Phonetic

Phonetic (pronounced fuh-net-ik)

(1) Of or relating to speech sounds, their production, or their transcription in written symbols.

(2) Corresponding to pronunciation; agreeing with pronunciation; spelling in accord with pronunciation.

(3) Concerning or involving the discrimination of non-distinctive elements of a language (in English, certain phonological features, as length and aspiration, are phonetic but not phonemic); denoting any perceptible distinction between one speech sound and another, irrespective of whether the sounds are phonemes or allophones.

(4) As a noun, (in Chinese writing) a written element that represents a sound and is used in combination with a radical to form a character.

(5) In the language of structural linguistics, relating to phones (as opposed to phonemes).

1803: From the New Latin phōnēticus, from the Ancient Greek φωνητῐκός (phōnētikós) (vocal), the construct being phōnēt(ós) (utterable; to be spoken (verbid of phōneîn (to make sounds; to speak))) + -ikos (the adjective suffix).  The source was the Latin phōnē (sound, voice), from the primitive Indo-European bha- (to speak, tell, say).  The meaning "relating or pertaining to the human voice as used in speech" was in use by 1861 but the technical use "phonetic science” (scientific study of speech) was in the literature twenty years earlier.  Phonetic is an adjective and a noun (in the technical sense of a element in Chinese writing) and phonetically an adverb.  Phonetical is an adjective which can correctly be used in certain sentences but is largely synonymous with phonetic and thus often potentially redundant.  Fauxnetic (the construct being faux (fake) + (pho)netic) exists to describe a respelling system: not adequately indicating pronunciation and can be used humorously or technically.

The NATO Phonetic Alphabet

Phonetic alphabets were devised as radiotelephonic spelling systems to enhance the clarity of voice-messaging in potentially adverse audio environments, afflicted by factors such as the clatter of the battlefield, poor signal quality or language barriers where differences in pronunciation can distort understanding.  If a universal radiotelephonic spelling alphabet (substituting a code word for each letter of the alphabet) is adopted, critical messages are more likely correctly to be understood.

The NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) phonetic alphabet became effective in 1956 and soon became the established universal phonetic alphabet but the one familiar today took some time to emerge, several adaptations earlier trialed.  The early inventors and adopters of what were then variously called voice procedure alphabets, (radio-)telephony alphabets & (word-)spelling alphabets, were branches of the military anxious, as the volume of radio communication increasingly multiplied, to adopt a standardized set of standards as they had in Morse Code for cable traffic and semaphore for signals.  A surprising array of systems were developed by the military and the cable & telephony operators which, obviously worked well within institutions but as communications systems were tending to become interconnected, the utility for interoperability was limited by the confusion which could arise where the choices of name didn’t coincide.

Probably the first genuinely global models were those standardized during the 1920s by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the latter adopted by many post offices (and other authorities administering regional telephone systems).  It featured mostly the names of cities across the globe although substituted kilogramme (sic) for the Khartoum or Kimberley used earlier by others:

Amsterdam, Baltimore, Casablanca, Denmark, Edison, Florida, Gallipoli, Havana, Italia, Jerusalem, Kilogramme, Liverpool, Madagascar, New York, Oslo, Paris, Quebec, Roma, Santiago, Tripoli, Uppsala, Valencia, Washington, Xanthippe, Yokohama, Zurich.

City names had long been a popular choice because they were usually well-known with (at least in the English-speaking world), more-or-less standardized pronunciations but the military, always interested in specific (if not general) efficiencies, preferred words with no more than two syllables and preferably one.  The joint Army/Navy project in the US (called the Able Baker alphabet after the first two code words) was adopted across the entire service in 1941 and its utility, coupled with the wealth of documentation available saw it quickly and widely used by allied forces, something encouraged by their dependence on US materiel and logistical support.  In the muddle of war, adoption was ad hoc and it seems nothing was formalized until the 1943 when the British Royal Air Force (RAF) advised all stations that Able Baker was the RAF standard, codifying what had for some time been standard operating procedure.  The Able Baker set used:

Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, Easy, Fox, George, How, Item, Jig, King, Love, Mike, Nan, Oboe, Peter, Queen, Roger, Sugar, Tare, Uncle, Victor, William, X-ray, Yoke, Zebra.

The demands of war meant there was little time for linguistic sociology but after the war, concerns began to be expressed that almost all (and by then dozens had been created) the phonetic alphabets were decidedly English in composition.  A new version incorporating sounds common to English, French, and Spanish was proposed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), one of the alphabet soup of international organizations which emerged after the formation of the United Nations (UN); their code-set was, for civil aviation only, adopted in 1951 and was very similar to that used today:

Alfa, Bravo, Coca, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, Gold, Hotel, India, Juliett, Kilo, Lima, Metro, Nectar, Oscar, Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra, Tango, Union, Victor, Whiskey, eXtra, Yankee, Zulu.

