Talk:Non-native pronunciations of English/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

needs deletion or restructuring

read the sections and you'll notice the same things occurring again and again. if this article is not to be deleted entirely, it should be restructured along the lines of aspects of english pronunciation that differ from many/most other languages. obvious cases are

- dental fricatives - many vowels - voiced consonants at the ends of words - complex clusters at the ends of words ("strengths", "curbed", "sixths", etc.) - velarized l and r (or in general, a different way of pronouncing /r/)

in general, if language X doesn't have english sound Y in it, speakers of the language will tend to substitute the closest sound Z. likewise, if english sounds Y and Z are allophones of each other in language X, speakers of that language will confuse the two. no surprises here.

(imo, if this rearrangement is done, most of this article will be so obvious as to be superfluous)

Benwing 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)due

I think part of the problem is that most of the sections are stubs. Notable exceptions are Finnish and maybe German. The answer is to include more morphology (and possibly syntax) into the analysese not clump a bunch of languages into categories of what sounds they don't have. AEuSoes1 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What do the Finnish and German ones have that the Italian and Spanish ones don't? The German one for example, deals with a couple of grammatical issues which I think are not supposed to be in an article about pronunciations. Black1Night 10:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what I infer from the above, the title of the article is wrong. Off the top of my head a better title might be "Characteristics of English Usage by Non-Native English Speakers and Writers." This would allow the inclusion of grammatical and syntactical differences.

I do not agree that the article is too long. If anything it is too short and should be more comprehensive.

I found the grouping by country very helpful and sense that a grouping by language family would not be as helpful. I may be able to learn that a person whose use of English seems strange to my ears is from Nigeria. I would never be able to learn what that person's first language was and neither of us would know the family tree of that language.

To make a long story short, and I know that it is too late for that, I think the entry is extremely well written, very well organised and very helpful. I would not be changing any of it except to enhance it. JimCubb 04:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that something is wrong with the title. I don't know if it's because using "pronunciation" for something that includes morphology and syntax, because I recall a textbook that detailed the "pronunciation" of the phrase I gave him one in various mesolects of Guyanese Creole English even though the morphology and syntax obviously changed more than the phonology did (the table is here). I think it's just because it's awkward. Someone brought up a similar grievance at Anglophone pronunciations of foreign languages.

Characteristics of English Usage by Non-Native English Speakers and Writers is worse, in my opinion, because it is much more awkward and writing isn't really considered in this article. What about English of Non-native speakers? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Non-Native English" sounds reasonable since the article is rather general anyway. Perhaps deviding it into sub-categories for pronunciation, grammar etc. would be appropriate too. Reverned 11:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Audio samples

Is it not possible to make a standard text in English, with many different sounds in, to be read out by a native speaker of a certain language (with an obvious accent). It would be nice to have audio samples for each (most) accent(s), to serve as an example. Black1Night 10:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is possible, see the "external links" section @ the bottom of the page. You can find plenty of examples there. :) --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 12:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It may not be the ideal solution to have audio samples in an external link, but it will do. Black1Night 13:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-native or Nonnative?

User User:Wordlover169 has claimed that "non-native" is incorrect and it should be changed to :nonnative" (without the dash). A quick google search shows "non-native" to be more popular but both surpass a million hits. A google scholar search had similar results. Electronic dictionary searches that I did automatically redirected "non-native" to nonnative. Are both correct? If so, do we have any compelling reason to change it? AEuSoes1 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither is incorrect, but non-native is more clear. People might have to stare at nonnative for a split second before they figure out what it means, but non-native is instantly clear. —Keenan Pepper 23:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Danish, Norwegian

As mentioned earlier in this talk, Scandinavians generally have few inherent problem with English pronouncaition. But I know a common Danish/Norwegian flaw: problems with v/w. In general it is /w/ instead of /v/. Willage, wandalism, walue, wery, wehicle etc. Medico80 10:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare Non-native_pronunciations_of_English#Swedish, probably somewhat of a hypercorrection. 惑乱 分からん 02:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Danes also tend to pronounce a soft S sound after a T. I heard a radio announcement in which "Tell It To My Heart" sounded like Tsell It Tso My Hearts. Black1Night 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, must have been a lispering person, certainly not a common accent... 86.52.56.185

