| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Photography | Main | Human Extinction: Not the Worst Case Scenario »

December 13, 2010

A ramble through vowels and consonants

It’s probably unfashionable to say this, and it’s certainly a sign of a thoroughly colonized mind, but English is my favorite language. There are many reasons for this: the massive vocabulary, the puns, the double-streamed Germanic-Romance roots (so that ‘mistake’, ‘wood’ and ‘hue’ mean and evoke differently from ‘error’, ‘forest’ and ‘color’). But a large part of my affection for English lies in the sounds of the language.

This is a complicated thing to say about your first language. It’s much easier to know what a language sounds like when you don’t speak it, before comprehension has made the language transparent. It’s hard to reconstruct the way a language sounded before you learned it, and this is much more so if you grew up speaking it. Still, while some impressions are only available to a non-native speaker and others are irretrievably lost, others never leave or even wait to be discovered later on.

To me, the most striking thing about English is its diversity of vowels, something I only noticed after many years of speaking the language. English, in many dialects, has about 15 vowels (not counting diphtongs). Listen to the vowels through these words: a, kit, dress, trap, lot, strut, foot, bath, nurse, fleece, thought, goose, goat, north[1]. There are languages that have more (Germanic ones tend to be vowel rich), but there aren’t many of them, and none that I know well enough to frame a sentence in. And compare this vowel list to the relative paucity of vowels in so many other languages. Hindi really has only about 9 or 10 vowels; Bengali, which has lost several long-short distinctions has slightly fewer (though lots of diphtongs). Some languages (including these two) do include extra vowels formed by nasalizing existing ones; these nasalized vowels often sound lovely, but feel very similar to their base vowels. It’s more a flourish than a genuinely new creation. Japanese and Spanish have about 4 or 5 apiece, and I’m told that Mandarin and Arabic have about 6.

English, then, is capable of exceptionally rich assonance and exuberant plays on vowel sound[2]. Listen to the interplay between the ‘ai’ sound in ‘light’, ‘shines’, ‘tides’ and ‘file’ with the ‘o’ in ‘no’, ‘broken’, ‘ghosts’, ‘glow’ and ‘bones’, and notice the diverse vowel background they’re embedded in:

“Light breaks where no sun shines;

Where no sea runs, the waters of the heart

Push in their tides;

And, broken ghosts with glow-worms in their heads,

The things of light

File through the flesh where no flesh decks the bones.”

(From “Light breaks where no sun shines” – Dylan Thomas)

Or, for a more recent example, here’s the beginning of Eminem’s “Drug Ballad”. Listen to the long ‘a’ in ‘Mark’, ‘party’ and ‘start’ play with the short repeated tight ‘i’ you hear in ‘This is’, ‘mix’, and ‘kicks in’[3]:

“Back when Mark Wahlberg was Marky Mark

This is how we used to make the party start

We used to mix hen' with Bacardi Dark

And when it kicks in you can hardly talk”

Just to balance things out, though, there are a number of sounds that English lacks. It’s a well known fact that English has no sound for bilingual[4]. It also has few consonants, and they’re randomly arranged. If you’ve studied a South Asian alphabet (with some exceptions) or even a few of the South-East Asian ones, you’ve probably noticed that there are a large number of consonants, that the alphabet arranges them in rows, and that the sounds on a row are similar. Of course this isn’t accidental, but if you start to pay attention to the rows you’ll probably be surprised by how logically the alphabet is organized (as I was, when I began paying more attention to the sounds of words).

I’m going to use Hindi to illustrate this organization. There are several aspects you control when you make a consonant and the ordering of the consonants in the Devanagari alphabet reflects a number of these.[5]

First, a little background. Consonants are produced by impeding the flow of air through your vocal tract, and there are a few different ways to do this. One is to constrict some part of your vocal tract completely and then release in a little puff of air. This is what you do when you say ‘t’, ‘d’, ‘p’ or ‘b’. These consonants are called stops or plosives (a lovely word – evocative and friendly). Say them to yourself a few times and hear the stop and release. You constrict at different places for these sounds (with tongue behind the upper teeth for ‘t’ and ‘d’; with both lips for ‘p’ and ‘b’) but the mechanism is the same. If you constrict completely but also allow air to escape through your nose while you’re doing this you’ll make a nasal stop. These are sounds like ‘n’, ‘m’ or the ‘ng’ in ‘sing’.

You can also make a consonant by constricting enough to produce turbulent airflow but not enough to block the flow completely. When you make sounds like ‘s’, ‘z’, ‘sh’, ‘v’ and ‘f’ you’re forcing air through a narrow channel in your mouth. These are the fricatives, a word which sounds more painful than it should.[6] If you constrict even less, so that you’re halfway between a fricative and a vowel, you’ll get an approximant. These are sounds like ‘l’, ‘r’, ‘y’ and ‘w’. There are a few more ways of forming consonants, but these are the main ones.

