Talk:Australian English phonology/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Phonology

Vowel shift

I would like to add a paragraph along the following lines. Does it make sense to anyone? Comments? cferrero 13:04 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

The Australian (and New Zealand) pronunciation of English words, with respect to a "standard" British pronunciation (the definition of this, of course, is contentious) has undergone an effect known as vowel shift whereby the spoken sound of certain vowels has shifted. This is best illustrated through the following example where the sound of the letter 'a' has shifted:
Written word Austrialian pronunciation Approximate Australian vowel sound
Bad Bed e as in tent
Bed Bid i as in kid
Bid Bead ee as in free
Bead Biyd no equivalent in British pronunciation

Thus the effect is of a→e→i→ee→iy.

An interesting theory! Let me have a go at commenting on it.

  1. Bad >> Bed: This is classic NZ accent. Oz is more like "baird" or perhaps "beared" as in "polar bear". They are quite different.
  2. Bed >> Bid: This is characteristic of NZ, not really Oz. A strong Oz accent here leaves the sound of the "e" largely unchanged, but shortens it so that it's almost not there.
  3. Bid >> Bead: Oz: more like "beard" or "bi.i.i.id" - i.e., same as UK but say it really slowly. NZ, not sure.
  4. Bead >> Biyd: So far as I can tell, no equivalent in Australian or New Zeland pronunciation either! Sounds more like an extreme US regional accent to me - I've head it on TV often enough, but don't know which area. Somewhere in the south maybe?

Tannin 13:33 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Well I could modify it to include both Australian and New Zealand variation, in which case it should perhaps go into a linguistics article rather than a specific Australian language article? The sound I was trying to convey with biyd is actually pretty hard to write, it involves a sort of tongue-rolling vocalisation at the back of the throat which British-English speakers don't do. Maybe more accurate as 'beyd'? cferrero 15:35 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC) (It's not my theory, by the way - I read it in New Scientist a long time ago, but can find no trace of it now...)

It makes sense to me. Instead of writing "standard British pronunciation" you could just write RP and leave the contentiousness of defining a "standard" for another page. Be careful of calling it a "vowel shift". Comparisons to RP aren't direct reflexions of vowel shifts: they never spoke RP on any ship in the First Fleet.
Anyway this phenomenon is now covered by the new corrected vowel (and diphthong) chart based on Cox et. al. The chart, however doesn't make comparisons to RP. Instead it just gives the pronunciation using IPA and X-SAMPA. This, I think is better anyway.
Also, I'd hesitate to call it any kind of "tongue rolling": it's not a trill (like the Spanish "rr" in "perro" or the German uvular /r/). It more like a diphthong: [Ii]. But this isn't truely accurate either because it only really has one target: [i]. The best description of the Aussie/Kiwi /i:/ would be to say that it has a significant fronting and rising on-glide. - Jimp a.k.a Jim

