My Client Is Using Non-English
Sounds! A Tutorial in Advanced
Phonetic Transcription
Part I: Consonants
Martin J. Ball
Nicole Müller
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Ben Rutter
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center,, Norman
Marie Klopfenstein
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
M
ost of the textbooks used to teach phonetics in speech-language pathology courses
in the United States are restricted mainly,
ABSTRACT: Purpose: This tutorial stresses the importance
of being able to transcribe non-English consonants when
assessing clients with articulation and/or phonological disorders of various types. The dangers of restricting
a transcription to the symbols needed for English are
explained, and references to the literature throughout the
article demonstrate how often these non-English sounds
occur. Bilingual clients are very likely to use non-English
consonants in their own language and possibly when
speaking English as well.
Method: The article describes virtually all of the
non-English consonants on the International Phonetic
Alphabet chart, with references to the speech-language
pathology literature illustrating in what sort of cases such
sounds may occur. Typical languages where the particular sounds are found are also noted, many of which
are commonly encountered today in the speech clinic.
Sources where readers can hear these non-English sounds
themselves are provided.
KEY WORDS: phonetic transcription, non-English sounds,
consonants, disordered speech, multilingualism
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
or indeed solely, to the sounds of American English (see,
for example, Calvert, 1992; Edwards, 2003; Garn-Nunn &
Lynn, 2004; Shriberg & Kent, 2002; Small, 2004). Unfortunately, clinical experience shows that clients in the
speech clinic (whether children or adults) do not restrict
themselves to the sounds of their target language (it is
also worth noting that in connected speech, even speakers with no speech disorders may produce sounds that are
comparatively distant from the canonical, target sound).
Furthermore, the rise in the number of clients whose first
language is not English means that clinicians may be called
on to phonetically transcribe passages that are not English
and so may contain sounds that are not part of the English phonological system, or they may encounter varieties
of English that are influenced by other languages and so
contain sounds from that language.
The dangers of a broad phonemic-based transcription of
clinical data have been explored in many previous publications (e.g., Ball & Rahilly, 2002; Ball, Rahilly, & Tench,
1996), and we do not need to go into these in any detail.
Suffice it to say that a client’s phonological contrastivity may well be underevaluated or sometimes overevaluated by the use of a broad transcription restricted to the
symbols representing the sounds of the target language.
Ball36et• al.:
Advanced
Phonetic
Transcription: Consonants
DISORDERS • Volume
133–141
• Fall 2009
© NSSLHA
1092-5171/09/3602-0133
133
We can show that by considering the example of a client who realizes target /s/ as [9] and target /9/ as [r]. If a
transcriber does not know the sound [r] or a symbol for it,
and chooses to represent it with the symbol for the nearest
English sound, he or she is likely to record target /s/ as [9]
and target /9/ as [9]. This would clearly suggest that the client has lost a phonemic contrast, when the earlier transcription shows that the phonemic contrast is intact (though its
realizations are inaccurate). See Ball et al. (1996) for more
examples.
English has 24 consonant phonemes and between 17 and
20 vowel phonemes (dependent on regional variety). These
40 or so phonemes are realized as a much larger set of
actual sounds (allophones), and we may well need to transcribe at the narrow allophonic level if the client is making
an incorrect choice of allophone (e.g., using an aspirated
fortis plosive after /s/ in clusters, not using the shortened
vowel allophone before syllable-final fortis obstruents, or
using a clear-l where a dark-l would be expected). However, incorrect allophone usage is not the focus of this
tutorial; readers interested in a description of the range of
important allophones of the phonemes of English should
consult a detailed description of English phonology (such
as Ball & Müller, 2005).
There are many more consonants and vowels than the 40
of English that are found in natural language—and almost
any of these may turn up in disordered speech. It is the
purpose of this article to describe a range of non-English
consonants (with vowels and suprasegmental aspects to
be dealt with in the second part of the tutorial, which is
currently in preparation). We will note with which type
of disorder we might expect the different sounds (we give
illustrative references only and for space reasons do not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of the literature),
and which International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols
are used. As we noted earlier, many clients come from multilingual backgrounds; therefore, some non-English sounds
may be encountered in code switching or in interference
patterns. For this reason, we also mention languages that
use the different sounds we describe. We feel that this
tutorial will be of use to both students (undergraduate and
graduate) and practitioners, and the level of detail reflects
this range.
Note that all of the symbols used in this tutorial are
from the current IPA chart (International Phonetic Association, 2005). Some writers (e.g., Shriberg & Kent, 2002) use
non-IPA symbols for some commonly occurring non-English
sounds; we avoid this, preferring to keep to international
standards. Finally, it should be remembered that some
clients may produce sounds that are not found in natural
language. These are not included here, but are described,
along with special symbols for their transcription, in Ball
and Müller (2005).
Pulmonic Consonants
We start our look at non-English consonants by considering
a couple of commonly occurring speech disorders, but then
turn to a division into manners and places of articulation.
Note that this division is simply one of convenience, and in
134
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
all of the sections below, we include examples of the use
of the relevant sounds in the disordered speech of clients
whose target language is English, as cited in the literature.
The section of the IPA chart (International Phonetic Association, 2005) showing pulmonic consonants is reproduced in Figure 1.
Common speech disorders.
