I decided to record a piece from Roosevelt's speech for you.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7CN...it?usp=sharing
What errors in pronunciation are the most annoying? What sounds should i work with? What should i improve?
Printable View
I decided to record a piece from Roosevelt's speech for you.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7CN...it?usp=sharing
What errors in pronunciation are the most annoying? What sounds should i work with? What should i improve?
Learn how to pronounce T, D and the short Ih vowel, like I as in "sit" or "ship".
Other than that, it's okay to my ears, the accent is still here of course, but I assume it's pretty understandeable for native speakers of English, isn't it, native speakers?
I would appreciate if u point me the words or phrases. Here is the text:
As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.
All of them.
It goes throughout the whole text. Almost all of the Ts, Ds and Ih-s are wrong.
Unfortunatly, i can not get what exactly wrong about T and D in most cases (sometimes it seems i make them soft by influence of following vowels, and sometimes there is no aspiration on t, k and similar sounds, but i am not quite sure)
T and D are pronounced with a tiny hissing sound like Ts, Dz, or Tsh, Dzh. Listen to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpRO1ZmYAw0
Pay attention 1:30 today we're gonna work on T and D, alright?
He pronounces it with additional Tsee and Dzeee.. Tssoday. That's the correct way of their pronunciation.
btw 2:12 am I only one who hears "when we use the simple Pursed" instead of "Past"? :)
Yeah, ty for the video. Helps to recall this stuff. It is called aspiration (придыхание). Same thing happens with p and k as well. It always was a problem - can't get used to it.
No it's not the aspiration. It's a small hissing sound just like if a T and an S are pronounced at the same time, like a Russian Ц.
No, it sounds a bit like "pursed" to me, too! Although I'd say, rather, that his pronunciation of past is "strangely British", despite the fact that his overall accent is typically North American. I also noticed that he pronounces "had/bad/add" with a different vowel sound than in "past" -- I guess this must be a Canadian thing. As a US English speaker, I would use the same "a" sound in all four of those words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Medved
P.S. And I'd be curious to know if he pronounces the adjective "past" differently from the verb "passed" -- in my own dialect, these two words are exact homonyms.
pushvv -- in general, I don't quite agree with Medved that your pronunciation of T and D is "wrong" -- your pronunciation is simply foreign.
But I did notice a few cases where your pronunciation was definitely "wrong":
- In the word "righteous," the "t" should be pronounced like the "tch" in "catch" -- you said it too much like a "normal T."
- In the word "ourselves," the "v" and the final "s" should be clearly voiced -- you devoiced them, and it sounded more like "ourselfs." Similarly, the "s" in "always" should sound like a "z."
- The "ea" in "treachery" should be pronounced as in "bread," not as in "teacher."
- In "premeditated," the first "e" should be clearly pronounced as in "me" and the second "e" as in "bed." (You pronounced both of them too much like the short "i" in "sit.")
Also, as a general recommendation, you need to "hit" the stressed syllables a little more strongly. There's not enough distinction between your stressed and unstressed syllables, resulting in a flat, monotonous rhythm. And in certain cases, not only the stressed syllables but entire words (including the unstressed syllables) should have a stronger intonation (for example, "...our PEOple, our TERritory, and our INterests...").
But overall, you did a very good job, and I didn't have the smallest trouble with understanding you. Again, as Medved said, you have an obvious accent, but there's nothing wrong with that. (Unless, of course, you want to work as a spy and are trying to pass yourself off as a native speaker!)
I worked a bit with my pronunciation a couple of years ago, but since i do not have practice, i forgot many usefull things. Though, i want to sound more like native people, but it is good that you can understand me )
I never noticed that hissing sound, but I believe I do pronounce it myself.Quote:
It's a small hissing sound just like if a T and an S are pronounced at the same time
To produce this hissing sound (and aspiration at the same time) you should I suppose just pronounce t and d more intenensively.
