Well, it's not global warming, but there are a couple problems with English, specifically pronunciation, that are problems in information exchange. It's not some style thing, like the inarticulation of textspeak or emojis, or plain semantic errors like 'literally' for when it's not literal.
It's about pronunciation where the actual information being transferred is at it's most distinct. And the distinctions are being softened to almost disappearing but the information is as substantive as you can get. This screams out for language change, but...I just don't see any that people are unconsciously doing. The details are:
- can vs can't - In American English, standing alone, these two are identical except for the addition of the 't', which stands out in only the most labored of articulate speech. Word final 't' is unreleased in AmE, meaning that though 't' is usually aspirated elsewhere, but at the end of a word it is not. This results in a difficulty for foreign language learners for hearing the distinction and for producing the distinction, what little there is.
But what's hard for foreigners can be hard for natives and even an area for language change (see the cot-caught merger).
- I can do that
- I can't do that
The intonation/timing for these is different (easy to see for native speakers but difficult for non-natives). But in high noise areas, these will be impossible to differentiate. "Can you move this 400 lb sofa off my chest?". "I can do that" vs "I can't do that". The answer is kind of important.
The same situation holds for a few other contractions involving 'not': could/couldn't.
My proposed solution: I can't think of a good natural one other than encouraging people to not contract when there is a 'not'. But for the positive version, the most natural way would by to shorten it considerably as '/kn/' or for both emphasize the sentence into nation "I cn do that" vs "I can't do that" (where the intonation would be terribly weird for the version of opposite polarity).
- -ty vs -teen: The teens and the tens, thirteen/thirty and above, are similarly rooted but dictionary-pronounced distinctly. thir-TEEN vs THIR-tee. Different stress, different last syllable.
Except in regular speech these are about as close as you can get in pronunciation, and differently from most other close pronunciations (or eevn homophones), context rarely distinguishes them. "How far is it from the last to the next gas station?" "Oh about thirt.. miles." "What? Is that thirty or thirteen miles?" "Thir-Teen" "What? THIR-ti or thir-TEEEE-nuh?" "The first one." "Oh. Then we're going to run out of gas."
The context doesn't say which one is more likely, and pronunciation has to be very articulate to tell the difference. The stress isn't pointed enough to tell. This is a perfect time for native speakers to unconsciously do something (make a slight change) to encourage better understanding (to avoid the waste of energy).
My suggestion? It's gonna sound bad but... for 'thirteen' say 'thir-TANE' or 'thir-TEEN-uh, and for 'thirty' say 'THIR-tuh'. To me these are the least unnatural and closest to natural pronunciation. Spelled out they look awful. But this is my prediction/suggestion.
I know. It sounds terrible. But I don't want to run out of gas.
NB This is entirely about General American English... I can't expect to speak for other varieties of English. Also, I speak authoritatively about my own variety...but I may be biased and there may be free variation and some people may speak with more articulation than I can. So in one sense I am saying 'I am right' (which may be annoyingly authoritarian) but in another I am saying 'here is what I think I see, some others with great authority see it too, you can check now too now that you're aware of the possibility'.
No comments:
Post a Comment