Do we pronounce a "t" sound in negative contractions "n't"

The /t/ in negative contractions in English can have three main realisations. In decreasing order of likelihood (all other things being equal):

• it can be a glottal stop
• it can be dropped altogether
• it can be a full [t]

It does not matter at all in negative contractions whether the following sound is a consonant or not in terms of dropping the /t/ altogether. It can easily be a vowel that follows.

So in terms of what native speakers actually do, by far the rarest realisation is with a canonical [t]. However, it is never wrong to use a normal [t] sound. Knowing that a [t] will usually not be present will greatly improve non-native speakers' listening skills though.

The other reason to be aware of the fact that there may not be a [t] present is that it enforces that fact that it is stress which is the most important factor for distinguishing negative contractions from normal auxiliaries. Negative contractions are stressed in English, whereas other things being equal most auxiliaries aren't when occurring in positive sentences. So when trying to distinguish between She can come and she can't come we will listen out for the following rhythms:

• ba ba BOM
• ba BOM BOM

The first is what we expect from the positive polarity sentence. The second is the negative.

Assimlatory processes

The final [t] in negative contractions may be affected by the sounds following it.

For example, if the word following the contraction normally starts with [j], as in the first sound in you, then the /t/ and the /j/ may coalesce to form an new affricate sound, /tʃ/. This is the first sound that we hear in words like chair. So the string don't you may be realised as:

• 'doʊntʃu (Gen Am) "donchu"
• 'dəʊntʃu (British RP) "donchu"

Also if the following sound is not alveolar, both the /n/ and the /t/ may change their place of articulation according to the place of the following sound. So for example if the following sound is bilabial, the /nt/ cluster may be realised as /mp/. It is quite common to hear RP speakers saying I cam'p believe it, for example.

Glottalisation is common in the UK, but whether it is used or not depends on the regional accent. This is not quite the same as completely missing the "t" off the end of words, but it might sound as such if you are not used to hearing glottalised consonants.

For non-natives I would not suggest missing the "t" off the end of words consciously. Pronouncing the "t" will not make you sound weird. If you live among native speakers for a while you will probably find yourself naturally adapting to their pronunciation and accent.

At least in my part of the U.S., the "t" is neither fully pronounced nor completely left out, but rather modifies the sound of the preceding "n". Compare "I can think of..." and "I can't think of...". In the second case, the sound of the "n" is much shorter and a noticeable silence occurs before the next word. Whereas in the first case the "n" sound flows right into the next word. It's as if only the first half of the "t" sound is pronounced, with the release left out.

Yes, you should pronounce the "t" of negative "n't", unless you don't pronounce any "t"s in this position after "n". That is, in the American English I'm familiar with, the "t" might be lost, but it is not especially vulnerable to loss because it's part of a negative contraction.

All the alveolar stops, "t/d/n", are often lost or assimilate in position to a following stop. "t/d" can delete after a consonant (other than a glide or liquid) and before an initial consonant of the next word, for instance. Along with the other stops "p/k", "t" can glottalize before a following consonant, then the glottal "t" can lose its tongue closure and become just a glottal stop.