Vowels: Diphthongs & Schwa

  1. Diphthongs are vowels. Why the title Vowels And Diphthongs? Writing Vowels and Diphthongs is like writing Beer and Ale when you only need write Beer. I suggest deleting and Diphthongs.
  2. Accordingly the introductory paragraph to the phonology section should be adjusted. To say that cultivated and general AusE use "11 vowels, 8 diphthongs and the schwa" is simply incorrect. Along with the diphthongs the unstressed central vowel (represented by the IPA's schwa) is a vowel too. These are twenty vowels not eleven.
    It would be more correct to write that cultivated and general AusE use "11 stressed monophthongs, 8 diphthongs and the schwa vowel". However, there remains a problem. Are the vowels in hear and hair monophthongs or diphthongs? To make matters worse we have the vowel(s) in tour does this count as a seperate phoneme?
  3. What do we do? Write that cultivated and general AusE use "12±1 stressed monophthongs, 7±1 diphthongs and the schwa vowel"? Obviously not. The best solution would be to say that they use 20 vowels. The details of the exact quality of these vowels are contained in the table in the following section. - Jimp 10Mar05
  1. Yes, diphthongs are vowels. The section should be retitled Vowels.
  2. The vowels in hear is a diphthong, while for most Australians the vowels in hair is a long monophthong, but some would consider it a diphthong. Some would consider the vowels in tour as either a diphthong or two monophthongs, but I'm not sure that the vowel(s) would constitute as a separate phoneme. Most of this has been explained in the article.
  3. Yes, according to the table based on Harrington, Cox and Evans (1997) there would be 11 monophthongs and depending on the person 6 or 7 diphthongs for general and cultivated AuE. It must be noted that long vowels have the same quality as short vowels, hence the same vowel with different lengths (e.g. [e] & [eː] represents the same vowel with different lengths).
– AxSkov 13:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. It's good to hear that you agree with me. So let's delete the misleading and diphthongs bit and rewrite the Phonology intro.
  2. These centring diphthongs are trouble. Whether they are realised as diphthongs, long monophthongs or simply disappear into two seperate monophthongs depends on the speaker and on the word. The vowel in hear is usually a diphthong but what about the vowel in beard? Those who consider the vowel in hair to be a diphthong might well do so because for them it is. Similarly whether the vowel(s) in tour is a diphthong or two monophthongs depends on the speaker. If it's a diphthong then it's a seperate phoneme otherwise it's not. Yes, the article explains most of this detail. It's too much for the introduction however some mention might be made of (RP) centring diphthongs and their (maybe) variable realisations.
  3. Phonetically [e] & [eː] are different only in length, yes, but they do correspond to different phonemes in AusE. Vowel length is phonemic in AusE. We have minimal pairs such as haired vs head, dared vs dead, mast vs must, calm vs. calm, etc.

-Jimp 15Mar05

Phonology Intro

Here's the current introduction to the Phonology section.

The "cultivated" and "general" accents use 24 consonants, 11 vowels, 8 diphthongs and the schwa. (The "broad" accents employ a myriad of different vowels and diphthongs). Australian English is a non-rhotic dialect; 'r' is pronounced only before a vowel, otherwise replaced with a schwa.

- Jimp 18Mar05

Non-Rhotic Dialect

Also the second sentence in this section is wrong. Australian English is a non-rhotic language; 'r' is pronounced only before a vowel, otherwise replaced with a schwa. AusE is not a language but a dialect (I've fixed this - 18Mar05). Non-prevocallic <r>s are not simply pronounced as /@/. Consider the words art, port, turn, etc. Where's the /@/. - Jimp 10Mar05

It would probably be better to say "...otherwise replaced with a schwa or/and a long vowel." All of the words you have mentioned use long vowels, but centre, enter, colour, etc use schwa. – AxSkov 08:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better but still not perfectly accurate. It's not as if the letter <r> is replaced with a long vowel but the digraphs <ar>, <or>, <ur>, etc. represent the long vowel. Nor are the <r>s in the words you mention replaced by /ə/ but this unstressed vowel is represented by the graphemes <er>, <re>, <our>. How about the words hare, hair, beer, "dinosaur", etc.? Again things are more complex that just having <r> replaced by this vowel or that.

It would probably be best to say something like the consonant /r/ can occur only before a vowel. You might want to add a few words to the effect that the letter <r> is often part of the orthographic vowel but would this be necessary? The exact function of the letter in writing is pretty similar in all non-rhotic dialects of English and is more fully explained in the chart which follows. - Jimp 14Mar05

A Myriad Of Different Vowels (And Diphthongs)

This brings me to my next point. The intro to the Phonology section also states that The "broad" accents employ a myriad of different vowels and diphthongs. What does this mean exactly? Certainly this accent employs many allophones but the same is true of all accents of English. If it's allophones that are being refered to here, then the sentence should not be removed because the previous sentence refered only to phonemes. This sentence seems to imply that there are phonemic distinctions made in the broad accent which don't exist in other Australian accents. Is this true? I haven't seen any evidence of this. Is there some reference that could be cited in support of this? - Jimp 14Mar05

Rewrite

Here are the lines along which I'd rewite it.