What’s the difference between ‘p’ and ‘b’ or between ‘t’ and ‘d’ or ‘s’ and ‘z’? If you pay attention, you’ll notice that your mouth does about the same thing for each pair (if you don’t immediately notice this, shut your eyes and pay attention to what your lips and tongue do when you make each sound pair), so this can’t be the difference. Now say ‘ssssss’ and ‘zzzzzz’ to yourself (perhaps not in a public place), with two fingers on your throat. You should feel your vocal cords vibrating for ‘zzzzz’, but not for ‘sssss’. This is the difference between a voiced and unvoiced consonant. Now return to ‘t’ and ‘d’ or ‘p’ and ‘b’ and see if you can feel the same.

Devanagari

 Now we  can return to the alphabet. There’s a picture alongside to help you out. The first three rows are vowels, and should be ignored. The next five rows are the stops. In all of these, you block the airflow completely and then release.

The first row sounds like ‘k’, ‘kh’, ‘g’, ‘gh’ and ‘ng’ (as in ‘sing’). For each of these you constrict with the back of your mouth and then release. Your vocal cords vibrate to make a ‘k’ into a (hard) ‘g’, and you push air through your nose to turn these into a ‘ng’. The ‘kh’ and ‘gh’ are aspirated versions of ‘k’ and ‘g’. Aspiration is the slight breathy puff of air that distinguishes the ‘p’ in ‘par’ from the one in ‘spar’ (at least in some accents); don’t worry if you can’t immediately hear it.

The same pattern is repeated on rows two through five, with the constriction moving forward through the mouth. The order for each row is unaspirated-unvoiced, aspirated-unvoiced, unaspirated-voiced, aspirated-voiced and nasal. For the second row it’s ‘ch’ (as in ‘chair’), ‘chh’, ‘j’ (as in ‘jay’), ‘jhh’ and ‘ny’ (the last being rather like the Spanish ñ). Here your tongue squishes up against the hard palate[7] and then releases. For the third row, you’ll need to create the obstruction by curling your tongue back against the roof of your mouth. These sound like hard versions of the English ‘t’, ‘d’ and ‘n’. Again, the second and fourth sounds are aspirated versions of the first and third. Next, you have a similar row, but with soft “t’s” and “d’s” (think Spanish or French if that helps) and ‘n’, formed with the tongue pressing against the back of the teeth before releasing. And finally you have the bilabials: ‘p’, ‘ph’, ‘b’, ‘bh’ and ‘m’. Press your lips together to form the stoppage and then release, again aspirating, voicing and nasalizing to make different sounds. Notice that you’ve gradually moved the obstruction from the back of your mouth (‘k’) to the front (‘p’).

Now that you’re done with the stops, you have a couple of less well-organized rows where the approximants and fricatives live (the absence of severe constriction gives them an anarchic bent) . After the approximants ‘y’, ‘r’ and ‘l’, you have the fricatives ‘v’, ‘sh’, ‘sh’ (with tongue curled back), ‘s’ and ‘h’, and then you’re done.

This organization of consonants is common to most of the languages of India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and, with some modifications, to Khmer, Thai and Lao, and its spread was particularly tied to the diffusion of Buddhism. Its influences reach into Central Asia; then all the way to Japanese kana, though by this point the sound organization is almost lost; and perhaps even to Korean Hangul, where the shapes of the consonants indicate the mouth shape used to produce them. But that’s a story for another time.

So what does poetry in a consonant-rich language look like? Does Hindi show complicated flights of consonance to rival English’s diverse assonance? I actually don’t know. The last time I read Hindi poetry was in high-school and we were too busy confronting poems as puzzles to be deciphered to spend time getting to know the sounds. The same was true of high-school English, but I kept reading English poetry and even tried writing some and it was this that finally lead me to discover the sounds.


[1] The illustrative words are taken from John Well’s lexical sets

[2] Before you complain: I’m perfectly aware that other languages have interesting sound-landscapes, and can do all sorts of poetic things that I haven’t dreamed about.

[3] The whole piece is a wonderful play of off-rhymes and assonance

[4] This is a joke

[5] Vowels can be classified along a few major dimensions, but there are fewer possible vowels, which makes them feel more unique and makes the classification less interesting.

[6] The ‘th’ in ‘thin’ and the ‘th’ in ‘that’ spoken with a North American or English accent are also  fricatives, and rather unusual ones; many English speakers from other places cannot say these and substitute with other sounds.

[7] Some of the sounds on this row have a fricative component as well.

