Print

Print


There are a lot of assumptions you've made that you might not realize you've made here.  So let's go through all this:
Gary wrote:
<<Granted, pronunciation can be interesting, but I'llnever understand the seeming obsession with trivialnuances that seems to grip some linguists.Pronunciation is nearly irrelevant when it comes tofulfilling the primary purpose of language;communication.>>
Assumption Number 1: If language is only a tool for communication, then all linguists should be concerned with, with respect to phonetics, is whether or not person A can communicate with person B.  Or possibly: All phoneticians are interested with are dialectal differences which have no bearing on communication.  Both of these are, of course, completely untrue.  Leaving production problems aside (i.e., people that have to work with a speech pathologist in order to be able to produce recognizable sounds), one of the main things phoneticians do with their studies is make predictions.  These predictions can be predictions about why a certain sound change occurred, which ones are more likely to occur, what distinctions are unstable, etc.  Why do all this?  Well, for example, at one point in time, German speakers and English speakers spoke the same language.  Now they don't.  Part of this has to do with syntax, morphology, etc., but a lot also has to do with sound changes.  The way we learn about sound changes is studying dialect variation that's occurring right now.  After all, different dialects can eventually grow into different languages.  Now, whether or not this whole realm of study is frivolous is not something that can really be argued, because that could lead to a whole discussion of, "Well, if you think *that's* frivolous, then what about this?"
<<Two people walk into a restaurant.  One orders "frahdchikin pleez" and the other orders "vroit jigun pliss"and the both get the same meal delivered to theirtable.>>
Let's assume your right about this.  We can extend this to syntax and general grammar.  A propose that a conlang should have no fixed grammar, but merely a wide range of acceptable variants.  After all, you can say "He went to the store", or "He go store", and they're both perfectly understandable to a native English speaker.  So why impose arbitrary rules such as tense, prepositions, articles, etc.?  If you do that, it becomes too hard to speak "correctly".
One thing that the example I gave above and your example have in common is that they're hard to screw up.  If you have an idea of how the language is supposed to sound, you'll get it somewhat right (i.e., you won't say "The to went store he", or [vli:t s@idZo~ BjejS] ="fried chicken please").  What about little differences, though?  So, the stereotypical Hindi speaker who speaks English overgeneralizes the progressive, so they say things like, "I am thinking that's not such a good idea."  So, one thing such a speaker might say is, "I am seeing him."  Does that mean they're dating him, or that they can see him?  Presumably they also know the expression "to be seeing someone" (after all, we're dealing with fluent speakers who just have a different way of speaking, not language-learners).  So which is it?  Same thing with pronunciation.  I can't think of any examples off hand, but one problem that my grandmother has is she can't distinguish [I] and [i].  So both "seat" and "sit" are pronounced [sit].  I can tell you from experience that there are times that I've genuinely been confused about what she was talking about, and the only reason was pronunciation.  Now, the difference between [i] and [I] is, quite frankly, really just a nuance of the mouth.  The sounds are *so* close that they're indistinguishable in most languages.  They are distinguished in English, though, so this little nuance of the mouth isn't simply a nuance.
Also, why is it that you've only focused on seemingly non-native speakers?  Native speakers have varying pronunciations, and studying the variance can tell you a lot about the history of the language, and where the language is going.  I attended an interesting talk last year, in fact, about how there's a kind of vowel harmony developing in Scots English.  Did I have trouble understanding them?  No.  Is it important to communication?  No.  Is it, therefore, uninteresting, and a waste of time to study?  If you say "yes", then I'd really like to hear why.  It's a linguistic phenomenon, and linguists study linguistic phenomenon.  From a conlanging point of view, it's something that happens in real language, so if you want to make a realistic conlang, you should keep it in mind.
But I think your main point is that there's no point in specifying, in a conlang, that X sound needs to pronounce exactly thus, and Y vowel needs to be pronounced in just this way.  Fair enough.  But why do they do it real grammars of real languages?  Should it be considered unimportant?  After all, one of the things that every good grammar will say right off the bat is what dialect they describe, and all the particulars in the grammar will be understood to be specific only to that dialect.  Would you say that they should do something else?  Maybe say, "In X language, you can kind of pronounce this vowel like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, depending on where you are."  Maybe if the point was to help you be understood in that language, that would be fine, but if the point is to describe the language, then it would be totally irresponsible.
