Talk:Non-native pronunciations of English

Brazilian Portuguese

Here are some of the changes which commonly occur when a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker attempt to pronounce English:

• /h/ is pronounced as the guttural R used by the speaker (see Guttural R#Portuguese). This can be [ʀ], [x], [χ], [r] or [h], depending on the dialect.
• Due to the absence of the dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ in Portuguese, the first is commonly pronounced as [f] or [t], while the second is usually pronounced as [d].
• Word-final "e" is commonly pronounced as [i]. Example: space [isˈpeɪ̯si].
• In syllable coda, /l/ is usually pronounced as [w] in many dialects. Example: all [ɔw].
• Word-initial /s/ followed by a consonant does not occur in Portuguese. Thus, an [i] is usually inserted before it. If followed by a voiced consonant, the /s/ is voiced. Examples: space [isˈpeɪ̯si], small [izˈmɔw].
• Some speakers retain the alveolar approximant pronunciation of /ɹ/ even if they lack this sound in their dialects, but other speakers pronounce it as either of the pronunciations of the letter "r" in Portuguese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.56.253 (talk • contribs)
• Due to the lack of lax vowels in Portuguese, changes include: /æ/ → /ɛ/, /ɪ/ → /i/ and /ʊ/ → /u/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.89.139.239 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but we can't put this in the article without sourcing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think those policies of sourcing should change. It will be difficult to find any source. I wrote this list after the changes I hear people doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.56.253 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should change change our polices simply because you find it difficult to go beyond what we call original research. However, if you do want to make a case for changing such policies, I suggest you go to WP:V or WP:RS and do so there. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In the external links, there is "A site collecting recordings of people from different areas reading the same paragraph". This site includes recordings from Brazilian Portuguese people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.89.139.239 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with using this site, the most damning IMHO is that most of these recordings provide no analysis. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

German - need sources

I copy pasted some reverted edits, which need sources. Help to find some and paste them into the article. A good source might be Systematische Aussprachefehler deutscher Muttersprachler im Englischen, which can be found on the internet --93.193.116.122 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Glottal Stop [ʔ] may be pronounced before word-inital vowels by speakers of German and Austrian German.
• Word-final voiced consonants /b d g v z/ are devoiced to sound like [p t k f s].
• /dʒ/ as initial sound is often pronounced as [ʒ]
• /dʒ/ as in jam may be devoiced (especially by speakers from southern Germany), being pronounced [tʃ].
• German does not have dental fricatives ([θ] and [ð]). Speakers may pronounce them [s] and [z], or less commonly [f] and [v] / [d].
• At word initial /s/ is sometimes pronounced [z] or vice versa. In German, both sounds are at word initial; some dialects even lack one of these phones completely.
• /æ/ is often pronounced [ɛ]
• The vowels [æ] and [e] are not distinguished: thus bed and bad sound the same.
• The ending -er in words like finger is usually pronounced [ɐ] instead of [ə].
• Speakers mostly do not velarize /l/ in coda positions as native speakers do.
• The German rhotic consonant varies from region to region so speakers from different areas will pronounce the English /ɹ/ differently:
  • Many German dialects, including most varieties of standard German, have a uvular fricative [ʁ] (or [χ] in devoiced pronounciation). These are pronounced at the back of the throat and may seem harsh or grating to native speakers of English.
  • German speakers may use an alveolar trill [r] as in Italian or Scottish.
  • Few German dialects use the same [ɹ] as native English speakers.
• German speakers may pronounce /w/ as [v]. Speakers may find it difficult to distinguish between /w/ and /v/, and may often substitute one for the other.
• Speakers have a difficulty in correctly stressing words derived from Latin. (German, as much as English, tends to stress the first syllable of a word. In Latin words with many syllables, however, it usually stresses the second last syllable, while English stresses the third last. Speakers therefore may say [kɔnsiˈkwɛnsi] for consequency, instead of [kɔnˈsiːkwənsi].)
• Tendency to replace [ŋɡ] with /ŋ/
• Yod-dropping even graver than in American English.

