I have a small problem in schwa sound: When I used Oxford online dictionary and searched "fossil", Its pronunciation is /ˈfɒsl/, but the Cambridge Dictionaries Online gave me: /ˈfɒs. ə l/

As you can see, the schwa sound is written as a small "ə" in Cambridge dictionary, but Oxford dictionary don't write "ə". Is this a kind of abbreviation in IPA?

| improve this question | | | | |
  • Please edit this to copy what the Cambridge dictionary shows. We shouldn't have to click the link to know what you're asking about. – curiousdannii Nov 13 '15 at 14:39

The schwa is written as ə in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Some linguists, however, assert that there is no schwa before the l sound in English words like fossil, possible, etc. Others are of the opposite opinion, whence the discrepancy you observed.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • Since my book is written by English author - Joseph Hudson. Their exercise of pronunciation is about "weak ə and I". Should I use both Cambridge and Oxford to search word's pronunciation? – Sour Tofu Nov 13 '15 at 2:17
  • 1
    @SourTofu: How about this: whenever you encounter a word, in whichever dictionary, ending on IPA -consonant-l, you assume the alternative form -consonant-ə-l is also possible, and vice versa. I wouldn't worry about it: there isn't really any disagreement about how the sound is pronounced, but only about how it is best transcribed into IPA. As your book says, a schwa in -consonant-ə-l is often considered a "weak schwa", so it is somewhere in between a schwa and nothing. – Cerberus_Reinstate_Monica Nov 13 '15 at 6:21
  • 1
    @SourTofu The Cambridge Dictionaries' transcription includes the Oxford one. The Cambridge one actually means: /ˈfɒsl/ or /ˈfɒsəl/. The Oxford dictionary gives less detail in its transcriptions. If you are a non-native speaker, always aim for the version without the schwa. This will help you with English rhythm. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Nov 14 '15 at 13:59

The superscript schwa in the transcriptions given in good dictionaries indicates that a schwa is possible in such words. It doesn't indicate that it will always be there when spoken by a native speaker. It does not represent a small schwa either, it's a possible schwa.

Whenever there is the possibility of a syllabic consonant in English (usually /l,n,m, r/) there is always also the possibility of a preceding schwa in English.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • 1
    Araucaria, that makes perfect sense to me. However, when I look over the virtual keyboard that someone on Stack Exchange recommended [ipa.typeit.org] I see that the small superscript r is labelled 'optional r', while the small superscript inverted e is labelled 'syllabic or schwa'. Does that make sense? – David Garner Nov 13 '15 at 14:47
  • @DavidGarner Yes, that's right. If there's a schwa then the following consonant won't be syllablic anymore (because the schwa will be the nucleus of the syllable, like in other syllables that have vowels), but if the schwa's not there then the following consonant will be syllabic. So there's a choice of schwa or, otherwise, a syllabic consonant. Th small superscript 'r' indicates just that the 'r' is optional. Have I managed to make any sense there? (It might well have been me that recommended Typeit.org, btw!) :) – Araucaria - Not here any more. Nov 13 '15 at 14:52
  • Got it, thanks, Araucaria. Until now, I'd been thinking at the little 'r' indicated an r-coloured vowel, if that's the right term. – David Garner Nov 13 '15 at 15:10
  • @DavidGarner Some people do use a superscript 'r' for an r-coloured vowel sometimes, but it'ssusally upside down! like this: ɹ . This would normally only be used in square brackets. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Nov 14 '15 at 11:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.