Chinese dictionary with IPA

[Phil]

OK, here are the clips (if I succeed in attaching them !). Same speaker, same dialogue, and the utterances in question are :

1. Ni shi na guo ren ?
   
2. Renshi ni, wo hen gao xing, Amy !
   

Incidentally, http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Standard_Mandarin states :

/ɻ/ is often transcribed as [ʐ] (a voiced retroflex fricative). This represents a variation in pronunciation among different speakers, rather than two different phonemes.

Based on the evidence of the Kan Qian recordings, I would argue that this can also occur as an intra-speaker variation, conditioned by context.

** Phil.

Na guo ren.wav

Renshi ni.wav

[Gharial]

I think the argument (from "the son of one of my tutors") that characters that look different should be pronounced differently (i.e. not be homophones) is spurious to say the least, Phil

To be fair to Rui, that is not what he said (and nor is it what I reported him as saying) : he said "there is no reason why they should be pronounced the same; they are different characters" , which is very different to "they should be pronounced differently : they are different characters".

Sure, my paraphrase was a bit clunky, but the underlying problem is still the same: claiming that homophony (not that Rui called it or even seemed to know it was that) is "no reason". Well, it exists, so we'd better get used to it!

The /ɻ/ (an "alveolar approximant") versus [ʐ] (a voiced retroflex fricative) is as much a variation among phoneticians (re. the differing transcriptions we've seen in those charts, automated conversions, surveys such as Norman, etc) as among different speakers LOL (I mean, phoneticians are speakers too!).

I gave the clips a go. I think one would need to have a very good (picky?) ear to detect much of a difference (but mine might be made of cloth for all I know).

One thing I've noticed (to add a bit of variety to the discussion, so it doesn't get too boring ) is that at times the general pronunciation guidance given by Kan Qian at the very start of her CC course seems a bit dodgy, incorrect, or plain useless:

"ang (is) like (the) on in monster" (In monkey I could understand!)

"when i follows initials z, c, s, zh, ch, sh and r, it is pronounced very differently from i preceded by b, p, d, t, n, l, etc. Try to get the initial sound right first and then keep the mouth shape of the initial and say i. Note that this i sound and the initial overlap greatly" (Scenes ensue like those of Richard Roxburgh in M:i-2, bound and gagged and with his jaw broken and with the Tom Cruise face mask on, all while trying to plead that Dougray Scott doesn't mistakenly shoot him)

"iu like you" (Seems completely wrong. Yo! or yeoman, surely? See also the next point)

"ui like wai in wait" (It isn't until the reader sees 'wait' following 'wai' that they realize it's not a 'why'-like sound but a 'way'-like one. It would've been better then to use e.g. the wei of weight, which would've had the additional advantage of suggesting if not reminding that the full version of this final is actually -uei [independently wei] from which the -e- gets deleted when an actual initial is added. But there is little or no mention of such points however in this version of the CC course, from what I can see (see also the point above)).

[Michaelyus]

"iu like you" (Seems completely wrong. Yo! or yeoman, surely? See also the next point)

http://www.sinoglot.com/blog/2011/05/14/iou/ has some discussion about this, relating the difference to a tonal split. Otherwise, I'd say that it was certainly more colloquial to have /iu/ realised as [ju] or [jiu] rather than [jɤʊ]. More common in my overseas Chinese experience, certainly, not that such facts have any bearing on the prescribed standard.

[Gharial]

Personally I can't say that I've ever really noticed other people pronouncing e.g. 六个 as "l(y)uger" (='luger', the German automatic pistol, but with potentially a y glide added) rather than as "Lee-oh-guh", Michaelyus, but perhaps they (or my perceptions of them at least!) have been too influenced by the prescribed standard. Anyway, the value assigned to the final -i(o)u in Kan Qian's version of the CC course is as you/I/we have said wrong according to the standard at any rate!

[creamyhorror]

"ang (is) like (the) on in monster" (In monkey I could understand!)

Perhaps this is based on certain American dialects which pronounce "monster" as "mahnster" (which fits the sound better than monkey ("munky"), even).

"iu like you" (Seems completely wrong. Yo! or yeoman, surely? See also the next point)

In Singapore (where we're taught Beijing-standard Mandarin), I think virtually everyone pronounces it "you". I think this is true for Taiwan as well. To me at least the "yo" pronunciation sounds Mainland China-ish. Then you have the further information on a split between tones 1/2 and 3/4 for this in Beijinghua. So I don't think he's too wrong on this point. Whether this confirms exactly to the "prescribed standard" I don't know, but it's a perfectly valid pronunciation choice IMO.

Ni shi na guo ren ?

Renshi ni, wo hen gao xing, Amy !