A very good recommendation. :good:Quote:
There's not enough distinction between your stressed and unstressed syllables, resulting in a flat, monotonous rhythm. And in certain cases, not only the stressed syllables but entire words (including the unstressed syllables) should have a stronger intonation (for example, "...our PEOple, our TERritory, and our INterests...").
Also remember that in English, the "t" and "d" are alveolar -- they shouldn't be too "dental" or too "palatal."Quote:
Originally Posted by kib
And the classic exercise for practicing "aspiration" is to put a burning candle in front of your mouth, and try to make the flame move as much as possible while saying the English consonants "t", "d", "p", "b", and so forth.
d, b-то зачем? Они же не придыхательные. Придыхательными в английском языке могут быть только сильные (глухие) взрывные согласные.
Well, "aspiration" is relative. You are completely correct that English /b/ is less aspirated than English /p/. But, to my ears, English /b/ is more aspirated than Russian /б/. Or, to say it more generally, voiced "plosive" consonants in English are not as strongly aspirated as their voiceless counterparts, but even so, they may have more aspiration than the corresponding Russian plosive consonants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
So, I would recommend the "candle exercise" for Russians, but Marcus is correct that voiced English plosives such as /b/ and /d/ are not as strongly aspirated (meaning, the candle's flame shouldn't move as much) compared to voiceless plosives like /p/ and /t/.
No, Throbert, English b, d, g are not aspirated at all, that's one of the main differences between them and p, t, k. Voiced aspirated exist in many Languages of India, native English speakers cannot pronounce them without special training.
Да, пора уж подучить Роберта английским звукам, а то он нас тут в конец запутает.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yMvU73Wr7Q
Here there are many voiced aspirated sounds.
LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
But I think that Marcus was partly correct -- I probably used the term aspirated incorrectly in my post (i.e., not in the proper technical sense that linguists use it).
However, I would insist that English speakers tend to release more air with the /b/ sound, in comparison to Spanish or Russian speakers, for example. At the same time, there is less air than with the /p/ sound, so perhaps it's incorrect to describe the /b/ as aspirated. Also, from Google, I find that in the Indo-Aryan languages, /b/ and /bh/ are separate phonemes, while in English, there is only the phoneme /b/, which is still /b/ whether you "aspirate" it (for want of a better term) a lot or a little.
P.S. I listened to the "Jana Gana Mana" song that Marcus linked to -- and, yes, he's correct that I (as a native English speaker) do not say the /b/ in "boy" the same as the /bh/ in Bharata bhagya. So, perhaps, I shouldn't have used the word "aspirate." Even so, to my ears, some Russians do not... um... "push out enough air" when pronouncing the /b/ in English. Or perhaps Marcus could agree to describe the English /b/ as "semi-aspirated", while the /p/ is "aspirated".
I agree with ThRobert, the English give more pressure and sharpness to the labial consonants (b, p, f, v) compared to their counterparts in Russian (Б, П, Ф, В), i.e. they sound much softer in Russian than in English. I used to notice that the Russian В for example, sounds like inbetween the English V and W in terms of "plosiveness".
Russian B is an approximant: the upper teeth only approach the lower lip. English v is pronounced with the upper teeth touching the lower lip.
that's a good point because sometimes the В is very slight, almost aspirated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
In Russian? Or in English spoken by Russians?Quote:
Originally Posted by sperk
in Russian, sometimes the B is very faint, almost not pronounced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
Like совершенно, which is often pronounced сършеннъ
I think the B in твой and its variations is often barely touched, if at all.
Really? I don't think твой is pronounced той.Quote:
Originally Posted by sperk
Marcus think of it as if твой whould be pronounced тwой without much pressure on the lips.
Even maybe without the pressure at all. That's what he means by "barely touched". There IS a big difference.
I see. Yes "barely touched".
To whom it may be interesting:
I think the problem what Robert tried to describe was the difference in pronunciation of English and Russian voiced consonants. For example, compare English "book", "dull", "goal" with similarly (but not eqaully!) sounding Russian "бук", "дал", "гол". The initial consonants in English and Russian examples do not fully coincide.
