Velarization of /l/

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
orthonorm said:
ialmisry said:
Michał Kalina said:
Why does Cyrillic "л" is transliterated into English Latin alphabet as "l"? The sounds are not even close.
It is in American English, and elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velarized_alveolar_lateral_approximant#Occurrence
You need to teach 1st grade in Las Vegas. Evidently this is the approach they are taking to teaching kids how to speak.
correctly?
Looked at some curriculum for teaching children how to speak in the 1st grade. It was laughable.

IIRC, one of the goals was to successfully teach the child to say single syllable words made of two phonemes.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
orthonorm said:
ialmisry said:
orthonorm said:
ialmisry said:
Michał Kalina said:
Why does Cyrillic "л" is transliterated into English Latin alphabet as "l"? The sounds are not even close.
It is in American English, and elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velarized_alveolar_lateral_approximant#Occurrence
You need to teach 1st grade in Las Vegas. Evidently this is the approach they are taking to teaching kids how to speak.
correctly?
Looked at some curriculum for teaching children how to speak in the 1st grade. It was laughable.

IIRC, one of the goals was to successfully teach the child to say single syllable words made of two phonemes.
My deaf son could do far more before entering pre-school.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
akimori makoto said:
I don't understand all the linguistic/phonological symbols.

Is "dark L" that annoying W-like sound that is becoming increasingly more common in Australian English?

It makes me cringe every time I hear it.
Really in American English and Australian from I remember hearing from Australians who do not attempt to affect RP, its is hard to find a truly "light L".

If it is truly a "w" sound, sounds like you are all learning how to speak how I did before speech therapy. Lazy Rs and Ls and a severe stutter. My Ls sounded like Ws.

Do you have a clip of what you are talking about?

 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
orthonorm said:
ialmisry said:
orthonorm said:
ialmisry said:
Michał Kalina said:
Why does Cyrillic "л" is transliterated into English Latin alphabet as "l"? The sounds are not even close.
It is in American English, and elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velarized_alveolar_lateral_approximant#Occurrence
You need to teach 1st grade in Las Vegas. Evidently this is the approach they are taking to teaching kids how to speak.
correctly?
Looked at some curriculum for teaching children how to speak in the 1st grade. It was laughable.

IIRC, one of the goals was to successfully teach the child to say single syllable words made of two phonemes.
My deaf son could do far more before entering pre-school.
Telling you I laughed till I cried. A lot of fancy jargon to make to the most remedial of skills seem difficult.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dzheremi said:
orthonorm said:
dzheremi said:
Because in that case, the velarized realization forms one half of a contrast, whereas in English there is no such contrast between velarized and non-velarized l, as far as I know. They are harmless (to intelligibility) allophones.
Is there any way you can make more clear to non-expert what you mean here, especially with the bolded part.

EDIT: OK, I think I misread what you wrote (consonant for contrast), but it would nice for a little more explanation, unless it is exceptionally tedious to do so.
Something is considered to be contrastive if it forms what we call a "minimal pair" -- two words that differ in only one speech segment, thereby proving that there is a meaningful contrast between the differing elements. Examples:

fish/dish (they do not mean the same thing, so the contrast between f and d is meaningful in English)
hot/hat (ditto o and a)
we/be (" " w/b)

etc. etc.

This is different than the sort of variation that we are talking about in this thread with respect to English, which is non-contrastive: whether you pronounce "peel" with the 'dark' (velarized) L or a 'clear' (non-velarized) L does not change its meaning. [pʰiːɫ] and [pʰiːl] are understood to be the same word by English speakers. Maybe a non-trained person could hear the difference, but it would just register as funny or non-standard in comparison to his own way of saying it (sort like how us rhotic Americans can make fun of Bostonians for being non-rhotic and saying things like "caa" in place of "car", but we still know what they're saying).

By contrast, a language like Russian makes a very real distinction between, for instance, palatalized and non-palatalized consonants, as we can see in minimal pairs like брать 'take' versus брат 'brother'. The soft sign at the end of the first word is a palatalization marker.

Other languages make other distinctions that we don't make in English (e.g., Arabic has a distinction between "emphatic"/pharyngealized consonants and non-emphatic ones), but we make distinctions that they don't make (e.g., the famous p vs. b voicing distinction; it is a stereotypical marker of non-native speech on the part of English-speaking Arabs to pronounce all p's as b's, since Arabic does not have the voiceless bilabial stop, so they'll say things like "beetsa" for "pizza" or "bebsi" for "Pepsi").
Brilliant explanation. Thanks a bunch.
 

Frederic

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dzheremi said:
Ah, I see. Maybe you are hearing the contrast in Russian that exists between velarized l (which, as far as I can tell, is the typical/standard pronunciation; it's certainly how we were taught to pronounce it in Russian classes, with a Muscovite professor) and palatalized l? Because in that case, the velarized realization forms one half of a contrast, whereas in English there is no such contrast between velarized and non-velarized l, as far as I know. They are harmless (to intelligibility) allophones. So perhaps you are listening for something that does not exist, and hence concluding that English does not have velarized l?