Esperanto

I know you're probably thinking "WTF?", but there are a few native speakers, and I am just curious, so if anyone has any idea, please add a sexion.Cameron Nedland 02:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I have to say this seems a strange idea to me. While you're right that there are some (though not many) native speakers, I doubt if there is anyone among them who is not bilingual (ie fluent in at least one other language). And since the phonetic inventory of an "average" indoeuropean language is probably slightly broader than the phonetic inventory of Esperanto, it seems likely that this "second" native language and not Esperanto would determine the difficulties he would have to face if he wanted to learn English as well. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 13:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, alright, sorry.Cameron Nedland 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, afaik, all native Esperanto speakers have picked it up from second language parents, so it's likely that the paremts' accent shines through just as much as unifying traits among Esperanto-speakers, themselves. 惑乱 分からん 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mozambique, Liberia, etc.

Mozambique is a country, not a language, and it's a multilingual country, to boot. I think it makes no sense to have sections for different countries in this article, because people from the same country may speak different languages, and therefore encounter different difficulties when they learn English. FilipeS 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, they're completely unsourced so don't be afraid to take 'em out. Keep the Indian subcontinent for now, though. AEuSoes1 21:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the section on Mozambique, but I felt I shouldn't delete the ones on Liberia and Nigeria, because they contain a lot of information. However, I still think it's a mistake to group foreign accents by country. At best, they should be grouped by language family. FilipeS 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, not a bad idea. Might take a bit of research. AEuSoes1 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How Italians pronunce the "th" sound

I'm Italian and I pronunce (and I've often heard to pronunce) the "th" sound in "thing" as an "f". Can I add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.83.80 (talk • contribs)

That's considered original research. Find a source that says italians do that and you can include it. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the Italian Wikipedia enough? http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronuncia_italiana_della_lingua_inglese

Of course not. It's unsourced there as well. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's unsourced. Why should an Italian look on Internet how they are supposed to pronunce English? However, do what you prefer, let the voice incomplete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.5.131.251 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia has a policy that requires every editor to cite sources for the facts they put into the articles, partly because it's the only possible way to improve the verifiability and hence the "reliability" (or at least the reliability "percieved" by the so called "experts" whose opinion [/and participation] is [/would be] very important for the project's leaders).

Anyway, the point I want to make is that if this substitution ([θ] -> [f]) is frequently used by Italians, you'll surely find tons of sources for that claim; if a standard google search doesn't yield anything useful, you might still try to look up the online versions of academic journals or search for them in public libaries. You just have to try it. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the source at the bottom of this article (which has voice recordings of speakers) shows that Italians don't do this frequently. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what kinds of sources are required, but in a linguistic forum where the question has been asked Italians, and English people too, have noticed the usage of [f] instead of [θ] among with the one of [t]. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=320620

I'm gonna say scholarly sources are desired. A forum doesn't even have the prestige that a website does. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Since a "scholarly source" is vital, could I know where they are for the recent modifications of the Japanese section?

EDIT: Oh, I have a good news. I found the web page: http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/russellm/ItalianEnglishReport/ItalianEnglish_report_v2.htm From the document: The /T/ sound was pronounced either [t] or [f], so we see: the word three (SBE /Tri:/) three_E.wav pronounced [fri] three_f_I.wav by 7 children; but [tri] by 5 children. Note that both these result in alternative words (free and tree), so are potentially non-trivial errors. Some even used different pronunciations in the same word on different occasions: The word three was pronounced [Tri] when pronounced in isolation, but [fri] when part of the phrase three old books by 2 of the 12 speakers. The final sound in bath was most often, correctly [T] bath_E.wav , but sometimes either [f] bath_f_I.wav (4/13) or [t] bath_t_I.wav (3/13).

Sounds good to me. There might even be some extra information there too. Be sure to source it at the bottom. Most of what has been recently included in the Japanese section goes in accord with with descriptions of Japanese phonotactics and phonology. I suppose some of it, since it's unsourced, can go. I held the Italian thing to a higher standard because, as I said before, the examples in the link at the bottom of the page don't demonstrate the phenomenon. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some extra information taken from the source. If you think there's something more to add, you can add it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.8.143.139 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Finnish

No, Finns are not dumb, for God's sake! EVERYONE pronounces the bilabial plosive VOICED.. maybe some old people don't, and them being the "majority".. oh well, let's give people the wrong idea.. --84.249.253.201 00:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the ability to reliably perceive and [re]produce a certain sound not found in the phonetic inventory of your native tongue is strongly correlated with your IQ (or that the size of the phonetic inventory of a language is related to the intelligence of the people who speak it). The external links at the bottom of the article might give you examples of Finnish speakers that devoice their bilabial plosives, sometimes even word-initially (eg. http://accent.gmu.edu/searchsaa.php?function=detail&speakerid=177 > see the phonetic transcription of bring; the under-ring below the IPA symbol tells you that the sound is slightly devoiced [though not aspirated - so it's not a real English p;]). --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 15:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian example is a little off...