If someone is interested in technical details, let me drop some light on it.
"Voiced" can be understood differently in different languages. In real world, there is a continuous spectrum of "voicing degrees".
Below is some theoretical background:
If the vocal chords vibrate during the entire occlusion time of a consonant, the consonant is "fully voiced". If they vibrate during only a part of the consonant occlusion time, the consonant is "partially voiced". If they do not vibrate during the consonant occlusion, but start vibrating immediately after the consonant release (when a consonant is followed by a vowel), it is a "tenuis voiceless consonant". If they do not vibrate during the consonant occlusion, and do not start vibrating immediately after its release, but there is a noticeable delay between a consonant and a subsequent vowel, it is an "aspirated voiceless consonant". There can also be different degrees of partial voicing, as well as different degrees of aspiration.
Wikipedia provides more details on this phenomenon: Voice onset time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In Russian, voiced stops (б, д, г) are always "fully voiced". For example, when we pronounce "бар", the vocal chords start vibrating at the very moment the lips come in touch in order to make an occlusion, they continue vibrating during all the occlusion time producing the voice, and the voice continues throughout the consonant release and the subsequent vowel articulation. In addition, the voicing is more intense as compared to the English pronunciation, but the muscle tension is weaker, so this degree of voicing reminds the one of a vowel: voicing somewhat "prevails" over the consonant noise.
The voiced stops in English (b, d, g) more or less remind Russian ones only when they happen inter-vocalically (i.e between two vowels) as in "aBout", "aDapt", "aGo". Word-initially and word-finally they are only "partially voiced" or they can even be "voiceless tenuis". Word-initially, voicing extends over the final part of a consonant (the moment of its release): "bell", "dime", "gun". The word final position (as in "rub", "had", "frog") is even more complicated, it is discussed in the following article: Fortis and lenis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Quotation: "Word-initially, the contrast has more to do with aspiration; /t/ is aspirated and /d/ is an unaspirated voiceless stop. In the syllable coda, however, /t/ is instead pronounced with glottalization, unrelease, and a shorter vowel while /d/ remains voiceless. In this way, the terms fortis and lenis are convenient in discussing English phonology, even if they are phonetically imprecise."
So, in English voice is not the main distinctive feature for "p-b", "t-d", "k-g". In Russian, it is the voice which is the only distinctive feature between them.
Word-initially, English contrasts "voiceless aspirated" with "partially voiced" (or even "voiceless tenuis") consonants (as in "park" – "bark", "time – dime", "coat" – "goat"). Russian contrasts "voiceless tenuis" with "fully voiced" consonants (as in "пар" – "бар", "том" – "дом", "кот" – "год").
The distinction used in English is similar to the one in other Germanic languages (e.g German, Swedish). It is also similar in Chinese and Korean.
The distinction used in Russian is similar to the one in other Slavic languages, in Romance languages (like Spanish, French etc.). It is also similar in Japanese.
This difference creates potential problems for both Russians learning English and for native English speakers who learn Russian.
Russians are not used to aspiration, and they can pronounce "park", "time", "coat" with Russian unaspirated (tenuis) consonants. In this case, those words might seem sound similar to "bark", "dime", "goat" to native English speakers. English speakers may fail to recognise a consonant as "voiceless" if it is not supplied with sufficient aspiration, so they can deduct "Russians are unable to produce voiceless consonants", but Russians would certainly disagree: "the consonants I pronounce ARE voiceless".
Native speakers of English are not used to fully voiced consonants word-initially, and they can pronounce "бар", "дом", "год" with English partially voiced consonants. In this case, those words might seem sound similar to "пар", "том", "кот" to native Russian speakers. Russians may fail to recognise a consonant as "voiced" if it is not fully voiced, so they can deduct "English speakers are unable to produce voiced consonants, at least word-initially", but English speakers would disagree: "the consonants I pronounce ARE voiced".
I think what Robert mistakenly called "aspiration" of English voiced consonants is this very difference between English and Russian voiced consonants (partially voiced VS fully voiced).
