Page 1 of 1

Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng" wor

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:00 pm
by Fooge
https://books.google.com/books?id=5f5dA ... 22&f=false

I saw this in the Phonetics for Dummies book.
Beginning transcribers may sometimes be confused by “ing” words, such as “thing” (/ɪŋ/ in IPA) or “sang” (/sæŋ/ in IPA). A typical question is “where is the “g”? This is a spelling illusion. Although some speakers may possibly be able to produce a "hard g" (made with full occlusion) for these examples (for example, "sing"), most talkers don't realize a final stop. They simply end with a velar nasal.
So apparently it's common for people to think words like "sing" and "thing" actually end in a [g] sound due to the "g" present in the spelling.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:08 pm
by Frislander
Yeah, that's what happens when you teach the writing system without discussing phonetics. See also "English has five vowels" and other similar issues.

Also there are dialects which do pronounce a [g] in those words, generally concentrated around Lancashire, Cheshire and Merseyside (my mother uses that pronunciation for example).

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:00 pm
by 2+3 clusivity

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:46 pm
by Salmoneus
It's not a spelling pronunciation.

It's also not quite as simple as "thinking there's a /g/ because there's a [g]". Most people do not, for instance, believe there to be /b/ in "debt", or /s/ in "island".

The problem arises in this particular case because people know that there's not just an /n/ in these words - "sing" and "sin" aren't homophones, for instance. But because they have no words (or concepts) to describe the /N/ sound - and because, to be fair, the /N/ sound does sound a bit /g/-ish - they can only describe /N/ as being /n/ plus /g/, as it's spelled (and sort of sounds). So if you tell them there's no /g/, they get confused, because they know there's not just /n/, and they don't have the conscious concept of /N/ as an alternative for what might be there.

After all, if you "drop the G" from "walking", you get "walkin'", with an /n/... it's got an apostrophe and everything! And surely if 'dropping the G' were just turning something from /N/ to /n/ - a change with no loss of elements or gain in simplicity - then it wouldn't be such a common indicator of lazy speech!?

[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:55 pm
by linguoboy
Frislander wrote:Also there are dialects which do pronounce a [g] in those words, generally concentrated around Lancashire, Cheshire and Merseyside (my mother uses that pronunciation for example).
In the USA, this is a feature associated with New Yorkers, viz. the popular respelling of "Long Island" as "Long Guyland". It is generally ascribed to Yiddish influence.

I once tutored German to someone with this feature. Not only could he not say, e.g. singer without [g], he couldn't even hear the difference between singer and finger.

Incidentally, the historical pronunciation was with [ŋg], so this is rather the opposite of a spelling pronunciation. The varieties Frislander mentions are more conservative than Standard English with regard to this cluster, just as Yiddish is more conservative than Standard German.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:56 pm
by Sumelic
Salmoneus wrote:It's not a spelling pronunciation.

It's also not quite as simple as "thinking there's a /g/ because there's a [g]". Most people do not, for instance, believe there to be /b/ in "debt", or /s/ in "island".

The problem arises in this particular case because people know that there's not just an /n/ in these words - "sing" and "sin" aren't homophones, for instance. But because they have no words (or concepts) to describe the /N/ sound - and because, to be fair, the /N/ sound does sound a bit /g/-ish - they can only describe /N/ as being /n/ plus /g/, as it's spelled (and sort of sounds). So if you tell them there's no /g/, they get confused, because they know there's not just /n/, and they don't have the conscious concept of /N/ as an alternative for what might be there.

After all, if you "drop the G" from "walking", you get "walkin'", with an /n/... it's got an apostrophe and everything! And surely if 'dropping the G' were just turning something from /N/ to /n/ - a change with no loss of elements or gain in simplicity - then it wouldn't be such a common indicator of lazy speech!?

