A bit OT but I see this frequently and I'm curious. Why do you English speakers (or just a US phenomenon?) tend to use the word "English" instead of "language", "linguistic" or one of its related words to refer to a general concept?
You might miss some things like creaky voice or ejectives, you'll probably miss aspiration, but all that does is give you a worst-case scenario analogous to a native speaker trying to understand someone with a foreign accent. Extremely high accuracy will be possible.
If you know how you're recognizing English, and you know that other languages do not differ from English in relevant ways, then you know you can recognize those other languages. Pretending you don't know something you do know is not scientific.
(Actually, they do. So does English; I already mentioned aspiration. But those are minor elements.)
For some comparisons, think about the fact that Semitic languages are traditionally written without bothering to indicate the vowels, or that while modern English has a phonemic distinction between voiced and unvoiced fricatives, this has a very uneven correspondence to the same distinction as it exists in the writing system. In the case of the interdental fricatives, the writing system does not even contemplate a distinction. And there's nothing particularly problematic about this; if you delete all the voicing information from a stretch of English speech, it stays about as intelligible as it was before. (A voicing difference in stops is not even audible to English speakers. It's audible in fricatives, but no one is going to be confused.)
And there's a very uneven correspondence between vowels as they exist in speech, and as they exist in the English writing system. Thought dissent mannequin swipe them or bite roar a lie.
You're right that usually, in English, you can understand a sentence with aspiration information stripped out. But just because it's not (usually) significant in English, that doesn't mean that's universal across all languages! Wikipedia has a short lists of languages where aspiration makes a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated_consonant#Phonemic
> In many languages, such as Armenian, Korean, Lakota, Thai, Indo-Aryan languages, Dravidian languages, Icelandic, Faroese, Ancient Greek, and the varieties of Chinese, tenuis and aspirated consonants are phonemic. Unaspirated consonants like [p˭ s˭] and aspirated consonants like [pʰ ʰp sʰ] are separate phonemes, and words are distinguished by whether they have one or the other.
Me, I like scoping claims to what is measured.
The opposite is the case; this is not a lightly studied field.
I had the understanding that English is unusually rich in phonemes that occur in both a voiced and unvoiced version. But as I've mentioned sidethread, this just isn't very significant as far as transcribing English goes.
English has an almost full series of stop and fricative phonemes that exhibit voicing contrasts:
- Bilabial, alveolar, and velar stops /p, b, t, d, k, g/, though the distinction between /t/ and /d/ disappears intervocalically in American English. [In practice, English speakers differentiate these phonemes more by the contrast of aspiration than by the contrast of voicing.]
- Interdental, labiodental, alveolar, palatal, but generally not velar, fricatives /θ, ð, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ/, along with palatal affricates /tʃ, dʒ/.
- Nasals and approximants are always voiced.
Compare a language like Mandarin Chinese, where there are between zero and one pairs of phonemes that contrast by voicing (the sound represented by pinyin "r" may be a voiced fricative otherwise equivalent to "sh", or it may be an approximant; there is no contrasting voiceless approximant), or Spanish, where only the stops feature this contrast.
What are the languages that have more voicing contrasts than English does? It would almost be necessary for such a language to distinguish between voiced and unvoiced vowels. (Some quick research suggests that Icelandic at least has a comparable number of voicing contrasts, but it is not obviously more than English and appears to be actively shrinking.)
> tonal languages like Mandarin or Cantonese may be more difficult to decode if vocal cords aren’t vibrating
More difficult, yes, but in the sense that decoding may take more computation, not that the error rate will go up.
Again, we can already observe that e.g. Mandarin speakers do not have trouble understanding text that carries no information about tone, nor do they have trouble understanding songs, where lexical tone is overridden by the melody of the song.
(What happens here depends what you mean. If you want to decode speech into pinyin with tone marks omitted, the lack of ability to measure tones will fail to be a problem by definition. If you want to decode into Chinese characters, you'll need a robust model of the language, at which point lack of tones will also fail to be a problem - the language model will cover for it. If you want to decode into pinyin with tone marks, you won't be able to do that without using a language model.)
"Language" just doesn't mean "English". In Australia if someone is talking about "language" on its own I'd assume they're Aboriginal advocates.
English isn't native to all of those isles either only Great Britain.
In the instances where a person says "English" in this kind of context, it catches your attention and you infer that the person is an English-speaker, and possibly American.
But when a person uses the generic word "language", you don't notice it.
This leads you to believe that English speakers "tend to use the word English," when that's not the case necessarily.
I don't know what this perceptual fallacy is called, but there's probably a word. In English :-)