Talk:Australian English phonology/Archive 2

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

pull vs pool

  • The distinction between pairs like pull and pool, full and fool is lost by speakers from South Australia.

205.188.116.14 has just added that the distinction between these words is lost. I'd like to see some evidence of this because I've never heard them merge in the 37 years and 4 states I've lived in in Australia. In the people around me "pool" is not usually pronounced /pu:l/ as the dictionaries have it either. Personally I pronounce "pull" as /pUl/ and "pool" as /pU:l/. Same vowel quality, different length. Not at all merged. — Hippietrail 02:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I would agree, at least as far as WA is concerned. Others may hear it differently. I remember reading somewhere that the "pool=pull" thing is a South Australian regionalism. Grant65 (Talk) 11:15, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
I'm from South Australia and I can confirm that, in my experience at least, people here tend to say "pool" the same way as "pull". See comment below in Swimming Pull. Troyac 05:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been too hastly. I'd removed this. It certainly isn't true in Sydney. I'll put it back but it must be stressed that this is a regional thing. - Jimp 1Jun05

According to Foot-goose and full-fool mergers the distinction is not lost in Australian English. I guess it must be wrong because it does occur in Southern Australian English.

Well feel free to start an article about "Southern Australian English", whatever that is, but this article is about Australian English.Grant65 (Talk) 18:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay I have, Southern Australian English

As a (adoptive) South Australian, I disagree. The pronounciation of "pull" and "pool" is not entirely synonymous. They sound similar, but "pool" is elongated.--Cyberjunkie 12:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As southern Australia is a much wider area and South Australia is clearly what is meant, I have moved the above article to South Australian English.Grant65 (Talk) 07:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
As a South Australian, I disagree. Whilst the sounds of the words might be more similar than say Qld or NSW natives, we still don't merge the two pairs. Victorians also pronounce these pairs the same way as South Australians. However what is unique to South Australian speech is the shortened "ou", eg as in "thank you" (see excellent article: http://www.australianstudies.dk/Filer/Vowel%20change%20in%20AustraliaHQ.pdf, particularly pages 75; Also see http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/lang-media/news/als2003/conference%20proceedings/fCox.pdf, page 11, in particular.) - Frances 6/6/05
Okay, Frances, I've removed this. Until there is agreement I suggest we leave this one out. Also, at the same time I removed your comment. It belongs here not in the article.
Also the article had stated the following.
  • In some eastern states, "pool" and "school" are sometimes pronounced "poo-el" and "schoo-el" whereas in other states the sound is more akin to "pull".
No, the sound is not akin to that in pull. I've removed the whereas ... - Jimp a.k.a. Jim 6Jun05
- For some reason, this passage is not coming up on the Australian English page when I load it up but I can see it here in the editing section and in the older versions of this page. Can something be done to fix this up? I approve of the explanation, it is written clearly. However, I still think you should peruse the links concerning "ou" and "u" that I provided yesterday as it is a very strong Adelaide phenomenon that can clearly is a distinguishing factor in Adelaide/SA speech. - Frances 7/6/05
To fix this problem, try clicking the "edit this page" tab. Then click the "save page" button, which should fix your problem (don't add anything to the page at all). – AxSkov (T) 11:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Features which aren't specific to AusE

The following points have been added to the Phonology section.

  • The distinction between /oː/ and /oə/ in pairs like horse and hoarse, for and four, war and wore, etc. is lost.
  • Yod-dropping occurs after the consonants /s/, /z/, /l/, /T/, /r\/, /S/, /dZ/ and /tS/ in suit, Zeus, lute, enthusiasm, rude, chute, June and chew. The word class which is labeled /iw/ in the initial position of ANAE is the reflex of Middle English /iu/, which was derived from a large variety of sources (Jespersen 1949:3.8).

(1) OE iw as in TiwesdÊg åTuesdayπ

(2) OE e:ow as in e:ow, åyouπ

(3) French iu, as in riule åruleπ

(4) French unstressed e+u, as n seur åsureπ

(5) French u, as in rude,

(6) French. ui, as in fruit

(7) French iv, as in OF sivre -> M.E. sewe, åsueπ

  • The distinction between /w/ and /ʍ/ in wine and whine, witch and which, etc. is lost in Australian English.

They are all quite true and valid points but they are true and valid for just about any dialect of English. There are very few dialects which preserve the distinction between which and witch. Also very few are the dialects which preserve the distinction between horse and hoarse. Yod dropping in AusE is identical to that in RP.

If we include a mention of every respect in which AusE differs from each and every other dialect of English, we'll end up with a very long list. This list won't seem to make sense to the average reader who's never heard of these dialectical features. It distracts the reader from the point of the article: Australian English (not Scots, Welsh English nor East Anglian). Moreover, it is simply a duplication of points mentioned in Phonemic differentiation.