[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].
And even beyond that, because of the history, there are still ways in which [ŋ] behaves synchronically in the phonology of English as if it were a cluster /ng/: it doesn't occur after long vowels/diphthongs, except for in onomatopoeic or expressive words, it alternates with [ŋg] in the comparative and superlative forms of long, strong, young, and of course, it doesn't occur word-initially or after other consonants. Facts like these make the status of /ŋ/ as a phoneme of English somewhat disputed even among phonetically knowledgeable analysts (apparently, a number of generative phonologists are in favor of analyzing English [ŋ] as synchronically derived from /ng/ (or /n/, before /k/): see this page from The Phonology of Swedish, Tomas Riad, for some references).

When learning how to do phonetic and phonemic transcriptions, you don't just have to learn about phones, but also about what the traditional/conventional abstractions are for representing specific languages' sound systems. No phonetic transcription is perfectly narrow, and of course a phonemic transcription will only represent one particular analysis of a language—which it is doubtful that everyone will agree on in all respects.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:44 am
by Fooge
Salmoneus wrote: [similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].
Also, "sh" and "th" are usually taught as digraphs representing /S/ and /T/ when teachers are teaching phonics to students. "ng" is not as commonly taught as a digraph.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:43 pm
by zompist
Salmoneus wrote:[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].
Not over there, maybe, but we sure do, with /θ ð/. Quite a few nonstandard dialects turn these into [t d]; word-finally, AAVE turns them into [f v].

But I don't think anyone calls this "dropping the H". I think it's referred to by example: "He was a dese-and-dose kind of guy."

(Come to think of it, I've seen <wit'> for dialectal with. But never, say, <t'in> for thin.)

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:40 pm
by Pole, the
Salmoneus wrote:After all, if you "drop the G" from "walking", you get "walkin'", with an /n/... it's got an apostrophe and everything! And surely if 'dropping the G' were just turning something from /N/ to /n/ - a change with no loss of elements or gain in simplicity - then it wouldn't be such a common indicator of lazy speech!?

[similarly, some people think there's an /h/ in /S/ and /T/. But this is less common, probably because we don't have any productive, shibbolethical "dropping the H" process].
Also, while are native realizations of «ng» as [ŋɡ], AFAIK there are no native realizations of «th dh» as [th dh].

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:28 am
by Nortaneous
I've seen "t'ing" for "thing", but in the context of Caribbean kitsch

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:27 am
by linguoboy
Pole, the wrote:Also, while are native realizations of «ng» as [ŋɡ], AFAIK there are no native realizations of «th dh» as [th dh].
There are, in compound words, e.g. shithole, masthead madhouse, handhold.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:34 am
by Vijay
There should be a book called something like Masthead Madhouse.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:54 pm
by Pole, the
linguoboy wrote:
Pole, the wrote:Also, while are native realizations of «ng» as [ŋɡ], AFAIK there are no native realizations of «th dh» as [th dh].
There are, in compound words, e.g. shithole, masthead madhouse, handhold.
Well, fair point. Still, these are undisputably distinct from /θ ð/.

What about “threshold”? Is this a case of /h/ creeping up from spelling pronunciation?

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:56 am
by linguoboy
Pole, the wrote:What about “threshold”? Is this a case of /h/ creeping up from spelling pronunciation?
Or folk etymology? To quote the OED:
The first element is generally identified with thresh v. (? in its original sense ‘to tread, trample’), the forms of which it generally follows; but the second is doubtful, and has in English, as in other languages, undergone many popular transformations.
A "threshold" can be said to "hold" things (e.g. water, rodents) back from entring a house, so this reanalysis is fairly intuitive to me. If anything, it's the first element in the resulting perceived compound which I find puzzling. I think I might have tried to make sense of it when I was younger by hypothesising that thresholds were originally found on threshing rooms (where they served to keep rats out and grain from spilling everywhere) and were only later generalised.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:35 am
by finlay
It's transcribed into Japanese as /ng/ (or /ngu/ at the end of words :roll: ) - at least for English, but not for Chinese and Korean. It's one pronunciation "error" the Japanese make that I've never really bothered correcting in lessons, as it doesn't impact their English much, and they might even have positive reinforcement of that pronunciation from some people. (like my coworker from Manchester who I'm pretty sure says the /g/)