Australian accents generally use 24 consonants and 20 vowels. Three of these vowels corespond to the centring diphthongs of RP and have variable realisations. Besides these there are 5 diphthongs and 7 short and 5 long monophthongs. Australian English is a non-rhotic dialect: the consonant /r/ can occur only before a vowel.

- Jimp 18Mar05

Fixed Vowel Count

Some one fixed the vowel count.

5+7+5 does not = 20; fix vowel count so 7+6+7=20

Alas there was nothing wrong with it.

5+7+5 plus three does = 20

I take the blame though. I guess whoever fixed things hadn't noticed the Besides these ... bit i.e. excluding the centring diphthongs. Gotta go tho. Jim 6 May 2005

When I say "I take the blame." it's because I (re)wrote that intro. If someone out there overlooked my "Besides these" then there must have been a better way of putting it. So, time to fix it up properly. I've deleted

Besides these there are 7 short and 6 long monophthongs, and 7 diphthongs.

and reverted to the original with the following additions

Besides these 3 vowels there are also ...

I hope that that makes things clear enough. - Jim 9May05

Gone Off

  • gone takes on a peculiar quality: whereas all other /ɔː/ (born, saw) became [oː], and all /ɒ/ (hot) became [ɔ], gone stayed as [ɔː].

Somehow I think that what's really going on here is the the remnants of the LOT-CLOTH split. This split exists in conservative RP but has been lost in modern RP. It's also all but gawn from AusE too.

You can hear the same happening in the word off as well. However, it seems to me that these pronunciations are on the out. I haven't heard anyone of my generation or younger using /oː/ for these words. Also I don't know whether the word became is appropriate. It seems to imply that the Aussie accent evolved from conservative RP. This is not the case. -Jimp 15Mar05

Hm. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone who says 'gone' as [gO:n] say 'off' as [O:f], which, in any case, would be [o:f] (orf), I believe. (The reverse change has happened though---words like Austria and caustic are pronounced with short Os, hence /Ostri@/ and /kOstIk/.) I did once hear an Australian with a broader accent say 'gone' as 'gorn' once, and it was commented on! Also, AFAIK (and so says the article you link to), the LOTH-CLOTH split only occurs before voiceless fricatives, but /n/ is not.
Saying gone as gorn and off as orf is something that English and American actors do when attempting to imprersonate an Australian, however very few (if any) Australians themselves actually pronounce the words this way. I suspect this has occured because actors when attempting to do an Australian accent actually just do a variation of stage Cockney, which itself features the gorn and orf pronunciations. Then the cliche took hold, and became the standard way to "do" an Aussie accent. MinorEdit 03:52, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
I know exactly one person who says "Gorn orf". He lives in Adelaide, but came from Queensland. I don't know if it's standard Queensland pronounciation, but it's certainly odd here. --ScottDavis 04:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bread vs Bred

Is it just me or do other Aussies distinguish these words? For me bred rhymes with red but bread doesn't. Bread rhymes with haired. - Jim 14Mar05

It's you. For me and people I know bred and bread are homophones. The Macquarie Dictionary also lists these words as homophones. This is also the case in many of the other English dialects. – AxSkov 11:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This has been puzzling me.