Instead of listing all of these features which are not specific to AusE it would be better to give the link to the article in which they belong: Phonemic differentiation. I suggest that only the differences between AusE and NZE and RP be mentioned. NZE, because it's the most similar to AusE and for our close cultural ties. RP, because it is a well recognised and well understood dialect.

Jimp 4Jun05

203.164.189.46 said, yod dropping does not belong here, alot of Australian don't do the yod dropping. So, does that mean that there are Australians that distinguish soot and suit, loot and lute, rood and rude, choose and chews, Pronounce Zeus as zyoos etc.? I've never heard an Australian talk like that. Smith 5Jun05

Since so many users of the internet around the world are familar with General American English, I think that should probably also be a point of comparison.
For what it's worth I've never heard any Australians make "suit" and "soot" sound at all similar. Does any English speaker anywhere do that? The other examples of yod dropping do seem correct though.Grant65 (Talk) 07:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Grant,

I'd agree about using General American. It is very well known.

Smith,

Yes, we drop some yods, you're correct but I still agree with 203.164.189.46 that yod dropping doesn't belong here. The yods we drop are just the same ones as are dropped in almost all dialects of Commonwealth English. Therefore, I argue, that there's a more appropriate place for details like these.

Jimp 6Jun05

But 203.164.189.46 said that some Australians don't do the yod-dropping. I was wondering if that is true, because all Australians I've heard do the same yod-dropping as I do, except that yods are not dropped after /n/, /t/ and /d/. Conservative RP does have yod-pronouncing after /l/, /s/, /T/ and /z/ in lute, suit, enthusiasm and Zeus, but has the usual yod-dropping after /r/, /dZ/, /tS/, /S/ and /Z/, so conservative RP has less yod-dropping than Australian English, but also less yod-dropping than modern RP. By RP. do you mean modern RP or conservative RP or both? Also commonwealth English is kind of hard to define, because the spelling in Canada is similar to that outside of North American, but the pronunciation is more similar to that in America.

Smith 6Jun05

I agree with Jimp and 203.164.189.46 that yod dropping doesn't belong here. Perhaps just mention yod dropping as a link only. Yod dropping in Australia is similar to that in Britain, not North America. Many Australians produce what is called yod coalescence where the clusters [dj] and [tj] become [dʒ] and [tʃ] respectively, and occur at the beginning or within a word; the clusters [sj] and [zj] become [ʃ] and [ʒ] respectively, and only occur within a word, becoming [s] and [z] respectively when at the beginning of a word. So Jew and due are homophones. – AxSkov (T) 11:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you work as a tore guide?

Quote-The vowel in words like tour, pure has diverged according to the whim of the speaker, either remaining as /ʊə/, or becoming either /ʉːə/ (a sequence of two separate monophthongs) or /oː/ (a long monophthong).

In those accents where /ʊə/ becomes /oː/, does it merge with the vowel in storm making moor and more, and tour and tore homonyms?

- Smith 9Jun05

This is what the article seems to imply. I don't think that this is the case. As far as I'm aware /oː/ applies only to certain words. For me moor and more are homonyms as are poor and pore (along with pour and paw). However, tour is homophonous with tore nor does pure sound like /p/ plus your. This is not a case of /ʊə/'s becoming /oː/ at all. What's happeninng is that such words as poor and moor are being pronounced with an entirely different phoneme. This needs a rewrite. Thanx Smith for bringing this up; I'd been just about to mention it m'self. Jimp (i.e. Jim) 9Jun05
There is nothing wrong with this statement. First, I got this information from Phonemic (Broad) Transcription of Australian English (see Diagnostic chart of General Australian English Vowels). Second, tournament is a word that this happens to, it is either pronounced as /ˈtʊənəmənt/ or /ˈtoːnəmənt/, I've heard both pronunciations. Tour is pronounced as /tʊə/, /ˈtʉːə/ or less commonly /toː/. Pure is either pronounced as /pjʊə/ or /ˈpjʉːə/. For me tour is not homophonous with tore; moor and more are homonyms and are both pronounced as /moː/, and I believe this is true for most Australians. Of course some /ʊə/'s became /oː/, don't you use dictionaries, or listen to older Australians for these changes? That is why either is used, because for some speakers /ʊə/ becomes either /ʉːə/ or /oː/. Both poor and moor use the /oː/ vowel and do not use a entirely different phoneme. – AxSkov (T) 12:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By entirely different phoneme I meant the vowel in raw, for, etc. not a whole new one just for these words. It's entirely different in the sense that it's not /ʊə/. Okay, so on close reading the statement is not false: you can interpret it to mean the vowel split and, in some instances merged to /oː/. However, I just don't feel that this is clear enough with the sentence as it is. I know what's going on but if I didn't, I might be inclined to think, apon reading this point, that some Aussies have merged all /ʊə/'s to /oː/. Jimp 10Jun05
Okay, I see what you mean. I have tried to make it clearer by rewriting it to mean a vowel split, where /ʊə/ either remains as is, or splits to become /ʉːə/ (a sequence of two separate monophthongs) in some words or /oː/ (a long monophthong) in other words. – AxSkov (T) 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've start a new article to discuss this treatment of the /U@/ diphthong pure-poor split.

'Ow's about a beeya?

However, Smith, I'm not 100% about this bit about beer's rhyming with seer. Can we dig up some reference for this? It may well be a simple case of someone's mistaking a diphthong of two monophthongs ... or maybe not. As for myself: I don't pronounce beer and seer to rhyme. - Jimp 9Jun05

Neither do I. Beer, to me, is pronounced similar to sear. --Cyberjunkie 11:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jim,
Check out this link http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/28/1106850111479.html. Quote-In Western Australia beer is pronounced "be-ar". In NSW beer has one syllable.. It appears that in Western Australian accents beer has two syllables rhyming with seer. Smith 9Jun05

There you go then, ay. I'm from NSW & I've never been out the back o' Burke. - Jimp 10Jun05

I'm from Victoria and I pronounce beer as one syllable, but I also pronounce seer as one syllable and it's a homonym of sear. The MQD also lists both seer and sear as homonyms. – AxSkov (T) 12:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the statement about WA is probably correct. Beer does seem to have a longer vowel sound in these parts. But is "be-e-r" restricted to WA? See the discussion on Talk: South Australian English. Grant65 (Talk) 03:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Swimming Pull

Someone for some reason has readded to the vowel section that some spakers from South Australia merge pull and pool. Is this true? Frances disagrees. Smith 9Jun05

There seem to be two versions of that paragraph - I put back the long one yesterday. The two words have the same vowel (I think I put my tongue in the same place), but pull is short, and pool is long. They do not sound the same.

In South Australia, pull and pool are merged in position i.e. the quality distinction is lost, pull is pronounced /pʊl/ and pool is pronounced /pʊːl/, but they're not (usually) pronounced the same contrary to belief by people that hear South Australians pronounce them very similarly and think that they're pronouncing them the same. Pairs like pull/pool, full/fool etc. are distinguished only by length in South Australia.

The short version says that pull and pool sound the same, which they do NOT. I'm happy for someone to write a new paragraph that expresses it better. --ScottDavis 03:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the previous thread on this subject I indicated that I thought that we do merge them here in SA but I've sinced been convinced that I was wrong, so please disregard that comment. Troyac 05:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm a Victorian and I pronounce pool as /pʊːl/ and pull as /pʊl/ and so do many other Victorians. This is not just a Sth Australian trait, as it also occurs in Victoria, and according to Hippietrail all over the country. So I have rewritten it to include people not from SA. – AxSkov (T) 10:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've started a new article to deal with this pull-pool issue Treatment of pool words in Australian English. This should help solve the trivial questions and ideas and thoughts about whether or not these words are homonyms for any native Australians.

Bred-bread split

I've added an article about the bred-bread split that occurs for some Australians.

Rhoticity

The following has been added to the article.

  • Australian English is non-rhotic speech. Since many Australians are of Irish desent, rhoticity is happened in some regional dialects.

How true is this? Is there any source for it? Which regional dialects? I have very strong doubts about this. However, it is possible. A similar thing has happened in NZ.

User:Jimp 19Jun05

If rhoticity is happening at all, which I seriously doubt, it would not be coming from the decendants of Irish immigrants/convicts, but from the influence of American pop-culture. I know a few people of Irish decent (from country areas) who are non-rhotic. It's not that a similar thing is happening in NZ, but from the populations that are decended from Scottish immigrants, who settled in the rugged southern areas of the South Island (see Dialects within New Zealand English). -- Mark 05:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libel-Bible split

In this survey http://home.unilang.org/main/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6488&start=0&sid=929d60cecee50ded9b6e2a45886c3036 going on a lot of people have written that they make a distinction between the i's in libel and Bible and two of them are Australians. So, here is my question:

Is there a split in the PRICE vowel thats going on in Australian English? If so, into what two vowels?

