Acquiring the skill of phonetic transcription from orthographic text is a widespread technique included in all undergraduate curricula for phonetics, linguistics and speech science. It is an ability which is also frequently expected in students of modern languages and English. Any instructor who has been faced with a pile of thirty and more transcriptions to mark knows what a laborious task this is, requiring a lot of close examination of fine detail. To be able to lighten the load by computerizing some of the detail of error-correcting is therefore seen as desirable from several points of view.

Now that the microcomputer has gained wide acceptance as a teaching tool, it seems appropriate to review the extent to which phoneticians can make use of the new technology. Educational applications will be our primary interest in this survey. Many of these applications involve phonetics word-processing, and of course this has direct relevance for the current debate in this Journal concerning the possibility of a standard for computerization of the IPA.

Speech databases on Danish, Dutch, English, French, German and Italian are being set up as part of an Esprit-funded project, ‘Speech Assessment Methods’ (SAM), which is concerned with the establishment of standardized assessment methods for automatic speech recognition devices. An important aspect of this work is the devising of a standard set of conventions for the machine-readable phonetic transcription of these languages. This matter was discussed at a two-day meeting in London devoted to aspects of the organization of speech databases, which was attended by participants from SAM Partners in the five currently participating countries (Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom), together with representatives from the German Federal Republic. Participants agreed that a compromise based on the three existing multilingual proposals could be achieved: its broad outlines were agreed, while the elaboration of detail was left to the present author and this report.

Both Maddieson (1987) and Kelly (1987) discuss the problem of symbolising linguo-labials in Austronesian languages of Vanuatu, and highlight the alternative solutions to the problem of symbolising rare speech sounds. Maddieson outlines five possible answers: firstly no official IPA symbolisation be provided, allowing transcribers to utilise ad hoc personal transcriptions. Secondly, existing symbols could be modified by existing diacritics, though interpreted in a new way. An alternative to this would be to invent a new diacritic specifically to denote linguo-labial articulation and to attach it to an existing symbol. The final two strategies involve the invention of brand new unit symbols for the sounds, or the use of digraphs. Maddieson argues convincingly against the use of digraphs, but otherwise leaves the debate open for other contributors. Both Kelly (1987) and Bladon (1987) are also to some extent non-committal on the problem, but seem to favour the use of an existing or a new diacritic attached to standard labial/alveolar symbols.

Quite rightly, the question is being posed: For whom is the IPA chart to be of service, (a) chiefly, (b) at all? Yet regardless of who the main beneficiaries may be, an issue on which I intend to imitate the (in)action of the mugwumps, I suggest that pedagogic principles are of the greatest importance in the creation of a chart to replace the existing amalgam. That is to say, a future chart must be so designed as to be not merely a statement of the situation but also a ‘guide, philosopher and friend’ for the user, from whatever walk of life. Users may be taking their first steps in acquiring proficiency in the use of a tool that has to be at the service of an increasingly varied range of people. Viewed thus, the chart must not be a simple systematised aggregation of facts, but also a methodical presentation of the same.

In response to the report by Ladefoged and Roach on the future of the International Phonetic Association, I would like to offer some comments to the debate which is taking place in this Journal on the proposed revision of the IPA chart (including prosodic signs). This revision is, in the main, an articulatory and auditory task. I would like to draw your attention to my book Phonetic Notation / La Notazione Fonetica (1983), in which I have provided a complete revision and expansion of the International Phonetic Alphabet. The charts summarizing my list of symbols, adapted from pp. 35–37 of the book, appear below (Figure 1).

The first Educational Phonetics section of JIPA shows a preoccupation with the theory, practice and results of language teaching. Clearly this area of professional interest will continue to occupy the interests of phoneticians as it has done ever since the Association was founded. Windsor Lewis's note addresses the perennial question of which phonological varieties of English should be set up as models for the non-native learner of English, while Jenner's article offers an alternative approach to the description of non-native accents which may suggest a novel basis for the organisation of pronunciation teaching. Contributions have been promised in other areas of professional interest, but did not materialise in time to be incorporated in this issue.

Any attempt to define and describe a non-native pronunciation of English is beset with a variety of difficulties. In the first place the researcher is dealing with something acquired, at least in part, by a conscious effort of the speaker. Although, as I have argued elsewhere (Jenner, 1984), English has a special status in the Netherlands, approximating to that of a second language in other countries, it is nonetheless true that the average Dutch learner has no opportunity for actual productive practice of the language until he is already 10 or 12 years old. His ears may be familiar with the sounds of native English, owing to the extensive use of English in Dutch television and cinema, but they are also conditioned by a much greater exposure to Dutch. His perceptual norms are Dutch. In the case of pronunciation this implies that the learner will initially perceive the phonological features of English with reference to the systems of Dutch, and will tend to interpret them as deviant surface exponents of underlying Dutch norms.

The massive growth of English as an international language has meant that many among the very considerable number of those who are engaged in teaching it have been eager to possess a full description of the features of the spoken variety they employ. The first really full account of a suitable British model pronunciation is found in Daniel Jones's Outline of English Phonetics, notably as it appeared in 1932. For thirty years this was unrivalled. Despite numerous features which have become outdated and others that were never entirely suitable treatments of their subject matter, this book has still not been completely superseded and fortunately still remains in print. In 1962, A. C. Gimson's Introduction to the Pronunciation of English immediately showed itself to be a better organised and more up-to-date account but markedly less oriented to the needs of the EFL teacher and learner. Less than 5% of its content consisted of specific advice for this audience. Its second revision in 1980 more than doubled its EFL coverage by the addition of a very valuable appendix on ‘Teaching the Pronunciation of English’.

‘L’enseignement de la prononciation: L'un des buts de l'Association Phonétique International* [sic] (Journal of the International Phonetic Association 16, 48–53 (1986).

Jean-Paul Vinay

Emeritus Professor of Linguistics, University of Victoria, B.C.

There is a typographical error in the title of the paper: for ‘International’ read ‘Internationale’.

‘Updating the theory’ (Journal of the International Phonetic Association 17:1, 10–14 (1987).

Peter Ladefoged

Phonetics Laboratory, Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1543, U.S.A.

A typographical error occurs twice on page 13: on line 10 and in Table 2 ‘CALCUMINAL’ should read ‘CACUMINAL’.

There is a missing line at the bottom of page 13. The sentence beginning: ‘The difference among fricatives of this kind …’should read as two sentences: ‘The difference among fricatives of this kind is further complicated by the fact that some are sibilants and some are non-sibilants. Bearing this in mind, we might even be able to incorporate the domed tongue shape that occurs in alveolopalatals as being included within this dimension, as shown in Table 2.’