University of Arizona Linguistics Department on the "Teachers’ English Fluency Initiative" (pdf) →
They are of course against the horrible initiative that says that teachers with “heavily accented” English are to be removed. These are their main facts; (7) and (8) are my favorite points:
- ‘Heavily accented’ speech is not the same as ‘unintelligible’ or ‘ungrammatical’ speech.
- Speakers with strong foreign accents may nevertheless have mastered grammar and idioms of English as well as native speakers.
- Teachers whose first language is Spanish may be able to teach English to Spanish‐speaking students better than teachers who don’t speak Spanish.
- Exposure to many different speech styles, dialects and accents helps (and does not harm) the acquisition of a language.
- It is helpful for all students (English language learners as well as native speakers) to be exposed to foreign‐accented speech as a part of their education.
- There are many different ‘accents’ within English that can affect intelligibility, but the policy targets foreign accents and not dialects of English.
- Communicating to students that foreign accented speech is ‘bad’ or ‘harmful’ is counterproductive to learning, and affirms pre‐existing patterns of linguistic bias and harmful ‘linguistic profiling’.
- There is no such thing as ‘unaccented’ speech, and so policies aimed at eliminating accented speech from the classroom are paradoxical.
They later elaborate on (7), and it’s pretty interesting:
Evidence exists that listeners’ perceptions of ‘foreign accented speech’ are often inaccurate – listeners’ predisposed to view a speaker has having a ‘foreign’ identity are likely to perceive that person’s speech as accented, even when it is not (Rubin, 1992; Derwing and Monroe 2009). Nancy Niedzielski’s (1996, 1999) work shows that people think the same sounds are [more ‘standard’ or less ‘standard’] depending on whether they are told the speaker is from Canada vs. right over the border in Detroit (participants, of course, viewed their own dialect as ‘standard’). In Rubin’s work, these beliefs lead to lower comprehension scores for listeners who think that they are listening to ‘foreign accented speech’ (even when they are not). To the extent that policies like this further stigmatize foreign accented speech, therefore, they are counterproductive to learning.
Since you asked
My favourite phoneme is the alveolar lateral affricate. It’s so much fun. I could say it all day.
tɬ tɬ tɬ tɬ tɬ tɬ tɬ tɬ tɬ!
English speakers also tend to weaken or omit final coronal consonants, a process that linguists call t/d deletion: thus [lɛf] for left. Although t/d deletion is stigmatized, in fact all normal English speakers do it some of the time, at least in some contexts. As a result, fixed expressions that start out as participle+noun are sometimes re-analyzed so as to lose their -ed ending. This happened long ago to ice(d) cream, skim(med) milk, pop(ped) corn, wax(ed) paper, shave(d) ice, etc. It’s happened more recently (I think) to ice(d) tea, cream(ed) corn, and whip(ped) cream.
— Language Log » The population memetics of un-ed-ing — Whoa. I had never noticed this phenomenon, but I love it already.
re onomatopoeia
I know nothing—and I mean nothing—about linguistics. Which means I constantly have stupid questions about the subject, such as:
Is there any objective standard according to which we can say that one language is more onomatopoetic than another? Because it sure as hell seems to me that Spanish trumps English on that front (except for ‘oink’).
Also: What might it say about the cultures in or through or across or by which languages develop that one might be more onomatopoetic than another?
There is no such thing as a stupid question when it comes to linguistics—language matters tend to be plagued by the incoherent blather of reactionary armchair experts—thus I have no problems fielding any questions on language and giving you The Straight Dope.
One of the foundations of modern structuralist linguistics is the Saussurean sign which says that there is an arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the signified. What this means is that there is nothing iconic or “stop”-like about the shape and make-up of a stop sign. That is, a red octagon with giant white lines and curves has nothing to do with the act of slowing down and ceasing forward motion. This assumption that there is an arbitrary relation between form and meaning, as I understand the history of linguistics, pushed us towards the abstract, symbolic and computational study of language forms (since there was nothing iconic or inherently meaningful about words and sounds) and this was a good thing.
But as a result of arbitraryness, your question about comparative onomatopoetic capacity is somewhat incoherent. That is, by assumption all language is arbitrary, so it’s not possible to be “more or less onomatopoetic”. But we recognize that onomatopoeia, like reduplication or phonesthemes, flirts with iconicity (by which I mean, standing for something in a clear, non-arbitrary way) and sound symbolism, and it would be unprincipled to throw out the question entirely.
