# spouse - pronunciation



## audiolaik

Hi,

I've just discovered (just guess WHERE! YES, in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary) that there are two alternative ways of pronouncing the word "spouse":

a) /spau*s*/
b) /spau*z*/

Is there any rule that covers this? When repeating the word, I tend to think that version "b" appears to be "more natural". 

Thank you!

Audiolaik and Audio Junior


----------



## JamesM

To me, a is much more natural. I don't think I've heard "spouse" pronounced with a "z" ending. I've heard "espouse" with a "z" ending, but not "spouse".  For me, "spouse" rhymes with "grouse", "mouse" and "louse" (no aspersions intended).


----------



## audiolaik

JamesM said:


> To me, a is much more natural. I don't think I've heard "spouse" pronounced with a "z" ending. I've heard "espouse" with a "z" ending, but not "spouse".  For me, "spouse" rhymes with "grouse", "mouse" and "louse" (no aspersions intended).



Yes, Mr Wells, the author of the dictionary, places the /s/ version before the /z/, which only proves you're right, JamesM. On the other, after the diphthong /au/ (as in c*o*w), you (sometimes) say /z/, as in "blouse", don't you?


----------



## xqby

I agree with James's comments on "spouse"--maybe the /z/ is a British thing? I say "blouse" with an /s/ as well (on the rare occasions I say it at all).


----------



## se16teddy

I am familiar with _espouse_ pronounced with z but _spouse_ pronounced with s.


----------



## sound shift

I pronounce "spouse" with an unvoiced "s" at the end (i.e. like "mouse", louse", etc.)


----------



## AmEStudent

Oxford's: |spaʊs| |spaʊz|
Merriam Webster's: 'spaus also 'spauz
Chambers: /spows or spowz/ 

Guess the first version is really the most used.


----------



## audiolaik

AmEStudent said:


> Oxford's: |spaʊs| |spaʊz|
> Merriam Webster's: 'spaus also 'spauz
> Chambers: /spows or spowz/
> 
> Guess the first version is really the most used.



Much as I agree with you, I'm afraid it doesn't solve the problem. You're perfectly right that the first version is in the most widespread use, but the author of the dictionary must have had some reasons to include the other alternative in his work! If it were used by a relatively small number of native English speaker, then he would probably have ignored it, wouldn't he? 

I'm just curious whether you, native English speakers, use it or not.


----------



## AmEStudent

Well, audiolaik, a good pronunciation dictionary should include a pronunciation even if it is used by a very small percentage, for instance, according to the Longman "Preference Polls", "simultaneous" is pronounced with an /i/ and not /ai/ in the beginning by only 3% of the Americans, yet the former is included as option.

That means that at least 3% of the Americans or British pronounce it with an /s/, but probably under 50%.


----------



## JulianStuart

Interesting.
My (3rd Ed. 1944, reprinted with corrections 1972) Shorter OED does not even have the -s version  - all forms (spouse as a noun and verb, and espouse, espousal) all have the -z only.*
Perhaps this -s version is a recent thing  (or what were they thinking way back then in the early 70's?)

Makes one think of house (the noun) and house (the verb) and when those two bifurcated - I know it may need a separate thread.

Edit *Also my Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology 1st Ed. 1966 Dictionary only has the -z for spouse (but -s and -z for house n. and v. respectively).


----------



## Loob

Here's another vote for /s/, audio....

EDIT

...  but I'm pretty sure I say spouses (plural) with /z/.  Like house /s/, houses /z/.


----------



## audiolaik

AmEStudent said:


> Well, audiolaik, a good pronunciation dictionary should include a pronunciation even if it is used by a very small percentage, for instance, according to the Longman "Preference Polls", "simultaneous" is pronounced with an /i/ and not /ai/ in the beginning by only 3% of the Americans, yet the former is included as option.
> 
> That means that at least 3% of the Americans or British pronounce it with an /s/, but probably under 50%.



Well, of course, we might argue what should be considered important enough to be noticed by dictionary writers and editors. This time Mr Wells does not provide any preference polls results, so I assumed, wrongly, that version "b" shouldn't be as rare as one might think.


----------



## audiolaik

audiolaik said:


> a) /spau*s*/
> b) /spau*z*/
> 
> When repeating the word, I tend to think that version "b" appears to be "more natural".





JulianStuart said:


> Interesting.
> My (3rd Ed. 1944, reprinted with corrections 1972) Shorter OED does not even have the -s version  - all forms (spouse as a noun and verb, and espouse, espousal) all have the -z only.*
> Perhaps this -s version is a recent thing  (or what were they thinking way back then in the early 70's?)
> 
> Makes one think of house (the noun) and house (the verb) and when those two bifurcated - I know it may need a separate thread.
> 
> Edit *Also my Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology 1st Ed. 1966 Dictionary only has the -z for spouse (but -s and -z for house n. and v. respectively).