Sibilance problems. Under this heading, we class various disordered attempts at sibilant consonants that have
traditionally been labeled as lisps. The lateral lisp involves
the use of a voiceless or voiced lateral fricative for target
/s/ and /z/ (or sometimes for target /9/ and /@/). As lateral
fricatives are found normally in a range of languages, the
IPA provides symbols for these sounds: voiceless [Ö] and
voiced [2]. Therefore, in transcribing a client with lateral
instead of central fricatives, we might find examples such
as yes [P+Ö] and is [/2]. Lateral lisps have been reported
commonly in the literature (e.g., a recent investigation of
the prevalence of lisping in young adults; Van Borsel, Van
Rentergem, & Verhaeghe, 2005). A recent study investigated the use of electropalatography (EPG) and ultrasound
in the treatment of a range of speech problems, including a
client with lateral fricatives for target sibilants (Bernhardt,
Bacsfalvi, Gick, Radanov, & Williams, 2005); earlier, Dagenais, Critz-Crosby, and Adams (1994) used EPG to investigate the treatment of lateral lisps.
Lateral fricatives have also been found in other cases;
for example, Bressmann, Heng, and Irish (2005) reported
on a client who had surgery for a lateral carcinoma on the
tongue, with a result that target postalveolar fricatives were
produced as lateral fricatives.
Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working in various
mainly English-speaking countries may encounter lateral
fricatives correctly used in a variety of indigenous or more
recently established languages. Examples include languages
such as Zulu of South Africa: isihlahla “tree” [OYOÖ'Ö'], dla
“to eat” [2'] (Dent & Nyembezi, 1988); Welsh: Llanfairpwllgwyngyll (a place name) [ÖGT\G/XV;ÖM]âTMâÖ] (first
author’s language competence); Tlingit: laa “melt” [Ö']
(Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996); and Navajo: nitlish “it
has arrived” [TOZÖÓO9] (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996).
Problems with target sibilants may result in a variety of
other mostly non-English realizations: dentalization = /s,
z/ → [: *]; or /s, z/ → [Y ` ] (see Grunwell, 1987, for
several examples of the use of these grooved dental fricatives); palatalization = /s, z/ → [r 0]; or /s, z/ → [Y« `«];
or /s, z/ → [g ß]; (again, Grunwell, 1987, provides several
examples of these realizations).
We return to the palatal fricatives later, but can point out
here that [Y ` ] are grooved fricatives that are made at the
dental place of articulation, as opposed to [: *], which are
slit fricatives that are produced at the dental position (and,
of course, are found in most varieties of English). Several
languages have such grooved dental fricatives; for example,
the Salishan Native American language Saanich that is
spoken on Vancouver Island (Montler, 1986). Russian has
palatalized grooved fricatives, [Y« `«] (e.g., высь “height”
[\ÎY«]); and Polish has the alveolo–palatal fricatives [g ß]
(e.g., źrebię “foal” [ßX+HO+]) (both Ladefoged & Maddieson,
1996).
DISORDERS • Volume 36 • 133–141 • Fall 2009
Figure 1. International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols for pulmonic consonants.
Bilabial
Plosive
Nasal
Trill
Tap or
Flap
Fricative
Labiodental
Dental
Alveolar
Postalveolar
VH
ZJ
S š T
Ú
X
 b
Retroflex
Palatal
Velar
ƒ›
#
GÔ
’
QM W4 µ
8
΢
r0
^< >Ê Ž% N.
:* Y`
Ö2
¨

º
P
Ü
R
Õ
™
1
Approximant
Lateral
approximant
Pharyngeal
Glottal
¬
,( L\
Lateral
fricative
Uvular
9@
Where symbols appear in pairs, the one to the right represents a voiced consonant. Shaded areas denote articulations judged impossible.
OTHER SYMBOLS
œ
[
Ì
à
Voiceless labial–velar fricative
Voiced labial–velar approximant
Voiced abial–palatal approximant
Voiceless epiglottal fricative
g ß
«
Ï Alveolo–platal fricatives
Voiced alveolar lateral flap
Simultaneous 9 and ^
Note. Reprinted with permission of the International Phonetic Association, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of
English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, GREECE.
Glides for target liquids. English /r/ is phonetically []
(known as approximant or glide-r), and as discussed in Ball
and Müller (2005), for example, can be realized as either
a slightly retroflexed postalveolar approximant, or as the
so-called “bunched-r” where the tongue dorsum is raised
toward the palatal/velar boundary and tongue apex drawn
down and inward.
Common disordered realizations include [w] (the labial–
velar approximant) and [¨] (the labiodental approximant),
and care should be taken to distinguish between these (see
Stoel-Gammon & Dunn, 1985). Anecdotal evidence (F. Gibbon, personal communication, November 6, 1994) suggests
that clients with labiodental realizations of target /r/ may be
more resistant to therapy than those with labial–velar realizations, so it will be important to distinguish the labial–velar from the labiodental articulation.
We can also note that a bilabial approximant [(‰ ] is
increasingly common for /r/ in many varieties of English
(especially in younger person’s speech in the United Kingdom; see Foulkes & Docherty, 2000, p. 54; also further in
Foulkes & Docherty, 2001; Docherty & Foulkes, 2001),
and for these varieties would not be considered disordered.
However, Ball, Lowry, and McInnis (2006) and Müller,
Ball, and Rutter (2008) reported on a case where [(‰ ] was
used as a disordered realization of /r/. This sound, although
similar to [w] in that it involves lip rounding, differs in
that there is no back tongue raising. The glides we have
discussed may also be found in a language such as Hindi.
Hindi has no /v/ or /w/; instead, it uses a labiodental or
bilabial glide: uoka “ninth” [T5¨¤ ] or [T5(‰ ¤ ] (Ladefoged &
Maddieson, 1996).