Posted by Rishidev Chaudhuri at 12:40 AM | Permalink

Comments

In the past few months I have embarked on the first of several years of study in Hebrew and Arabic and have had the opportunity to train my mouth to make different sounds. English's wealth of vowel sounds certainly puts native speakers at an advantage when learning Semitic languages, although at a strong disadvantage when it comes to consonant pronunciation. I've noticed particularly the American non-Spanish speakers and the students from the British Isles non-rhotic varieties of English make the Hebrew "resh" (although I believe this may not actually be a rhotic sound) and Arabic "ra'" particularly different, and we have a tendency to inflect the long vowels in Arabic as a combination of a tense and slack English vowels.

I've also noticed that English speakers regional accent tendencies tend to become more pronounced in a foreign language - West Coast Americans have darker consonants and the RSP British tendency towards "clipping" ending sounds is even more readily apparent.

Posted by: B | Dec 13, 2010 6:48:46 AM

English has plenty of consonants and they are quite orderly in their organization.
English has more fricatives than Hindi including "th" (voiced and voiceless), "v", "zh". This punctures a hole in your orderliness theory. With voiced versions of all plosives, and multiple types of coronals in Hindi, the paucity of fricatives is quite "unorderly". In English, letters aren't organized in the orthography or alphabet, but for every "p", there's a "b", and so on, in orderly fashion.
And while there are more consonants in Hindi in general, English is also on the large size compared to languages like Hawai'ian, with 8.
Your facts are wrong on vowels, too.
A quick spin on google will tell you Spanish has 5 vowels (a, e, i, o and .... u!), not "about 4 or 5"; Arabic has 4 or 7, depending on how you count, not 6.
There are also important conceptual issues with respect to how you count that are ignored, namely allophony.

I'm not paid to be a copy editor, so I'll stop there; this list should not be considered exhaustive.

Perhaps precision and accuracy are just obstacles in communicating your impressionistic feelings, in which case I'd suggest sticking to phrases such as "like, totally a whole bunch" and "hardly any, dude."

Posted by: Marc | Dec 13, 2010 12:42:51 PM

Tough audience.

Posted by: J.Hawkins | Dec 13, 2010 1:43:47 PM

Another peculiar thing about the arrangement of the Hindi alphabet: The order of the letters depends on the place (in the mouth) where it is pronounced. The sound of the letters in the alphabet start from the back (deep) of the throat and steadily moves upwards & outwards to the front of the mouth (towards lips):

क ख ग घ — back of the mouth
च छ ज झ — mid-point in mouth
ट ठ ड ढ — back in mouth with tongue curled
त थ द ध — touching teeth
प फ ब भ म — from closed lips

Posted by: Vishal | Dec 13, 2010 7:10:55 PM

I agree with Marc & B on the quality of this article. One cannot fully appreciate the beauty and faults of English without a sound knowledge (pun intended) of related western languages - something Chaudhuri seems to lack.

English may be the only western language that is not 'governed' by some august body of experts. It seems pointless then to pronounce on the sounds of English when there are no enforceable rules on pronunciation. Native speakers of English - every man a king - who interpret vowels, consonants and accents willy-nilly will often correct others whom they see as non-Anglophones on matters of pronunciation simply because there are no rules. Bernsteen / Bernshtyne and never the twain shall meet. Dictionaries are of not much use either given the state of the language as she is spoke. No diacriticals for us, thanks - we're English!

Chaudhuri might well ask readers "Now say ‘ssssss’ and ‘zzzzzz’ ...". If present trends continue English speakers all over the world will lose all the sibilant sounds of the language. Words starting with 'dis-' are now invariably voiced with 'diz-', and who's to decry this? I once saw an electrician on TV holding forth on his bread and butter as 'electrizity'! There's no end to this kind of interpretation.

And what is the point of the article - that the un-phonetic nature of English spelling lends the language a great variety of sounds? OK, I'll buy that.

Posted by: narayan | Dec 14, 2010 1:13:08 PM

What was the point of the article? Interesting but random observations without any analysis to support his original claim.

Posted by: Mayalisa | Dec 18, 2010 5:44:00 AM

Thanks for opening my understanding of a language I just picked up as a baby, and never really thought about how I formed the letter sounds.

Posted by: Tim | Feb 17, 2011 12:31:55 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Matt on The Science Mystique

Eleutheria on Why is Europe so Messed Up? An Illuminating History

Elatia Harris on I am dust and ashes and full of sin

PeteChapman on I am dust and ashes and full of sin

Raza Husain on the culture animal

Chris on Positive Failure - a review of "The Power" by Rhonda Byrne

DAS on Why is Europe so Messed Up? An Illuminating History

DAS on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

DAS on the culture animal

Raza Husain on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Dredd on NORTH KOREA’S NERVE WAR

Dredd on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Raza Husain on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

Dana on germ houses

musafir on Tuesday Poem

soubriquet on Tuesday Poem

Eli on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Jim on Tuesday Poem

Josef Stern on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Shelley on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

Bill on The Beautiful German Language

Eleutheria on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Eleutheria on Tuesday Poem

Raza Husain on the culture animal

musafir on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed