Thread: Confused about soft vowels

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

It's a somewhat harmful point of view in a way that it gives a learner an impression that hard and soft consonants are less important than other aspects of pronunciation.

They are less important. They're not completely unimportant, but comparatively they are less important.

It's the same as telling a Japanese ESL learner that he should not bother learning to distinguish between R and L, because the difference is hard to explain and people would understand him anyway (from the context, if anything).

No, it's not the same, because there are plenty of circumstances in English where mixing up R and L could lead to ambiguity or confusion.

But does he really wants to speak with a cartoonish accent after putting so much effort into learning grammar and vocabulary???

Personally, I only ever cared about being able to communicate, and all else being equal I'd rather be able to say what I want even in a funny accent than have perfect pronunciation but not be able to express myself. Of course that's an exaggerated distinction and learning is not as zero-sum as that, but in the initial stages of a beginner text it's not far off.

Or people having to decipher his every word and constantly asking him to repeat yourself?

You're exaggerating the distinction. Pronouncing ся as sa or s-ya does not cause listeners any problems, and in the context of all the other mistakes and hesitations a beginner will be making it's not even going to be noticeable. It might give you a slightly funny accent, but on its own it's not going to turn you into Равшан from Наша Russia.

My personal point of view that there's no reason to postpone mastering correct pronunciation. Relearning it could be hell.

Don't be silly. There's nothing to "relearn" by skipping over this initially, you just pick it up later when you're ready, either by progressing to more advanced texts or simply through familiarity with the language as spoken by natives.

And if you won't be able to pronounce some sounds from the start (maybe even for months), it's one more reason to start early.

I really don't understand the insistence that all aspects of pronunciation must come right at the start. There are countless aspects to learning a language and we generally only tackle them one at a time, so we have to prioritise. We learn basic verbs before we learn reflexive verbs, and the simple present tense before the past tense. We learn declarative sentence structure before we learn interrogative sentences, we learn nominative nouns before we tackle the instrumental case. We learn standard adjectives before we learn short form adjectives. First the basics, then fill in the gaps, and then refinement. What is so special about pronunciation that it can't be prioritised in this way and must be presented to the learner in its totality before they are even equipped to understand some of what they're being taught?

An additional bonus of decent pronunciation is that it makes your language seem better than it is! It's a fact (really).

Absolutely, I just think getting to a point where you can communicate effectively before worrying about the subtleties is a better strategy than wasting time on perfecting something that won't really help you at the stage you're at. It's like learning elaborate cursive handwriting without even learning how to recognise and print the basic letters first. And of course it's not really possible to convey pronunciation properly in text anyway, the learner is always going to have to use additional resources for that, so why bother wasting the page space on more than a summary?

No, it's not the same, because there are plenty of circumstances in English where mixing up R and L could lead to ambiguity or confusion.

how many? Anyway less than lack of distinction between all the Russian hard and soft consonants.

Pronouncing ся as sa or s-ya does not cause listeners any problems, and in the context of all the other mistakes and hesitations a beginner will be making it's not even going to be noticeable.

An unfair example. Both pronunciations with the hard and the soft s exist in Russian. But what for should Englishmen replace a soft consonant with a hard consonant and a "y", if it doesn't make a sound closer to the Russian one, but makes the pronunciation more difficult?

Don't be silly. There's nothing to "relearn" by skipping over this initially, you just pick it up later when you're ready, either by progressing to more advanced texts or simply through familiarity with the language as spoken by natives.

Wrong pronunciation is a bad habbit which is hard to correct.
If you learn it at the beginning, it will become natural and you will learn everything in the correct pronunciation.
Why do you think that conjugations and declensions are important? Я жить Москва is perfectly understandable. Should Russians train to pronounce voiced consonants in the word-final positions? Can't it be understood from the context that dick is dig?

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

No it doesn't. Боб Уайтман's table only explains the orthography of soft and hard vowels and how they relate to preceding consonants. It doesn't explain the actual distinction between soft and hard consonants at all. To learn that you have to hear it, and to be able to hear it you need an understanding of the basics.

But even that simple thing is not explained in textbooks, it does not take neither much place nor much time, but gives a possibility for a learner to understand what is what in the written form. That's like understanding how to pronounce ce, ca, que, za in Spanish.

You asked why beginner texts tend to ignore the subtleties of soft and hard sounds

These are not subtleties, but very basic things. Descriptions help much especially with consonants. Something correct still can be written in a textbook. At least you will know what you pronounce wrong. For example a Russian learner of English might not hear or reproduce the difference between w and v, but at least he is told by the transcription that they are two different sounds. A learner who pronounces lya instaed of ля might not even think he makes something wrong.

Conjugations mean practically nothing in Russian because personal pronouns are usually used with a verb. Cases are rarely important for the sense.