Another glide that is sometimes encountered as a realization of target /r/ in disordered speech in English is [Ü].
Ball et al. (2006) described a case where syllable initial
target /r/ was most often realized as the velar approximant
[Ü]. Examples include:
red
robin
parent
AÜ®+JC
AÜ®'H/TC
AV¼+ÜTZC
A possible explanation for this behavior was a previous
therapist’s attempts to teach a bunched-r to the client.
Howard (1993) reported that a client with cleft palate
used [Ü] for target English /l/, and Grunwell (1987) provided examples of both /l/ and /r/ being realized by [Ü] in
the speech of different clients.
The velar glide [Ü] is found in Korean and Turkish,
among others; for example, Korean 㢌㇠G “doctor” [ÜO`G]
(adapted from International Phonetic Association, 1999).
We can also note the use of the glide [j] for target /l/, as
illustrated in several cases in Grunwell (1987).
Another labial glide is the labial–palatal [Ì], and has
been rarely reported as occurring for target English sounds.
P. Grunwell (personal communication, February 23, 1979)
Ball et al.: Advanced Phonetic Transcription: Consonants
135
provided an example of systematic sound preference (also
known as favorite articulation) where velars and alveolars
were realized as palatals. In this case, [Ì] occurs for /r/, and
“
the phrase “Christmas tree” has the realization [ IÌ/rSr
“
IÌO]. Furthermore, it may occur in the speech of, for example, French–English bilingual clients. Both labial–velar [w]
and labial–palatal [Ì] are found in French: oui “yes” [wi];
huit “eight” [Ìit] (authors’ own language competence).
Manner.
Plosives. In this section, we will look at a variety of
non-English plosives, although some will not be discussed
until we describe particular places of articulation.
Dorsal plosives. Whereas English has a voiceless and
voiced pair of velar plosives ([k] and [M]), it does not have
plosives at the palatal and uvular positions. The dorsal plosives are palatal [I Ô], velar [Q M ], and uvular [W -].
Nevertheless, there is recorded use of these sounds in
disordered speech (where English is the target language).
Gibbon and Crampin (2001) reported on an adult with a
repaired cleft palate who used palatal stops and palatal
nasals. The authors noted that “/t/, /d/, /k/, and /M/ targets
were produced as palatal plosives ([I Ô]). A secondary
characteristic was that these targets had lateral release and
variable periods of lateral friction during the aspiration period. Nasals were also palatal (/n/, /4/ → [’]), and sibilant
targets were judged as lateral fricatives (/s/, /9/ → [Ö]; /z/,
/@/ → [2]).” (Gibbon & Crampin, 2001, p. 98).
Chin (2003) noted uvular stop usage among child users
of cochlear implants. Four of the 12 subjects in his study
produced uvular stops, all for velar targets.
Stops at the palatal and uvular positions will be encountered with clients whose first languages have these sounds
as part of their normal phonological system. Palatals occur,
for example, in Hungarian, tyúk “hen” [I[®Q]; gyúr “to
knead” [Ô[®X]. Uvulars occur, for example, in Arabic and
Farsi: Arabic ‫“ ﻗﻬﻮﻩ‬coffee” [WGN]G], Farsi ‫“ ﻏﺮ‬cave” [-GX].
(These three sets of examples are from International Phonetic Association, 1999.)
Glottal stop. The glottal stop [] (usually for target plosives) has been recorded in a variety of speech disorders.
Harding and Grunwell (1996) noted its use in the speech
of clients with cleft palate, and Grunwell (1987), among
many others, gave instances of its use in children with
phonological disorders. Chin (2003) also recorded its use in
the speech of children with cochlear implants, and Howard
(2007) noted its use as a mark of juncture in the speech of
a child aged 9;0 (years;months) with cleft palate.
Many varieties of English use a glottal stop. This may be
in the “hard attack” found with vowel-initial words (e.g.,
“as I see it...”). In some southeastern England varieties
of English, the glottal stop may replace medial /t/ (bet“
ter, [ H+]), and in many varieties, glottal reinforcement is
found with word-final fortis plosives (hat, [N´† Z ]).
In other languages, the glottal stop is recognized as a
consonant of the phonological system. For example, in
Hawaiian, the apostrophe represents a glottal stop, whereas
in Arabic, the letter hamza (‫ )ﺀ‬is used for the glottal stop
(Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996).
Fricatives.
Dorsal fricatives. Dorsal fricatives (i.e., those pronounced
136
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
at the palatal, velar, and uvular places of articulation)
have traditionally been difficult for English speakers to
learn to produce, as English has no fricatives in the dorsal
area. However, clients with cleft palate may produce back
fricatives for target anterior fricatives if they have anterior
clefting (see Harding & Grunwell, 1996; Sell, Harding, &
Grunwell, 1994). The symbols for the dorsal fricatives (in
voiceless and voiced pairs) are palatal [r 0], velar [^ <],
and uvular [> Ê].
