MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001688627 · doi:10.1353/lan.2004.0040

<b>The Oxford dictionary of pronunciation for current English.</b> By Clive Upton, William A. Kretzschmar, Jr., and Rafal Konopka. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. xx, 1208. ISBN 0198631561. $45.95 (Hb).

2004· article· en· W2001688627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marc Picard

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationLinguisticsVocabularyHistoryCLARITYPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Oxford dictionary of pronunciation for current English by Clive Upton, William A. Kretzschmar, Jr., Rafal Konopka Marc Picard The Oxford dictionary of pronunciation for current English. By Clive Upton, William A. Kretzschmar, Jr., and Rafal Konopka. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. xx, 1208. ISBN 0198631561. $45.95 (Hb). The ‘current English’ transcribed in this dictionary is that of British English (BR) and United States American English (AM) which, for the most part, would also include Canadian English (CA). The authors have intended it, first, for native or fluent speakers of English for whom it should serve as ‘a guide to the pronunciation of those uncommon words with which they may be unfamiliar and whose pronunciation may not immediately be apparent’ (viii), and second, for learners of English for whom it should provide ‘a comprehensive guide to the pronunciation of the core vocabulary of the two principal international varieties’ (viii). The design and organization of this dictionary are as pellucid and straightforward as can be. Entries basically consist of a headword in bold type followed on successive lines by an IPA transcription in both dialects, for example: afloat BR ə'flə℧t AM ə'flo℧t Clarity comes at the expense of economy, however, since this model is followed even when the two transcriptions are identical. More complex entries include: (1) variant pronunciations which are separated by commas, as in /kɑːst, kast/ for BR cast or /kɔt, kɑt/ for AM caught; (2) forms with optional elements which are enclosed in parentheses, for example, AM /'wɪn(t)ər/ winter, BR/'deɪndʒə(r)/ danger; and (3) headwords accompanied by inflectional forms which are either preceded simply by a hyphen, for example, /deɪl, -z/ for dale, dales, or by a vertical bar where they are to be attached to the headword, for example, BR /'iːtər | 'i, -ɪz/ for eater, eatery, eateries. As for the pronunciation models selected for what has been labeled BR and AM, the authors have eschewed, in the case of the former, the kind of Received Pronunciation (RP) that ‘has long been the norm in British English pronouncing and general dictionaries and in language-teaching classrooms’, one that is now, in their view, ‘the possession of a small minority restricted in terms of age, class, and region’; instead, they have opted for ‘a younger, unmarked RP . . . which is not regionally centered or redolent of class’ (xi). The major points of departure from traditional RP transcription practice are the use of [a] for [æ](had, hand), [ε] for [e] (red, bread), [Λɪ] for [aɪ] (fight, lie), [εː] for [εə](bear, fair), final [i] for [ɪ](lucky, money), and [a] as a variant of [ɑː] (brass, staff) which is characteristic of northern RP speakers. For AM, ‘[t]he pronunciation model adopted here follows the trend among younger educated speakers of exclusion of regional features’, and this makes it, according to the authors, ‘quite similar to what one hears in the national broadcast media, since broadcasters have long participated in the more general trend of younger educated speakers’ (xiv). A few curious and, some may think, rather infelicitous decisions have been made in the transcription of this variety, however. One is the absence of the generally noted length diacritic on the vowels [iː], [uː], [ɔː], [ɑː], so that we find, for example, that heed is BR /hiːd/ and AM /hid/, something that clearly does not reflect the sort of ‘broadly phonetic’ transcription proclaimed by the authors. Neither does the use of [ə] to represent both [ə] and [Λ], which yields many anomalous notations like BR /sΛn/ and AM /sən/ for sun. The most unfortunate choice of all, however, is surely that of using [d] to indicate [ɾ], the flapped allophone of [t]. Given that flapping also applies to [d] and [n], not only have they misrepresented this phonological process but they have also given the false impression that forms like ladder ['lædər] and Adam ['ædəm] have undergone no change while their homophones latter ['lædər] and atom [ædəm] have. Since no other allophones are noted, the wisest course of action would probably have been to simply list the environments for the rule in the ‘Introduction’. In sum, although this...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2110.209

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguageSame topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207