 This first e-lecture, about the phonological differences between received pronunciation and German, mainly discusses the segmental differences and compares the sound systems of RP and modern high German with special emphasis on the difficulties from a German learner perspective. Let us start with a classification of the contrasts between the two sound systems with particular emphasis on the RP-German differences. Most problems for German learners arise from the segmental differences between the two sound systems. These differences can be categorized in the following way. First of all, we can identify inventorial differences. That is, a phoneme or an allophone exists only in either of the two languages. For example, the rounded frontball U in German or the low frontball A in present-day English or even on an allophonic level the dark L in RP. A second group of contrasts can be defined as distributional contrasts. Languages may share the same phoneme, however their allophones are distributed differently. For example, the allophones of the alveolar fricative Sir in RP and German as pointed out here in German, we do not have an allophone in word-initial position. The third group can be referred to as realisational contrasts. Now here the phonemes of the two languages in focus might be similar, however their precise realisation is different. For example, if you look at the low back vowels in RP versus German or the realisation of the R phoneme in both languages. Let us now inspect the segmental differences between both languages in a contrastive manner in order to find out the precise remedial actions to overcome these segmental difficulties at a later stage. Now here is the German system of monophones. In the e-lecture, the sound system of German, we define 16 monophones in standard German presupposing a merger of the two front vowels e and air. So words like berries and bears are homophones that would both be pronounced as Beeren. If we now add the system of RP monophones, you immediately see that their qualities are by and large different from the qualities of the German monophones. The following contrasts can be clearly identified. There are inventory contrasts as pointed out already. There are no rounded front vowels in RP, but that's not a problem for Germans, rather for RP speakers who want to learn German. And then we have, as already mentioned, realisational contrasts. That is, the exact tongue position is different for almost each vowel in German as compared with RP. And finally we have distributional differences, but here we need examples to find out the precise phonetic context of each segment. Let us now look at each RP monophone, listen to its RP value, and produce a worst-case scenario from the point of view of a German learner. That is a scenario with the maximum deviation from the respective RP target value. Now here are the long monophones of RP. The E, as in C, is problematic for German learners in many ways. In RP it is slightly diphthongized, so let's listen. In C, Germans often slightly raise the onset of this. Well, if you wish diphthong and monophone guise it. So just like German E, so the result would be something like C. In an even worse case, the result would be Z, because initial S is absent in German. But we will discuss that later. Here is the next one. The low back vowel is not problematic for Germans. We have few problems with this. Maybe we slightly front the RP value, so in RP it would be bra. And in German it would be something like bra. Now note that I used the German R here, in this case a voiced vela fricative, bra. As I said, the worst case scenario. The next one is the mid back vowel, court. Now this is not problematic for Germans. The quality of this vowel is similar to its short German counterpart in German words like post or boss. So court. Court is not really a problem. Maybe the German value is a little bit lower. In the high back vowel U, we have the same problem as with E. Now in RP it is slightly diphthongised. Germans often slightly raise the onset again and monophone guise it, just like German U. So instead of saying two, most Germans would remember in a worst case scenario come up with two. The last long monophone is really problematic for Germans. It occurs in words such as fur. Now this vowel involves two problems. It doesn't exist in German. Thus a clear cut inventory difference. Instead it is replaced by a rounded front vowel U in many cases. And like all words, with a final orthographical R in German, the offset is the central vowel R in our worst case. So instead of saying fur, Germans might come up with something like fur. And this is a problem. So as a summary the two most problematic long monophones are the two high vowels which are both slightly diphthongised in RP. And the central high vowel which has no German equivalent. Let us now add the short monophones. Now the short E is relatively unproblematic. Sometimes it is made a little bit too high by German speakers of RP since German words like mist, biszt, kind etc. involve a slightly higher short E than the one in RP which is bit. So bit often comes out a little bit higher bit. The next one is the mid vowel E and here bet. Bet is not really a problematic. Most non-native speakers often make it too long or too low. The low front vowel is an enormous problem. This vowel referred to as short A or as ash is a problem for German learners of RP because there is no German equivalent. It should be a low front vowel. Most German learners of present day English however use a mid low A or even a mid high A instead making bad and bad homophones. So this is the target, bat. And this is what many Germans say, bet. Again, bat. Very low. The low back vowel or is not problematic. Since the vowel can be found in German in boss but it is slightly higher in German but the differences can be ignored by enlarge. The short U as in put again is unproblematic for Germans. It is almost identical with its German counterparts in words such as kus or bus. Now the wedge, the low central vowel seems to become more and more centralized in RP approaching the schwa. Many non-natives make it too low. So Germans often come up with something like but using the German central R. However, but it is a little bit higher and