Many languages have some of these fricatives, as discussed in Ball et al. (2005):
• German: ich “I” [/r]; nach “after” [T'>]
• Spanish: agua “water” [G<]G] (though the amount of
friction here may be minimal)
• French (Parisian): rue “road” [Ê_]
• Russian: хоккей “hockey” [^UQKP]
• Polish: suchy “dry” [Y[^O]; błahy “trivial” [H]G^O]
Clients with a cleft palate are not the only people,
however, who may employ dorsal fricatives. Gibbon (1999)
described a series of studies of children with disordered
speech who may be thought of as using an undifferentiated
tongue gesture. Some of these studies included clients using
palatal and velar fricatives. For example, Gibbon, Hardcastle, and Dent (1995) included one client who backed
sibilant fricatives and affricates: /s/, /9/ → [r] or [x]; /z/,
/@/ → [0] or [<]; /t9/ → [cr] or [kx]; /d@/ → [Ô0] or [<];
and another where just the fricatives were affected: /s/, /9/
→ [r] or [x]; /z/, /@/ → [0] or [<]. Finally, we can note
Chin (2003), who included a child who wears a cochlear
implant who used velar fricatives.
Bilabial fricatives. The bilabial fricatives ([, ( ]) have
been recorded as occurring for target labiodentals in children with speech disorders (Grunwell, 1987, provides several examples). They may also occur in cases of acquired
neurogenic disorders as attempts at bilabial stops that
lack complete closure (see the early study by Logeman &
Fisher, 1981, where the bilabial fricatives are also recorded
used for labiodental fricatives in the speech of clients with
Parkinson’s disease).
In natural language, Spanish has [(] as an allophone of
/b/ in word medial and final positions (though the friction
“
is not especially strong): Habana [NG (GTG
GTG]. There is a possibility, therefore, that first language speakers of Spanish
may transfer this allophonic usage to English. Both [,] and
[(] occur in Ewe (a language of Ghana and neighboring
areas). For example, we can contrast e fa “he polished”
[é ,á] with εvε “Ewe” [+d ( +d ] (Ladefoged & Maddieson,
1996).
Affricates. English has only two contrastive affricates:
/Z† 9 / and /J† @ /. Affricates may be made at many other places
of articulation, however, and may have central or lateral
release. Natural language has examples of the following:
[V† , H† ( V† L H† \ Z † : J † * Z† Y J† ` I† r Ԇ 0 Q† ^ M† < W† > -† Ê Z† Ö J† 2 ]. Ball and Rahilly (1999, p. 70) illustrated most of
these from a range of languages. We can repeat just a few
of those here: German: pfeifen “to whistle” [V† L G/LT]; Italian zona “zone” [J† ` UTG]; Hungarian gyár “factory” [Ԇ 0 G®X];
and Tlingit dlaa “to settle” [J† 2 GG].
DISORDERS • Volume 36 • 133–141 • Fall 2009
Bilabial and dental affricates were recorded by Chin
(2003), usually for target fricatives. Grunwell (1987)
recorded a range of non-English affricates used for
target English sounds. For example, Tanya, aged 8;0,
used a laterally released affricate for target initial
obstruent+approximant clusters; for example, climb [Z† Ö G/S],
dress [Z† Ö +]; and grapes [Z† Ö K/] (Grunwell, 1987, p. 42).
Maxine, aged 4;10, used dental affricates for target English affricates and /tr/, /dr/ clusters; for example, trains
[Z † : K/T` ]; and Pauline, aged 7;6, used a palatal affricate
for a target final velar cluster: for example, wings []/4Ԇ 0 ]
(both Grunwell, 1987, p. 165). Gibbon et al. (1995)
reported on the use of a variety of non-English affricates
(dental, palatals, velars, and laterals) for mostly sibilant
targets in different clients with articulation/phonological
disorder.
Nasals. Whereas English has three nasal phonemes (/m,
n, 4/), nasals can be made at a variety of other places
of articulation: for example, labiodental [š], palatal [’],
and uvular [µ]. As we noted earlier, Gibbon and Crampin
(2001) reported a client who used palatal nasals, Howard
(1993) described a client with cleft palate who used uvular
nasals, and Harding and Grunwell (1998) reported on the
use of labiodental nasals (among others) in the speech of
clients with a cleft palate. Research on cleft palate speech
has also shown that voiceless nasals often occur, usually as
realizations of target voiceless obstruents (see Grunwell &
Harding, 1996). Voiceless nasals are transcribed by adding the voicelessness diacritic to the relevant symbol; for
example, [S ’ T 4 µ ]
In natural language, labiodental nasals are found as allophones of /m/ and /n/ in English; for example, emphasis
“
“
[ +šLY/Y], and invent [/š \+TZ] (in fact, the sound is found
allophonically in many languages when an anterior nasal
precedes a labiodental fricative). Palatal nasals are encountered in Spanish, French, and Italian, among many others:
“
“
España “Spain” [+Y VG’G
’GG ] (Spanish); agneau “lamb” [ G’U
’UU ]
“
(French); bagno “bath” [ HG’’U
’’U
U ] (Italian) (authors’ language
competence). Other languages having this sound that might
be encountered in the clinic include Vietnamese, Albanian,
Hungarian, Polish, Indonesian, and Serbian. Uvular nasals
are not so common, but are found in Inuit; for example,
saarnii “his bones” [YG®µO®] (International Phonetic Association, 1999). Voiceless nasals are rare in the languages of
the world, but we can note Burmese, which contrasts, for
example,
“nose” [T G ] with na “pain” [TG ] (Ladefoged
& Maddieson, 1996).
Nasalization. The addition of nasal resonance to an otherwise oral articulation is termed nasalization. This occurs
normally to a slight extent when sonorants precede nasal
consonants, as for example, in English tone [ZÓU; T ], as opposed to toad [ZÓU;J ]. (Narrow transcription is used here.)
Clinically, we encounter the addition of nasalization to
target oral sounds in cases of velopharyngeal insufficiency
as described, for example, in Grunwell and Harding (1996)
and Harding and Grunwell (1996). Nasalized voice quality
may be encountered also in the voice clinic, but it should
be noted that certain varieties of English may use a greater
amount of nasalization than others yet still be considered
nonpathological (as is also the case of individual speakers).
N˙ a
Languages other than English may have nasalized sonorants (usually vowels) even when no nasal consonant is
in the immediate context. French, Portuguese, and Hindi,
for example, have phonemically nasal vowels, as in French
un “a, one” [a ], bon “good” [H5 ], Portuguese cão “dog”
[QG [ ]; and Hindi e¢ a “in” [SK ] (International Phonetic Association, 1999).
Approximants. We have described the various glide approximants earlier, so now we turn attention to the liquids:
lateral approximants and rhotics.
Laterals. English has only one lateral approximant
phoneme (albeit with a variety of allophonic variants).
However, a palatal lateral ([™]) occurs fairly frequently in
the languages of the world, with a velar lateral ([1]) being
less common. Grunwell (1987, p. 191) illustrated the use of
a palatal lateral for all intervocalic consonants (when followed by close front vowels) in the speech of a girl aged
“
“
“
6;8: monkey [ S;™O]; dressing [ J+™O]; matches [ SG™O]. The
velar lateral has been noted as occurring in some English
dialects as a realization of the dark-l allophone so, for
example, Texas English [YQ[1] for school. It has not been
recorded as far as we are aware in disordered speech where
the target is English.
Palatal laterals are found in languages that may be encountered with bilingual clients in the clinic. For example,
“
Italian figlio “son” [ LO™U]; European Spanish llama “llama”
“
“
[ ™GSG]; and Portuguese olho “eye” [ U™[] (authors’ language competence).
Rhotics. The rhotic approximants have been dealt with
under the discussion of glides for target liquids above.
Other consonants have sometimes been grouped with rhotic
approximants (trills and taps), but we will assign these
their own section.
Trills and taps. Although both trills and taps (or flaps)
may occur in some varieties of English, they are rarely
reported as misarticulations for other target consonants
of English (though see Dinnsen, Chin, Elbert, & Powell, 1990, for a report of the use of a bilabial trill, [Ú],
in a child acquiring English). They also occur in several
languages that may be used by bilingual speakers attending
the speech-language pathology clinic. There are reports in
the literature of children having problems acquiring trills
in language such as Italian (Bortolini & Leonard, 1991)
and Spanish (Carballo & Mendoza, 2000), and flapped /t/
in English (Chin, 2003). Smit (1993) gave the example of
[b] used for target English intervocalic /l/ in phonological
acquisition.1
Scottish English variably uses trills and taps for /r/; for
example, red [X+J] and crew [Qb]; whereas American and
Australian English uses taps for /t/ in VtV environments,
as in better [§H+bÈ]. Older varieties of British standard pronunciation use the tap for /r/ in VrV contexts, as in merry
[§S+b/].
Spanish uses both trills and taps, as can be seen in the
following contrast: perro “dog” [§V+XU] and pero “but”
[§V+bU]. The velar trill [8] is found in standard French and
1
The International Phonetic Association recently approved a symbol for a
labiodental flap ([]). We have not yet found use of this sound in clinical
situations in the literature.
Ball et al.: Advanced Phonetic Transcription: Consonants
137
German for r: French rouge “red” [8[@] and German rot
“red” [8UZ] (authors’ language competence).
Places of Articulation. Some non-English sounds seem to
us better grouped together under place of articulation rather
than manner. We look here at retroflex and pharyngeal
consonants.
Retroflex consonants. It is unusual to find retroflex
consonants for target English sounds in disordered speech,
with the exception of the retroflex fricatives that have been
reported for target postalveolar fricatives (see, for example,
Chin, 2003).2
Some dialects of English will have retroflex allophones
of /s, z/ following /r/ if the /r/ is notably retroflexed:
Northern Irish English curse [QºŒ]; papers [§VKVº¢].
Retroflex sounds are regularly used for target English
alveolars by speakers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
Sri Lanka. Also, retroflex fricatives are used in Chinese
and may replace /9 @/ in Chinese-influenced English in
some contexts (these examples are all from Ball, Müller, &
Rutter, 2005).
Here are some examples of retroflex consonants in other
languages (from Ball et al., 2005):
• Plosives: [ƒ ›], Hindi Vky “postpone” [ƒGR], Mky
“branch” [›GR]
• Nasal: [#], Tamil tz: o “cart” [¨G#›O
#›O]
• Lateral: [Õ], Tamil ts; “sword” [¨GÕ
GÕ]
• Flap: [¬], Hindi yjdk “boy” [R¬QG
¬QG
QG]
• Fricatives: [Œ ¢], Chinese ᴔ sha “to kill” [ŒGu],
rang “to assist” [¢G4½].3
䅽
Pharyngeal consonants. Clients with a cleft palate may
use pharyngeal articulations (see Howard, 1993; Harding
& Grunwell, 1996). Here, the tongue root is drawn back
into the pharynx to produce fricatives ([Ž %]). Epiglottal
variants of these fricatives can be found ([à ¥]), and an
epiglottal plosive can occur, symbolized by [»].
Pharyngeal fricatives are found in Arabic, and we can
compare the following pharyngeal and glottal consonants
(as per Ball et al., 2005):
‫[ ﺳﻌﻞ‬YG%GRG] “coughed” ~ ‫[ ﺳﺄﻝ‬YGGRG] “asked”
‫[Ž[ ﺣﺭﻭﺏ‬X[]H] “wars” ~ ‫[ ﻫﺭﻭﺏ‬N[X[]H] “escape” (n.)
