# Pronunciation of /w/ and /v/



## Erick404

It was quite surprising to me to find out that /w/ is mispronounced by some speakers as /v/, or that in some languages /v/ developed from a /w/.

These phonemes sound completely different to my ears, and I don't remember ever mispronouncing a /w/. 

Is there some explanation for this?


----------



## Linnets

Erick404 said:


> It was quite surprising to me to find out that /w/ is mispronounced by some speakers as /v/, or that in some languages /v/ developed from a /w/.
> These phonemes sound completely different to my ears, and I don't remember ever mispronouncing a /w/.
> Is there some explanation for this?


Graphic similarity of the graphemes used to transcribe them?


----------



## dinji

Erick404 said:


> It was quite surprising to me to find out that /w/ is mispronounced by some speakers as /v/, or that in some languages /v/ developed from a /w/.
> 
> These phonemes sound completely different to my ears, and I don't remember ever mispronouncing a /w/.
> 
> Is there some explanation for this?


Well I think any explanation must be language specific.
As regards Scandinavian, which I know pretty well, the distribution of the two sounds became more or less complementary by roughly the Viking age: 

- All labial fricatives were for some time already pronounced * word-initially and after nasals. Thus [v] appeared only inside the word in other positions. 
- All intervocalic /w/'s on the other hand disappared in the process called syncope, and as a result remaining [w] -sounds were all syllable initial.

As the distribution became more or less complementary there was no need to uphold the difference in pronounciation, a distinction that had become redundant. 

NB. Indo-European /w/ has mutated into other sounds in reportedly all daughter languages except.... English, not one to be associated with excessive archaism!*


----------



## Erick404

Linnets said:


> Graphic similarity of the graphemes used to transcribe them?



No. I think mainly of when there wasnt a letter W, or any alphabet at all for most languages.


----------



## berndf

In German [v] is the correct pronunciation of the letter "w". This is due to several successive sound shifts in late OHG and MHG. At least for German speakers this explains why they make the mistake. Interestingly Germans often do the opposite mistake too when speaking English. The pronounce [v] like [w]. They are simply not used to having both sound and therefore pronounce both [v] and [w] the same way when speaking languages which have both.
 
The Old High German [w] first developed into an unrounded bi-labial sound similar to the Spanish b/v and then to a dento-labial approximant very similar to [v]. Most speakers pronounce it this way also today though in theory in should be clear [v]. This development is similar to that in Scandinavian languages as described above.
 
Originally Germanic languages did not have /v/ as a phoneme at all. The sound [v] existed but as an inter-vocalic allophone of /f/. Reflex in modern English: _wolf-wolves._
 
The [v] in Romance languages has also developed out of [w] in classical Latin. But I don't know the mechanisms behind this sound shift.


----------



## effeundici

In Italian the sound *w *does not exist. Most people approximate it by using *u *(like in _spoon_)


----------



## Linnets

effeundici said:


> In Italian the sound *w *does not exist. Most people approximate it by using *u *(like in _spoon_)


In Italian the phoneme /w/ does exist: for example _uomo_ /'wɔmo/ and _questo_ /'kwesto/.


----------



## Erick404

berndf said:


> In German [v] is the correct pronunciation of the letter "w". This is due to several successive sound shifts in late OHG and MHG. At least for German speakers this explains why they make the mistake. Interestingly Germans often do the opposite mistake too when speaking English. The pronounce [v] like [w]. They are simply not used to having both sound and therefore pronounce both [v] and [w] the same way when speaking languages which have both.



I didnt know that. Quite funny!



Linnets said:


> In Italian the sound w does not exist. Most people approximate it by using u (like in spoon)
> 
> 
> 
> In Italian the phoneme /w/ does exist: for example uomo /'wɔmo/ and questo /'kwesto/.
Click to expand...


Pratically the same as Portuguese - /w/ exists only in the compounds qua, gua, que, gue, etc., and most speakers often pronounce an English W as U.


----------



## Diaspora

I'm not sure of the actual terminology, but in Serbo-Croatian both /w/ and /v/ are missing. There is something very similiar called /ʋ/ spelled as v, since this forum has no audio features, it is very hard to describe it.


----------



## berndf

Diaspora said:


> There is something very similiar called /ʋ/ spelled as v...


This is also the approximant I mentioned in #5 which most German speakers use to pronounce the letter "w".


----------



## Linnets

Erick404 said:


> Pratically the same as Portuguese - /w/ exists only in the compounds qua, gua, que, gue, etc., and most speakers often pronounce an English W as U.


In Italian it is used also in the so called diphthongs /wɔ, wo/ (even if in traditional Italian /wo/ should not exist because /wɔ/ in unstressed position becomes /ɔ/ e.g. _buono_ ~ _bonissimo_. I can't understand exactily what do you mean with speakers pronouncing /w/ as /u/: maybe a weaker articulation? I have never heard ['uɛl] instead of ['wɛl] for _well_.
 


berndf said:


> This is also the approximant I mentioned in #5 which most German speakers use to pronounce the letter "w".


 
I think [ʋ] (labiodental approximant) for [v] (labiodental fricative, the normal realization of the phoneme /v/ in German) is common in Low German speaking areas, where it continues the Middle German sound transcribed in the Latin alphabet with _w_: it should be distinguished from [ɸ], the allophone of /v/ used in some positions, e.g in _schw_ /ʃv/. Also compare Dutch _w,_ usually pronounced [ʋ].


----------



## berndf

Linnets said:


> I think [ʋ] (labiodental approximant) for [v] (labiodental fricative, the normal realization of the phoneme /v/ in German) is common in Low German speaking areas, where it continues the Middle German sound transcribed in the Latin alphabet with _w_: it should be distinguished from [ɸ], the allophone of /v/ used in some positions, e.g in _schw_ /ʃv/. Also compare Dutch _w,_ usually pronounced [ʋ].


[ʋ] is the predominant realization of /v/ in all German languages/dialects, not only Low German. Not to be confused with the letter "v" which is pronounced identically to the phoneme /f/ (I think most Germans also use approximants for [f] but this is my personal observation; I don't know if there is support for this in the literature) in both German and Dutch, except in some loan words.

[v] is the theoretical pronunciation in Standard High German but only few speakers adhere to this. In any event, the difference between [v] and [ʋ] is non-phonemic in German.

I agree that /v/ is sometime unvoiced, like in /ʃv/ but normally stays dentolabial and does not become bilabial. I think the realization [ʃɸ] is conspicuous in German. As a small child, my daughter pronounced the "w" in "schwarz" and the "u" in "Quelle" bilabially and for me at least it was conspicuous.


----------



## Linnets

berndf said:


> [ʋ] is the predominant realization of /v/ in all German languages/dialects, not only Low German.



I checked some phonetics book (especially those of Italian phonetician Luciano Canepari, which are very precise) and there's no mention of a widespread realization of /v/ as [ʋ] in German dialects. Are you sure it isn't peculiar of your area? Are there any references or studies about this?


berndf said:


> I agree that /v/ is sometime unvoiced, like in /ʃv/ but normally stays dentolabial and does not become bilabial. I think the realization [ʃɸ] is conspicuous in German. As a small child, my daughter pronounced the "w" in "schwarz" and the "u" in "Quelle" bilabially and for me at least it was conspicuous.


I agree that [ɸ] might be simplistic: some books (e.g. Dubois, _Dictionnaire de linguistique_) use that transcription, while Canepari uses [β] with a circle below; anyway a bilabial symbol seems to prevail in textbooks.


----------



## berndf

Linnets said:


> I checked some phonetics book (especially those of Italian phonetician Luciano Canepari, which are very precise) and there's no mention of a widespread realization of /v/ as [ʋ] in German dialects. Are you sure it isn't peculiar of your area? Are there any references or studies about this?


We had this just a few days ago here in this forum: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1367131 .



Linnets said:


> I agree that [ɸ] might be simplistic


Probably. The difference is maybe minute and difficult to capture in IPA. I think you have to push the upper teeth a bit forward so that they (at least almost) touch the lower lips (this is the typical German approximant) in order to produce a sharper sound which comes from the edge of the teeth rather than just the humming sound of a pure bilabial.


----------



## effeundici

Linnets said:


> In Italian the phoneme /w/ does exist: for example _uomo_ /'wɔmo/ and _questo_ /'kwesto/.


 
I'm afraid you're awfully right!!!


----------



## Erick404

Linnets said:


> In Italian it is used also in the so called diphthongs /wɔ, wo/ (even if in traditional Italian /wo/ should not exist because /wɔ/ in unstressed position becomes /ɔ/ e.g. _buono_ ~ _bonissimo_. I can't understand exactily what do you mean with speakers pronouncing /w/ as /u/: maybe a weaker articulation? I have never heard ['uɛl] instead of ['wɛl] for _well_.



I was referring to how some non-native (namely Portuguese speakers, but as Linnets said, probably Italian speakers too) pronounce /w/.


----------



## Linnets

Erick404 said:


> I was referring to how some non-native (namely Portuguese speakers, but as Linnets said, probably Italian speakers too) pronounce /w/.


