Everyman's English Pronouncing Dictionary [antikvár]

EDITOR'S PREFACE TO THE FOURTEENTH EDITION (1977) In the thirteenth edition (1967), I introduced certain changes in the phonetic transcription as well as amendments to the pronunciations recorded, with the aim of reflecting more faithfully the current state of the style of speech on which the Dictionary had traditionally been based. Now, sixty years after the first appearance of the Dictionary, I have felt it necessary, while keeping the spirit of Daniel Jones's original work, to undertake a revision more thoroughgoing than that of any previous edition. As a result, the Introduction and most of the Explanatory Notes have been rewritten. The Glossary of Phonetic Terms, dating from 1963, has been omitted on the grounds that it has become to some extent out of date and that there are, for those interested in the more technical aspects of phonetic and phonological analysis, many textbooks which will supply their needs. Moreover, it is intended that the terminology employed in the iatroductory notes should be largely self-explanatory. In addition, the definition of the speech model described has been modified. Although the traditional term 'received pronunciation' (RP) has been retained, I have thought it proper to widen its apphcation (see Introduction, §§ i.0-1.5). It seems no longer appropriate, at the end of the twentieth century, to define RP speakers in the strict social terms used by Daniel Jones in 1917 and in later editions of the Dictionary. The speech-style now recorded, while retaining its underlying South-Eastern English characteristics, is applicable to a wider sample of contemporary speakers, especially those of the middle generations. Such a model will be of particular relevance to foreign users of the Dictionary. As a result of this relaxation of definition, the ordering of pronunciation variants has frequently been modified and certain new variants have been included. I have also made changes in the phonetic sjmibolization of the vowels and diphthongs (see Introduction, §§ 2.0-2.2), with a view to underlining the essential qualitative differences between, for instance, the vowels of 'beat' and 'bit' or those of 'fool' and 'full', the traditional quantitative oppositions being often of lesser significance. The notation has also been simplified in three important