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.

Revising the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) is a pressing task which should find its natural forum for debate in this Journal, above all others. Elsewhere (Ladefoged (1987); and in our own pages, Ladefoged and Roach (1987)) the President and Secretary of the International Phonetic Association issue a call to arms for this task, drawing attention to some preliminary questions on which the Association needs to have a clear view. One question is that of the IPA's constituency: who are the users of the IPA, and what are their different needs for a phonetic alphabet? To help find out, the Association hopes to canvas as wide a population of IPA users as possible, drawing from non-members as well as members.

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.

The International Phonetic Association is not usually considered as a group of theoreticians. If the members have a self-image, they probably consider themselves as practical people, who apply their particular skills to real problems such as pronunciation teaching, speech pathology, the description of spoken languages, and speech recognition. They probably do not think of themselves as part of one of the very few organized groups in the world that promulgates an official theory about its subject matter. But that is precisely what the International Phonetic Association does. It sanctions an official set of symbols for representing the sounds of spoken language. By doing so it prescribes a certain way of describing sounds; the symbols are, after all, just symbols. They are shorthand ways of representing certain information, namely, the choices permitted by the phonetic theory.

For some time now it has been clear that the International Phonetic Alphabet consonant chart needs to be carefully re-examined, with a view to its intended provision and possible revision. This article appears as part of the current drive (see also Ladefoged (1987a)) to solicit suggestions for the improvement or revision of the chart, from all the manifold users of the IPA alphabet. The focus here is on the consonant chart, for while the representation of vowels has always been more problematic, the theoretical issues are of a different order and should be discussed separately.

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.

The president of the International Phonetic Association has called for a discussion of issues concerning the revision of the International Phonetic Alphabet (Ladefoged (1987 a; b)). This discussion needs to be concerned with the actual use to which the IPA is put by its ‘consumers’ as well as with the way that the design of the Alphabet reflects and interacts with the notion of a phonetic theory. However, for many phoneticians perhaps the first issue to come to mind will be the need for possible additions to the Alphabet to represent sounds that at present have no recognized transcription. The present paper discusses suggestions for the transcription of one class of such sounds, namely, linguo-labials. A number of proposals are evaluated in the light of their advantages and drawbacks and the implications they have for principles of transcription and phonetic theory.

The IPA alphabet is, first and foremost, a device for use in the making of impressionistic records of spoken language events. There is no alternative device in widespread use. It is neither full nor systematic as a device for this purpose, but can be used remarkably effectively if supplemented with ad hoc extensions and adaptations. Such adaptations need to be explicit if used in published material, but they need not be standard. They do need, though, to be sensible. Although the IPA letter-shapes are not systematic, the articulatory classification that underlies them is. Within this classification it would be perverse to relate a ‘linguo-labial’ to, say, the category ‘velar’, and so a representation based on the letter-shape ‘k’ would be undesirable. Given these limits, though, I can see no theoretical reason why ‘linguo-labials’ should not be written in a number of ways. [P‥] etc. is one way. It is not a particularily good one, in my view, as [‥] is a diacritic that distinguishes a PASSIVE articulator, and this passive articulator is nowhere involved in ‘linguo-labials’. But I would happily accept [P‥]. It would be desirable for a degree of uniformity to apply in PUBLISHED material, but this is a matter more for editors and for publishers than for front-line linguists. At the PHONETIC level, I can't see that it matters whether we use [P‥] or, say, [‡] in published material: and other suggestions will no doubt be forthcoming, PRACTICAL considerations are paramount here, some solutions being easier to print, type and read than others.

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.

It may be useful to separate out the issue of a choice of symbol from the issue of its status (official approval or individual usage). On the choice of symbol, if we endorse the apparent bias towards articulation as a defining criterion in the IPA then criteria like diachrony, perceptual similarity and even phonology are secondary at best. (Note that in making this inference from current practice, I do not wish to pre-empt any debate about whether the articulatory bias is valid!)

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.

In the summer of 1989 the International Phonetic Association will convene a conference, probably in Northern Europe, which we hope will be one of the most significant meetings in our field for many years. At this meeting we will determine a new version of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), which will then become the authorized version of the IPA. The present set of IPA symbols had its origins nearly 100 years ago, shortly after the Association was founded. The present Alphabet is sadly out of date, both from the point of view of the principles underlying it, and with respect to the individual symbols and diacritics. There is no doubt that it should now be revised.

From Winter 1987 JIPA will incorporate, in the second edition of each year, a section devoted to Educational Phonetics. Contributions, in the form of articles, notes, statements of problems, and correspondence, are therefore invited from colleagues whose professional activity lies within this broad area: that is to say, language teachers, speech therapists, clinical audiologists, language pathologists and teachers of acting and singing.

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’.

This research began out of two overlapping motives. First, we have been observing what have impressionistically been termed ‘whistling’ fricatives in Shona (and also, though not reported here, in another language, Jibbali); we felt that there was room for a fuller analysis of some aspects of their production characteristics. Second, sibilance in general offers plenty of scope for what Delattre called the ‘quest of the Holy Grail’ in phonetics: the search for features of relevance to perception. More background to both the production and the perception issues will be given as we proceed.