backed approaching the schwa as I already said. The last monophon, the central one is unproblematic for Germans theoretically because German has a schwa as well in unstressed position. However, since the word we can see here, letter, letter involves this orthographical R again. Germans are often tempted to replace this by the low central vowel R coming up with a pronunciation such as letter, letter. In summary, the short A or ash is a problem case for Germans. If it is realized with the German mid to mid low vowel as in hetter, numerous homophones will emerge. For example, we would get homophones such as bed versus bad, bet versus bat or take Batman, the famous movie figure, a man who is a bat versus bet men, men who bet which would all be identical for many German learners of RP. So my advice to all Germans is make the short A as low and front as possible. To produce the RP words bat, bad, man, use the German short A as in man rather than the mid high front vowel A as in menna. Let us now turn our attention to the diphthongs of RP and the particular contrasts between RP and German. Both present day English, RP and German have eight diphthongs, among them several upgliding diphthongs. The remaining diphthongs all occur in words with a post-vocalic orthographical R. In RP we have things like near, hair and sure. The examples of modern high German would be tier, tür, tier and tour. Whereas the R triggers a final schwa as diphthongel offset in RP resulting in a true in gliding diphthong. It triggers the central A in German making the diphthong down gliding. So let us look at these diphthongs first. Here is the first one, near versus near. Here is the RP value, near. The next one is hair, hair versus here. Note that the onset would be far too high in German. And here is the last in gliding one. In RP it is sure and Germans would most likely come up with something like schwa. So my advice to all German speakers of RP is try to ignore the orthographical R and its German low realisation. Realise the offset by means of a schwa instead. The remaining diphthongs are all up gliding. Here is the first one. The A say, say. Now this diphthong is problematic for Germans who often use the high long German monothong A instead. So instead of saying say, we would come up with something like see. By the way here in this example the initial S is also problematic. It has no alophon in initial position in German. Thus Germans might even come up with something like see. Because they have problems with words starting in S instead of saying symbol. They would say symbol, zix and super. All these are typical German problems with present day English. The diphthong A is not a problem at all by it almost exists in the same realisation in German. The diphthong OI is also unproblematic because we have a similar case in German. Of the remaining diphthongs, A is also not problematic at all. Now. Now would clearly be realised as now perhaps the onset of that diphthong is a little bit more fronted in German. The remaining one is a problem. In RP it is no. Now this diphthong is problematic because it is often replaced by the long O, the closest German equivalent. As a summary, all ingliding diphthongs are problematic for German learners of RP. The orthographical R triggers the German short R and thus makes the offset too low. Let us finally take a brief look at the consonantal contrasts. Now the comparison of the two consonantal systems can be done systematically using our classification of contrasts. For example, there are a number of inventorial differences. Now one of them is the use of this one here, the z' as in vision. It simply is not used in German as you can see here. Another one concerns the labiovela approximate as in wet, quick and witch. Again, this position would be empty on the German consonantal chart. The dental fricatives are both problematic, so thin and then would be problematic for German learners. So here is another gap in the German system if you compare the two consonantal charts. Now what can Germans do in these cases? Training, animations and constant articulation perhaps as a last resort the replacement by alternative phonemes. So for example there is maybe an ultimate possibility which is not really recommendable, but if nothing else helps you can do it, replace the dental fricatives by the labio dental ones. If you hold your hand in front of your mouth you can't see the difference. So then, then, then, then could you hear the difference? Then, then, then, well almost no audible difference. Well and on the alophonic level there are differences in the realization of the alveolar lateral approximate in German. It has no dark L realization whereas in RP we clearly find the dark L in pill. And a similar case applies to the R where we have an alveolar approximate in RP, but in German we have various possibilities ranging from alveolar trill to uveolar trill and fricatives. These latter problems the R and the L phoneme can also be termed realisational because they both exist in RP as well as in German but the alophonic realization is different. Finally we have some distributional problems and these concern the alveolar fricative where we have no contextual restrictions in RP. In German by contrast the initial alveolar fricative does not exist. As I pointed out earlier on, words such as say, sun, symbol, etc. might be a problem for German learners. A similar case can be found in the realization of this one, the chair, the post alveolar africate, which exists in both languages in English. There is no restriction, no contextual restriction. In German by contrast we only find this in final position in words such as kitsch and match. In initial position it exists, but many Germans don't use it. Instead of saying schächer or schüss, they say schächer or schüss. As a result, if they apply this substitution to English words such as chin and shin would become homophones. Not a very desirable effect. Well, so much for an overview of the segmental contrast between RP and modern high German. In a follow up e-lecture, RP versus German 2, we will first of all summarize these differences here and then discuss and exemplify further problems for German learners of RP. And eventually we will suggest remedial action. See you there.