Originally Posted by Marcus

But what for should Englishmen replace a soft consonant with a hard consonant and a "y", if it doesn't make a sound closer to the Russian one, but makes the pronunciation more difficult?

It does make the sound closer though. It doesn't make it correct, but it is closer. Ask any English speaker to say "nyet" and what you hear will be a lot closer to "нет" than if you'd asked him to say "net". You can stamp your feet and insist that it's wrong all you like, but for most people it's good enough to be going on with, until such times as they've heard how the locals pronounce it.

Wrong pronunciation is a bad habbit which is hard to correct.
If you learn it at the beginning, it will become natural and you will learn everything in the correct pronunciation.

That's just a bald assertion. It doesn't match my own experience at all, but more importantly it clearly doesn't match the professional experience of the people who write beginner Russian books for English speakers (which is what we're discussing here), else they'd put more emphasis on pronunciation and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Why do you think that conjugations and declensions are important? Я жить Москва is perfectly understandable.

In that example and many others it's not important, but in most cases it is. That's simply not the case for softness. There are no examples, or vanishingly few, where a slight mispronunciation of the softness of a consonant in an otherwise correct sentence can lead to ambiguity or confusion.

Should Russians train to pronounce voiced consonants in the word-final positions? Can't it be understood from the context that dick is dig?

Not always, obviously, because "dick" and "dig" are different words and are distinguishable only by the final consonant. That's precisely the point. Which pairs of words in Russian are distinguishable only by the softness of a consonant?

You're exaggerating the distinction. Pronouncing ся as sa or s-ya does not cause listeners any problems

But it's not about "sa"/"sya", it's about soft and hard consonants in general, and they exist in every single word.

I really don't understand the insistence that all aspects of pronunciation must come right at the start. [...] First the basics, then fill in the gaps, and then refinement.

I think it's the crux of the matter. Most Russians consider proper (or close to it) pronunciation a basic, not an advanced skill. That's simply how we are taught. When we started learning English at school as first graders, one of the very first things we had to learn was IPA, so we could understand proper transcriptions. Not once Russian alphabet was used to explain English pronunciation.

Exactly, it's about how you're taught, and your motivations for learning in the first place. Beginner Russian texts for English speakers are not aimed at the same sort of market or trying to achieve the same thing as beginner English texts for Russian speakers.

Not always, obviously, because "dick" and "dig" are different words and are distinguishable only by the final consonant. That's precisely the point. Which pairs of words in Russian are distinguishable only by the softness of a consonant?

There are plenty of words and word forms like that. стал - сталь, был - быль, лёд - лот. лыко - лика, стол -столь. школы - школе, лак -ляг, говорит -говорить, мат - мать, перетряхивать - перетрахивать, врёт - в рот. There are even examples where this "y" sound after a consonant is the only thing which distinguishes the words лёд - льёт. Лъя is by no means ля. I can say that french or German la will be really close. Why does no one pronounce french la as lya? Russians can hardly hear the difference between French L and Russian soft L. This as close as fs is close to th in English. Once again, there is a PHONEMIC distinction between a soft vowel and a vowel and a "y" in Russian. They are as different as v and w are for native English speakers, despite the fact that there are very few words which differ only by v and w.

Originally Posted by Marcus

There are plenty of words and word forms like that. стал - сталь, был - быль, лёд - лот. лыко - лика, стол -столь. школы - школе, лак -ляг, говорит -говорить, мат - мать, перетряхивать - перетрахивать, врёт - в рот. There are even examples where this "y" sound after a consonant is the only thing which distinguishes the words лёд - льёт. Лъя is by no means ля. I can say that french or German la will be really close. Why does no one pronounce french la as lya? Russians can hardly hear the difference between French L and Russian soft L. This as close as fs is close to th in English. Once again, there is a PHONEMIC distinction between a soft vowel and a vowel and a "y" in Russian. They are as different as v and w are for native English speakers, despite the fact that there are very few words which differ only by v and w.

Yes, all this is true, but we're not discussing whether there is a distinction, we're discussing whether that distinction is important enough to warrant being explained at great length in a crash-course beginner text.

Yes, all this is true, but we're not discussing whether there is a distinction, we're discussing whether that distinction is important enough to warrant being explained at great length in a crash-course beginner text.

Not at length, but at least somehow correctly. At least the very basic things. How they are pronounced in general (with the middle of the toungue raised towards the roof of the mouth) and Russian graphics.

Should a v-w distinction be mentioned in a textbook of English or not?
Why do you care so much about the conjugation. Искаю is perfectly understandable as well as Я жить. Are there many situations in Russian when the correct conjugation is important?

Originally Posted by Marcus

Not at length, but at least somehow correctly. At least the very basic things. How they are pronounced in general (with the middle of the toungue raised towards the roof of the mouth) and Russian graphics.

