pronunciation - Why do dictionaries transcribe the nasal in 'think' and 'language' with /ŋ/, yet 'input' and 'inbox' with /n/, not /m/?


In English, coda nasals assimilate to the following consonant, so 'n' in "in mail" and "own goal" is pronounced with [m] and [ŋ] respectively, right? If so, then why do most dictionaries transcribe sounds represented by 'n' in orthography with /ŋ/ before velar consonants (e.g. think, tinker, language, English), yet with /n/ before bilabial consonants (e.g. input, inpatient, inbox, inbred)?


I checked Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Random House, Collins, Cambridge, Macmillian, and Longman, and this is more or less the case in all these dictionaries.


It seems to be the case that assimilation beyond syllable boundaries (or maybe morphological boundaries) is usually not realized in dictionaries' transcription, hence include /ɪnˈkluːd/ and Vancouver /vænˈkuːvər/. This is evident in the case of increase, where the noun is /ˈɪŋkriːs/ and the verb is /ɪnˈkriːs/. But this still doesn't explain /ˈɪnpeɪʃənt/ or /ˈɪnpʊt/. Increase (n.), inpatient, and input all have the prefix 'in-' and stress on the first syllable.


Or is 'n' in words like input and include actually pronounced with [n]?



EDIT: I found the following summary on this matter in Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary (18th ed., 2011; eds. Peter Roach et al.; pp. xvi–xvii), which indeed confirms Sumelic's answer:



The assimilation of /n/ is a rather special case: many English words begin with the prefixes 'in-' and 'un-', and in a number of cases the /n/ of these prefixes is followed by a consonant which is not alveolar. In some cases it seems to be normal that the /n/ is regularly assimilated to the place of articulation of the following consonant (e.g. 'inquest' /ˈɪŋ.kwest/), while in others this assimilation is optional (e.g. 'incapable' may be /ɪnˈkeɪ.pə.bᵊl/ or /ɪŋˈkeɪ.pə.bᵊl/. Where it is clear that the prefix is attached to a word that exists independently, so that prefix and stem are easily separable, the assimilation is normally treated as optional. When it seems more like an integral part of the word, the assimilation is shown as obligatory.




Answer



The standard basic phonemic analysis that I am most familiar with is that the words "think, tinker, language, English" contain the phoneme /ŋ/. I have see some more theoretically complex analyses that treat /ŋ/ in English as a "non-basic" sound that is always underlyingly derived from something else (depending on the context, either n or ng), but you'd never see that kind of analysis used for dictionary transcriptions.


This phoneme happens to be represented by the letter in these words, as English doesn't have a letter that represents /ŋ/. That's just a fact about the orthography. As Peter Shor points out in a comment, the letter doesn't always represent the phoneme /ŋ/ before a velar consonant – it's also possible for it to be /n/, in which case a dictionary will likely transcribe it as /n/.


There is a phonotactic constraint in English that forbids /np/ or /nk/ as a phoneme sequence within a single syllable. The word think (as I said, I’m assuming a dictionary-level type of phonemic analysis, not a more abstract theoretical one) isn’t pronounced with the phone [ŋ] as a result of phonetic assimilation of /n/; it is pronounced with [ŋ] because it has the phoneme /ŋ/.


(In the more complex theories, it seems what I'm calling "phonetic assimilation" here might instead be called "gestural overlap"; see http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~bakovic/work/bakovic_local-assim.pdf which uses the word "assimilation" to refer to a phonological process and "gestural overlap" (in note 3) to refer to the process that produces phones like [ɱ] before /f/ in "casual speech". This may be a more correct use of the word "assimilation"; I'm not sure. If you use "assimilation" in this way, then "In English, coda nasals assimilate to the following consonant" seems to be false when interpreted as an unbreakable rule).


However, /n.p/ and /n.k/, with a syllable break in between, are generally considered possible in English at the level of phonemic representation. Their phonetic realization is actually variable, because place-assimilation of /n/ doesn't always occur.


It's hard for me to think of a possible minimal pair between /n.k/ and /ŋ.k/ or /ŋk./, but perhaps "kin-killer" vs. "king-killer" would do. (This doesn't work as a minimal pair for everyone, because some North American speakers have apparently phonemicized a difference in vowel tenseness for "i" before /ŋ/, realizing kin as /kɪn/ but king as /kiŋ/).


