may well be considered the less appropriate target for the EFL learner. There cn be little dou't that for the last generation or so /jɪə/ has increasingly become the dominant target form for GB speakers. However, it isnt such an easy one to use as cn be seen by the fact that very many, perhaps most, speakers who don't say /jɜː/ use a form of year from which they very frequently, elide the initial /j/ perhaps predominantly in many common expressions such as this year, next year and last year. A final point perhaps of interest is that we notice she uses a Rise-Fall tone rather than a more ordinary simple Fall on one in the last line with an effect of extra liveliness.

SCEP 2009 Transcriptions (i)

Perhaps some readers last year noticed a little burst of activity on my part of offering exercises in phonemic transcription which started in July with my blog 119. They may also have noted a similar thing starting to happen in early August this year with my blog 201. These were in fact triggered by my looking into the materials I shd take with me to London for my teaching on the two weeks of “SCEP” ie the University-College-London annual Summer Course in English Phonetics. This year was a bit of a milestone for me because I was taking part in it for the twentieth consecutive year. I’ve had quite a lot of experience in teaching and lecturing on Summer Courses. My first one was for the British Council in 1955. At one time I directed a number of them for the British Council. These days I’m very content to see Michael Ashby running SCEP — remarkably successfully. Another 150 or so students enrolled this year from a wide range of countries and they all seemed to enjoy it hugely. It runs for two weeks and has a set of two core lectures and two small-group tutorials each morning for the ten weekdays. A variety of special backup lectures and ear-training classes are available in the afternoons. The dozen lecturers include, besides Michael, Professor John Wells, Dr Beverley Collins and Dr Jane Setter.

I’ve thaut that it miet be interesting to offer readers the chance to try the exercises I gave this year to my Pronunciation tutorial group. Each teacher of the Pronunciation tutorials is expected to set exercises suitable for his or her group. As usual I had  university-level students in my group and chose to give them three exercises to do outside of the class to be handed to me for comment, one each for the first week, the weekend and the second week. This year I decided to use three dialogues of round about a hundred words each. I explained in last year’s blogs how they are designed. The first one, 97 words long, was as follows.  I shall give in a later blog a model version of it and some comments on how it shdve been tackled.

Phonemic Transcription Assignment No 1

Instructions: Exactly copy onto your transcription the tone marks shown taking careful note of their indications of rhythms. Don't leave any space between any tone mark and the syllable it precedes. Transcribe only in the usual EFL (eg LPD) segmental symbols (ie not copying any stress markings from any dictionary). Use spaces between parts of words exactly as in ordinary spelling (not LPD spacings).  Give the pronunciations you consider most suitable for EFL learners to adopt. Show no alternatives. Include the title.

1.         The ˋJoneses | have ˈgot a new ˋcar.
2.         ˋHave they, indeed. ˈWhat `model is it, dear.
3.         Oh, `I don’t ˏknow. `It's a ˈpale `blue.
4.         ˏWell, `well. ˈOld ˈTed ˎis a dark horse.
5.         `How’s `that, then?
6.          I was ˈonly `talking ˏcars with him | the ˈother     `night.
7.          And he ˈdidn’t `ˏmention it?
8.          Not a `word.
9.         ˈHow ˈlong had they had the `old one?
10.        ˏNot a day over ˈtwo `years, I’m ˋpositive.
11.        `Well! ˈThat’s `one way we ˌshan't be ˌable to keep ˌup with them.

    

J. A. Afzelius and Daniel Jones

As readers of the J. C. Wells blogs will already know, on the 8th of August at the Phonetics Teaching and Learning Conference held at University College London, a paper by Beverley Collins & Inger Mees was presented entitled ‘The first modern English pronunciation dictionary’. These are the authors who published in 1999 the superb definitive study The Real Professor Higgins, the Life and Career of Daniel Jones.

Its subject was a book by the Swede Jon Arvid Afzelius (1856-1918) which first appeared in 1909 entitled A Concise Pronouncing Dictionary of Modern English. It contained about 24,000 headwords transcribed using the symbols of Henry Sweet’s “Broad Romic” set which had been (at least more than anything else was) the basis of the International Phonetic Association’s alphabet. The paper’s title was completely justified because, as the dictionary’s prefatory matter pointed out, until its appearance, there were only reprints (albeit to various extents revised but only very unsatisfactorily) of the long-out-of-date eighteenth-century Critical Pronouncing Dictionary of John Walker to fulfil the needs catered to by this work. Witness the complaint of Wilhelm Viëtor in 1886 quoted by Collins and Mees in their Introduction to their recent Routledge facsimile reprint of the 1913 Michaelis-Jones Phonetic Dictionary of the English Language about having to “make do” with Walker. Cf also our Blog 167 where Pitman’s avowal of his reliance on it in the preparation of his 1837 system of shorthand was noted. 