Maybe it depends which state you come from. I and most of the people I know distinguish between bread and bred as above. I come from Adelaide, by the way. - Troyac 1Apr05

I'm from Sydney and I've never noticed anyone ever pronouncing Bread to rhyme with red. Is this how all Sydneysiders speak or have I not been listening carefully? - Jimp 5Apr05

I can't tell 'em apart. I'm WA born and bread ;-).Grant65 (Talk) 11:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard them distinguished either, as a Melburnian. I can't say I've ever heard of this one before... I'll be going to Sydney soon, I'll be sure to look out for it tho :) Felix the Cassowary 13:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This length contrast is found in many parts of Australia. I'm from WA and I distinguish between 'bread' and 'bred'. For Sandgropers, think of 'Canning' (river) vs a 'canning' factory. I've also noticed it in Canberra. However there is still debate about how widespread this vowel length contrast is in Australia, so maybe it's not found in Melbourne (yet!). I think I recall an article on it in the Aust J. of Linguistics--I'll look it up and report back. - Dougg 01:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Canning/canning distinction (also with span (past tense of spin) vs span (like a bridge does a river), can (I can (do it)) vs can (tin)) is widespread not just through Australia but also South Eastern Britain and (though phrased as tense/lax because of the different vowel system) New York and Philidelphia. Philly, Au and SE Brit. all have essentially the same system, just with a few minor changes. I've never heard anything about the bred vs bread split. Is it the same basic thing as the bad/lad split i.e. general purpose lengthening before some consonants, but never in irregular verbs, and with a few longs where they should be short and a few shorts where they should be longs? or a single case, with bread moving from DRESS not HAIR? I'd certainly be interested if you can find any articles, exerpts from books etc. Felix the Cassowary 01:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Allophones Or Distinct Phonemes?

[æ] verses [æː]

The article contradicts itself. At one point it says the following.

... /æ/ (bat) has split into two distinct phonemes, so that whereas lad, can (I can do it), bat have a short vowel, bad, can (tin can), rag have a long one.

This implies that [æː] is not an allophone of /æ/. So why do we find the following listed under the heading Allophones?

  • "I can open the can"
/{/ → [{] or [@], [{:] (SAMPA)
/æ/ → [æ] or [ə], [æː] (IPA)

This implies the exact opposite of the former: that [æ] and [æː] do not correspond to two distinct phonemes but are simply allophones of /æ/.

So what's to be done? Either we count /æː/ as a phoneme or we don't. Though we wouldn't want to contradict other pages of Wikipedia, would we? We wouldn't, for example, want to contradict the Phonemic differentiation article which counts /æː/ as a seperate phoneme in in some varieties of English English and Australian English. I suggest we delete the bit about "I can open the can". - Jimp 16Mar05

As far as I can tell the phoneme /æ/ consists of two sounds [æ] and [æː]. Also as there isn't any minimal pairs for these two sounds in Australian English, they are then considered to be allophones and not separate phenomes. These sounds do have minimal pairs, for example: the noun /spæːn/ and the past-tense verb /spæn/. I'm not sure if the information on the other page Phonemic differentiation is correct, so I've put a query on its talk page about this problem, and to also check that my knowledge on minimal pairs is correct. Perhaps we need an Australian linguist to help sort this out. – AxSkov (T) 14:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Clear verses dark l

These are both listed seperately in the Consonants section implying that they are distinct phonemes. Is this the case in AusE? I think not. Shouldn't this distinction be listed in the Allophone section? Jim 9May05

Yes dark l ([ɫ]) is an allophone of clear l ([l]) in not only Australian English, but all English dialects that used dark l. I'll remove it from the Consonants section. - Mark 11:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Regional Phonetic Variation

A More Correct & Concise Table

Here is the old table.

This chart shows the percentage of speakers from different capital cities who pronounce words in a certain way, concentrating on the usage of /{/ vs /a/.
  Hobart Melbourne Brisbane Sydney Adelaide
graph græf (100%) græf (70%) graf (56%) graf (70%) graf (86%)
chance tʃæns (100%) tʃans (60%) tʃæns (75%) tʃans (80%) tʃans (86%)
demand dəmænd (90%) dəmand (78%) dəmand (78%) dəmand (90%) dəmand (100%)
dance dæns (90%) dæns (65%) dæns (89%) dæns (60%) dans (86%)
castle kasl (60%) kæsl (70%) kæsl (67%) kasl (100%) kasl (86%)
grasp grasp (90%) grasp (89%) grasp (89%) grasp (95%) grasp (100%)
contrast kəntrast (100%) kəntrast (100%) kəntrast (100%) kəntrast (100%) kəntrast (71%)
  1. I've fixed this section to indicate /ɐː/ instead of /aː/.
  2. I've made it more concise by giving only percentages for /ɐː/ as opposed to /æ/ usage.
  3. I've added a row and a column for averages.