"/h/ may be pronounced as a voiced velar plosive [g] so that Hitler may be [gʲi.tlʲɛr]." Why Hitler? Since when is Hitler an English word? It's a German surname right? I've changed it to reflect a true and indisputible English word. Peter1968 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking. "Hitler" was an actual example in a book but you're right, it's a German loanword. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds

Much of this article is based on this idea that people can't learn new sounds that don't exist in their native language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.32.47 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Close, it's based on the idea that people have difficulty learning new sounds that don't exist in their native language. I'd like to think that it's more complicated than that since, for example, I don't have the affricate [ts] in my inventory but that's a lot easier to learn (for me anyway) than the alveolopalatal fricative ([ɕ]) or palatal lateral ([ʎ]. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO this article is a candidate for deletion because it's stating as fact a series of tendencies and assumptions - many of these claims might only be true at certain stages of accent acquisition. You cannot make a blanket claim, for instance, that since Japanese lacks /v/, then speakers are going to produce [b]. Furthermore, linguistic research does rather suggest nowadays that what's difficult is not what's absent from your first language, but what's similar - you then have difficulty recognising a distinction. Jsteph 10:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you've got a source, then by all means use it. While most of this article is unsourced, that assumption is not. You can even check the link at the bottom and see how speakers actually pronounce things (although there is a literacy bias in it). Also, the Russian section (in this article as well as in Anglophone pronunciation of foreign languages) is fairly well sourced.

I believe you misunderstand what qualifies for Deletion. Check the link. What you're asking for is a fact check, which has been around for the last two years at least already. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Steven Weinberger's useful website is linked to - a resource I've used myself in the past. The only problem is that, although you could make very broad generalisations, the speakers actually pronounce things in individual, differing ways (e.g. these two Boston accents [1][2] showing that native speakers differ, and these two Japanese learners of English [3][4]; again very different despite similar backgrounds). As Weinberger points out in an interview here [5], it very much depends on such variables as background demographics, not just 'interference' from the first language. To that could be added test conditions and native speaker prejudices (e.g. 'comedy' accents). Jsteph 09:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very much depends on the speakers' background. And a large part of that background is made up of their native language. What's your point? FilipeS 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You linked twice to the same Boston speaker, but you are apparantly not aware that there are probably a a few distinct Boston accents. Both Japanese speakers have difficulty with /l/ and /r/, difficulty with dental fricatives, and difficulty with consonant clusters. One seems a little more advanced and in some ways both their vowels are all over the place. See, I just made generalizations. Now, looking at Japanese phonology I see that Japanese has just one phoneme similar to /l/ and /r/, a CV syllable structure, and no dental fricatives.

The website has one major flaw that makes it not a totally good source and that is that all these speakers are reading rather than speaking casually. Certainly this page needs more sourcing, but this page is founded upon a sound and cited assumption and you've provided no sources to contradict it (your misreading of that interview does not count as a source). Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Flemish !

One of the major differences between Dutch, spoken in the Netherlands, and Dutch, spoken in Belgium (Flanders), is the realisation of foreign (especially English) sounds. The most important one is the so-called "spellingsuitspraak" (spelling pronunciation). Whereas Dutch people pick the closest related standard language vowel to [ɶ], namely [ɛ], Flemish people read this vowel as if it were Dutch, in this case [ɑ]. Other differences concern the [ʃ] and [ʒ], which Flemish can pronounce, but Dutch not. Dutch say something like [sʲ], and [zʲ]. Some Flemish TV-channels (like the commercial channel VTM) even use this different pronunciation in their news broadcasts. I think it would be a good idea to split up "Dutch" into "Dutch" (Netherlands) and "Dutch" (Flanders), or "Dutch" (Belgium).