The Collins-Mees  paper included a comment Wells quoted:
In 1909, Jones was perhaps already pondering the possibility of producing something very much on the same lines as Afzelius’s effort – this was to emerge many years later as his English Pronouncing Dictionary. It is nonetheless curious that amongst all the acknowledgements, sources and copious book lists that Jones includes in his preliminary material, one name is conspicuously absent – there is no mention of Afzelius.

They also remarked ... subsequent to the [1909] appearance of the review in the Maître phonétique, we could not trace a single mention of either the man or his work.  

However, it shd be pointed out that, altho he indeed made no mention at all of Afzelius in any edition of his English Pronouncing Dictionary which he edited from 1917 to 1956, this was not so as regards the 1913 Michaelis-Jones Phonetic Dictionary at the end of which there appeared

A LIST OF BOOKS RECOMMENDED FOR THE STUDY OF ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION.

This list had six numbered sections: ‘Books on Phonetic Theory’,  ‘Phonetic Readers’, ‘Pronouncing Dictionaries’, ‘Phonetic Charts’, ‘Models of the Organs of Speech’ and ‘Books on the History of English Pronunciation’. In the third section the Afzelius work was included and noted without criticism as using “a system of phonetic notation not very different from the International”. This identical comment was made on another entry under the same heading viz the  English and Danish Dictionary edited by the Dane J. Brynildsen and published in Denmark. This general work, undated by Jones but published in two very large volumes in 1902 (A to M) and 1907 (N to Z), contained a very complete set of for-its-day remarkably up-to-date pronunciation transcriptions provided by the great Otto Jespersen. If its publishers had had the enterprise to extract these and issue them as a sep’rate volume, not only wd Afzelius not have been the first in the field but the EPD (which in this section was announced as in preparation) wou’dve had a very much more significant and probably much larger precursor.

In addition to the above, when in 1919 the first edition of Jones’s Outline of English Phonetics appeared it contained as its Appendix E a list with exactly the same heading (except for for the first time appropriately adding after books “ETC”) also containing details of the Afzelius book. By the 1922 second edition, however, the Afzelius entry was withdrawn, tho not so the Brynildsen which was, however, still undated and again had no mention that its huge coverage of pronunciations had been provided by such an authority as  Jespersen.

    When in 1917 the EPD was first published it contained, at the end of its introductory matter, two pages with an identical heading to the ones quoted above. This seems to confirm one’s conjecture that the previous list was Jones’s idea. This time we find only the first two sections and so no references to any other pronouncing dictionaries. From my impressions of Dent, who repeatedly announced as new editions relatively trivially revised reprints of the EPD — possibly somewhat to Jones’s embarrassment — I shdnt be surprised to hear that they’d vetoed the inclusion of such a section.

This is not to suggest that Jones cd always be completely relied upon to lack bias in this respect. It was noticeable that he went out of his way to commend in a brief but glowing review (in Le Maître Phonétique Number 99 of 1953) of the quite modest pocket-sized English-Reader’s Dictionary by A. S. Hornby and E. C. Parnwell. This general dictionary had pronunciation notations of which he expressed full approval. He even included it in the 1956 edition of the Outline of English Phonetics under ‘Pronouncing Dictionaries’ in a section exactly like the ones we’ve been mentioning above. By an amazing contrast, the Hornby-et-al Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, which had been available in a form similar to that of the Concise Oxford Dictionary since 1948 in an edition of 1500 pages with transcriptions of all its headwords, was never reviewed in the m.f. under his editorship and seems not to have been mentioned by him anywhere. (A later edition of it was reviewed in m.f. by the present writer.) Its 1948 notation was exactly as in the first edition of the EPD except that it had, in the common American style, acute accents above primary stressed syllables and grave accents over secondary stresses inste’d of IPA stress marks before stressed syllables. (In 1963 it became converted to IPA style completely).

Another Exercise - Model

Here’s this further exercise, in the same transcriber’s version, again with my comments.