Just an idea.
In milk, the l is velarized. In lot, the l is neutral (I would not say palatalized). That is how I hear things. The Cyrillic л, when followed by a letter that does not indicate palatalization of the previous consonant, corresponds sometimes to the English l but not all the time.

Note: What I call velarized l is not the pronunciation of ł as [w].
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
akimori makoto said:
I don't understand all the linguistic/phonological symbols.

Is "dark L" that annoying W-like sound that is becoming increasingly more common in Australian English?

It makes me cringe every time I hear it.
Really in American English and Australian from I remember hearing from Australians who do not attempt to affect RP, its is hard to find a truly "light L".

If it is truly a "w" sound, sounds like you are all learning how to speak how I did before speech therapy. Lazy Rs and Ls and a severe stutter. My Ls sounded like Ws.

Do you have a clip of what you are talking about?
I bet I know what you talking about.

I skip the linguist jargon.

They like most of the world are learning to speak American, especially that of the Southern / Black English variety which is what I tend to speak in my everyday.

Take the word fool.

I best you finish that l with your tongue touching against where your teeth meets your palette.

I typically wouldn't.

So that slightly aspirated "la" doesn't happen at the end.

You certainly use a dark l but with finish at the end as described above. (The way you would start the word look.)

Just a theory. After listening to myself affect the various ways I use my Ls.

 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Frederic said:
dzheremi said:
Ah, I see. Maybe you are hearing the contrast in Russian that exists between velarized l (which, as far as I can tell, is the typical/standard pronunciation; it's certainly how we were taught to pronounce it in Russian classes, with a Muscovite professor) and palatalized l? Because in that case, the velarized realization forms one half of a contrast, whereas in English there is no such contrast between velarized and non-velarized l, as far as I know. They are harmless (to intelligibility) allophones. So perhaps you are listening for something that does not exist, and hence concluding that English does not have velarized l?

Just an idea.
In milk, the l is velarized. In lot, the l is neutral (I would not say palatalized). That is how I hear things. The Cyrillic л, when followed by a letter that does not indicate palatalization of the previous consonant, corresponds sometimes to the English l but not all the time.

Note: What I call velarized l is not the pronunciation of ł as [w].
I certainly velarize lot. Must must consciously try not to. And might do so if the word were not clearly understood.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
orthonorm said:
akimori makoto said:
I don't understand all the linguistic/phonological symbols.

Is "dark L" that annoying W-like sound that is becoming increasingly more common in Australian English?

It makes me cringe every time I hear it.
Really in American English and Australian from I remember hearing from Australians who do not attempt to affect RP, its is hard to find a truly "light L".

If it is truly a "w" sound, sounds like you are all learning how to speak how I did before speech therapy. Lazy Rs and Ls and a severe stutter. My Ls sounded like Ws.

Do you have a clip of what you are talking about?
I bet I know what you talking about.

I skip the linguist jargon.

They like most of the world are learning to speak American, especially that of the Southern / Black English variety which is what I tend to speak in my everyday.

Take the word fool.

I best you finish that l with your tongue touching against where your teeth meets your palette.

I typically wouldn't.

So that slightly aspirated "la" doesn't happen at the end.

You certainly use a dark l but with finish at the end as described above. (The way you would start the word look.)

Just a theory. After listening to myself affect the various ways I use my Ls.
wikipedia sorta agrees a little with my theory:

Today
More extensive L-vocalization is a notable feature of certain dialects of English, including Cockney, Estuary English, New York English, New Zealand English and Philadelphia English, in which an /l/ sound occurring at the end of a word or before a consonant is replaced with the semivowel [w], and a syllabic /əl/ is replaced by vowels like [o] or [ʊ], resulting in pronunciations such as [mɪwk], for milk, and [ˈmɪdo], for middle. It can be heard occasionally in the dialect of the English East Midlands, where words ending in -old can be pronounced /oʊd/. Petyt (1985) noted this feature in the traditional dialect of West Yorkshire but said it has died out.[1] However, in recent decades l-vocalization has been spreading outwards from London and the south east,[2][3] and it is probable that it will become the standard pronunciation in England over the next one hundred years.[4]

In Cockney, Estuary English and New Zealand English, l-vocalization can be accompanied by phonemic mergers of vowels before the vocalized /l/, so that real, reel and rill, which are distinct in most dialects of English, are homophones as [ɹɪw].

In the accent of Bristol, syllabic /l/ vocalized to /o/, resulting in pronunciations like /ˈbɒto/ (for bottle). By hypercorrection, however, some words originally ending in /o/ were given an /l/: the original name of the town was Bristow, but this has been altered by hypercorrection to Bristol.[5]

In the United States, the dark L in Pittsburgh and African-American Vernacular English dialects may change to an /o/ or /w/. In African American Vernacular, it may be omitted altogether (e.g. fool becomes [fuː], cereal becomes [ˈsiɹio]). Some English speakers from San Francisco - particularly those of Asian ancestry - also vocalize or omit /l/.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-vocalization#Today

Maybe the Kiwis are invading your tongue.
 
Top