Takehiko Makino Chuo University, Tokyo mackinaw@tamacc.chuo-u.ac.

jp

Introduction of /, u/ to EnglishJapanese dictionaries

(1) The older Jonesian system
A) B) C) D) E)

beat /bit/ - bit /bit/ root /rut/ - foot /fut/ caught /kt/ - dog /d | d/ - cot /kt | kt/ (i) card /krd/ - cord /krd/ or (ii) card /kd | kd/ - cord /kd | kd/ coat /kout/

Essentially, this system distinguishes similar sound pairs only with the presence or absence of length marks and expects the users to infer the quality differences.

(2) The progressive system

Since the introduction of /, , / in EPD14 (Jones and Gimson 1977) to indicate both quantitative and qualitative differences, however, some of the more progressive dictionaries began adopting the symbols // and /U/.
beat /bit/ - bit /bt/ B) Root /rut/ - foot /fUt/ C) caught /kt/ - dog /d | d/ - cot /kt | kt/ D) (i) card /krd/ - cord /krd/ or (ii) card /kd | kd/ - cord /kd | kd/ E) coat /koUt/
A)

 The first to adopt the system in (2) was the 5th

edition (1980) of unabridged Kenkyushas New English-Japanese Dictionary.

Some of the first learners dictionaries to follow this

were Proceed English-Japanese Dictionary (Fukutake Shoten, 1988) and Lighthouse English-Japanese Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Kenkyusha, 1990).

What has been left behind: the symbol //

The above progressive system in (2) differs significantly

from that of EPD14, which is now the de facto international standard, with both EPD17 and LPD3 using the essentially same system, in one respect:
it still uses // - // contrast instead of // - // (for British

pronunciation).

This is probably because the editors of those dictionaries

did not want to increase the number of types of phonetic symbols used, or because their attention was addressed to American pronunciation only, or both.

A serious problem
This new system is inconsistent and self-contradictory: Both length and quality differences are transcribed in /i/ vs. // and /u/ vs. /U/, i.e., A) and B) sets) But only length differences are transcribed in another part (// vs. //, i.e., C) set), even though they are also qualitatively different. One could even go so far as to say that it is defective as

a system of transcription.

The problem is British-only.

The system is defective for British pronunciation only. The contrast in American pronunciation in the C) set

above is:

caught /kt/ - dog /d/ - cot /kt/ This reflects the actual phonetic differences (in regions

where caught and cot are distinguished).

Possible solutions
We cannot leave this defective system as it is. The presupposition The Jonesian system (1) is not inconsistent about the problem here. However, it would be anachronistic to revert to it.

Since it overtly indicates the differences in vowel length only, it seems to be part of the reasons why Japanese speakers English tend not make vowel quality differences in pairs like knit vs. neat (cf. Makino 2009).

It is the //-// contrast that should be changed.

Solution no.1
(3) The solution no.1 (the de facto international

standard)

A) beat /bit/ - bit /bt/ B) root /rut/ - foot /fUt/ C) caught /kt | kt/ - dog /d | d/ - cot /kt | kt/ D) (i) card /krd/ - cord /krd/ or

(ii) card /kd | kd/ - cord /kd | kd/ E) coat /koUt/

 Possible merits: It conforms to the International Phonetic Associations stipulation about the relationship between symbols and their qualities. Virtually the same system is used in most of the EFL/ESL dictionaries published in UK, and it will make the learners switch from an English-Japanese dictionary to an EnglishEnglish one much easier. Possible demerit: There can be some reluctance on the part of the users (especially teachers) to the introduction of a new symbol //. The fact that even hooked schwa // is not widely accepted in Japan makes me rather pessimistic.

Solution no.2
(4) The solution no.2 (a compromise system) A) beat /bit/ - bit /bt/ B) root /rut/ - foot /fUt/ C) caught /kt | kot/ - dog /d | d/ - cot /kt | kt/ D) (i) card /krd/ - cord /kord/ or (ii) card /kd | kd/ - cord /kod | kod/ E) coat /kot | kt/ Instead of changing // into //, this system replaces

// with /o/ in British pronunciation only.

 The single most important merit of this system is that

it does not involve an introduction of a new symbol. Three demerits can be named here:
The system deviates from the stipulation of the

International Phonetic Alphabet in some respects (namely, the value of //). There are no other dictionaries using this system, so users would have to learn a new system of transcription if they switch to other dictionaries. The sheer change in the use of the same symbols might make it unacceptable to the classroom.

A difficult choice
The system (2) using only /, U/ is defective and cannot be

left as it is. The solution no.1 is phonetically sound and most highly recommended, but I cannot be sure that it will be favorably accepted to the classroom. The solution no.2 is a compromise, but it involves a rather complicated shift in the uses of the phonetic symbols, and might still be subject to the reluctance to accept a new system. In addition, aren't both these transcriptions rather too difficult for learners to decipher?

A Question
Do we really want information about both American and British

pronunciations when learning English?

In Japan, American English is taught as a tacit target model in the

school system. In such situations, do we really need a learners dictionary which lists both American and British pronunciations in a highly complicated transcription system?
After all, the progressive system (2) has given up transcribing the

British pronunciation in a consistent manner, as discussed above.

We might only be pretending to treat both variants equally

while we are actually doing justice to one of the two.

The two choices

Everyone involved in the teaching of English in Japan must

consider seriously if we really want both British and American pronunciations in our learners English-Japanese dictionaries.
If it turns out that the present treatment of both variants is

the mere result of the force of habit, we might just as well stop writing British pronunciations and simplify the transcription system. If we have decided that British pronunciation is very important to learners, then we would have to do justice to it in our transcription in the dictionaries. The complication of the transcription would have to be accepted.

The proposal
My suggestion is the former, that is, dispensing with

British pronunciation in learners dictionaries. That would make the pronunciation of English much easier to learn with simple transcriptions. We can always rely on unabridged dictionaries for giving us information about British pronunciation.
(The system of Kenkyushas unabridged dictionary is not

phonetically sound, though. Its system is as defective as (2). Something has to be done about it.)

References
Jones, Daniel. 1967. English Pronouncing Dictionary, 13th ed. London: Dent. Jones, Daniel and A. C. Gimson. 1977. English Pronouncing Dictionary, 14th ed. London: Dent. Kenkyushas New English-Japanese Dictionary, 5th ed. Tokyo: Kenkyusha, 1980. Lighthouse English-Japanese Dictionary, 2nd ed. Tokyo: Kenkyusha, 1990. Makino, Takehiko. 2009. Vowel substitution patterns in Japanese speakers English. In Ta(l)king English Phonetics across Frontiers, Biljana ubrovi and Tatjana Paunovi (eds.) , pp.19-31. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Proceed English-Japanese Dictionary. Okayama, Japan: Fukutake Shoten, 1988. Roach, Peter, James W. Hartman and Jane E. Setter. 2006. Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, 17th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, John C. 2008. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.