Arabic also uses pharyngealization, where tongue root
retraction is added to sounds made at other places of articulation. For example: ‫[ ﺛﻦ‬ZOT] “figs” ~ ‫[ ﻃﻦ‬Z˜OT] “mud.”
(These examples are all from Ball et al., 2005).
Pulmonic ingressive consonants. Ball and Müller (2007)
included a review of studies that have reported on the use
of pulmonic ingressive speech in the clinic. This form of
speech has been reported in cases of persons with stuttering (Ball & Rahilly, 1996) and users of cochlear implants
(Chin, 2003), as well as in the speech of children with
2
Researchers at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette are currently investigating a child who seems to have habitual use of retroflex consonants of
various types.
3
These two transcriptions contain tone marks: [u] high level tone and [½]
high falling tone. Prosodic aspects of transcription will be described in detail
in the third part of this tutorial, which is currently in preparation.
138
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
articulation/phonological disorders (Gierut
Gierut & Champion,
2000; Grunwell, 1981; Ingram & Terselic, 1983).
). For example, Ingram and Terselic observed ingressive sounds used
for final target fricatives in a client aged 4;1. The sound
produced was a pulmonic ingressive alveolar fricative,
and the targets were /Y ` @ L/, as in vase → [HK/Y↓] and
rough → []¤Y↓].
Pulmonic ingressive speech is not found in natural
language except as a way of disguising the voice (and by
some speakers in rapid counting, where each alternate numeral is uttered on a pulmonic ingressive airstream).
Nonpulmonic Consonants
Ball and Müller (2007) provided an account of nonpulmonic consonants that were encountered in disordered
speech for target pulmonic consonants, so we need not
go into detail on these here. We will, however, provide a
brief summary. A list of the nonpulmonic consonants from
the IPA chart (International Phonetic Association, 2005) is
provided in Table 1.
Ejectives. Ejectives are made on a glottalic egressive
airstream and can be stops, fricatives, or affricates. Chin
(2002) and Nicolaides (2004) both reported the use of
ejectives for target pulmonic consonants; in the case of
Chin, by a wearer of a cochlear implant, and in the case of
Nicolaides, by a speaker with hearing impairment. In both
cases, the targets were fortis plosives. Examples from Chin
(2002) include boot [H?Z’] and sock [Y'Q’]. Ball and Müller
(2007) reported on a client with severe disfluency using
ejectives for target fricatives and stops (e.g., using [s’] for
the initial /s/ in the word “semi” for four repetitions).
We should recall, however, that ejectives are more common in normal speech than may be thought. English speakers often realize final fortis stops in English as ejectives,
especially when emphasized. Local (2003) suggested that
these are most common in turn-final position in conversation.
A wide range of languages use ejectives, including many
Native American languages. Examples of ejectives are provided below (from Ball & Rahilly, 1999).
• Ejective stops: Hausa, }ara “to increase” [Q’G®¬Gd ® ]
Xhosa, ukurhula “to tow” [[Q’[>[RG]
• Ejective fricatives: Hausa, tsara “contemporary”
[Y’GXG]; Tlingit, x’aat “file” [^’G®Z]
• Ejective affricates: Tlingit, ch’as “only, just” [Z9’GY];
!Kung, tc’a “to pour” [Z9’G]
Implosives. Implosives are a combination of glottalic
ingressive airflow, with a small amount of pulmonic egressive (just enough to create vocal fold vibration). As with
ejectives, the use of implosives is reported in the speech of
clients with hearing impairment or wearers of cochlear implants. Examples are found in Monsen (1976, 1983); Higgins, Carney, McCleary, and Rogers (1996); and Pantelemidou, Herman, and Thomas (2003). One exception to this
is Shahin (2006), who described the speech characteristics
of three Arabic speakers with cleft palate. Ball and Müller
(2007) reported that their own data from the speech of a
profoundly deaf adult female shows common usage of implosives. Examples include man [ŸÉ T ] and down [JÉ ].
DISORDERS • Volume 36 • 133–141 • Fall 2009
Table 1. IPA symbols for nonpulmonic consonants.
Clicks
$
—
"
Ý
—
Bilabial
Dental
(Post)alveolar
Palotalveolar
Alveolar lateral
Voiced implosives
Ÿ
Ð
ß
©
Ñ
Implosives are found in the languages of sub-Saharan
Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia, as well as the
language of Sindhi, spoken by 50 million people in Pakistan and northern India. The following are some examples
of implosives in Sindhi (retrieved September 19, 2008 from
http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/sindhi/script/03-bb/index.
html): َ‫“ َﺩٻ‬scolding” [JGŸG]; ‫ڎﺍﮃﻭ‬ “very” [ÐG®›U]; ‫ﺭُڳﻭ‬
“only” [X[©U].
Clicks. Clicks are made on a velaric ingressive airstream
and so can be accompanied by pulmonic egressive airflow
such that nasalized, voiced, and aspirated accompaniments
(among others) may be produced at the same time as the
clicks. In disordered speech, clicks have been reported for
clients with cleft palate and other types of velopharyngeal
incompetence (Gibbon, 2006; Howard, 1993) as well as
for disfluent clients (Heselwood, 1997). Bedore, Leonard,
and Gandour (1994) reported on a child with phonological/
articulation disorder (e.g., ones []T{], treasure [Z]+{È])..
