Did you read about the woman who went to the mass/ `-dɪd ju | riːd əbaʊt ðə ˏˌwʊmən | hu went tə ðə
meeting of a certain American evangelist at Earl's Court?
ˎmiːtɪŋ | əv ə ˌsɜːtn əˌmerɪkən ɪ`vænʤəlɪst ət ɜːlz ˎkɔːt / 
She went forward to declare herself for love or whatever
ʃi ˈwent ˈfɔːwəd | tə dɪˋ-kleər əself fə ˏlʌv | ɔː wɒtevr 
it is, and in the rush of converts to get to the front
ɪ`-tɪz | ən ˊˋɪn ðə rʌʃ əv ˋˏkɒnvɜːts | tə get tə ðə
ˋˏfrʌnt | 
she broke four ribs and got kicked in the head.
ˈʃi ˈbrəʊk | ˈfɔː ˏrɪbz | n ˈgɒt ˊkɪkt ɪn ðə ˋhed. 
She was yelling her head off in agony but with fifty
ʃi wəz ˊˋjelɪŋ ə ˋhed ɒf | ɪn ˋˏagənɪ | bət wɪð ˋfɪftɪ |
thousand people putting all they'd got into Onward
ˋθaʊzn | ˋpiːpl | ˏˎpʊtɪŋ | ɔːl ðeɪd gɒt | ɪntu
Christian Soldiers, nobody even knew she was there.
ˋkrɪsʧən ˋˏsəʊlʤəz, |ˏˋnəʊbɒdi iːvn ˎˏnjuː | ˊʃiː wz ˋðeə.
This speaker has a peculiar rhythm on woman in the first line
stretching its second syllable unusually. His in the rush of converts
demonstrates by its rhythmical integration with what follows what a
crude descriptive device the division between heads and climaxes (or
nuclei) really is. The first complex tone isnt just a sep·rate climax.
In she broke in line 5 we have an example of what Kingdon wdve
high prehead (and notated diff·rently from a high head) substituting a
high horizontal stroke for our Alt mark but this is an area in which I
see little or no gain. The speaker is plainly not emphasising the word
she (hence my indication of it not as /ʃiː/ but with its weakform) and
the two Alts are in a sequential downstepping relationship.
Note that he uses tellingly four times vivid Climb-Fall tones
on in the
rush, yelling, agony and nobody. These last two words and the word
fifty in line 6 are a good illustration of how difficult it is to
classify what vowel quality an individual speaker has for the final-y
sort of sound. The speech lexicographers Wells and Roach agree on
referring to their use of /-i/ to represent this sound as a
"neutralisation" but I find this categorisation unsatisfyingly an
over-simplification. I think most speakers have clearly in mind a
target which is either /i/ or /ɪ/ (or increasingly but still very much
in a minority /iː/). The majority these days aim at /i/ though in
Victorian times a much larger proportion — tho it's by no
means certainly a great majority — plainly aimed at /ɪ/. What does
happen is that everybody's target value is liable to be departed from
under the influence of particular phonetic contexts. Any weakly
stressed word-final vowel is subject to much variation. Here we have a
speaker who has, I think, either /ɪ/ or an actual — not a
conditioned — neutralisation as his target yet we can hear
that in the context of a following close vowel in nobody even he
clearly has an /i/ value. It shd be clear to EFL users of a British
accent that /i/ is their appropriate target. German native speakers for
example often seem to have /iː/ as their target.
This monolog was taken from the play Look Back in Anger by