713
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
EPENTHESIS AND ELISION AS MARKERS OF PHONETIC ECONOMY IN SPOKEN
ENGLISH
Yusupova Dildora To‘xtamurod qizi
Asia International University, intern teacher.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15448585
Abstract. This article explores two key phonological processes—epenthesis (the insertion
of extra sounds) and elision (the omission of sounds)—as mechanisms reflecting phonetic
economy in natural spoken English. By analyzing conversational speech data and corpora such
as the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and The British National Corpus
(BNC), the study identifies common patterns where these phenomena occur, particularly in
casual and fast speech. The article argues that such alternations are not random but serve a
functional role in optimizing articulatory effort and maintaining fluency, especially in connected
speech contexts. It further examines how factors such as speech rate, stress patterns, and
phonotactic constraints trigger these reductions or insertions. Special attention is given to the
implications of these processes for second language acquisition, particularly how learners of
English often struggle with reduced forms and may hypercorrect or misperceive fast speech.
Keywords: epenthesis, elision, phonetic economy, connected speech, articulation, speech
rate, casual speech, second language acquisition.
Introduction.
Epenthesis and elision are two central phonological processes that vividly
reflect the principle of phonetic economy in spoken English. While epenthesis involves the
insertion of an extra segment not found in the word’s underlying form, elision refers to the
omission of a segment, often under conditions of casual or rapid speech. These phenomena,
rather than representing deviation or error, demonstrate the dynamic adaptability of spoken
language to articulatory, contextual, and communicative demands. Phonetic economy, a term
introduced and developed in phonetic and phonological theory, refers to the natural tendency of
speech to reduce articulatory effort while maintaining intelligibility. As Lindblom (1990)
explains in his Hyper-Hypo (H\&H) theory, speech production operates on a continuum, from
hyper-articulated (clear and careful speech) to hypo-articulated (reduced and casual speech).
This continuum is dictated by the communicative needs of the moment, allowing
speakers to modulate clarity and effort. From this theoretical standpoint, both elision and
epenthesis can be viewed as strategies that optimize speech fluency and comfort, especially in
informal contexts. Elision is perhaps the more prominent of the two in terms of its occurrence in
native English speech. It typically involves the omission of a consonant that would otherwise
complicate articulation in clusters. For instance, in rapid speech, words such as “friendship” are
often pronounced without the /d/ sound, becoming /frɛnʃɪp/. Likewise, phrases like “next day”
may be realized as /nek deɪ/, with the /s/ and /t/ dropped due to the influence of the following
voiced consonant. Roach (2009) points out that such deletions are systematic and conditioned by
phonetic environment, speech rate, and the degree of formality. The function of elision here is
not merely to shorten words, but to facilitate smoother transitions between syllables and to
maintain a natural rhythm in spoken discourse. Similar observations are made in corpus data.
The British National Corpus (2007) shows frequent instances of elision in naturally occurring
dialogue, such as “just one” being rendered as /ʤʌs wʌn/ or even /ʤʌ wʌn/, depending on
context. Elision is further encouraged by phonotactic constraints, especially in consonant clusters
that are either difficult to produce or disfavored in English phonology.
714
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
The process is also influenced by speech style; it is considerably more common in
informal and conversational contexts than in careful, read speech. Scholars like Crystal (2003)
argue that these reductions are not only predictable but also necessary for the rhythm and
efficiency of everyday language. In fact, they are so ingrained in native speaker usage that they
often go unnoticed, yet they present significant challenges for language learners. Learners
unfamiliar with connected speech may struggle to recognize words that are elided in fast speech,
perceiving them as entirely different lexical items or failing to comprehend them altogether.
Jenkins (2000) emphasizes the importance of training learners to recognize and interpret
these reduced forms, suggesting that awareness and listening practice are critical for developing
real-world communicative competence.
Epenthesis, on the other hand, is characterized by the addition of a segment, typically a
vowel, in order to break up a difficult consonant cluster or to align the pronunciation of a word
with the speaker’s native phonotactic rules. While often seen in non-native speech, epenthesis is
not exclusive to second-language contexts. In native English varieties, it can occur for dialectal
or articulatory reasons. For example, words like “athlete” may be pronounced as /ˈæθəliːt/, with
an inserted schwa. Similarly, the phenomenon of intrusive /r/ in certain dialects of British
English—where “law and order” becomes /lɔːr ən ɔːdə/—is a type of epenthesis that serves to
maintain fluidity between vowel-final and vowel-initial words. Among second-language
speakers, epenthesis often reflects an effort to reconcile the phonotactic rules of their first
language with those of English. For instance, Uzbek learners may insert a vowel at the beginning
of a word such as “school,” producing /sɪˈkuːl/ instead of /skuːl/. This is due to the absence of
complex onset clusters in Uzbek, where syllables typically follow a CV (consonant-vowel)
pattern. Similar patterns have been observed among learners from Japanese or Korean
backgrounds, where consonant clusters are also rare or prohibited. Avery and Ehrlich (1992)
note that in such cases, epenthesis is a form of phonotactic repair, allowing speakers to produce
otherwise inaccessible sound combinations using strategies from their first language phonology.