 
In English words used in Italian, a [v] sometimes appears: e.g. ['z(v)wɔʧ] (_Swatch_) instead of ['swɔʧ] (even if /sw/ exists in Italian words such as /'swɔno/). Also note the different use of the article _lo Swatch_, _il suono_, even if the consonant cluster is practically the same.


----------



## effeundici

Linnets said:


> In English words used in Italian, a [v] sometimes appears: e.g. ['z(v)wɔʧ] (_Swatch_) instead of ['swɔʧ] (even if /sw/ exists in Italian words such as /'swɔno/). Also note the different use of the article _lo Swatch_, _il suono_, even if the consonant cluster is practically the same.


 
Despite the same phonetic transcription I cannot convince myself that the words

*swatch*
*suotch*

are pronounced the same way by Italian speakers


----------



## dinji

Linnets said:


> I can't understand exactily what do you mean with speakers pronouncing /w/ as /u/: maybe a weaker articulation? I have never heard ['uɛl] instead of ['wɛl] for _well_.


A vocalic , if pronounced short enough, is not phonetically distinguishable from [w]. They are interchangeable in IPA without articulatory difference.

The difference come in the syllabification of the word, which is in the realm of phonemics.

Note that Romance, when borrowing from Germanic has substituted /w/:

guard- < ward-

but

oest < west-


----------



## CapnPrep

dinji said:


> A vocalic , if pronounced short enough, is not phonetically distinguishable from [w]. They are interchangeable in IPA without articulatory difference.
> 
> The difference come in the syllabification of the word, which is in the realm of phonemics.



This is "good enough" for many languages, but there is an articulatory and perceptual distinction : the approximant [w] is "closer" (i.e. more constricted) than the semi-vowel [u̯]. And they should normally be syllabified similarly (i.e., in a non-nucleus position).


----------



## dinji

CapnPrep said:


> This is "good enough" for many languages, but there is an articulatory and perceptual distinction : the approximant [w] is "closer" (i.e. more constricted) than the semi-vowel [u̯]. And they should normally be syllabified similarly (i.e., in a non-nucleus position).


In IPA  is the closest rounded back vowel. No vowel can by definition be more close, and hence not the corresponding semi-vowel either.
As regards "perception" you are of course right, because "perception" is related to the phonemics of the language in question. Acoustics is not.


----------



## CapnPrep

I didn't say that the semi-vowel [u̯] was closer than the vowel , I said that the approximant [w] was closer than both of them (and consequently, [w] is not a vowel…) This is a phonetic/acoustic difference.


----------



## dinji

Obviously we did not take the same phonetics course  
If the semivowel is any closer than the closest vowel it cannot be a semivowel but would by definition be a fricative.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> I didn't say that the semi-vowel [u̯] was closer than the vowel , I said that the approximant [w] was closer than both of them (and consequently, [w] is not a vowel…)


I would say the semivocalic "w" is more similar to the open "u" [ʊ] then to the closed  (e.g. _co*w*ard_). Hence I would agree that the semivowel is more open than the approximant.

By definition of terms no *vowel* can be closer than , as Dinji wrote. But *consonants* and hence *approximants* can. Yet I have some doubts whether the consonantic (approximant) "w" really is closer than  (it certainly is closer than [ʊ]). I think the difference is that the vowel and also the semivowel are more *rounded* than the approximant.


----------



## CapnPrep

If we're talking definitions, then not only _can_ [w] be closer than the closest vowel , but in fact it _must_ be closer than , otherwise it wouldn't be constricted enough to be a consonant.

In particular cases, however, [w] can be phonologically or historically associated with different vowels: , [ʊ], [o], even [y]. And the symbol "w" can be used as a convenience when in fact a semi-vowel would be more appropriate, and in those cases again it can represent several distinct sounds. For example, in some varieties of American English you can find diphthongs like [oʊ̯], [aʊ̯], and [ʊu̯], but these could be transcribed more simply as [ow], [aw], [ʊw], even though it's not the same [w] in all three cases.

Now somebody remind me what this has to do with the alternation between /w/ and /v/…


----------



## sokol

The definition of cardinal vowels /a u i/ is by position of articulation - as open-back (a), close-front (i) and close-back (u) as possible, without producing friction.

As for /w/ versus /u/ - here the difference is that the former is non-syllabic while the latter is syllabic, but as /u/ as non-syllabic part of a diphtong also is non-syllabic it seems that there is no clear distinction between both of them, but there may be a difference in individual languages - in Italian non-syllabic /u/ is pronounced with strongly rounded lips wile I think that /w/ in English is distinctly less rounded (still rounded though of course).

