Accuracy and academic credibility of Dr Geoff Lindsey, and his proposal to change IPA?
Hi, all. I'm (sadly) not a linguist and I have 0 exposure to academic circles of linguistics. However, I'm enthusiastic about learning, especially phonetics and etymology.
Recently I've stumbled across the YouTube channel of Dr Geoff Lindsey. He predominantly calls for a change in the way we represent phonemes in IPA, and his videos are compelling and well-argued. However, as with all YouTube content, it's done in a vacuum, with only references to and from his teacher and colleagues within the videos themselves.
So far, I'm convinced of the arguments he presents throughout his videos, but I'd be keen to hear what other academics or full-time students/scholars of linguistics think about them and whether there are any weaknesses (e.g. it appears to be centred around British English). I'm also curious how well-known and/or well-respected his views are, if only for my own peace of mind. That's not to say that one needs respect to be correct, but if they have a lot of support from peers then that's good to know.
I'm not looking to stir anything up, here, but I trust that my fellow Tildelings know that already. I'd love to see discussion if possible.
Many thanks in advance.
Edit: Here is one of the key videos in which he talks about the issues with some IPA symbols.
(I'm not "a linguist", but I did study linguistics at a postsecondary level.)
I went as far as 7 minutes through the video you provided, but I stopped there because, all the way up to that point, Dr. Lindsey fails to provide support for the actual claim made by the video's title (why these IPA symbols are wrong). Rather, he gives support for why these symbols are grouped wrong. While his arguments are compelling, they address a different issue than I was led to expect. Even your Tildes post led me that way, too, with the choice of words ("proposal to change IPA", "a change in the way we represent phonemes in IPA").
Other than this issue, I didn't encounter anything really earth-shaking in the content -- which is to say, it was agreeable to me, while still remaining compatible with my understanding and usage of IPA notation.
Yes, in hindsight I linked the wrong video. In others he talks about how y- and w-fronting/-insertion is a myth, and that the IPA symbols should specify that the "oo" sound in e.g. "two" should use a symbol that more accurately reflects the rounding of the lips at the end, rather than pretending that the rounding of the lips is something that happens to the proceeding vowel.
He also talks about using IPA symbols with glides in them instead of using a symbol that implies that y-insertion happens after those vowels, when really the y is a part of the vowel (I think he mentions it in the linked video).
This seems interesting enough, but I can't help but feel a little clickbaited. (both by Lindsey's and your titles)
Lindsey isn't proposing any changes to the IPA at all, but only to the way some vowels in a particular variety of English are written in broad transcriptions[1]. For instance, I speak Standard Australian English and it would have no impact on how I'd be transcribed if we implemented his changes today. Since 1996, Australian English has used the HCE[2] vowel system, which is completely different to the set that Lindsey's using (out of the 13 long vowels he's using, only 4 are the same in HCE). He's actually put out a video in the last fortnight that refuses to transcribe AusEng differently from BrEng (aside from a brief mention of MD).
My general feeling is he's more focussed on EAL teaching, so he's using non-RP varieties as examples to explain his points (he mentions South African English as it doesn't require a linking R) but they don't seem to factor much into his actual thought process. I would personally prefer more discussion of international Englishes (from everywhere, not just British colonies) from a channel about English pronunciation, but that doesn't take away from his work. I think his core points (re changing some vowels to show glides etc) probably work across many varieties and I don't disagree that it helps everyone if our broad transcriptions can be more transparent.
[1]: A broad (or phonemic) transcription is less detailed and doesn't try to represent the exact mechanics of how something is said, but more how speakers process/understand the language.
[2]: Mitchell & Delbridge vowels were developed in 1946, based on RP. I'm not sure how well it represented actual AusEng at the time, but certainly by the 80s it was a pretty abstract representation. The Harrington, Cox and Evans system is as far as I know is really the only one used now with MD being a historical curiosity for undergrads, although you need it to read older research of course. https://australianlinguistics.com/speech-sounds/vowels-au-english/
Small, peripheral request/recommendation: Please strip the
sitracking parameter from the URL(s) you provide.Apologies; I'll try to remember for the future.