The 'r's don't sound too different to me. The length of the "ren" syllables are different (4th tones are shorter than 2nds), which may be contributing to any apparent perceived difference in the sounds.

In class, children are taught to say "ren1, ren2, ren3, ren4" and later are taught that 人 is pronounced ren2 and 认, ren4. If the 4 sounds are produced with the same initial R in the context of class/standard instruction, then any differences emerging between 人 and 认 would have to be the result of variation outside of class. I doubt any consistent variation of the sort postulated by Phil is likely. There is variation, yes, but it's not consistent or intended (in my experience).

[Gharial]

"ang (is) like (the) on in monster" (In monkey I could understand!)

Perhaps this is based on certain American dialects which pronounce "monster" as "mahnster" (which fits the sound better than monkey ("munky"), even).

But Routledge is primarily a British publisher, and the author was (at the time of publishing at any rate, don't know about now) a lecturer at Lancaster University, which is a British establishment, so it would've been strange if she'd opted for an American reading of the guideword (or is an American audience the only one that should ever be catered for?); and in any case, 'monster' lacks the /-ŋ/ required. In contrast, the conclusion and keyword that I'd settled upon in my own guide to Mandarin pronunciation was (-ang is like the -ung in) 'bung' (which should chime enough with English speakers on both sides of the Atlantic).

Regarding the 'you', I'm wondering if a mistake of sorts was made and the English keyword confused for and "replaced" by what is actually the Pinyin for (the non-present) character 有 or something. And again, the English pronunciation of the English word 'you' ("你") isn't how -i(o)u in Pinyin should be standardly pronounced.

My overall impression of Kan Qian's version of CC is that it is in every respect inferior to the original version by T'ung & Pollard, and I don't know why Routledge felt the need to "replace" that original work (though they still reprint[ed] it). Perhaps students were becoming less capable and needing something that was sufficiently dumbed down, or there was more money to be had in creating a two-level course (IIRC Kan Qian wrote a Part 2/higher level accompaniment, which must've been reasonably lucrative for Routledge and her)? All that being said, the newer CC course is still better than some!

[creamyhorror]

And again, the English pronunciation of the English word 'you' isn't how -i(o)u in Pinyin should be standardly pronounced.

I don't know about the specifics of the standard, but the "you" sound was perfectly acceptable to my teachers (and probably to any Mandarin speaker). (Not that I would want to sound too 'standard' anyway...) Nonetheless, maybe you could link me to an authoritative source indicating that 'iou' is the only valid pronunciation.

[Gharial]

Sure, Creamyhorror - page 143, point 6, of Norman's Chinese (Cambridge Language Surveys), which is previewable (at the moment of writing) on Google Books. (I'll attach a screen capture though, just in case); then, there's the full Pinyin > IPA chart in the back of the Oxford/CP Concise, or POCD. (Sorry for the poor quality of the latter...if you can't make it out, it basically has -iu as [iəu]).

[Phil]

I find it very interesting that neither Gharial nor Creamyhorror pick up much difference in the initial "r" sounds from the two clips I posted. Two members of my class with no former experience of Chinese picked up the difference very clearly, some other members could detect it when it was pointed out, and some others (and our Chinese teachers) could barely discern it at all. Which leads me to wonder to what extent our phonemic discrimination varies with the environment in which we spend most time communicating. For example, consider a native speaker of British English who can clearly differentiate between "Ben" and "Venn" (two real names). If that speakers moves to Catalunya, becomes fluent in Catalan, and ceases speaking English on a regular basis, will his/her discrimination fade over time, such than when he/she returns the UK he/she can no longer be sure whether "Ben" or "Venn" is being said ? Or can the brain switch discriminating modes, so that when he/she is listening to Catalan, the two phonemes merge, whereas when he/she is listening to English they are clearly distinct ? And is it possible that before becoming fluent speakers of Mandarin (which I assume that Gharial and Creamyhorror now are), they would have been more aware of the difference in the sounds of those two "r" initials, but now that they are used to communicating in an environment where that "difference" is not significant, have they unconsciously suppressed their ability to discriminate between the two ?

** Phil.

[Gharial]

I fear my Chinese, never more than intermediate at best, has become pretty rusty, Phil, so I'm probably the wrong person to be asking, plus I've been more TEFLing (and in not only China), and studying English rather than Chinese or whatever other FL, this past decade. And my main focus nowdays is on developing lexicographic materials (for which Pinyin is sufficient, IMHO), though one by-product of that may be that I'll eventually get back to actually studying/practising Chinese in greater leaps and bounds than before...anyway, at least I've now got some "Applied Linguistics" experience (expertise, even? ) that I can bring to bear on those lexicographic materials!

[creamyhorror]

Thanks for the screenshot, Gharial. I'll keep it in mind, though I'll probably still continue pronouncing 'iu' both ways.