Does it mean that my intuition was/is right?


----------



## George French

audiolaik said:


> Does it mean that my intuition was/is right?


 
No, yes or maybe! 

Version a), /spau*s*/, is "more natural" to my British English ear; but we have so many variants..... 

GF..


----------



## colcan

Loob said:


> Here's another vote for /s/, audio....
> 
> EDIT
> 
> ...  but I'm pretty sure I say spouses (plural) with /z/.  Like house /s/, houses /z/.




Same here.


----------



## audiolaik

George French said:


> No, yes or maybe!



Are you a woman? I hear that every night....



George French said:


> but we have so many variants.....
> GF..



Yes, I've noticed that, too.


----------



## AmEStudent

Now that's interesting. Wiktionary considers the /s/ form the only correct one, and Dictionary.com puts the /s/ one first. Oh, and this British guy says it with an /s/ too.

I'm starting to think, based on absolutely nothing, that the /s/ form must be the prevalent one in the UK.


----------



## audiolaik

AmEStudent said:


> I'm starting to think, based on absolutely nothing, that the /s/ form must be the prevalent one in the UK.



And you're probably right, AmES. Is there _anybody_ there who pronounces the word with with /z/???


----------



## AmEStudent

audiolaik said:


> And you're probably right, AmES. Is there _anybody_ there who pronounces the word with with /z/???



Perhaps just as many as the ones who pronounce simultaneous with an /i/ in the US, 3%


----------



## audiolaik

AmEStudent said:


> Perhaps just as many as the ones who pronounce simultaneous with an /i/ in the US, 3%



It's a far-fetched conclusion, I think.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Is there _anybody_ there who  pronounces the word with with /z/???


Not that I've ever heard in my life.



> ...  but I'm pretty sure I say spouses (plural) with /z/.  Like house  /s/, houses /z/.


The category of plural morphemes  (*s* in writing, */z/*, */s/* and */əz/* in pronunciation) that are used after sibilants (/s/, /z/ , /ʃ/ , /ʒ/) is always */əz/.
*The strange thing is, I've started seeing things in Longmanthat baffle me, I just put it down to a dialect I'm not accustomed to hearing, but this!

It's usually verbs that contrast with a /z/ and use an /s/ in the noun form *, but to use /z/ in a noun like this, I, I'll believe it when I hear it! 

* for example, "close" /z/ sound (verb) .... "close (road)" /s/ sound (noun)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I had never been conscious of hearing the s form until recently, when I assumed it was an affectation on BE tongues. The word isn't used very much in the everyday speech of the people, and I've always thought of it as either middle-class or affected or jocular. The verb _espouse_ is more commonly used, particularly in figurative senses, and I've never heard anyone use the s form there. The M-W pronunciation guide only gives the z form for the verb in AE.

I'm not surprised to hear that the s form is common in AE; I wonder why I've never noticed it in films. Maybe because the word doesn't come up very often.

P.S. I'm struck that Alex hasn't heard the z form in BE. I'd regard it as the standard pronunciation. Maybe there's a generational split in BE; perhaps the under-25s are more influenced by AE pronunciation than the over-80s.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> P.S. I'm struck that Alex hasn't heard the z form in BE. I'd regard it  as the standard pronunciation. Maybe there's a generational split in BE;  perhaps the under-25s are more influenced by AE pronunciation than the  over-80s.


Hi Tom!
I just wanted to clarify what we were talking about, because usually, the comparison between noun and verb with words that contain an -s- is, /z/ for verb and /s/ for noun (or adjective) like in my* close *example above..

What I was referring to was strictly the noun, if you're talking about a verb, I only hear (when occasionally I hear that word!) it used with a /z/ so I agree totally, using /s/ in a verb form with the meaning of_ espouse_ would be very strange to me, but using a noun with the /z/ form is just as strange, as I thought we only used the /s/ as in:

What is the name of your spouse?
................................../spaʊs/ (noun)

What policy do you espouse?
.........................../ɪsp'aʊz/ (verb)

This is my distinction.
So when you're talking about hearing the /z/ in BE, are you talking about verb or noun?


