Re: Subtitutes for English /T/ and /D/

On Jul 22, 2:21 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 21, 8:13 pm, Dominic Bojarski <dominicbojar...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I'm also baffled that Peter says that the difference between [T D] and
[f v] is "almost inaudible". I have been hearing [f v] substituted for
[T D] hundreds of times each and every day for the last five years by
the Poles I teach English to, and I have to say that it is still as
jarring as the first time I heard it.

Look at spectrograms of the two sounds. They are almost identical.

Almost, but not quite. Because the difference is phonemic, native
speakers are more aware of the differences between the sounds than of
the similarities.

For example, as a cot-is-caught speaker, I don't even hear the
difference in the speech of cot-is-not-caught speakers unless I make
an intentional effort. The difference is not phonemic for me, so I
simply ignore it. Just as the Poles do with [T D] and [F V].


However, the distinction is phonemic in English, and you are a native
speaker of English, so it's obvious to you.

That's where I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that they were
almost indistinguishable to native speakers. You're right, though.
CONTEMPORARY Polish speakers can't hear the difference except with
training.


For me, [f v] is as close to [T D] as [k g] is, or [m], [gl] or [str],
for that matter. That is, there is absolutely no similarity to my
American ear.

That's because you're a native speaker but not an acoustic
phonetician.


I grew up in a small town in Pennsylvania populated by Polish
immigrants, so I heard English spoken with a Polish accent every day
for the first 22 years of my life. These immigrants came to the US in
the late 1800s and early 1900s. I never once heard any of them
substitute [f v] for [T D]. All of the used the Polish [t d], which is
formed with the tongue and upper teeth, and not with both upper and
lower teeth as in English. All in all, a pretty good approximation. It
is quite similar to the Italian-American [t d] that Sylvester
Stallone, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci use.

When acting, or in their normal speech?

When acting. Especially in stereotypic roles.


Five years ago, I moved to Poland and have since been teaching English
to Poles. All of them start out pronouncing [T D] as [f v]. Many

Do you not contradict yourself? This shows how similar they are!

To Poles, yes. To native speakers, no. No contradiction.


Poles who teach English themselves also do so. This is a extremely
irritating mistake and I correct it every time I hear it. As a matter
of fact, I tell them that it is an "unforgivable mistake", and to use
the Polish [t d] instead.

Why don't you teach them how to make [T] and [D]?? You're as bad as
Mark misleading his Hungarians!!

Depends on the level and goals of the student. It takes a Pole a lot
of practice to say [T D]. Not all of them are willing to spend that
much time on one sound of many that they have problems with.

It's a matter of proximal and distal goals. The proximal goal is to
stop the student from using [f v]. This is relatively easy and can be
accomplished quickly. The distal goal is to get the student to
correctly pronounce [T D]. This demands a lot of time and effort. It
is also a lot easier to do if the student is starting out from [t d]
than from [f v].

I do not mislead them at all. I tell them quite clearly that using the
POLISH [t d] is a compromise, but one that does not impair
comprehension as does using [f v].

Sean asked whether there were any American accents that use [f v] for
[T D]. Uneducated African-Americans often do, and this is considered
an extremely negative feature of their speech. Anyone who says 'wiff'
for 'with', or 'ax' for ask', is going to be at a disadvantage on the
labor market. It really raises hackles, including among better
educated African-Americans.

As Nathan explained, it's a lot more complicated than that.

And many, many educated African Americans have phonetic traits that
reveal their origins that they are simply unaware of -- this one
happens to have reached general consciousness.

To the point that it has become a shibboleth. It's not a matter of a
voice being recognized as African-American that is the issue, but of
the voice being recognized as uneducated. It has reached general
consciousness because it clearly stands out and sounds bizarre to non-
AAVE native speakers, few of whom are, as you said, acoustic
phoneticians.


Dominic Bojarski



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Desirable USA name-change
    ... native speakers of English lived in the United States than ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Desirable USA name-change
    ... even use it as a lingua franca, but for native speakers, it's almost ... Strange those figures include the Philippines and Nigeria, but not India. ... How many native speakers of English are there in India? ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Help removing old superglue
    ... maybe idiomatically correct in American English or Phillipino English, ... English speakers and as such the importance of following the same rules ... as native speakers is declining, and the though is the use of native ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)
  • Re: Greetings
    ... So your friend's english teacher was incorrect. ... claimed that he has heard native speakers answer in that way. ... As Victoria has illustrated above, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Subtitutes for English /T/ and /D/
    ... POLISH is a compromise, but one that does not impair ... brains of some non-native speakers, but not in the brains of native ... substitution for most native English speakers. ... inconsiderate of me not to reduce my accent when speaking Polish. ...
    (sci.lang)