This list of differences is not complete, but it should give you an idea of my arguments.

80.200.13.73 18:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

often pronounce the /ɶ/ like they would do if it was a Dutch word. So, depending on the dialect, they say either /ɑ/ (standard) or /a/ (in Brabantic dialects, like the Antwerp one). This phenomenon is called "spellinguitspraak" ("spelling pronunciation").

I'm a little confused. It sounds as though you are saying that English has [ɶ] and Flemish speakers pronounce it as [ɛ]. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

German

The notes are a bit misleading. An initial [s] appears in a few German words like <Sex>. Though a loanword phonemically, it's still not exactly an unusual word for a native speaker, so most native German speakers are capable of forming an initial [s]. Also, isn't the <r> Rammstein uses uvular? It'd be a bit odd to find an alveolar trill in a native German speaker's pronunciation (though I'm sure someone someone speaks a German dialect that uses alveolar trills rather than uvular ones). The reason Germans are likely to pronounce <qu> as /kv/ is also connected to realising <w> as /v/ rather than /w/ -- <qu> is realised somewhat along the lines of /kw/ ([w] being a semi-vowel and all that). If you already realise /w/ as [v], it's not a far step to realising /kw/ as [kv]. 91.0.116.92 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Latvian

so talking about announcing changes on talk page; I deleted a line stating that there is a difficulty distinguishing definite and indefinite articles (a/the) which I can't recall having heard ever, I think the presence of definite/indefinite adjectives in Latvian might be a reason (for the ability to use the/a properly), whereas not being able to distinguish def./indef. adjectives in Latvian is one of the most frequent errors native Russian speakers commit, so I think this should be atributed to Russian (and similar languages), so I deleted it and substituted with the good ole ð > d, this is a staple, (unless they pronounce it like "z" how the older generations were tought to pronounce it during soviet era). Okyea 13:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Items not directly related to pronunciation

I have removed from the article the following items, which are valuable in themselves, but belong elsewhere, since the present article is concerned with "Non native pronunciations of English" (my emphasis).

[Removed items >]

Grammar differences (for example the lack or surplus of tense, number, gender etc.) in different languages often lead to grammatical mistakes that are telltale signs of their native language. Sometimes non-verbal body language, facial expressions, or other cues also give away the origin of the speaker.

(re Bosnian / Croatian / Serbian:)

• Difficulty with gender pronouns, because personal pronouns may be used for normally gender-neutral inanimate objects as well (like in English) but with a gender different from the one used in English. For example, English ship is usually neuter but can sometimes be feminine while it is masculine in Štokavian).
• Difficulty with articles such as "a" and "the" as they do not exist in Štokavian languages; the closest approximations are demonstrative adjectives like "some" or "one" and "that".

(re Bulgarian:)

• Sometimes "he" or "she" is used where "it" should.
• Overuse of definite articles, especially in phrases whose Bulgarian equivalents require articles, like "the Bulgarians usually..." instead of "Bulgarians usually..."

(re Cantonese:)

• Difficulty with verb tenses and plurals in general, as they have no direct equivalence in Chinese grammar.
• Speakers may have difficulty with pronoun gender: (he, she, and it) since spoken Chinese does not make gender distinction in pronouns (although these words have different hànzì).
• Introducing end-of-sentence particles that are non-existent in English (this occurs primarily in informal writing rather than in speech).

(re Dutch:)

• Use of the present continuous/progressive ("-ing") rather than simple present: "He has a car" becomes "He is having a car."

(re Finnish:)

• There may be an absence of the word "please". In Finnish, politeness generally comes from tone of speech and the use of formal pronouns. The expression "ole/olkaa hyvä" (for "please") is generally used only in formal settings or when stressing a specific issue politely.
• In Finnish, there is only one pronoun for "he" and "she," and needing to remember to distinguish the two can cause slip-ups. There are also no articles like "the" and "a" and Finns may have difficulty remembering to include them when speaking.