----------



## Loob

Alxmrphi said:


> The category of plural morphemes (*s* in writing, */z/*, */s/* and */əz/* in pronunciation) that are used after sibilants (/s/, /z/ , /ʃ/ , /ʒ/) is always */əz/.*


You misunderstood me, Alex. I wasn't talking about the plural morpheme. I was saying that I pronounce _spouses_ like _houses:_ the /s/ of the singular becomes a /z/ in the plural. I see that colcan does the same.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Loob said:


> You misunderstood me, Alex.  I wasn't talkining about the plural morpheme.  I was saying that I pronounce _spouses_ like _houses:_ the /s/ of the singular becomes a /z/ in the plural.  I see that colcan does the same.



Ahh I did misunderstand, I'm sorry. I never make that distinction.
You just said "s" as "z" and the second "s" is supposed to be so I thought it was what you were talking about.

It is like that for my _houses_, but not my _spouses_... but don't ask me why! 
"spouses" like "houses" makes me think it should be a verb, like the verb "to house" is the same as the plural /haʊzəz/.

[Edit] It seems house -> houses is an irregular example of a regular pronunciation rule, which I suppose explains why I make a distinction.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> P.S. I'm struck that Alex hasn't heard the z form in BE. I'd regard it as the standard pronunciation. Maybe there's a generational split in BE; perhaps the under-25s are more influenced by AE pronunciation than the over-80s.


Julian's dictionary researches do indicate that /z/ was the norm at one time, but - as witnessed by the various inputs to this thread - I'm sure it isn't any longer, and hasn't been for some time. I'm not clear why you put this down to the influence of AmE, TT - I wouldn't have thought AmE _spouse_ came up often enough to influence BrE _spouse_ one way or another....


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Julian's dictionary researches do indicate that /z/ was the norm at one  time, but - as witnessed by the various inputs to this thread - I'm sure  it isn't any longer, and hasn't been for some time.


It's so strange isn't it? I really can't get my head around this hasn't been the way it has always been pronounced! But that's no way to make logical historical deductions really, is it? 
At times I imagine the amount of variation within us all and I begin to distrust dictionaries, I only trust dictionaries as far as I can throw them... which isn't very far. I suppose that means I trust my little Collins pocket dictionary more than the Grand OED on the bookshelf... wait... that can't be right


----------



## JulianStuart

I didn't declare above but I say both singular and plural of spouse with the unvoiced s (spouse and spousiz), but say house and houziz.

I was just surprised that the OEDs _didn't even mention_ the -s version which now appears to predominate everywhere English is spoken.
No-one has stepped forward with spouz - so far 



> Does it mean that my intuition was/is right?


Perhaps it _isn't _right but it _was_ right but then only if you go with older OEDs as your guide!  I've not heard anyone say spouse with a z in the singular.  The _only_ time I've heard or used the word _spouses_ is in the context of invitation "Spouses welcome".


----------



## Matching Mole

audiolaik said:


> Is there _anybody_ there who pronounces the word with with /z/???


I think the answer is as close to "no" as makes no difference. I think this pronunciation has been consigned to the dustbin of history.


----------



## ewie

Sorry, Mr.Tompion (and you too, Mr.Laik) (and Mr.Laik Jnr, I suppose): like the overwhelming majority of respondents so far, I wasn't even aware of a pronunciation of _spouse _[n.] with /z/.  Like Mr.Mrphi, the plural for me is 'regular' /spaʊsɪz/, not Mrs.Loob's /spaʊzɪz/.

I do regularly hear American TV-folk pronounce _blouse_ to rhyme with _grouse_, though.


----------



## Pertinax

I have been in Australia for almost 40 years, and I have never heard "spouse" pronounced with /z/.

My 1953 Pocket Oxford, however, specifies /z/, with no alternative.


----------



## mplsray

audiolaik said:


> Well, of course, we might argue what should be considered important enough to be noticed by dictionary writers and editors. This time Mr Wells does not provide any preference polls results, so I assumed, wrongly, that version "b" shouldn't be as rare as one might think.



Mr. Wells has a blog, "John Wells's phonetic blog," in which, while discussing the pronunciation of _spouses_ here, he says the following about the /z/-final pronunciation of _spouse:_



> Many dictionaries do record *spaʊz* as a possibility for the singular noun, although EPD/CPD is not among them. I would be pretty confident in saying that in BrE at least it is very much a minority preference.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Matching Mole said:


> I think the answer is as close to "no" as makes no difference. I think this pronunciation has been consigned to the dustbin of history.


 I must say I think this is going much too far.  I don't regard myself as living on a cultural island.

_Et tu, Youay_. You surprise me.  How often do you use the word?

I'm beginning to think the generational split comes higher up the age-range than I previously suggested.


----------



## natkretep

Loob said:


> ...  but I'm pretty sure I say spouses (plural) with /z/.  Like house /s/, houses /z/.