A ˈQuestion of ˎTemperature
ə kweʃtʃn əv temprɪtʃə
Okay, but /kwestʃən əv/ with /s/ wd make a slightly easier EFL target and it’d be a more usual rhythm to have /-ən/ before a vowel; /kweʃtʃn/ wd praps make an uncomfortable group of consonants; /temprətʃə/ wd be fine but it’s no dou’t best to avoid the common TV forecasters’ too “familiar” version /temʧə/ which no editor of a pronouncing dictionary sanctions.
1. As ˈmy ˈold ˎgrandmother used to say,
əz maɪ əʊl ɡrænmʌðə juːstə seɪ |
That’s exactly how I think I’d say it but as an  EFL target I think I’d show the /d/ of old tho praps not the /d/ more regularly omitted from grandmother. LPD clearly omits it in its first version. EPD and ODP are less committed. /grӕmmʌðə/ wd sound fine.
2. there’s ˈnothing ˈworse | than ˈfood ˈserved ˎcold.
ðəz nʌθɪŋ wɜːs ðən fuːd sɜːvd kəʊld |
/ðeəz/ wd be an easier target; /ðez/ wd sound okay too; /ðəz/ wd be the most common choice of native speakers; /ðn/ wd suggest a slightly more natural tempo; served with /d/ elided wd be completely normal sounding but not an ideal EFL target.
3. `Oh, `no. I a`gree with you. ˈCold ˈplates | are `awful.
əʊ nəʊ aɪ əɡriː wɪð juː| kəʊld pleɪts r ɔːfl |
As you is quite unstressed it’s better shown /ju/; are reduced to /r/ is perfectly realistic but, as a fractionally less brisk tempo is a completely unexceptionable choice, for EFL purposes I recommend /ər/.
4. ˈThose little `trays are ˏgood — `ˏyou know |
ðəʊz lɪtl treɪz ə ɡʊd jʊ nəʊ |
As you is fully stressed /juː/ is the only possible target.
5. with a `light underneath | for ˈkeeping things ˈnice and ˎhot.
wɪð ə laɪt ʌndəniːθ | fə kiːpɪŋ θɪŋz naɪs n hɒt |
Yes, the syllabic /n/ for and is absolutely right here.
6. `Oh, `yes. I’m afraid `we haven’t got anything like `ˏthat.
əʊ jes | aɪm əfreɪd wi hævnt ɡɒt eniθɪŋ laɪk ðæt |
This unfortunately ignores the stress on we which makes this weakform /wi/ very inappropriate; /eniθɪŋ/ is fine: so wd be /enəθɪŋ/ but a less good target. 
7.  ́No. ˈNeither have `we, ˏactually |
nəʊ | naɪðə həv wiː ækʃəlɪ |
The /h/ weakform of have is a bit more formal or careful-sounding than usual. With the more natural /əv/ neither wd need a linking final /r/; /ӕktʃəli/ wd be an easier EFL target and probably the majority form  in British if not in American usage.
8. though we `have thought of `ˏgetting some.
ðəʊ wi hæv θɔːt əv ɡetɪŋ sʌm |
Good! Strongform of some is essential.
9. `Jane’s very keen on heating ˏdishes.  
dʒeɪnz veri kiːn ɒn hiːtɪŋ dɪʃɪz | Fine!
10. `Oh, ˈˏis she? `That’s a good ˏthing.
əʊ ɪz ʃiː | ðæts ə ɡʊd θɪŋ | /ɪʒ/ wd be a natural assimilation but a less easy target; the strongform /ʃiː/ wd give a pretty normal rhythm because of the Rise on it. Then it’d be what I’d call “stressed but not accented” ie made prominent but not purposely for its importance to the speaker’s meaning but quasi-accidentally by the choice of tone. But  /ʃi/ is a better target. This Alt-Rise complex tone is similar to the Fall-Rise. You get Exˈˏcuse me as often as Exˋˏcuse me.
11. Well it’s `all `ˏright | except she ˎoften gets them `too hot
wel ɪts ɔːl raɪt | ɪksept ʃi ɒftn ɡets ðm tuː hɒt | Also possible wd be /ɪksep ʃi/ and /ɒfn ɡets/ or /ɒfŋ ɡets/ but not such good EFL targets; /ðm/ with its syllabic /m/ is more natural than the slightly more deliberate /ðəm/ because it precedes a consonant.
12. so then we have to `ˏwait | for them to `cool eˏnough |
səʊ ðen wi hæv tə weɪt fə ðem tə kuːl inʌf | No dou't more usual, but not necessarily a better EFL target, wd be /hӕf tə/. See our Section 4.4.¶4. The strongform /ðem/ inste'd of the weakform /ðm/ here (slightly better than /ðəm/ before a consonant) is quite unnatural in British usage and not very common in America. I think LPD is right in suggesting that /ənᴧf/ is more usual than /inᴧf/ or /ɪnᴧf/. EPD gives /ɪnᴧf/ priority; ODP is non-committal.
13. for us to be able to `handle them. 
fər ʌs tə bi eɪbl tə hændl ðm | As no stress mark precedes us it’s not justifiable to show it in its strongform. /fr əs/ wd be natural but fast for an EFL target. /t bi/ wd be a realistic representation of the fact that any vowel that cd be sed to follow the /t/ in to here wd at a normal speed of utterance be unvoiced but I know of no EFL textbook that’s been inclined to complicate matters by acknowledging such things and I’m not really advocating now that one shou'd do so. /ðəm/ wd be slightly more careful sounding than /ðm/.  

