Skip to main content
replaced http://ell.stackexchange.com/ with https://ell.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

Most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of k as in skip (not aspirated) and k as in kill (aspirated in most dialects, almost pronounced khill) are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of k. (Thanks to Peter OlsenPeter Olsen for the example.)

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

Most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of k as in skip (not aspirated) and k as in kill (aspirated in most dialects, almost pronounced khill) are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of k. (Thanks to Peter Olsen for the example.)

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

Most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of k as in skip (not aspirated) and k as in kill (aspirated in most dialects, almost pronounced khill) are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of k. (Thanks to Peter Olsen for the example.)

Removed bad example based on comment suggestions.
Source Link
j_foster
  • 637
  • 4
  • 6

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

I suspect mostMost English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of sk as in sauceskip (not aspirated) and sk as in measurekill (aspirated in most dialects, almost pronounced khill) are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of sk.

UPDATE: As several people have noted in the comments, I chose a bad example above. A better example   (thanksThanks to Peter Olsen) is skip and kill. The k in kill is aspirated in most dialects, almost like khill, while for the k in skip is notexample.)

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

I suspect most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of s as in sauce and s as in measure are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of s.

UPDATE: As several people have noted in the comments, I chose a bad example above. A better example (thanks to Peter Olsen) is skip and kill. The k in kill is aspirated in most dialects, almost like khill, while the k in skip is not.

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

Most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of k as in skip (not aspirated) and k as in kill (aspirated in most dialects, almost pronounced khill) are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of k.  (Thanks to Peter Olsen for the example.)

Added a better example based on comment suggestions.
Source Link
j_foster
  • 637
  • 4
  • 6

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

I suspect most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of s as in sauce and s as in measure are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of s.

UPDATE: As several people have noted in the comments, I chose a bad example above. A better example (thanks to Peter Olsen) is skip and kill. The k in kill is aspirated in most dialects, almost like khill, while the k in skip is not.

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

I suspect most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of s as in sauce and s as in measure are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of s.

There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.

I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.

I suspect most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of s as in sauce and s as in measure are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of s.

UPDATE: As several people have noted in the comments, I chose a bad example above. A better example (thanks to Peter Olsen) is skip and kill. The k in kill is aspirated in most dialects, almost like khill, while the k in skip is not.

Source Link
j_foster
  • 637
  • 4
  • 6
Loading