<<It seems to me that it is sufficient for any givenlanguage to define the range of acceptable phoneticvalues for a given meaning and leave it at that.>>
Back to conlanging, let's consider this point.  If you intend your conlang to be spoken by actual people, then, yes, maybe you might do this.  In fact, this is exactly the kind of thing they talk about on Auxlang.  When I learned Esperanto, for example, we were told how all the sounds should be pronounced, and encouraged to not pronounce them in an English-like manner.  In fact, for every language I've ever learned this has been the case.  The reason is that the not-100%-Esperanto-way of pronouncing, for example, /t/ in the U.S. (alveolar, aspirated), will be different from the not-100%-Esperanto-way of pronouncing /t/ in India (I'd guess that the latter'd be dental, unaspirated?).  Then when you consider complicated letters like /l/ and /r/, pretty soon you could imagine people not being able to understand one another.  Unless you're creating an IAL, though, you're probably imagining a conlanging audience, and so you can get away with giving a range of pronunciations for a given sound.
So that's for a language one intends to be spoken.  None of my conlangs (with the exception of maybe Kele), however, are supposed to be spoken languages.  I mean, they could be, but I'm not going out trying to recruit speakers.  So I really don't care how people pronounce, or what pronunciations would be acceptable and what wouldn't.  What I'm doing is describing a dialect.  (In my cases, I don't have concultures, so they're not dialects from particular groups, but any description will be of a dialect.)  The intent is that this is the way that some people would or could pronounce that language.  If I were to make a TY book, then I would include information about how a given sound could be pronounced (isn't that what they do, anyway?  "The dotless i in Turkish sounds a little bit like the 'u' in 'could', but less round"), and the goal would be for a native speaker to simply understand.  But that's not what my conlang descriptions are.  As for how a native speaker of another language would pronounce these sounds, while kind of interesting, why devote any time to it?  After all, it's pretty formulaic.  Like you said here:
<<TheirEnglish was excellent but their pronunciation and theyway that placed accents on different sylables took alittle getting used to.  But once I go used to it theywere perfectly understandable.>>
The reason you could get used to their pronunciation was because it was systematic.  To figure out how a native speaker of another language would pronounce a conlang would be a simple matter of creating a formula: This sound will be pronounced like this, this one like that, this one like that...  Further, if you consider all the languages in the world, you could probably get every sound having twenty different variants--maybe more.  Would you want to include all these in a description?  Perhaps a separate page devoted to each natural and created language?  How a native Esperanto/American English/British English/Mandarin/Spanish/Italian/Japanese/Hawaiian/Russian/Tagalog, etc. speaker would pronounce X language.  I don't see why this would be even desirable--by anybody.
Also, consider you're notion of a nuance of the mouth.  You're claim is that a native English speaker can understand anyone who speaks with an accent.  This isn't controversial: We all can do it (after all, we *all* speak with an accent).  You say, then, that since this is the case, such phonetics shouldn't be studied.  But notice: Don't you find it interesting that we *can* do this?  When listening to a person speaking with an accent, it can sound either odd or unintelligible at first, but after awhile, we "get used to it".  Something allows us to adjust to understand them, and to do so *very* quickly.  How the heck do we do that?  What would be too jumbled to adjust to?  And further, if you got somebody with a really thick accent (doesn't matter what), and told a native English speaker that this person spoke no English at all, would the native English speaker still be able to make the adjustment, since they expect this person to be speaking another language?  These, to me, are all fascinating questions, and they're dealt with by phoneticians, and all of them have to do with what you've referred to as nuances.
So that's partly why I think nuances are interesting and relevant.  Does this address your concern, or did you mean something slightly different?  (I know it's easy to misunderstand intention over the internet: I've done it tons of times, and I know I'll do it again.)
-David*******************************************************************"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze.""No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/