In this passage of 118 words 37% came from our list of Weakform words and Contractions we specially cautioned transcribers about. 

Another Exercise etc

I’ve been asked for another transcription exercise. Here it is:

A ˈQuestion of ˎTemperature

1.    As ˈmy ˈold ˎgrandmother used to say,
2.    there’s ˈnothing ˈworse | than ˈfood ˈserved ˎcold.
3.    `Oh, `no.  I a`gree with you. ˈCold ˈplates | are `awful.
4.    ˈThose little `trays are ˏgood  — `ˏyou know |
5.    with a `light underneath | for ˈkeeping things ˈnice and ˎhot.
6.    `Oh, `yes. I’m afraid `we haven’t got anything like `ˏthat.
7.    ́No. ˈNeither have `we, ˏactually|
8.    though we `have thought of  `ˏgetting some.
9.    `Jane’s very keen on heating ˏdishes.
10.    `Oh, ˈˏis she?  `That’s a good ˏthing.
11.    Well it’s `all `ˏright | except she ˎoften gets them `too hot.
12.    So `then we have to `ˏwait | for them to `cool eˏnough |
13.    for us to be ˈable to `handle them.

A reader in Japan has asked for a fuller explanation of the difference in effect between /ˈθӕŋks | bət `nəʊ θӕŋks/ and /ˈθӕŋks | bət `nəʊ ˏθӕŋks/. The normal cordial intonation for a refusal is usually some high pitch earlier followed by a lowish rising tone on the only or final word of the expression. For example “Would you like a cigarette?” would be responded to with `No, ˏthanks or I ˈdon’t ˎsmoke, ˏactually or `Not just ˏnow etc. If the earlier highish pitch and the final Rise are not used the cordiality is quite possibly in dou’t. That’s the effect with a neutral voice quality etc but it cou’d be counteracted by a grumpy voice quality and/or a sharply fast tempo. Actually,  /ˈθӕŋks | bət `nəʊ ˏθӕŋks/ wd be pretty unusual because the first word on its Alt (upper level) tone wd sound quite perfunctory and the following phrase with the normal Rise wd sound like a sudden change of attitude. On the other hand /ˈθӕŋks | bət `nəʊ θӕŋks/ with its complete absence of the normal cordial Rise wd sound at best perfunctory or even possibly hostile. This is not to say that `No, thanks must invariably sound uncordial because the speaker cou’d soften its effect with a gentle voice quality and/or less than average loudness etc. The recommendation to any user of English who feels uncertain of the way to express a refusal or a disagreement without failing in cordiality or fr’endliness is to be sure to end on a lowish rising tone. Even fierce contradictions are normally expressed by native English-speakers with such a Rise (eg `Oh, no I’m ˏnot) because it’d be crushing not to do so and it’d sound so angry as to suggest the complete end to a fr’endship! This is well worth noting because I've found it one of the very few choices of inappropriate pitch patterns that I've heard from EFL students I've asked to read such sentences aloud.

Another query was the following.   
“When I asked two American male colleagues of mine, they said:
  Do *not *stand at my *grave and *weep.  (* = stress)
whereas a British female colleague pronounced the phrase as:
  *Do not *stand at my *grave and *weep.
It seems to me that the first sounds more prosaic and that the second more rhythmical.”
My reply is Yes, the latter stressing sounds like verse and the former perhaps less so. But they’re both rhetorical or at least non-conversational in their avoidance of the normal contracted pronunciation Don’t of ordinary talk. The first, if it were not obviously poetic, cou’d suggest, because of the special stress on not, an impatient prohibition of what’s being done. There really isn’t anything very significant in the different colleagues’ preferences.
 

Transcriptionn Exercise Model

Already one transcriber has given me his version. He carried out my instructions better than I did myself by giving /ˌɪnsə'bɔːdɪnət / which is no dout a better EFL target than my elided form tho he changed my intonation to a low from a high first syllable.

        'Insu'bordinate `Claws
        'ɪnsə'bɔːdnət `klɔːz

1. `I didn’t know the Robinsons had got a ´kitten.    
`aɪ dɪdnt nəʊ ðə rɒbɪnsnz əd gɒt ə ´kɪtn.
I managed to resist using a form omitting the /t/ of didn’t which also wdntve been such a good target. He got exactly the right form of Robinsons with no schwa between the /s/ & the /n/ — tho that wdntve been exactly wrong, just a bit less usual than normal.

2. `Oh, `yes.  She’s a ´`dear little thing.
`əʊ, `jes.  ʃiːz ə ´`dɪə lɪtl θɪŋ.
His choice for She’s was /ʃɪz/ which is fine tho a bit more than averagely “relaxed”. My choice of /iː/ for it was the least relaxed alternative. Perhaps the best choice wd be /ʃiz/, but they’re all okay. /lɪtəl/ wd tend to be perhaps a little bit careful-sounding or childish or Scottish but not wrong.

3. 'How long have they `had her, ˏHarold?
'haʊ lɒŋ əv ðeɪ `hӕd ə, ˏhӕrld?
I was pleased to see he had no /h/ in have or her which wdve sounded too stiff especially with so many other aitches around. He had a /ə/ in Harold which is only very slightly less usual than the form with syllabic /l/.


4. 'Some `time. She was a `Christmas present.
'sᴧm `taɪm. ʃi wəz ə `krɪsməs preznt.
I’m afraid his weakform with schwa of 'Some by ignoring the stress mark before it wd sound pretty unusual GB. If it hadnt been stressed it’d’ve been fine. The rest was perfect. An /ə/ at present wdntve been exactly wrong.

5. 'What does she `look like?    
'wɒ də ʃi `lʊk laɪk?
Agen he gave better EFL targets in /wɒt/ and /dəz/ than my in version.

6. Sort of `ˏtortoiseshell |
sɔːt əv `ˏtɔːtəʃel |  My version is given as last variant by LPD & EPD which both give his /-ʃʃ-/ which of course is perfectly okay. ODP’s /-sʃ-/ strikes me as a bit artificial.

7. with some 'bits of 'ginger and 'white |
wɪð sm 'bɪts əv 'ʤɪnʤər ən 'waɪt |
His weakform with schwa /səm/ is okay tho praps less usual than /sm/ with a syllabic /m/. He’s spot on with linking /r/ before and and no /d/ to end it, but, unless he claims an assimilation, then with with /θ/ is fine in the rest of the English-speaking world but very unusual in England.

8. on her 'face and `paws.  
ɒn ɜː 'feɪs n `pɔːz.  I like his /ə/ for her which is faster than my /ɜː/ and at least as usual. He’s also absolutely right to have neither a /d/ nor a /ə/ for and as it is here in close rhythmic co-ordination with a previous /s/.

9. And 'what have they `called her?    
ən 'wɒt əv ðeɪ `kɔːld ə?
He has exactly as my version no /d/ in and, no /h/ in have and no /h/ at her which wdve sounded a bit over-careful or schoolmarmish.

10. `Fluffy. But the `ˏchildren | call her `Clawry-Paws.
`flᴧfi. bət ðə `ˏʧɪldrn | kɔːl ə `klɔːri-pɔːz.
He has the proper weakform of but which never has /ᴧ/ unless it’s stressed; and he has a /ə/ rather than a syllabic /n/ in children. Neither form is exactly preferred in LPD and EPD. Agen the right aitchless weakform of her is used.