- Jimp 18Mar05

Australian Accents

There are some distinctive variants on the Australian accent - for example the "Brisbane" accent

PMelvilleAustin 14:09 22 May 2003 (UTC)

People claim that from time to time, other people refute it. The language experts I have heard speak on the question (two or three) are reluctant to agree with the idea, although they don't reject it absolutely. On the whole, the consensus seems to be that trying to disentangle regional accents from all the other variables (age, gender, social class, education, amount of alcohol consumed, and so on) is such a difficult task that it is difficult to justify calling the variation real. And if real, it certainly isn't something I'd care to try picking in a double-blind test. Tannin

I'm just looking at the regional phonetic variation chart at the bottom of the article, and I'm wondering how accurate it is. I am a Sydneysider born and bred, but I hardly ever hear "tSans" for the word "chance" - it is almost always "tSæns" in Sydney. "tSans" seems to me to be a South Australian, New Zealandish and southern English pronunciation. The same goes for "graph" - I can assure you, it is NOT 100% "graf" in Sydney. It would be lucky to be 10%. --Humehwy 23:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Those stats came from an actual study so they're better than single people putting in their own casual observations. Unfortunately I think they're now a few decades out of date. It should be easy enough to find more up-to-date stats in a university library for instance. You could probably add a comment that it seems out-of-date. — Hippietrail 00:03, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Okay that would explain it because accents do change quite considerably over time, even in a few decades. Compare, for instance, the accents of Neville Chamberlain to John Major in the UK - not many people in England speak as polished or rounded or plummy as Chamberlain any more. Or compare the reporters on "60 Minutes" tomorrow night to the voiceovers on 1940s Movietone newsreels. I'm headed to the State Library of NSW in a short while to get some other research done, so I'll spare a few moments to look for a recent (i.e. last decade) study into regional variations of Australian speech. --Humehwy 02:24, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
Just to back up Humehwy's point, as a native Sydneysider I have to agree with his observations. The out-of-date comment seems a good idea. --dmmaus 05:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You will need to be very cautious using the evidence of old newsreels to form an opinion on the evolution of the Australian accent. Until the 1970s newsreaders and presenters, particularly on the ABC, were expected to use a cultivated accent, and broad or even standard Australian was strongly discouraged. Anyone who remembers Eric Pierce or John Royal will know that they did not speak standard Australian. Instead I suggest you have a listen to one of the Dad and Dave movies, which were intended to represent the broad or rural Australian accent of the 1930s. A soundtrack of a Roy Rene routine would also be helpful. Roy affected a broad Australian accent, despite actually being Dutch-Jewish. But even he said "darnce" and "charnce," as did everyone in Australia until the advent of TV. Adam 07:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately even words such as lollies and biscuits are being over run by the American version of candy and cookies. I'm constantly bugging my friends about what is Australian and what's not. By the way in Victoria many of us do notice the difference between our accent and that of Queenslanders. Many get teased when they say graph funny.

Celery vs Salary

A contributor has just added that for younger Melburnians these words are homophones. I'm not sure that at almost 37 I qualify as a member of the intended group, but for me they certainly are homophones. I grew up in Melbourne but have lived all over the country, currently in Sydney. I have been thinking for some time about phonetics and how in my idiolect "al" and "el" both sound like /æl/ - not the /əl/ mentioned here. — Hippietrail 15:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralian_English_phonology_Archive1_4584.html"