Although epenthesis involves the addition of a sound, and elision involves the removal of
one, both processes ultimately serve the same goal: to facilitate articulation and optimize
fluency. They are two sides of the same coin—one adds a segment to ease the transition between
sounds, the other removes a segment to simplify articulation. Together, they exemplify how
language adapts under real-time conditions to meet communicative needs. In both native and
non-native speech, these adaptations are shaped by context, rhythm, and physiological ease.
Corpus-based studies further illustrate how these processes function in authentic speech.
In the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), examples abound of phrases
like “give me” being realized as /gɪmi/ or “going to” as /gənə/. These reductions often involve a
combination of elision, assimilation, and even epenthesis. For example, “going to eat” might
become /gənəʔiːt/, with both elision of /t/ and insertion of a glottal stop. Such patterns are
systematic enough to warrant pedagogical focus, especially for learners who are expected to
operate effectively in real-time, informal communicative environments. The implications of
elision and epenthesis for second language acquisition are significant. Field (2003) argues that
one of the primary barriers to listening comprehension among ESL learners is their unfamiliarity
with connected speech phenomena, including elision and epenthesis. Learners who are taught
English through clearly articulated, dictionary-like models are often unprepared for the reduced
forms they encounter in natural conversation. Consequently, they may fail to recognize even
common expressions, leading to breakdowns in comprehension and interaction.
715
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
Pedagogically, it becomes essential to integrate awareness of phonetic economy into
pronunciation instruction. Techniques such as shadowing, where learners repeat audio passages
immediately after hearing them, can help them attune to the rhythm and reduction patterns of
native speech. Jenkins (2000) also recommends including real-life dialogue samples in the
classroom, rather than relying solely on scripted or artificial recordings. These approaches can
help learners understand that reduced forms are not errors or sloppiness but legitimate and
systematic features of spoken English. Furthermore, learner perception of these phenomena is
crucial. Derwing and Munro (2005) report that some learners resist reduced forms, viewing them
as substandard or incorrect. This perception can create a cognitive dissonance between what
learners are taught and what they encounter in practice. Educators, therefore, need to explicitly
discuss these features, providing linguistic justification for their occurrence and helping learners
to embrace the diversity and flexibility of spoken English. In conclusion, epenthesis and elision
are core features of spoken English that reflect the broader principle of phonetic economy. These
processes—while opposite in direction—both aim to simplify speech production, reduce
articulatory effort, and maintain communicative efficiency. They are influenced by phonological
constraints, speech rate, and sociolinguistic context, and they are observable in both native and
non-native speech. For linguists, they provide insight into the mechanics of spoken language; for
educators, they highlight the need for realistic and responsive pronunciation teaching.
Understanding these processes allows for a more nuanced view of language, one that
respects both its systematic structure and its natural variability.
REFERENCES
1.
Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). *Teaching American English Pronunciation*. Oxford
University Press.
2.
Crystal, D. (2003). *The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language*. Cambridge
University Press.
3.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation
teaching: A research-based approach. *TESOL Quarterly*, 39(3), 379–397.
4.
Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: Lexical segmentation in second language listening.
*ELT Journal*, 57(4), 325–334.
5.
Jenkins, J. (2000). *The Phonology of English as an International Language*. Oxford
University Press.
6.
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H\&H theory. In W\.J.
Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), *Speech Production and Speech Modelling* (pp. 403–
439). Kluwer.
7.
Roach, P. (2009). *English Phonetics and Phonology* (4th ed.). Cambridge University
Press.
8.
Wells, J. C. (1982). *Accents of English*. Cambridge University Press.
9.
British National Corpus. (2007). Oxford University Press.
10.
COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English). (2020). Brigham Young University.
11.
Mustafoyeva, M. A. (2024). THE STUDY AND IMPORTANCE OF ANTHROPONYMS
IN LINGUISTICS.
Bulletin news in New Science Society International Scientific
Journal
,
1
(5), 20-23.
716
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
12.
Mustafoyeva, M. A. (2024). ANTHROPONYMS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK
LANGUAGES AND THEIR LINGUOCULTURAL CLASSIFICATION.
Bulletin news in
New Science Society International Scientific Journal
,
1
(6), 146-150.
13.
Mustafoeva, M. A. (2024). The Significance of Proper and Common Nouns in
Linguistics.
European journal of innovation in nonformal education (EJINE)
,
4
(10).
14.
Rakhimova, Z. (2024). GENRE CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN NEWSPAPER
LANGUAGE.
Евразийский журнал академических исследований
,
4
(3 Part 2), 97-99.
15.
Rakhimova, Z. (2024). THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF MASS MEDIA.
Modern
Science and Research
,
3
(2), 879-886.
16.
Zarina, R. (2022). Genreal characteristics of newspaper language.