For practic purpose, producing the proper aspiration of English voiceless consonants by Russian learners is more important than the ability to pronounce "partially voiced" consonants, which are unusual for Russians as well. If you say "ben" with the fully voiced Russian "б", it will still sound as "ben", although the accent can be noticed. But if you say "pen" with the Russian tenuis "п", it can be taken for "ben".
Similarly, for practic purpose, producing the proper full vocing of Russian voiced consonants by English-speaking learners is more important than the ability to pronounce "tenuis" unaspirated voiceless consonants. If you say "пар" with the aspirated English "p", Russians will still take it for "пар", although the accent will be noticeable. But if you say "бар" with the English partially voiced "b", it can be taken for "пар".
There are some links where this issue is discussed in details:
phonetics - What is the difference between voiced and voiceless stop consonants? - Linguistics Beta - Stack Exchange
quotations:
"As a native speaker of American English, when I was listening to the difference sounds in this IPA chart, I was really surprised when I realized that I could not differentiate between p/b, t/d, and k/g. (I think I've always been distinguishing the pairs based on whether or not the consonant is aspirated.). I know the difference has to do with vibrations of the vocal chords, but I am not quite sure what to listen for."
"So what does this mean for you. As a native English speaker, you have only ever been exposed to [p] aspirated and [p] unaspirated. You understand the former to be /p/ and the latter to be /b/.
When you get presented with a sound you've never heard before in that particular phonetic environment, your brain just associates it to the nearest match. Your brain disregards the voicing before the stop release and notices that there is no aspiration duration, concluding immediately that it is also /b/. This is helped in large part in that in even slightly rapid speech, the English sound /b/ appears not as an unaspirated [p] but actually a fully voiced [b] (e.g., in the word tabs).
And that's why you may not be able to tell."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4071028AATF9L4
quotation:
"I can clearly distinguish (b, d, g) from (p, t, k) spoken by native US/UK English speakers. People can clearly distinguish my (b, d, g) from (p, t, k) too. To me, the only perceivable difference between the two groups is that a puff of air comes out when we say (p, t, k).
However, when I listen to Japanese, Spanish or south Asian speakers, sometimes I cannot distinguish the two groups. To me, both of them sounds like (b, d, g). However, apparently other listeners (including native US/UK speakers) can still distinguish them."
zompist bboard • View topic - Voiced/unvoiced plosive distinction in English
quotations:
"I've read more than once that the distinction between voiced and unvoiced plosives in English is more a distinction between aspirated and non-aspirated, and to a native speaker's ear a non-aspirated initial plosive (in a foreign language) sounds voiced (and also that non-aspirated and hence voiced initial plosives carry very little voice)."
"I remember an article in the New York Times about a fairly recent paper that showed something similar happens if the audial and tactile information are out of sync: e.g., one tends to hear /ta/ for /da/ (are slashes appropriate there?) if a air is blown onto one's hand. I assume the test subjects were native English speakers, but the article didn't specify."The latter is probably a typo, logically it should read "[da] for [ta]", I guess.
I think aspiration is this energetic exhalation like an H sound after one of the consonants:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA0N9ZbhEsc
Yes, it is. What is even more important, when an aspirated consonant is followed by a vowel, the aspiration results in time delay between the consonant release and the vowel voicing. Other words, the vocal chord vibration does not start immediately after the consonant is released.Quote:
Originally Posted by Medved
But I agree with what you said about the [h] exhalation.
При этом на конце слов англоязычные наше оглушение замечают.
Кстати, и придыхание (аспирация) в русском языке есть. Но оно имеет место как раз на конце слова. Мы его обычно не замечаем, но при этом произносим "кот" как [котh] со слабым придыханием в конце. Тогда как в английском "cat" придыхание наиболее выражено именно в начале: [khat] (сорри, знаков IPA под рукой нет). Поэтому и замечают они оглушение. Но не только поэтому, с финальной позицией там сложно всё, от диалекта зависит.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus