I notice a lot in dictionaries and textbooks that IPA appears a lot. Also, in one of my recent questions, someone answered using IPA. How many of you have learned it and how important is it?
I have never been motivated to learn it. I find I need to listen to the sounds of a new language, which are either like sounds in my own language, or quite different. In either case I find the IPA is either not needed, or unable to explain the sound to me. This does not even take into consideration regional variations in the language, which, again, I need to hear.
I know there are stronger proponents of the IPA. I am not one of them.
IPA is probably jolly useful if you’re going to take a course in linguistics, as the textbooks will proably use it a lot. I have read a few non-academic books about linguistics and they don’t assume a knowledge of it.
In any case, as Steve says, a sound like “r” is pronounced quite differently across England, never mind across the world, yet as far as I know there’s just one symbol in IPA to represent it. Sometimes you just gotta hear it to understand it.
I study linguistics and the IPA is used a lot on this course.
The IPA alphabet is not perfect. There will be slight variations of the same sound. I think for language learning it’s normally best to just listen to the sounds, but a knowledge of the IPA won’t hurt.
All the IPA entries in an English dictionary will normally be the word in isolation. However, in natural speech these words change a lot (I’m guessing it’s the same in other languages). So I think listening to natural material is a lot more helpful.
I haven’t studied IPA systematically but I have learnt to read most of its symbol by using dictionaries. I think it can be useful to know them if you are the kind of person who uses dictionaries. Of course, it’s also useful to hear the pronunciation of that word to be able to pronounce it correctly yourself.
It isn’t necessary to learn IPA, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. It’s important to remember that IPA is not just an alphabet, it’s a tool for describing language. You can use it at various levels of detail. It was developed for linguists (in the sense of those academics who study human language and the human capacity for language), not language learners.
For language learners, it’s usually used in a vary limited way to describe sounds without having to use the local script. If I see that the vowel is [y], I know what that means and I’m good to go. Even if I don’t speak a language which has that sound, I know what it is and how it is produced. I think that knowing the IPA and understanding what it means will give me a shortcut into a language with a lot of unfamiliar sounds.
However, I don’t think it’s all that helpful to learn the IPA unless you plan to learn what it is that the IPA is representing. In other words, unless you want to understand (at least a little) articulatory phonetics, I’m not sure it’ll do you that much good. If you don’t understand what the IPA really means, then it won’t help you that much with unfamiliar sounds.
I’m sure Steve would argue that you’ll be better off just listening to your target language than taking a course in articulatory phonetics. And that may very well be true. But in the long run, if you have any degree of technical or academic interest in language as a phenomenon, I think it would benefit you to get a working knowledge of phonetics.
@skyblueteapot
Actually, there at least 7 different "r"s in IPA. But in most languages, there’s only one or two r-like sounds, so we always use the character “r” except when we have to describe particular dialects.
Anyway, here’s a cool website if you want to learn the IPA, it’s not perfect, but it’s quite useful.
http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/consonants.html
http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/vowels.html
@ korea123
I took a course in phonetics last year, [aj no watᶴu mĩ:n].
I’m with Bortrun here, listening is of course important, but IPA knowledge can be of use in a way similar to staff notation for musicians (or even letters for us who want to communicate in writing…:)). Ignoring the use of IPA (for language people like us, at least) is silly.
In my view it is no more silly to ignore the IPA than to use it. It is just a matter of choice. To judge by a thread on my blog a while ago, language learners are quite dividednon the usefulness of IPA. To me it is a waste of time.
Steve, IIRC, you said that you haven’t learned the IPA, so I’m not sure you should be saying it’s a waste of time. It might be useful to others if you went through a good book on articulatory phonetics like the Ladefoged book, and then said if you thought that study was useful or not for language learners.
At the very least, I think it can’t help but be useful to have a basic knowledge of IPA. When you begin a language, you can look at the sound chart for the language and understand the sounds that are in the language. I think it gives you a head start and probably results in you having better pronunciation.
But I would also argue this for phonology/morphology/syntax/semantics. I know you feel differently. I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s helpful.
IIRC?
In any case I can assure you that I will not be studying IPA. I have seen these IPA symbols in dictionaries in the past and just ignore them. As I get to know the word, and hear it often enough, I gradually get to know how to pronounce it. My only interest is to understand a language and learn to speak it. I do not need to know how exactly to pronounce a word the first time I see it.
I have read books where reference is made to “phonology/morphology/syntax/semantics” and quite frankly I find it difficult to concentrate and to figure out what they are talking about. These terms strike me as introducing unnecessary complication.
But that is just me, and I fully appreciate that others feel differently.
I agree that it is unnecessary, but my point is just that it’s not fair to say it’s a waste of time if you yourself haven’t studied it.
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. I know very little internet jargon, but that’s one of the few I know 
But I’ll give an example: many English speakers never learn to differentiate between the vowels in tu and vous. If they understood phonetics, I think they’d be able to make that distinction. Moreover, they’d be aware of exactly what the difference is right from the beginning.
I fail to see why it makes any difference whether "tu"is written “tu” or using some other symbol. You have to hear it, and then develop the ability to pronounce it. I doubt if the IPA makes any difference in these sounds,or in the Japanese “l” and “r”, the Spanish “rr” and other difficult sounds.
I think the difference is that many people fail to notice that tu and vous contain a different vowel. English ears don’t notice this. Now, even if somebody tells you that the sounds are different, you may not be able to recognize the difference, or you may not. If you listen and listen, you may eventually notice the difference on your own and even develop the ability to pronounce the different sounds.
But, if you know that tu is the vowel [y], a high front vowel, and vous is [u], a high back vowel, this may help you distinguish them - if you understand that distinction.
Also, if you know that the sound in “eat” is [i] a high front unrounded vowel, it may help you because [u] is a high front rounded vowel.
Basically the [y] sound in “tu” is the same as the [i] sound in “eat” except you round your lips. Basically. But most English speakers perceive [y] as [u]. The spelling no doubt contributes to this. But you can learn to pronounce [u] by saying [i] and then practicing rounding and unrounding your lips.
Personally, I think this sort of thing is helpful.
As for the Japanese “l” and “r” problem, phonetics is definitely helpful. I’ve worked with many Japanese students, taking them through the phonetics of it. It doesn’t take very long. Give me 15 minutes and I’ll correct any Japanese person’s “l” and “r” problem.
I’m sorry, I wrote my sentence incorrectly. It should be:
"Also, if you know that the sound in “eat” is [i] a high front unrounded vowel, it may help you because [y] is a high front rounded vowel. "
[u] is the high back rounded vowel in the English word “boot”, and [y] is the high front rounded vowel in the French word “tu”.
Ah, I did it again! Man, I have to edit my posts before I post, rather than after…
“But you can learn to pronounce [y] by saying [i] and then practicing rounding and unrounding your lips.”
I’ll just repost the corrected version of that little explanation. It’s probably easier:
But, if you know that tu is the vowel [y], a high front vowel, and vous is [u], a high back vowel, this may help you distinguish them - if you understand that distinction.
Also, if you know that the sound in “eat” is [i] a high front unrounded vowel, it may help you because [y] is a high front rounded vowel.
Basically the [y] sound in “tu” is the same as the [i] sound in “eat” except you round your lips. Basically. But most English speakers perceive [y] as [u]. The spelling no doubt contributes to this. But you can learn to pronounce [y] by saying [i] and then practicing rounding and unrounding your lips.
I just tell people to round their lips to say "too"and then with the lips in that position try to say “tea”.