Talk:Australian English phonology/Archive 1

edit; Archives and related discussion
Talk:Australian English
Talk:Australian English vocabulary
Wiktionary:Appendix talk:; Australian English vocabulary
Talk:Australian English phonology
Archive I	Archive II
Talk:Variation in Australian English

This is an archive of past discussions about Australian English phonology. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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.

Bad >> Bed: This is classic NZ accent. Oz is more like "baird" or perhaps "beared" as in "polar bear". They are quite different.
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.
Bid >> Bead: Oz: more like "beard" or "bi.i.i.id" - i.e., same as UK but say it really slowly. NZ, not sure.
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

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.
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?
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

Yes, diphthongs are vowels. The section should be retitled Vowels.

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.

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)

It's good to hear that you agree with me. So let's delete the misleading and diphthongs bit and rewrite the Phonology intro.
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.
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%)

I've fixed this section to indicate /ɐː/ instead of /aː/.
I've made it more concise by giving only percentages for /ɐː/ as opposed to /æ/ usage.
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)

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)