11. They’re 'always 'getting so many `scratches from her.
ðeər 'ɔːlwɪz 'getɪŋ səʊ meni `skrӕtʃɪz frɒm ə.
He really had the bit between his teeth for his last line. For Here’s a model version of the exercise set in in Blog 201

Already one transcriber has given me his version. He carried out my instructions better than I did myself by giving ˌɪnsə'bɔːdɪnət which is no dout a better EFL target than my elided form.

        'Insu'bordinate `Claws
        'ɪnsə'bɔːdnət `klɔːz
1. `I didn’t know the Robinsons had got a ´kitten.    
`aɪ dɪdnt nəʊ ðə rɒbɪnsnz əd gɒt ə ´kɪtn.
I managed to resist using a form omitting the /t/ of didn’t which also wdntve been such a good target. He got exactly the right form of Robinsons with no schwa between the /s/ & the /n/ — tho that wdntve been exactly wrong, just a bit less usual than normal.

2. `Oh, `yes.  She’s a ´`dear little thing.
`əʊ, `jes.  ʃiːz ə ´`dɪə lɪtl θɪŋ.
His choice for She’s was /ʃɪz/ which is fine tho a bit more than averagely “relaxed”. My choice of /iː/ for it was the least relaxed alternative. Perhaps the best choice wd be /ʃiz/, but they’re all okay. /lɪtəl/ wd tend to be perhaps a little bit careful-sounding or childish or Scottish but not wrong.

3. 'How long have they `had her, ˏHarold?
'haʊ lɒŋ əv ðeɪ `hӕd ə, ˏhӕrld?
I was pleased to see he had no /h/ in have or her which wdve sounded too stiff especially with so many other aitches around. He had a /ə/ in Harold which is only very slightly less usual than the form with syllabic /l/.


4. 'Some `time. She was a `Christmas present.
'sᴧm `taɪm. ʃi wəz ə `krɪsməs preznt.
I’m afraid his weakform with schwa of 'Some by ignoring the stress mark before it wd sound pretty unusual GB. If it hadnt been stressed it’d’ve been fine. The rest was perfect, tho a /ə/ at present wdntve been exactly wrong.

5. 'What does she `look like?    
'wɒ də ʃi `lʊk laɪk?
Agen he gave better EFL targets in /wɒt/ and /dəz/ than my in version.

6. Sort of `ˏtortoiseshell |
sɔːt əv `ˏtɔːtəʃel |  My version is given as last variant by LPD & EPD which both give his /-ʃʃ-/ which of course is perfectly okay. ODP’s /-sʃ-/ strikes me as a bit artificial.

7. with some 'bits of 'ginger and 'white |
wɪð sm 'bɪts əv 'ʤɪnʤər ən 'waɪt |
His weakform with schwa /səm/ is okay tho praps less usual than /sm/ with a syllabic /m/. He’s spot on with linking /r/ before and and no /d/ to end it, but, unless he claims an assimilation, then with with /θ/ is fine in the rest of the English-speaking worls but very unusual in general usage in England.

8. on her 'face and `paws. 
ɒn ɜː 'feɪs n `pɔːz.  I like his /ə/ for her which is faster than my /ɜː/ and at least as usual. He’s also absolutely right to have neither a /d/ nor a /ə/ for and as it is here in close rhythmic co-ordination with a previous /s/.

9. And 'what have they `called her?    
ən 'wɒt əv ðeɪ `kɔːld ə?
He has exactly as my version no /d/ in and, no /h/ in have and no /h/ at her which wdve sounded a bit over-careful or schoolmarmish.

10. `Fluffy. But the `ˏchildren | call her `Clawry-Paws.
`flᴧfi. bət ðə `ˏʧɪldrn | kɔːl ə `klɔːri-pɔːz.
He has the proper weakform of but which never has /ᴧ/ unless it’s stressed; and he has a /ə/ rather than a syllabic /n/ in children. Neither form is exactly preferred in LPD and EPD. Agen the right aitchless weakform of her is used.

