Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id hBIDokm27968; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:50:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:50:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <001301c3c56d$3cc115e0$6501a8c0@alclv.org>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Judy Rittenhouse" <jrittenhouse@alclv.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9732] Re: voiced or unvoiced S, pronunciation of sword.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 3037
Lines: 74
>>Personally, I hate to see what is happening to our pronunciation.<<
We teach standard English pronunciation with the caveat that said
pronunciation is dynamic. And, of course, those of us who cherish
traditional pronunciation ('traditional' meaning: non-dialect, American
pronunciation in U. S. films made in the 1960s), use it ourselves. There's
no future in clinging to something as 'correct' if most English speakers
eventually use something else.
But two social factors persist. First, if using a different pronunciation
brings social opprobrium to the speaker, it reflects a lag in public
perception, at least in that specific context. English learners should
recognize that this can happen. And second, when someone mocks my
traditional, American pronunciation or (formerly) correct grammar, then the
shoe is on the other foot...and I laugh along while wanting to smack 'em.
This experience is surely one English learners can recognize.
----- Original Message -----
From: Corinne Moran <cmoranmv@gis.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:34 PM
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9729] Re: voiced or unvoiced S, pronunciation of sword.
> Hello,
> I am a teacher of English as a Second Language and have been a Speech
> Teacher. The 'w' in sword is silent in American English, just as the 'b'
in
> doubt is silent. There are others. You simply say the word as if the
letter
> were not there.
> As far as I am concerned, correct pronunciation would have the 's' in
> the words you mentioned pronounced as a 'z' sound. I know it is harder to
> pronounce it that way, and we tend to take the easy way. When I teach, I
> teach the correct way. I know however, there are many people who do not
> follow that rule. Certainly, professional narrators on tapes should model
> correct pronunciation. Personally, I hate to see what is happening to our
> pronunciation. I may be in the minority, however.
> Corinne
>
> ----------
> >From: ч╟уе┼@ю╕э^щq <applepie@minos.ocn.ne.jp>
> >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
> >Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9728] voiced or unvoiced S, pronunciation of sword.
> >Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 7:37 PM
> >
>
> > Hello, list members,
> >
> > In the words "sword, swordsman" "w" isn't pronounced, or so it says in
the
> > dictionaries. The dictionaries give a special caution as to its
> > pronunciation, saying "w" sound is not pronounced.
> >
> > One of the NHK English programs says there is a trend in which "w" is
> > pronounced, especially in American English. How true is it? What is your
> > observation? Is there any recent research on this?
> >
> > I have also observed and been hearing "dogs, please, trees" pronounced
with
> > the last "S" sounds unvoiced. I know sometimes it's kind of hard to say
> > dogZ.
> > DogS , unvoiced consonant is easier, but I hear more and more
professional
> > narrators on the tapes and CDs say treeS instead of treeZ.
> >
> > Is this another trend?
> >
> > Mitsuko
> > Japan
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:16:33 EST