Howard’s (1993) examples include pig [$/Ó] and tap
[´$].
Clicks are only found linguistically in the languages of
Africa; for example, Khoi-San languages such as !Xóõ,
and Bantu languages such as Xhosa and Zulu. In Zulu, we
can see the use of a lateral click in the word ixoxo “frog”
[O®§—5®—U], a dental click in icici “earring” [O®§{O®{O], and an
alveolar click in iqaqa “polecat” [O®§"G®"G] (Dent & Nyembezi, 1988). !Xóõ has a wide range of clicks with several
different possible articulatory accompaniments. The following words illustrate the five different places of articulation
for simple clicks in this language (adapted from Ball &
Rahilly, 1999): Bilabial [$ôó] “dream”; dental [{âà] “move
off”; alveolar A"àã] “wait for”; lateral [—āã] “poison”; and
palatal [Ýàã] “bone.”
Bilabial
Dental/alveolar
Palatal
Velar
Uvular
Ejectives
’
p’
t’
k’
s’
Examples:
Bilabial
Dental/alveolar
Velar
Alveolar fricative
recordings of most of the sounds covered in this tutorial
article on accompanying CDs. Web sites with recordings
of the sounds can also be accessed; for example, the York
University version is at http://www.yorku.ca/earmstro/ipa/
(retrieved September 26, 2008); the UCLA version is at
http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/course/chapter1/chapter1.html
(retrieved September 26, 2008); and the UCL site gives details of how to order an audio cassette or CD of the sounds
produced there (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/cassette.htm; retrieved September 26, 2008).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks to Rachel Yan, Martin Barry, and San San Hnin Tun for
their help with some of the orthographies used in this article.
REFERENCES
Ball, M. J., Lowry, O., & McInnis, L. (2006). Distributional and
stylistic variation in /r/-misarticulations: A case study. Clinical
Linguistics and Phonetics, 20, 119–124.
Ball, M. J., & Müller, N. (2005). Phonetics for communication
disorders. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ball, M. J., & Müller, N. (2007). Non-pulmonic egressive speech
sounds in disordered speech: A brief review. Clinical Linguistics
and Phonetics, 21, 869–874.
Ball, M. J., Müller, N., & Rutter, B. (2005, November). My client
uses non-English sounds; How do I transcribe them? Presentation at the 2005 annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Diego, CA.
Ball, M. J., & Rahilly, J. (1996). Acoustic analysis as an aid to
the transcription of an example of disfluent speech. In M. J.
Ball & M. Duckworth (Eds.), Advances in clinical phonetics (pp.
197–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
CONCLUSION
Ball, M. J., & Rahilly, J. (1999). Phonetics. The science of
speech. London: Edward Arnold.
We appreciate that it is not possible to learn to recognize
these non-English sounds from the pages of a tutorial.
However, we do think that an important first step in learning to recognize and transcribe such sounds is to know
about them—how many there are and their manners and
places of articulation. A next step is to access the sounds
themselves. This can be done by asking one’s phonetics
instructor to go beyond the limits of the English phonological system and to make some of these sounds during a
transcription practice class. If this is not possible, recordings do exist of a wide range of non-English consonants
and vowels. For example, Ball and Müller (2005) have
Ball, M. J., & Rahilly, J. (2002). Transcribing disordered speech:
The segmental and prosodic layers. Clinical Linguistics and
Phonetics, 16, 329–344.
Ball, M. J., Rahilly, J., & Tench, P. (1996). The phonetic transcription of disordered speech. San Diego, CA: Singular.
Bedore, L., Leonard, L., & Gandour, J. (1994). The substitution
of a click for sibilants: A case study. Clinical Linguistics and
Phonetics, 8, 283–293.
Bernhardt, B., Bacsfalvi, P., Gick, B., Radanov, B., & Williams, R. (2005). Exploring the use of electropalatography and
ultrasound in speech habilitation. Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology and Audiology, 29, 169–182.
Ball et al.: Advanced Phonetic Transcription: Consonants
139
Bortolini, U., & Leonard, L. (1991). The speech of phonologically disordered children acquiring Italian. Clinical Linguistics
and Phonetics, 5, 1–12.
Bressmann, T., Heng, C.-L., & Irish, J. (2005). Applications
of 2D and 3D ultrasound imaging in speech-language pathology. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 29,
158–168.
Grunwell, P. (1981). The nature of phonological disability in children. London: Academic Press.
Grunwell, P. (1987). Clinical phonology. London: Chapman and
Hall.
Grunwell, P., & Harding, A. (1996). A note on describing types
of nasality. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 10, 157–161.
Calvert, D. (1992). Descriptive phonetic (2nd ed.). New York:
Thieme.
Harding, A., & Grunwell, P. (1996). Characteristics of cleft palate
speech. International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders, 31, 331–357.
Carballo, G., & Mendoza, E. (2000). Acoustic characteristics of
trill productions by groups of Spanish children. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 14, 587–601.
Harding, A., & Grunwell, P. (1998). Active versus passive clefttype speech characteristics. International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders, 33, 329–352.
Chin, S. (2002). Aspects of stop consonant product by pediatric
users of cochlear implants. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 33, 38–51.
Heselwood, B. (1997). A case of nasal clicks for target sonorants:
A feature geometry account. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics,
11, 43–61.
Chin, S. (2003). Children’s consonant inventories after extended
cochlear implant use. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 46, 849–862.
Higgins, M., Carney, A., McCleary, E., & Rogers, S. (1996).