I find it very interesting that neither Gharial nor Creamyhorror pick up much difference in the initial "r" sounds from the two clips I posted. Two members of my class with no former experience of Chinese picked up the difference very clearly, some other members could detect it when it was pointed out, and some others (and our Chinese teachers) could barely discern it at all.

Why do you assume the difference exists? Could it not be that you're hearing a difference where there's none?

I've had a re-listen to the clips now that I'm home and with proper speakers, and I can see why some might perceive a difference in the Rs. The 'r' in 认识 is less obviously like the English 'r' while the 'r' in 人 is clearly so. But it's still closer to /ɻ/ than [ʐ]. I've come across the [ʐ] pronunciation, and it's generally quite obvious and a feature of certain accents.

And is it possible that before becoming fluent speakers of Mandarin (which I assume that Gharial and Creamyhorror now are), they would have been more aware of the difference in the sounds of those two "r" initials, but now that they are used to communicating in an environment where that "difference" is not significant, have they unconsciously suppressed their ability to discriminate between the two ?

As I mentioned, I do discriminate between /ɻ/ and [ʐ], but I don't think this case is so clear-cut. A single example is statistically unreliable, and you should seek out more examples of apparent (to your ears) variation from the same native speaker. (Just for information's sake, my first and primary daily language is English but I've studied Mandarin since primary school and am exposed to it most days.)

My personal take is that there aren't as many differences in pronunciation as you implied in your first post. If speakers pronounce words differently, it's just natural variation between acceptable sounds, and often not consistent (e.g. sometimes I pronounce pinyin iu as 'ew' and other times as 'iou' or something in-between, but not in a consistent way). Even if some people consistently pronounced things a certain way, there's more than enough variation throughout the Sinosphere that any choice of acceptable sound would be considered perfectly native.

Let's get more native speaker samples in and then we can draw some inferences, maybe.

[Phil]

Why do you assume the difference exists? Could it not be that you're hearing a difference where there's none?

I think that's both a valid and an interesting question. And I think that the answer is as follows. I think that there is a difference, because (a) I hear a difference, and (B) because a former colleague, who is also a professional linguist, also hears a difference, and we agree on what that difference is. Could it be that we both hear a difference where there is none ? Yes, but unlikely. What I think we can agree on is that one's language, dialect and idiolect all influence one's linguistic perception : Catalans hear no difference between "Ben" and "Venn" because there is no meaningful difference in their native language; the Japanese transcribe the name of a place near Kyoto as "Nara" where the Chinese would transcribe it as "Nala". So it may simply be that those of us that hear the distinction have linguistic backgrounds where the difference is significant (it may be relevant that both Marie & I speak French, she as a first language and I as a second). There may even be a physiological explanation as to why the difference is clearer to some than to others -- I don't know, that is not an area in which I have any expertise whatsoever.

So on balance, I think that there is a difference, but whether it is significant (statistically significant, that is) I have no idea. I will explore the multimedia version of Colloquial Chinese further, and see if I can identify any pattern that bears on this.

** Phil.

[BertR]

Hello Phil,

French is also my second language, but I can't hear any difference in the pronunciation between both "ren"s. Of course the tone, stress and duration is different, but accept from this I don't here any meaningful difference.

I also remember when I just started learning Chinese that I heard differences while other people said it was pronounced the same, but nowadays I also don't hear these differences anymore. I guess this is because my brain has much more exposure to Chinese and is more used to the sounds.

My theory is actually the opposite of yours. My guess it that your brain tries to match the sound to something that is already familiar to you, and this make the 2 rens sound different in a different context. I guess it is something similar as native people being able to understand foreigners quite well because the brain corrects and masks a lot of errors for you, although their pronunciation is way off. Foreigners on the other hand often can't understand foreigners coming from another country, or native people with a slightly different accent because they haven't got that much exposure to the language and the brain is not trained yet in recognizing and correcting these errors and you even here things that even aren't pronounced. This is just my gut-feeling, I'm not a linguist ;)

Anyway, even there is a difference between the 2 rens that I can't hear, I don't believe it is important, since as you already mentioned, Chinese people also don't hear the difference.

[imron]

I can hear a slight difference in the 'r's but I don't think it's actually a 'difference' or at least not one that would warrant using a different symbol to represent it, and here's why. In the second sample "认识你很高兴amy“。 The r is the very first sound that the speaker makes and therefore it gets held a little longer and receives less interference from surrounding sounds, making it slightly clearer. The 'r' from the first sample ”你是哪国人" is in the middle of speech and sound is therefore slightly shorter and also receives influence from the surrounding word (e.g. the final uo in 国).

I would be interested in hearing the same speaker saying 认识 and 人 in isolation. I think you would find the difference would not be there.