I don't believe that there is. You can't always trust what people write in these internet-forum surveys. Jimp 11Jul05
I found some evidence that there might be a split, but in Scotland, not Australia, related to the Scots Vowel Length Rule; it's mentioned on [1] --JHJ 20:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Features of Australians English in pronunciation and word use

In this dialect survey http://home.unilang.org/main/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6488&start=0&sid=929d60cecee50ded9b6e2a45886c3036, here are two of the Australians responses:

<<Age : 20 Location where you grew up, or location where you learned English: Australia

1. Do you distinguish pronunciation between: caught and cot Yes

  • Mary, marry, merry Yes
  • draw and drawl Yes
  • card and cord Yes
  • pour and poor No
  • the vowels in father and bother Yes
  • pull and pool Yes
  • wine and whine Yes
  • toon and tune Yes
  • fill and feel Yes
  • fell and fail Yes
  • horse and hoarse No
  • hull and hole Yes
  • new and nu (greek letter)
  • flour and flower Yes
  • hire and higher No
  • loot and lute No
  • rood and rude No
  • choose and chews No
  • you and yew No
  • the first vowel in furry and hurry No
  • the first vowel in mirror and nearer Yes
  • the vowels in bad and lad No
  • the vowels in bit and kit No
  • bred and bread Yes
  • pause and paws No'
  • 'tenor and tenner No
  • board and bored No
  • pane and pain No
  • toe and tow No
  • sole and soul No
  • meat and meet No
  • rode and road No
  • vain and vein No
  • rap and wrap No
  • The vowels in brute and fruit No
  • The i in libel and the i in Bible Yes
  • The vowels in dimmer and simmer No
  • The vowels in gunner and scunner No
  • not and knot No
  • mews and muse No
  • nome and gnome No
  • roil and royal Yes
  • taut and taught Yes

2. Do the following sentences sound okay to you? (Don't worry about "technically" correct grammar, just tell me if these sound allright in your opinion, or if you use them.)

  • I might could do it tonight. No
  • Do you want to come with? No
  • We stood on line for two hours. No
  • She is in hospital. Yes
  • We seen the movie yesterday. No
  • The car needs cleaned. No
  • We are in five. No

3. Write the word that you use to refer to these: source of water over the sink or tub

  • a carbonated drink soft drink
  • the thing that you drink out of at the park tap
  • center of a peach --
  • Two or more people group
  • tiny candies put on top of an ice cream cone or cupcake --
  • the night before Halloween --
  • small glowing insect visible after dark dragonflies>>


And

<<Age : 18 Location where you grew up, or location where you learned English: Australia Mine are mostly the same as Raza's except for these:

1. Do you distinguish pronunciation between:

  • flour and flower no
  • the first vowel in furry and hurry yes
  • bred and bread no
  • taut and taught no

2. Do the following sentences sound okay to you? (Don't worry about "technically" correct grammar, just tell me if these sound allright in your opinion, or if you use them.)

  • Do you want to come with? Yes(Slang, though it'd be like 'Wanna come with?')

3. Write the word that you use to refer to these:

  • center of a peach - stone
  • tiny candies put on top of an ice cream cone or cupcake - sprinkles, Hundreds & Thousands>>

Here's my question:

Are these general features of Australians English?

I would say there's some oddities in them, particularly the first. In particular, I've never heard a normal Australian distinguish wine/whine, flour/flower (I'd be hard pressed to tell how in a non-rhotic accent!), bred/bread (but see other talk posts about that), libel/bible (I have no idea how this might be done), roil/royal or taut/taught (nor this), nor have I heard an Australian not distinguish bad/lad, not doing which sounds Kiwi (if as /bed/, /led/) or British, or furry/hurry. IOW, TMK my English is normal :) I'm a 20 year-old from Victoria, and here's my list of diffs (if different from one, it's included, so all disagreements should be listed. I hope):
  • wine and whine No
  • flour and flower No
  • the first vowel in furry and hurry Yes
  • the vowels in bad and lad Yes
  • bred and bread No
  • The i in libel and the i in Bible No
  • roil and royal No
  • taut and taught no
2. Do the following sentences sound okay to you? (Don't worry about "technically" correct grammar, just tell me if these sound allright in your opinion, or if you use them.)
  • We are in five. Yes (assuming you mean cinema number, else I have no idea what it means)
3. Write the word that you use to refer to these:
  • source of water over the sink or tub -- tap
  • center of a peach -- stone
  • tiny candies put on top of an ice cream cone or cupcake -- hundreds and thousands, sprinkles
  • small glowing insect visible after dark ?
Felix the Cassowary 02:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, there used to be a contrast between 'wine' and 'whine', with the latter having an aspirated 'w'. I think this woud be very rare nowadays. I remember when I was young (1960's) some old people having this contrast on (eg) witch/which. I think it's pretty well gone now, and even when it was around I suspect it was a high-prestige 'correctness' thing and not in common use. - Dougg 01:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralian_English_phonology_Archive_2_12b2.html"