Right, so you're now agreeing with precisely what I've been saying in the thread all along.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Should a v-w distinction be mentioned in a textbook of English or not?

That depends. Is it a textbook for academic study, say year 1 in a series that's supposed to last you throughout school, or is it a book for people who are visiting England in a month's time and don't know any English at all?

If it's the former, then yes, of course it should. If it's the latter then possibly not.

Why do you care so much about the conjugation

I don't care about it. I've just found that getting grammar wrong is far more likely to result in blank stares or misunderstandings than having a funny accent, so I give more thought to the former than the latter.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

Right, so you're now agreeing with precisely what I've been saying in the thread all along.

No. Because the very basic understanding includes the ability to write phonemic transcriptions and understanding that ля is ль+а, and лья is ль+й+а, and that saying лъя or лья instead of ля is a mistake. And also there are much fewer combinations as лья in Russian than like ля.
How do you think: is п-б distinction important in Russian? The difference between л, ль is more important than п-б, because there are no weak positions for л – ль and there are plenty for п – б.
How can you prove that L – R distinction in English is more important than л – ль or т –ть in Russian?

Originally Posted by Marcus

No. Because the very basic understanding includes the ability to write phonemic transcriptions and understanding that ля is ль+а, and лья is ль+й+а, and that saying лъя or лья instead of ля is a mistake.

But these orthographic distinctions are meaningless to anyone who does not understand the concept of palatalization in the first place! You have to understand the difference between ль and л before you can even start to understand the distinction between ля and лъя and лья.

And do you know what will happen if you include an in-depth explanation of palatalization in your beginner textbook? No one will buy it, they'll buy the one that teaches them how to stumble successfully through a simple conversation, because that's all they want to be able to do!

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

But these orthographic distinctions are meaningless to anyone who does not understand the concept of palatalization in the first place! You have to understand the difference between ль and л before you can even start to understand the distinction between ля and лъя and лья.

And do you know what will happen if you include an in-depth explanation of palatalization in your beginner textbook? No one will buy it, they'll buy the one that teaches them how to stumble successfully through a simple conversation, because that's all they want to be able to do!

But they will understand what they don't understand and will make a choice: whether to find other resourses which explain the most important Russsian phonological feature or not. And they won't even understand that they are wrong if the explanations are wrong. Because it is meaningless for a native Russian speaker that ля is lya ль is л. if anyway palatalization is mentioned regarding soft sign, why not say about palatalization before vowels, without this "y"? Or you suggest to call soft sign a meaningless letter?

Originally Posted by Marcus

But they will understand what they don't understand and will make a choice: whether to find other resourses which explain the most important Russsian phonological feature or not. And they won't even understand that they are wrong if the explanations are wrong. Because it is meaningless for a native Russian speaker that ля is lya ль is л. if anyway palatalization is mentioned regarding soft sign, why not say about palatalization before vowels, without this "y"? Or you suggest to call soft sign a meaningless letter?

Sorry mate, I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, and this is getting tiresome and circular anyway, so I'm going to leave it.

You originally asked "I wonder why many textbooks fail to explain that", and I tried to explain why. If you don't like my explanation then that's fine, feel free to invent your own one.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

Sorry mate, I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, and this is getting tiresome and circular anyway, so I'm going to leave it.

You originally asked "I wonder why many textbooks fail to explain that", and I tried to explain why. If you don't like my explanation then that's fine, feel free to invent your own one.

Ха! Я думала, что только я там ничего не понимала.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

...And do you know what will happen if you include an in-depth explanation of palatalization in your beginner textbook? No one will buy it, they'll buy the one that teaches them how to stumble successfully through a simple conversation, because that's all they want to be able to do!

I disagree with this because: it is very easy in two pages with accompanying audio, to give a very good introduction to hard/soft consonant pairs with appropriate vowels. The student simply listens and reads the pairs. Then they are introduced to the topic right away, and even though it isn't going to fix all the problems that show up, they will have a simple early set of examples to refer back to. Even the textbook by the American Lipson does this on pages seven and eight of his introductory text ( the student has just learned Cyrillic letters) to make sure student knows that palatalization/soft consonants must be attended to. The audio is by a native Russian speaker, so no mistakes. He also includes the distinctions of the four possibilities as mentioned in the table by Боб Уайтман with various consonants. This is just the first intro to hard soft pairs, but it is still in the first few pages. Just a few pages later, are soft consonants at ends of words.


The concept is easy to package in small introductory first lessons. But must have audio.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Ха! Я думала, что только я там ничего не понимала.

Я лично поняла, и думаю, что Маркус совершенно прав.
А гипотеза о стремлении производителей учебников максимально упростить материал скорее всего верна, но такой подход ведет к оболваниванию учащихся. И я, честно говоря, не верю, что человек не купит книгу, если там окажется (при прочих равных условиях) на пару страниц больше объяснений. Нонсенс.