There is also, however, the dangerous ethnocentric subtext to your second question: If we assume that all language is imitative in origin—I’m thinking of cavepeople on cartoons—then a language that is more fit for onomatopoetic imitation is more iconic and more “primitive” than the more “developed” languages that do not readily facilitate such imitation. So let’s just be mindful and try to think about sound imitation scientifically.
We think of onomatopoeia as the process of imitating nonhuman sounds using the sounds of human language. This rules out things like raspberries and tongue-clucks since these are universally not used in language sound systems. The tools at a speaker’s disposal therefore are things like stops, vowels, fricatives, nasals, or whatever else in the sound inventory. The question therefore is to what extent—or perhaps at what resolution—a particular language sound system can capture a nonlinguistic sound.
Intuitively, it therefore seems that a language with more consonants and vowels would be better off, so here’s an insightful list of cross-linguistic onomatopoeia. Looking through these examples, I get the sense that all language needs to accommodate most of those examples are some vowels and at least two classes of consonants—stops, glides (y,w), liquids (l,r), nasals (m,n,ng) and fricatives (s,z,f,v,sh). Each class of sounds has its own properties that are useful for imitation: stops interrupt the speech stream and make natural boundaries, fricatives provide turbulent noise, nasals provide humming, and so on. Phonological breadth therefore boosts imitative capacity, as there are more tools at one’s disposal.
But then again, we are dealing with simple sounds whose onomatopoetic imitation becomes conventional and standardized: I’m thinking of oink which sounds nothing like a squeal but that’s how we communicate that noise in English. This kind of standardization reinforces the notion of arbitraryness: All you need, it seems, for onomatopoeia is a set of sounds to perform a passable imitation and a language to codify and reinforce the onomatopoetic mapping. This latter point seems most important to me: Even with a shortage of speech sounds, an imitation can stick and be useful in communication only when everyone agrees on it.
…barring any overseen circumstances…
—
Avatar Takes 5th Straight, Passes $500 Million - News in Film
Neat eggcorn in the wild.
Knowledge Bomb
Trivia question for the grammar nerds: When is “the” not an article?
When it is an adverb, as in the following:
- The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
- …and no one will be (none) the wiser.
- Raynor really is a weirdo, the more I think about it.
The usage requires a comparative, that is an adjective/adverb modified by more or the affix -er.
[NB: This has been in my drafts folder for a while. I’m not sure where I meant to take this point or why I meant to wrinkle your brains.]
A language is a system of discrete infinity, a procedure that enumerates an infinite class of expressions, each of them a structured complex of properties of sound and meaning
—
Linguistics and Brian Science by Chomsky (via smokethenmirrors)
In which Noam puts on his theoretical computer science hat…
[Linguistics] Guidelines for the Behavior of Graduate Students
1. The IPA symbol for a bilabial click is not called “the cervix,” even if it really looks like one. ʘ ʘ ʘ ʘ ʘ
2. Students must not giggle every time someone says “labial.”
3. Students are not allowed to start a letter-writing campaign demanding enfranchisement for voiceless phonemes.
4. Students must remember that the IPA only covers the sounds the human mouth can make.
5. Students are not allowed to ask the “cute” TA to produce difficult phonemes for them… slowly… over and over again.
6. “Only prats use Praat” was never funny, and still isn’t. Especially if the faculty use Praat.
7. There is absolutely no mystical significance to the fact that the IPA symbol for a voiced palatal implosive slightly resembles the helix symbol from the TV show Heroes. ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ
8. Students are not allowed to erase everything on the vowel chart besides /a, e, i, o, and u/ and insist that the TA “teach the controversy.”
9. Students are not allowed to turn in papers written entirely in IPA.
10. Students may not be excused from discussions of tonal languages because they are tone-deaf.
11. There is no diacritic for “drunken voice.”
12. Students are not allowed to color in the “blank” areas on the vowel spectrograms.
13. Students are not allowed to convince wide-eyed, trusting first-years that the nasal ingressive voiceless velar trill will be officially added to the IPA chart next year.(from John Wells’s Phonetic Blog.)
#linguistics has become everything I imagined it could be.