Most agreed the IATA system was technically better and certainly more suited to communications conducted by a multi-language community, for whom many English was neither a first nor sometimes even a familiar tongue.  However, the military in this era was still using the Able Baker system and the difficulties this created were practical, many airfields and the overwhelming bulk of air-space shared between civil and military operators.  It was clear the need for a universal phonetic alphabet was greater than ever and accordingly, reviews were begun, soon coordinated by the newly formed NATO.  After some inter-service discussion, NATO provided a position paper proposing changing the words for the letters C, M, N, U, and X.  This was submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organization (IACO) and, having a world-wide membership structure, the IAOC took a while to consider thing but eventually, a consensus was almost to hand except for the letter N, the military faction wanting November, the civil Nectar and neither side seemed willing to budge.  Seeing no progress, NATO in April 1955 engaged I a bit of linguistic brinkmanship, the North Atlantic Military Committee Standing Group advising that regardless of what the IACO did, the alphabet would “be adopted and made effective for NATO use on 1 January 1956.”

This created the potential for an imbroglio in that there were many civilian institutions and not a few branches of militaries with which they interacted, hesitant to adopt the alphabet for national use until the ICAO decided what to do which would have created the unfortunate situation in which the NATO Military Commands would be on the one system and others on a mixture.  Fortunately, the ICAO responded with new-found alacrity and approved the alphabet, November prevailing.  NATO formalized the use with effect from 1 March 1956 and the ITU later adopted it which had the effect of it becoming the established universal phonetic alphabet governing all military, civilian and amateur radio communications.  Although it was substantially the work of other, particularly the various civil aviation authorities around the world, because it was NATO which was most associated with the final revision, it became known as the NATO Phonetic Alphabet.

Russian military phonetic alphabet compared with NATO set.

There were objections.  In the word-nerdy world of structural linguistics, there are objections to the very phrase "phonetic alphabet" because they don’t indicate phonetics and cannot function as genuine phonetic transcription systems like the International Phonetic Alphabet, reminding us the NATO system is actually the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet.  Those few who note the argument tend politely to agree and move on.  There are also those who use the NATO set but disapprove of the Americans, NATO, the West, capitalism etc; they call it something else if they call it anything at all.  Then there are countries which speak languages other than English.  English is the international language of civil aviation so they’re stuck with that but foreign militaries and security services often have their own sets.

There’s never been the same interest in or effort devoted to a system of numeric code words (ie the numbers from zero to nine) and the IMO defines a different set than does the ICAO: 0 (Nadazero), 1 (Unaone), 2 (Bissotwo), 3 (Terrathree), 4 (Kartefour), 5 (Pantafive), 6 (Soxisix), 7 (Setteseven), 8 (Oktoeight) & 9 (Novenine).  The divergence has never created much controversy because the nature of the words which designated numbers tend not easily to be confused with others and the fact they were often spoken is a context which made obvious their numerical nature added to clarity.  Indeed, although NATO created a comple set of ten names for numbers, the only ones recommended for use were : 3 (Tree), 4 (Fowler), 5 (Fife) & 9 (Niner), these the only ones thought potentially troublesome.  In practice, in NATO and beyond, these are rarely used and that very rarity means they’re as likely to confuse as clarify, especially if spoken between those who speak different languages.

Pronunciation can of course be political so therefore can be contextual.  Depending on what one’s trying to achieve, how one chooses to pronounce words can vary according to time, place, platform or audience.  Some still not wholly explained variations in Lindsay Lohan’s accent were noted circa 2016 and the newest addition to the planet’s tongues (Lohanese or Lilohan) was thought by most to lie somewhere between Moscow and the Mediterranean, possibly via Prague.  It had a notable inflection range and the speed of delivery varied with the moment.  Psychologist Wojciech Kulesza of SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Poland identified context as the crucial element.  Dr Kulesza studies the social motives behind various forms of verbal mimicry (including accent, rhythm & tone) and he called the phenomenon the “echo effect”, the tendency, habit or technique of emulating the vocal patters of one’s conversational partners.  He analysed clips of Lilohan and noted a correlation between the nuances of the accent adopted and those of the person with who Ms Lohan was speaking.  Psychologists explain the various instances of imitative behaviour (conscious or not) as one of the building blocks of “social capital”, a means of bonding with others, something which seems to be inherent in human nature.  It’s known also as the “chameleon effect”, the instinctive tendency to mirror behaviors perceived in others and it’s observed also in politicians although their motives are entirely those of cynical self-interest, crooked Hillary Clinton’s adoption of a “southern drawl” when speaking in a church south of the Mason-Dixon Line a notorious example.

Memo: Team Douglas Productions, 29 July 2004.

Also of interest is the pronunciation of “Lohan” although this seems to be decided by something more random than context although it’s not clear what.  Early in 2022, marking her first post to TikTok, she pronounced her name lo-en (ie rhyming with “Bowen”) but to a generation brought up on lo-han it must have been a syllable too far because it didn’t catch on and by early 2023, she was back to lo-han with the hard “h”.  It’s an Irish name and according to the most popular genealogy sites, in Ireland, universally it’s lo-han so hopefully that’s the last word.  However, the brief flirtation with phonetic H-lessness did have a precedent:  When Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005) was being filmed in 2004, the production company circulated a memo to the crew informing all that Lohan was pronounced “Lo-en like Coen” with a silent “h”.