(re German:)

• Inappropriate use of "he/she" pronouns for animals and inanimate objects. (German nouns have grammatical gender, so a foot is a "he", a child an "it", and a newspaper a "she".)
• Especially beginners tend to say "it gives" instead of "there is" / "there are", which is the literal translation.
• Saying "I stand up" instead of "I get up (from sleeping)" - German for getting up is "ich stehe auf," or literally, "I stand up."
• Saying "a friend of me" instead of "a friend of mine." German is "ein Freund von mir."
• Saying "can I become [sth.]" instead of "can I have [sth.]?". This is because the German word bekommen (to obtain, to get) looks and sounds similar to the English to become. This may result in odd questions such as "can I become a beefsteak?".
• Saying "I ask this question for many years and I don't get a response" instead of "I have been asking this question for many years and I haven't got(ten) a response." In German, present tense can be used to describe processes that have begun in the past and are still unfinished in the present as English present perfect tense does. The German version would be "Ich stelle diese Frage seit Jahren und bekomme keine Antwort".

(re Indic languages:)

• Use of the present continuous/progressive ("-ing") rather than simple present: "He has a car" becomes "He is having a car."
• The use of the double-positive, "Yeah, right," which in colloquial native English is a flippant way of saying "No" but to an Indian speaker of English is merely a double affirmation of correctness
• Use of "isn't it?" in place of all other tag questions: "He is tall, isn't it?"
• Vocabulary variations: "stay" or "sit" instead of "live" (in a particular place), "cabin" instead of "office", "sit with" for "have a meeting with".
• Hindi speakers tend to translate more idiomatic or syntactically foreign phrases into English word-for-word; for example when someone says "बैठो, न?" that translates to "sit, no?" or "sit, न?". Another example would be the use of the word "only" where in Hindi one would say "मैने ही कीया" which would translate directly to "I only did it" where it should be "I did it."

(re Korean:)

• May reverse "yes" and "no" for a negative question. This is because the Korean words for "yes" and "no" are similar to "That's right" and "That's wrong" respectively. ("Didn't you bring your book?" "Yes, I didn't" meaning "You're right, I didn't.")

(re Mandarin Chinese:)

• Speakers may have difficulty with pronoun gender: (he, she, and it) since spoken Chinese does not make gender distinction in pronouns (although these words have different hànzì).

(re Nigerian languages:)

• Words from Nigerian languages are often injected into speech.
• Questions are sometimes constructed as a statement followed by "sha" and a rising tone. Another way of constructing a question is to use "shebi" or "abi" as a marker at the beginning of the sentence.
• The meanings of "no" and "yes" are reversed for negative questions relative to standard English ("Yes, I have no bananas"). People often say "I'm coming" as they go away, meaning they'll be back soon.

• re Polish:)
• A few commonly used false friends, most prominently "actually" with intended meaning of "currently".
• Problems with articles, since Polish does not have them.
• Inappropriate use of "he/she" pronouns for animals and inanimate objects.

(re Portuguese:)

• • "Deception" used when the intended word was "disappointment."
  • "Actual" used when the intention was "current."
  • "To pretend" used when the intention was "to intend."
  • "push" may be confused with "pull" because puxar means "to pull" in Portuguese.
• A common mistake is to use the word "nothing" instead of "anything" because in Portuguese both concepts are expressed by the same word ("nada"). An example: "I didn't do nothing" when one intends to say "I didn't do anything".

(re Romanian:)

• Common mistakes due to Romanian cognates with different meanings ("false-friends"):
  • "Eventually" used when the intended word was "probably."
  • "Actual" used when the intention was "current."
• Some speakers may have difficulty in using prepositions. Romanian is an inflected language and use of prepositions is less extensive than in English. While English prepositions modify the meaning of verbs, in Romanian there are separate words for each meaning (e.g. "go in" = "a intra", "go out" = "a ieşi", "go away" = "a pleca", "go ahead" = "a continua".)
• A significant number of Latinate words have identical or very similar spelling in Romanian and English, making pronunciation confusing.

(re Russian:)

• Inappropriate use of “he”/“she” when referring to animals or inanimate objects.
• Difficulty with articles such as “a” and “the”.

(re Swedish:)

• Occasional difficulty in verb conjugations (e.g. "they is" etc.). Swedish verbs do not inflect for person.

(re Tagalog:)

• Speakers may mix up "he," "she," and "it." Tagálog does not distinguish gender in pronouns.

(re Turkish:)

• Turkish lacks any grammatical gender, so a female person may be accidentally referred to as "he" and a male as "she".

[< Removed items]

These are all valuable points -- but they do not belong here. == Picapica 19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For those wishing to discuss this issue, there is a conversation here. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)