11. They’re 'always 'getting so many `scratches from her.
ðeər 'ɔːlwɪz 'getɪŋ səʊ meni `skrӕtʃɪz frɒm ə.
He really had the bit between his teeth for his last line. For They’re he used a weakform that isnt recognised by any of the pronouncing dictionaries but he’s right because they’re falling down by missing out the very common weakform /ðe(r)/.
He has no /l/ in always using a very common form recognised by LPD but not by EPD: perhaps it’s not an ideal EFL target but /`ɔːweɪz/ is certainly everyday educated English. I’m not so keen on his /ə/ plural of scratches which is noticeably unusual from GB speakers and so not in my opinion a good EFL target. Anyone who might’ve thaut he shdve used the weakform of from in this situation wd be mistaken because he chose the strongform with complete justification. The weakform wdntve been wrong but it wdve represented a distinctly faster than average speed of utterance. So as /sə/ wdve been a bit faster but at least as natural.  English-speakers generally prefer to use the strongforms of prepositions when they come before unstressed pronouns. People wd rather not have a succession of three unstressed syllables if the choice is open to them to avoid it.

 used a weakform that isnt recognised by any of the pronouncing dictionaries but he’s right because they’re falling down by missing out the very common weakform /ðe(r)/.
Then he has no /l/ in always using a very common form recognised by LPD but not by EPD: perhaps it’s not an ideal EFL target but /`ɔːweɪz/ is certainly everyday educated English. I’m not so keen on his /ə/ plural of scratches which is noticeably unusual from GB speakers and so not in my opinion a good EFL target. Anyone who might’ve thaut he shdve used the weakform of from in this situation wd be mistaken because he chose the strongform with complete justification. The weakform wdntve been wrong but it wdve represented a distinctly faster than average speed of utterance. So as /sə/ wdve been a bit faster but at least as natural.  English-speakers generally prefer to use the strongforms of prepositions when they come before unstressed pronouns. People wd rather not have a succession of three unstressed syllables if the choice is open to them to avoid it. 

In this passage of 80 words 38% came from our list of Weakform words and Contractions we specially cautioned transcribers about.

A Transcription Exercise

As it’s the annual long break in the educational year I thaut it might be welcome to any students who might like to keep their hands in at phonemic transcription to be offered a passage to try. Here it is:  

1.        `I didn’t know the Robinsons had got a ´kitten.        
2.        `Oh, `yes.  She’s a ´`dear little thing.                
3.        'How long have they `had her, ˏHarold?            
4.        'Some `time. She was a `Christmas present.            
5.        'What does she `look like?                        
6.        Sort of  `ˏtortoiseshell │
7.        with some 'bits of 'ginger and 'white│
8.        on her 'face and `paws.
9.        And 'what have they `called her?            
10.      `Fluffy. But the `ˏchildren│ call her `Clawry-Paws.
11.      They’re 'always 'getting so many `scratches from her.

Hints on how to do it:
 The most helpful thing for you to have done for you is to be shown the rhythms the speakers are most likely to use: it’s asking too much at once for you to have to decide such things as well as what phonemes to choose. It's better to do one job at a time. Anyway, if you choose wrong rhythms it can provoke you to suggest wrong phonemes. Therefore for this purpose I show very likely intonations the speakers might use. Even if you don’t know anything about English intonations, all you have to remember is that every one of these signs tells you not just where the pitch changes come but also at the same time that the following syllable is stressed. Consequently, it’s a very good idea to copy the tone marks onto your transcription as a reminder of this because the kinds of mistakes students make in these transcriptions most often hinge on the choice between the weakform and the strongform of a function word such as a preposition or between the contracted and uncontracted forms derived from certain verbs. To help you identify all these problem words we give a short list of them below but to read a full account of how they’re used look at our Section 4.7. You'll almost certainly be doing something quite wrong if you use a weakform in a stressed syllable. And don't guess at the existence of a weakform. If you invent one, you'll very likely be writing something quite wrong or so very unusual that it's not a good EFL target. Stick to the ones on our list.

Write the usual symbols for the vowels and consonants you find in the Oxford and Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries and in the Longman and Cambridge (but not the Oxford) pronunciation dictionaries (LPD & EPD). If you consult either  of these last two, leave the sorts of spaces you would in ordinary spelling but not all the ones in the LPD. Don’t bother either with the syllable-separation dots of EPD.
Don’t give alternative pronunciations but make up your mind about what is one suitable way of recommending EFL learners to say each word in the context in which it comes. More than one version may often be equally good but limit yourself to just one. Transcribe the title.
I'll be supplying a "model" version with some notes in one of my next blogs.

Weakforms

        I  Determiners
a  /ə/. Before consonants only.
an  /ən/. Before vowels only.
her  /ɜː/ before nouns; /hə/ after breaks;  /ə/ object after verb.
his  /ɪz/
our  /ɑː/.
some  /sm̩ / Before consonants.  Before vowels /səm/.
the  /ðə/ before consonants.   Before vowels /ði/.
your /jə/ only in high-fluency situations.