Negative intraoral air pressures of deaf children with cochlear
implants: Physiology, phonology, and treatment. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 957–967.
Dagenais, P., Critz-Crosby, P., & Adams, J. (1994). Defining and
remediating persistent lateral lisps in children using electropalatography: Preliminary findings. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 3, 67–76.
Dent, G., & Nyembezi, C. (1988). Scholar’s Zulu dictionary. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Shuter and Shooter.
Dinnsen, D., Chin, S., Elbert, M., & Powell, T. (1990). Some
constraints on functionally disordered phonologies: Phonetic
inventories and phonotactics. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 33, 28–37.
Docherty, G. J., & Foulkes, P. (2001) Variation in (r) production: Instrumental perspectives. ‘R-atics. sociolinguistic, phonetic
and phonological characteristics of /r/. Etudes & Travaux, Free
University of Brussels, 4, 173–184.
Edwards, H. (2003). Applied phonetics (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA:
Singular.
Foulkes, P., & Docherty, G. J. (2000). Another chapter in the
story of /r/: ‘Labiodental’ variants in British English. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 4, 30–59.
Foulkes, P., & Docherty, G. J. (2001). Variation and change in
British English (r). ‘R-atics. sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/. Etudes et Travaux, Free University
of Brussels, 4, 27–44.
Garn-Nunn, P., & Lynn, J. (2004). Calvert’s descriptive phonetics. New York: Thieme.
Gibbon, F. (1999). Undifferentiated lingual gestures in children
with articulation/phonological disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 382–397.
Gibbon, F. (2006, June). Current perspectives on clinical applications of EPG.. Keynote presentation at the 11th Meeting of the
International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association,
Dubrovnik, Croatia..
Gibbon, F., & Crampin, L. (2001). An electropalatographic investigation of middorsum palatal stops in an adult with repaired
cleft palate. The Cleft Palate—Craniofacial Journal, 38, 96–105.
Gibbon, F., Hardcastle, B., & Dent, H. (1995). A study of obstruent sounds in school-age children with speech disorders using
electropalatography. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 30, 213–225.
Gierut, J., & Champion, A. (2000). Ingressive substitutions: Typical or atypical phonological pattern? Clinical Linguistics and
Phonetics, 14, 603–617.
140
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
Howard, S. (1993). Articulatory constraints on a phonological
system: A case study of cleft palate speech. Clinical Linguistics
and Phonetics, 7, 299–317.
Howard, S. J. (2007). The interplay between articulation and
prosody in children with impaired speech: Observations from an
electropalatographic perspective. Advances in Speech-Language
Pathology, 9, 20–35.
Ingram, D., & Terselic, B. (1983). Final ingression: A case of deviant child phonology. Topics in Language Disorders, 3, 45–50.
International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the
International Phonetic Association. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
International Phonetic Association. (2005). The IPA chart, 2005.
Retrieved September 26, 2008, from http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/
IPA/IPA_chart_(C)2005.pdf.
Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world’s
languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Local, J. K. (2003). Variable domains and variable relevance:
Interpreting phonetic exponents. Journal of Phonetics, 31,
321–339.
Logeman, J., & Fisher, H. (1981). Vocal tract control in Parkinson’s disease: Phonetic feature analysis of misarticulations.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 348–352.
Monsen, R. (1976). The production of English stop consonants in
the speech of deaf children. Journal of Phonetics, 4, 29–41.
Monsen, R. (1983). General effects of deafness on phonation and
articulation. In I. Hochberg, H. Levitt, & M. Osberger (Eds.),
Speech of the hearing impaired: Research training and personnel preparation (pp. 23–34). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Montler, T. (1986). An outline of the morphology and phonology
of Saanich, North Straits Salish (Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1986 No. 4). Missoula, MT: University of Montana Linguistics Laboratory.
Müller, N., Ball, M. J., & Rutter, N. (2008). An idiosyncratic
case of /r/ disorder: Application of principles from systemic
phonology and systemic functional linguistics. Asia-Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 11, 269–278.
Nicolaides, K. (2004). Articulatory variability during consonant
production by Greek speakers with hearing impairment: An
electropalatographic study. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics,
18, 419–432.
DISORDERS • Volume 36 • 133–141 • Fall 2009
Pantelemidou, V., Herman, R., & Thomas, J. (2003). Efficacy
of speech intervention using electropalatography with a cochlear
implant. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17, 383–392.
Smit, A. B. (1993). Phonologic error distributions in the Iowa–
Nebraska articulation norms project: Consonant singletons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 533–547.
Sell, D., Harding, A., & Grunwell, P. (1994). A screening assessment of cleft palate speech (Great Ormond Street Speech
Assessment). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 29, 1–15.
Stoel-Gammon, C., & Dunn, C. (1985). Normal and disordered
phonology in children. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Shahin, K. (2006). Remarks on the speech of Arabic-speaking
children with cleft palate. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 4, 71–77.
Shriberg, L., & Kent, R. D. (2002). Clinical phonetics (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Van Borsel, J., Van Rentergem, S., & Verhaeghe, L. (2005). The
prevalence of lisping in young adults. Journal of Communication
Disorders, 40, 493–502.
Contact author: Martin J. Ball, Department of Communicative
Disorders, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, P.O. Box 43170,
Lafayette, LA 70504-3170. E-mail: [email protected].
Small, L. (2004). Fundamentals of phonetics: A practical guide for
students (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ball et al.: Advanced Phonetic Transcription: Consonants
141