Is there a certain rule for dividing syllable in a word? [duplicate]

Solution 1:

There are rules, or rather, more than one set of rules. There are different approaches to syllabification in English and the variety of English you study matters.

Here is what the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary says about syllabification. As far as British pronunciation goes, and more precisely its most evolved variant, RP, this is the leading pronunciation dictionary.

Note: all syllabifications are also those retained by LPD for GenAm.

Syllabic divisions are shown in LPD by spacing. This males the transcription of long words easier to read and makes certain details of pronunciation more explicit.

The rhythm of a word or phrase is determined by the number and nature of the syllables it contains. Thus syllables 'carry' stress and intonation. (This is obviously important for poetry and singing.) This division of a word into syllables is called its syllabification.

The question of syllabification in English is controversial: different phoneticians hold very different views about it. The syllabification principles adopted in LPD are those which most helpfully predict the distribution of allophones (see PHONEMES AND ALLOPHONES).

LPD assumes that there is a syllable boundary wherever there is a boundary between the elements of a compound: thus playtime is 'pleɪ taɪm. It is also assumed that every word consists of whole syllables, and that consonants cannot belong to two syllables at once. Thus city must be either 'sɪt i or 'sɪ ti — the t cannot be in both syllables. (In fact it must be in the first, 'sɪt i, because the t is pronounced in a way typical of final t: not aspirated like initial plosives, but on the contrary potentially subject to T-VOICING and glottalling (see GLOTTAL STOP).)

It is generally agreed that phonetic syllable division must as far as possible avoid creating consonant clusters which are not found at the edges of words. This is the phonotactic constraint. Thus windy might be 'wɪn di or 'wɪnd i, but it couldn't be 'wɪ ndi (because English words cannot begin with nd). LPD takes the view that the syllabification of this word actually parallels its morphology: wind+y, 'wɪnd i. For the same reason, language must be 'læŋ gwɪdʒ, not 'læŋg wɪdʒ or 'læ ŋgwɪdʒ.

The principle that LPD adopts is that consonants are syllabified with whichever of the two adjacent vowels is more strongly stressed. If they are both unstressed, it goes with the leftward one.

In general this principle is subject to the phonotactic constraint. However, there are some cases where correct prediction of allophones requires us to override it.

(i) Certain unstressed syllables end in a strong short vowel, even though words cannot. In nostalgia the t is unaspirated (as in stack stæck, not as in tack tæck), so the syllabification is (BrE) nɒ 'stældʒ ə.

(ii) r can end a syllable, even though in BrE it cannot end a word pronounced in isolation. The r in starry 'stɑːr i is like the r in star is, and different from the more forceful r in star runner. Likewise, ʒ can end a syllable: vision 'vɪʒ n̩ [new, IPA syllabic n, former LPD syllabic n was ᵊn].

(iii) Within a morpheme, tr and dr are not split. If petrol were 'pet rəl, as the phonotactic constraint leads us to expect (since English words do not end in tr), its t would likely be glottal and its r voiced (as in rat-race 'ræt reɪs). In fact, the tr in this word is pronounced as a voiceless affricate; so LPD syllabifies it 'petr əl.

For further discussion, please see the author's article 'Syllabification and allophony' in Ramsaran, S (ed.), 1900, Studies in the pronunciation of English, London: Edward Arnold.

It is to be noted that LPD offers both the pronunciation of RP English and General American, and that the syllabification for this latter is the same as for RP (only the sounds may differ).

In my opinion, the energy with which words are pronounced in a given accent is a factor which goes hand in hand with the degree to which the ideal type of phonetic syllabification is adhered to (this ideal type, again according to my opinion, being that in LPD). Pronunciations in which is felt more energy (clearly stressed words) make more readily for /'tju:t ər/ and /'kæb ɪn/ than /'tju: tər/ and /'kæ bɪn/. I believe that syllabification of the second sort is much more likely in speech that shows a comparatively small degree of stress contrast; the principle referred to above ("consonants are syllabified with whichever of the two adjacent vowels is more strongly stressed.") seems to give justification to this point of view. The less salient stressing of American English could be one of the reasons why the RP syllabification scheme is, often enough, not that retained in US models of GenAm.