I was testing out my pronunciation, and yes the /z/ seems natural for _spouses_, but I can only use /s/ for _spouse_.

What percentage of folks here have /z/ for _spouses_?


----------



## ewie

Thomas Tompion said:


> _Et tu, Youay_. You surprise me.  How often do you use the word?


'On odd occasions', Mr.Thé.


----------



## sound shift

There may be a clue in the Two Ronnies sketch where Ronnie B bumps into Ronnie C in a pub and greets him, in an affected/upper class/both of these (take your pick) accent, with the words "Oh hello. High's the spice?" All these years later, I still remember that he said "spice", not "spies". (Talk about a mind for trivia! ) Then again, there may not.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Interesting, SS.  It confirms my feeling that it is the aristocracy who tend towards the z pronunctiation, and they are more likely to use the word than most, perhaps.


----------



## Brioche

Daniel Jones' _English Pronouncing Dictionary_,  was first published in 1914. 

It has been revised and reprinted many times.  I have the 14th edition - completely revised - published in 1977.

Jones gives /z/ first, and /s/ second. So /z/ was once the way to go.

I can't recall every hearing anyone pronounce spouse with /z/.


----------



## Loob

I was very interested by mplsray's (post 32) link to John Wells' reaction to having heard, in a TV interview, both the former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, and the presenter Andrew Marr use the pronunciation *ˈspaʊzɪz* for _spouses_ (pl). I was particularly struck by Wells' comment that 





> There are two possible explanations for the voiced sibilant pronunciation: (i) the speakers in question say *spaʊz* for the singular noun; or (ii) they say *spaʊs* in the singular, but switch voicing for the plural.
> Many dictionaries do record *spaʊz* as a possibility for the singular noun, although EPD/CPD is not among them. I would be pretty confident in saying that in BrE at least it is very much a minority preference.
> So explanation (ii) seems to be more likely.


I - and colcan and Nat - may be in good company!


----------



## colcan

Loob said:


> I - and colcan and Nat - may be in good company!


Not that we need it.
The three of us suffice.


----------



## giovannino

Brioche said:


> Daniel Jones' _English Pronouncing Dictionary_, was first published in 1914.
> 
> It has been revised and reprinted many times. I have the 14th edition - completely revised - published in 1977.
> 
> Jones gives /z/ first, and /s/ second. So /z/ was once the way to go.


 
I have the 15th edition, published in 1997. It only lists the /spaus/ pronunciation. Of the four major learner's dictionaries, the Cambridge and Macmillan ones only list /spaus/, whereas the Oxford and Longman ones list both pronunciations.


----------



## JulianStuart

My Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary  (new edition in 1972* - "brought fully abreast of the 1970s in its coverage of everyday language and affairs") also_ only _has spouz.

Go figure  

*Seems like I was in a dictionary-buying phase back then !


----------



## AmEStudent

Why did you guys start looking in obsolete dictionaries again?


----------



## Alxmrphi

AmEStudent said:


> Why did you guys start looking in obsolete dictionaries again?



To trace the historical development of how it was pronounced earlier on.


----------



## JulianStuart

AmEStudent said:


> Why did you guys start looking in obsolete dictionaries again?



They are the ones I have on my desk!  I don't "upgrade" my books every time there is a new version of my computer operating system 

It is noteworthy that some of them do not have the current (apparently only) pronunciation, indicating the  complete switch from the "older" to the "newer" pronunciation (has) happened in a surprisingly short (in terms of this sort of thing) timeframe.  Usually, over some much longer period (time for several sequential editions of) dictionaries would have both pronunciations as the transition occurred.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Daniel Jones's "English Pronouncing Dictionary" (15th ed.) gives only /spaus/, with a voiceless "s" both for the singular and the plural:/spausiz/.


----------



## natkretep

colcan said:


> Not that we need it.
> The three of us suffice.



I do suspect that it is not that uncommon though! 

Also, if you think of the derived adjective 'spousal' (as in, say, 'spousal rape'), I think the only possible pronunciation is with /z/. (Anyone here has /s/ for 'spousal'?) And if we can have /z/ for one derived form (adjective), why shouldn't we have /z/ for another (plural noun)?

Nat


----------



## mplsray

As a matter of historical interest, I'd like to point out that the _Century Dictionary,_ an American dictionary of 1895, gave only the /z/-final pronunciation of _spouse_

The Century was in the prescriptivist tradition, and at the time, the pronunciations given in American dictionaries favored the pronunciation of New England, so it's possible that other dialects of American English of the time had an /s/-final pronunciation which was not recorded by that dictionary.


----------