        II  Pronouns
 he  /i/.
 him /ɪm/.
 me  /mi/.
 she /ʃi/.
 them /ðm̩ /. Before vowels /ðəm/.
 us /əs/.
 we /wi/ .
 you /ju/.

        III  Connectives
 and /ən/. After /t, d/ & fricatives /n̩ /.
 as /əz/.
 but /bət/.
 so /sə/. Not before vowels.
 than /ðn̩/. Before vowels /ðən/.
 that /ðət/.

        IV  Prepositions
 at /ət/.
 for /fə/.
 from  /frm̩ /. Before vowels /frəm/.
 of /əv/.
 to /tə/. Before vowels / tu /.

        V  Verbs
 am /əm/.
 are  /ə/.
 be /bi/.
 can /kn̩/. Before vowels /kən/.  
 do /də/. Before vowels /du/.
 does /dz̩/. Before vowels /dəz/.
 had  /əd/. After breaks /həd/.
 have  /əv/. After breaks /həv/.
 has  /z, əz/. After breaks /həz/.
 is /z/. After sharp sounds /s/.
 must /məst/.
 shall /ʃl/. Before vowels /ʃəl /.
 was /wəz/. Or /wz̩ / except before vowels.
 were /wə/.
 will /l/. After breaks /wl/, but before vowels /wəl/.

VI  Honorifics
Saint  /sn̩t/. General British only.
Sir  /sə/. General British only.

 Contractions

Traditional    Informal        Sound    
    Spelling        Spelling        Values

   Auxiliary-Negative Contractions
are not →        aren’t            /ɑːnt/    
cannot →        can’t              /kɑːnt/
could not →    couldn’t        /kʊdn̩t/
dare not →      daren’t          /deənt/
did not →        didn’t            /dɪdn̩t/
does not →      doesn’t          /dʌzn̩t/
do not →         don’t             /dəʊnt/
had not →        hadn’t           /hӕdn̩t/
has not →        hasn’t            /hӕzn̩t/
 have not →    haven’t          /hӕvn̩t/
 is not →         isn’t               /ɪzn̩t/
 may not →    *mayn’t           /meɪnt/
 might not →   mightn’t       /maɪtn̩t/
 must not →    mustn’t          /mʌsn̩t/
 need not →     needn’t          /niːdn̩t/
 ought not →   oughtn’t        /ɔːtn̩t/
 shall not →     shan’t            /ʃɑːnt/
 should not →  shouldn’t       /ʃʊdn̩t/
 used not →     *usen’t            /juːsn̩t/
 was not →      wasn’t            /wɒzn̩t/
 were not →     weren’t         /wɜːnt/
 will not →       won’t            /wəʊnt/
 would not →   wouldn’t      /wʊdn̩t/


     Pronoun-Verb Contractions
let us →            let’s           /lets/
do you →          *(d’you)      /dju/
I am →              I’m            /aɪm/

he/she/it is        he’s etc    /hi(ː)z/etc

we are →          we’re         /wɪə/
you are →         you’re       /jɔː/
they are →        they’re      /ðeə/
I will →            I’ll             /aɪl/
you will →       you’ll        /juːl/
he will →         he’ll          /hiːl/
she will →       she’ll         /ʃiːl/
we will →        we’ll         /wiːl/
they will →     they’ll        /ðeɪl/
there will →    there’ll      /ðeəl/
I have →           I’ve           /aɪv/
you have →     you’ve        /juːv/
we have →       we’ve        /wiːv/
they have →    they’ve       /ðeɪv/
there have →   *there’ve     /ðeəv/
I had →            I’d             /aɪd/
you had →        you’d       /juːd/
he had →           he’d         /hiːd/
she had →         she’d        /ʃiːd/
we had →          we’d         /wiːd/
they had →        they’d       /ðeɪd/
there had →       there’d     /ðeəd/
who had →        who’d       /huːd/
I would →          I’d            /aɪd/
you would →    you’d         /juːd/
he would →       he’d           /hiːd/
she would →      she’d         /ʃiːd/
we would →       we’d         /wiːd/
they would →     they’d        /ðeɪd/
there would →    *there’d     /ðeəd/
who would →     who’d       /huːd/

* indicates a spelling etc little used or not recognised
    

BlogRoll

• DCblog (David Crystal)
• John Maidment
• Linguism (Graham Pointon)
• John Wells