Wether to transcribe diphtongs with non-syllabic /u/ or with an approximant /w/ is thus more or less redundant, or in real life usually influenced by phonological considerations.

Anyway, /w/ definitely is not a fricative, and the degree of rounding may vary considerably between individual langauges - as may be the case for /u/ as well (to a degree that one might even need to use the non-rounded equivalent for /u/ = /ɯ/).


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> If we're talking definitions, then not only _can_ [w] be closer than the closest vowel , but in fact it _must_ be closer than , otherwise it wouldn't be constricted enough to be a consonant.


Not necessarily. Vowel height is only concerned with the vertical position of the tongue. Consonantic sounds can we produced by different kinds of airflow constriction. In the case of the consonantic [w] by narrowing the gap between the lips.


CapnPrep said:


> Now somebody remind me what this has to do with the alternation between /w/ and /v/?


It is relevant to elaborate what we mean by [w]. The bewilderment expressed in the original post may well be caused by mistaken identity. Approximation of the consonantic [w] by [v] or an approximant thereof is rather plausible while replacement of the semivowel is not. If you take e.g. a German speaker with a very heavy accent: he or she would normally pronounce English _water_ like _voota_ but is extremely unlikely to pronounce Italian _uomo_ like _vomo_.


----------



## effeundici

berndf said:


> If you take e.g. a German speaker with a very heavy accent: he or she would normally pronounce English _water_ like _voota_ but is extremely unlikely to pronounce Italian _uomo_ like _vomo_.


 
Ah ah, so *swatch *is different from *suotch *even though their phonetic transcription is the same!!!


----------



## Linnets

berndf said:


> If you take e.g. a German speaker with a very heavy accent: he or she would normally pronounce English _water_ like _voota_ but is extremely unlikely to pronounce Italian _uomo_ like _vomo_.


 
_Il vom_ exists in some Northern Italian dialects.



effeundici said:


> Ah ah, so swatch is different from suotch even though their phonetic transcription is the same!!!


 
I don't think so... I've herad sometimes /il'swɔʧ/ like /il'swɔno/; as far as _lo Swatch_ is concerned, I think it is due to graphemic influence or because there's a short /v/ before /w/: /lo'zvwɔʧ/.


----------



## berndf

Linnets said:


> _Il vom_ exists in some Northern Italian dialects.


Quite possible. But this is a different matter because it is the result of 2000 years of development and not a mispronunciation which is what this thread is concerned with.


----------



## daffodiltulip

Then why is the Indian word Diwali pronounced Divali?


----------



## berndf

As far as I know the [v] and [w] are both free variations of the phoneme /ʋ/ in Hindi-Urdu.


----------



## daffodiltulip

It's curious that they would use the w rather than the v when they use the word in our script, though.


----------



## berndf

Why, if it doesn't matter? Besides, a few European languiages also use "w" to represent [v] like German or Polish.


----------



## daffodiltulip

It's not extremely important, but it does irritate a little bit.  In India, they are well aware of the English language, and w and v are never interchangeable, but, in translating from the original script to the English, knowing full well that v would give the correct sound, the word (and others such as nawab) were given the w to be pronounced as v!

It's a bit like the far eastern leafy vegetable, bok choi, being written as pak choi - why?  

Who decides these things?!


----------



## Cosol

effeundici said:


> Ah ah, so *swatch *is different from *suotch *even though their phonetic transcription is the same!!!


Is the pronounciations of the _S_ the difference? Personally I would pronounce _lo swatch_ as /lozwɔt͡ʃ/ and _il suotch_ as /ilswɔt͡ʃ/.


----------



## berndf

daffodiltulip said:


> It's not extremely important, but it does irritate a little bit. In India, they are well aware of the English language, and w and v are never interchangeable, but, in translating from the original script to the English, knowing full well that v would give the correct sound, the word (and others such as nawab) were given the w to be pronounced as v!


No two sounds are identical. Which differences matter for understanding and which not, depend on the language. Apparently (I do not speak the language myself), in Hindi [v] and [w] are simply not distinguished. When an Indian speaks English of course he/she learns to apply the distinction there.



daffodiltulip said:


> It's a bit like the far eastern leafy vegetable, bok choi, being written as pak choi - why?
> 
> Who decides these things?!


Similarly, many East Asian languages do not distinguish between voiced and unvoiced but between aspirated and non-aspirated. Hence the letters "b" and "p" do not accurately capture the distinction made in that language. But this is off-topic here. If you which to discuss this further, feel free to contribute to other threads in this forum concerned with voiced/unvoiced vs. aspirated/non-aspirated plosives, like this one.


----------