Where it becomes a problem is actually for /n/ and /m/ at the end of words in English, as the Japanese coda-/n/ (ん) is underspecified for POA and actually sounds like [ɴ] or [ŋ] a lot of the time. It becomes [n] before other coronals and [m] before bilabials, but can also be [m] at the end of utterances, if the person closes their mouth after speaking for example, and before vowels it sounds downright weird, like a nasalization plus glide. And if they take this as an L2 error into English it can be difficult to understand.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:25 am
by Pole, the
Where it becomes a problem is actually for /n/ and /m/ at the end of words in English, as the Japanese coda-/n/ (ん) is underspecified for POA and actually sounds like [ɴ] or [ŋ] a lot of the time.
Isn't it common to pronounce /Vɴ/ as vowels with nasal offglides, not unlike French «in un an on» or Polish «ę ą»?

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:46 am
by Sumelic
Pole, the wrote:
Where it becomes a problem is actually for /n/ and /m/ at the end of words in English, as the Japanese coda-/n/ (ん) is underspecified for POA and actually sounds like [ɴ] or [ŋ] a lot of the time.
Isn't it common to pronounce /Vɴ/ as vowels with nasal offglides, not unlike French «in un an on» or Polish «ę ą»?
French «in un an on» aren't pronounced with nasal offglides, if I remember correctly: they're nasalized monophthongs. Finlay said Japanese /Vɴ/ is often realized with an offglide before vowels; I think I've read that this is also a common realization before fricatives. But before plosives or affricates, a vowel + nasal stop realization seems to be usual, similar to Polish «ę ą».

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:36 pm
by Ryusenshi
Sumelic wrote:French «in un an on» aren't pronounced with nasal offglides, if I remember correctly: they're nasalized monophthongs.
True in Standard French. Not true in Southern French, which does have nasal offglides which assimilate in POA with the following consonant.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:07 pm
by Sumelic
Ryusenshi wrote:
Sumelic wrote:French «in un an on» aren't pronounced with nasal offglides, if I remember correctly: they're nasalized monophthongs.
True in Standard French. Not true in Southern French, which does have nasal offglides which assimilate in POA with the following consonant.
Hmm, are we using "offglide" in the same way? I understood "nasal offlglide" in the Pole's comment to refer to the use of nasalized semi-vowelic glides like [ɔw̃]. It's hard for me to imagine how something like [w̃] would assimilate in POA to the following consonant (would it become something like [j̃] before /t/?). I had heard that Southern French could have, in place of nasal vowel phonemes, sequences of a vowel + a nasal stop like [ŋ]; it makes sense that such a nasal stop would be able to assimilate in POA to a following consonant (although there are also Romance languages that have developed things like [Vŋt] sequences, apparently).

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:47 pm
by Pole, the
Sumelic wrote: Hmm, are we using "offglide" in the same way? I understood "nasal offlglide" in the Pole's comment to refer to the use of nasalized semi-vowelic glides like [ɔw̃]. It's hard for me to imagine how something like [w̃] would assimilate in POA to the following consonant (would it become something like [j̃] before /t/?).
If I understand correctly, Ryu meant nasal offglides that become POA-assimilated nasal stops.

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:04 am
by finlay
Pole, the wrote:
Where it becomes a problem is actually for /n/ and /m/ at the end of words in English, as the Japanese coda-/n/ (ん) is underspecified for POA and actually sounds like [ɴ] or [ŋ] a lot of the time.
Isn't it common to pronounce /Vɴ/ as vowels with nasal offglides, not unlike French «in un an on» or Polish «ę ą»?
also yes

Re: Many people apparently think there's a [g] sound in "ng"

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:02 am
by Ryusenshi
Sumelic wrote:Hmm, are we using "offglide" in the same way?
Apparently not. I may have used the wrong word here. I was thinking about what finlay said about Japanese.
Sumelic wrote:I had heard that Southern French could have, in place of nasal vowel phonemes, sequences of a vowel + a nasal stop like [ŋ]; it makes sense that such a nasal stop would be able to assimilate in POA to a following consonant
Yes, this it what I had in mind.