I have never heard Germans pronounce 'th' as [f], [v] or [d]. The next similar sounds are /s/ and /z/. Today's German learners of English do not have difficulties pronouncing 'th' itself, they rather have difficulties when having to pronounce it in certain constellations in words or phrases, e.g. 'this thing' is a big challenge for German native speakers, as far as I know. In addition, I would like to remark that yod-dropping is not a general effect for German native speakers if they know to pronounce words like, e.g., tune; the problem might be that the j is not written, so this is a phenomenon similar to that already included in the article for women or iron. 91.62.36.25 (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the confusion of /w/ and /v/: Paradoxically, German speakers tend to use /w/ instead of /v/. The reason is that German does not make any distinction between /w/ and /v/, or /v/ is often not the sound used (as we are told by dictionaries), but rather /ʋ/ (compare German Wikipedia: ‘Die Aussprache des Buchstabens w im Deutschen wird oft als [v] beschrieben, ist jedoch meist ein stimmhafter labiodentaler Approximant [ʋ]’ - ‘The pronunciation of the letter w in German is often described as [v], but is usually a voiced labiodental approximant [ʋ]’, de:Stimmhafter labiodentaler Frikativ). Therefore Germans do not only tend to confuse those sounds but are also often misunderstood by English native speakers who may perceive /ʋ/ as both /w/ or /v/. Younger speakers tend to use /w/ because it is the sound that they have learned in school to be used instead of their ‘German’ v/w when speaking English. Unfortunately, German schools concentrate on teaching the pronunciation of ‘th’, disregarding the v/w distinction. I could cite several online discussions in the LEO dictionary forums which analyze this mispronunciation aspect, however, as Aeusoes1 has pointed out somwhere down this page, online discussions are not good sources for Wikipedia. Do you know any other sources? -- 91.62.76.178 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian

The first sentence after the bullet points is unsourced: "In addition, Italians learning English have a tendency to pronounce words as they are spelled, so that walk is [wɒlk], guide is [ɡwid], and boiled is [ˈbɔɪlɛd]. This is also true for loanwords borrowed from English as water, which is pronounced [vatɛr] instead of [ˈwɔːtə]". In my experience, those pronunciations are not typical of Italian learners of English. In particular, I have never heard anyone pronounce water [vatɛr] (while that is the usual pronunciation of the Italian word "water", meaning toilet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.244.81 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Split into sections?

Would it make sense to have one section about common mispronunciations (and specify for each of these for what languages they are common) and another section about the specific mispronunciations associated with native speakers of French, German and so forth? - Tournesol (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, would it make sense to let each language have one section about mistakes due to lack of practice (e.g. French: /r/w/ trouble; German: velarization, vowel merges etc.; Hebrew: vowel discrimination; etc.) and one about mistakes due to lack of knowledge (e.g. French: vowel pronunciation, word stress; German: v/w confusion, phonetic spelling; Hebrew: stress system; etc.), i.e. things learners could simply learn by heart (and observably do)? 91.62.45.40 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The overview section would be a good place to put in information about general crosslinguistic tendencies.

I don't think it would make sense to try to parse whether a feature of a language is due to lack of practice or lack of ignorance. I don't think this is a parsing sources normally make anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

‘lack of ignorance’? ... As far as I am able to overpeer this topic, I think then it would make sense to even more split and subdivide this article, e.g. because there are different common mispronunciations made by European than by Asian native speakers. By the way, if you give an overview of general crosslinguistic tendencies, you should merge all non-native pronunciations in any language, i.e. create a new article (whith a subsection ‘Non-native pronunciations of English’) which can be extended for mispronunciations in any other language. 91.62.43.47 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of uncited claims, again

I have mass-removed uncited claims added to the article since I've been gone. Please remember that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it is quite difficult to find sources or evidence for most non-native pronunciations, most of which are simply recognized by native speakers. Instead of mass-removing content, you should do research instead whether the ‘claims’ are wrong or where to cite from to prove them if they are not. At least you could use this discussion page to challenge certain claims you do not agree with. 91.62.43.47 (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Supplemental: By the way, what is wrong with ‘German speakers substituting W for V in spoken English’? It is a language discussion page and it does show quite reliably a) that this issue exists (in both directions), b) that both English listeners and (the involved) German speakers know about its existence (do you need any further proof, i.e. a professional analysis, that it is done this way?) and c) that there is no commonly accepted explanation why ‘v’ is being pronounced /w/.

Unfortunately, if proper sources (of which an online discussion is not) can't be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not cover it. Lucky for both of us, that's false anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's specifications on which kind of source is proper and which is not. 91.62.43.47 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.25.194 (talk)