Nasal place assimilation/“gestural overlap” in English is optional and doesn't always result in complete neutralization of phonemic place contrasts


The nasal assimilation in input and inbox is in principle optional. In practice, I believe it may be phonetically realized in a gradient rather than a categorical fashion, leaving behind phonetic traces of the identity of the original consonant.


Here is a source that mentions and summarizes this:



Articulatory studies have shown crosslinguistic differences in across-word nasal place assimilation. The categorical versus gradient nature of assimilatory patterns is presumably phonologically conditioned: languages with larger nasal coda inventories show gradiency; those with more restricted inventories display categorical patterns. [...] English [has a] 3-way labial-alveolar-velar nasal contrast and a preference for gradient and variable nasal-to-stop assimilation (e.g., Ellis & Hardcastle, 2002)



(L1 influence on L2 assimilation: An EPG study of English /n/+stop sequences, Laura Colantoni, Alexei Kochetov & Jeffrey Steele )


I can't access Ellis & Hardcastle (2002) right now, but here is the abstract:



Place assimilation in English is now widely considered to be a gradual phonetic, not categorical process. This view is partly based on previous EPG evidence of partial alveolar assimilations which lack complete stop closure on the alveolar ridge but show a residual tongue blade/body gesture. This study reports EPG data from 10 speakers producing, at varying rates of speech, two experimental sequences, /n#k/ and /n#k/ (the latter a lexical velar–velar sequence with which apparent cases of complete assimilation can be compared). In fast speech, four distinct assimilatory strategies were identified. Two subjects never assimilated, four always assimilated in what appeared to be a complete fashion and the remaining four were the most interesting, showing considerable intra-speaker variability. Two of these four produced the expected continuum of assimilatory forms including partials. Unexpectedly, the other two produced either full alveolars or complete assimilations in the manner of a binary opposition. Follow-up EMA analysis yielded no evidence of the reduced coronal gestures found to be absent in the EPG-only data for two the speakers who, when they assimilated, did so in a complete fashion. Although no claims are made regarding higher-order representations, we interpret this as evidence of marked individual differences in assimilation strategy.



Categorial and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: Evidence from EPG and EMA data. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223917010_Categorial_and_gradient_properties_of_assimilation_in_alveolar_to_velar_sequences_Evidence_from_EPG_and_EMA_data [accessed May 28, 2017].


So basically, it's variable: the realization could be anything out of [n], [m], [n͡m]. It's also predictable if you know about English phonetics, and something that native speakers will do naturally and so don't need to be told about in a dictionary.


Assimilation in in- prefixes


The situation with the negative prefix in- is complicated; I would think in part because there is no orthographic difference between the representation of the phoneme /ŋ/ and the phoneme /n/, so it's easy for a reader to extract either pronunciation from the spelling. Since in- occurs mostly at the start of Latinate words, words with this prefix will on average belong to a higher register of speech that is more influenced by spelling.


The OED shows variants with /n/ and /ŋ/ for the word income.


"Phonological Features of in-, un- and non-", by Akira Okada (2013), cites Edward Carney's Survey of English Spelling (1994) as saying that “there is free variation between /n/ and /ŋ/ in prefixes ending in ‘n’”.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

I heard this phrase when I was watching Battleship. An old man said, "Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey." I do not know what it means, I only heard it in a movie. What is this phrase mean? In Addition: I think it was Rihanna who said "Saddle Ridge will be in weapons range in five minutes," then the old man stated the phrase. Answer It is a confused attempt at a play on (for example) "kiss my ass," or, some similar phrase. It is quite common in English today that idioms get mangled.
Read more

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

The typographical symbol dagger (†) has several meanings. Possibly its most common use is as a footnote marker. According to You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and Its Allies ( Partridge , 1953), when it is used for this purpose, it must be used for second footnotes only; the first footnote should be indicated by an asterisk (*), the third a double dagger (‡) and further footnotes other symbols or numbers. Where does Patridge's rule fall on a scale of one to ten, where one is "this is just one guy's random opinion" and ten is "this is a widely accepted rule of English and any deviation from it is unarguably incorrect"? This question was inspired by this Meta Stack Overflow question about the use of daggers on Stack Exchange site FAQ pages . Answer The dagger (also known as an obelisk ) is properly used for the second footnote. The asterisk is for the first, and the double dagger is for the third. This is supported by several websites: And so
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more