Talk:Non-native pronunciations of English

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brazilian Portuguese[edit]

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

Hello. I know the difficulties of Brazilian leaners, but I do not have sources. Of course, we can tell the English sounds that Portuguese lacks, such as /θ, ð/ and the vowels /æ, ʌ, ɒ, ɪ, ʊ/, according to Portuguese phonology. Anyway, here are the difficulties.

  • Brazilian speakers have problems with consonants that are not existing in Portuguese.
    • /ŋ/ is replaced with [nɡ] before vowels. "singer" is pronounced /singə/.
    • /ŋ/ in the words that end with "ng" is not pronounced.
    • /θ, ð/ is replaced with [t, d]. Advanced learners say [f, v] with the tongue between the teeth, while the sound is not mastered.
    • /t/ is not aspirated in Portuguese. The aspirated "t" may be understood as /ts/ or /tʃ/. Since Portuguese lacks /ts/, /tʃ/ is more common.
  • The English vowels are different from Portuguese vowels:
    • /æ/ is replaced with [ɛ], so that "bag" sounds like "beg" [bɛɡ].
    • /ɪ/ is replaced with /i/ and there is difficulty to distinguish /iː/ and /ɪ/, because Portuguese lacks vowel length.
    • /ʊ/ is replaced with /u/.
    • /ɒ/ is replaced with /ɔ/.
    • /ʌ/ is replaced with [a] or [ɔ], so that "up" is pronounced [ap] and "love" is pronounced [lɔv].
    • Portuguese lacks /ə/, but this sound is easily learned.
  • Minor errors. Advanced learners do not have these problems, because they are easy to learn.
    • Brazilian speakers may pronounce consonant-final English words (excluding s, z, r and l) with an additional /i/ in the end, "love" may be pronounced /'lɔvi/.
    • They may add /i/ in the beginning of words that start with "s" followed by consonant.
    • Portuguese lacks [ɹ], but Brazilian speakers learn it easily.
    • Some starter errors are related to Portuguese orthography.
      • They may replace "r" with /h/ in words where it is not between vowels.
      • They may replace "l" with /w/ in words where it is not followed by a vowel.
      • They may replace /tʃ/ in "ch" with /ʃ/ and /dʒ/ in "j" with /ʒ/.
      • They may replace /ti/ with /tʃi/ and /di/ with /dʒi/.
      • The "k" in "kn". "knight" may be pronounced /knaɪt/.

Torneira (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify: is final /ŋ/ really "not pronounced" (sing → [sĩ], with nasal vowel) or does it become /n/? —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German - need sources[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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.[1]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
All of what was written in the deleted text, was correct. Many younger German speakers for example say "sumfing" for "somethign" (because they can't say th right, but want to avoid the more sigmatizing "sumssing".) If German native speakers and English speakers who have been in contact with Germans write a section like this together, I don't see why you want other sources, especially not other sources from the internet, which are usually less trustful than wikipedia. The section should be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.214.186.43 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, I do say " sumpin' ", ain't dat right? 89.71.157.40 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, agree, pronouncing th as s is something very old-fashioned. Heinz Rühmann does it when he plays Father Brown ("Missis Smiss")... and we would all agree that f is a good deal nearer on the thing sound, and d is a good deal nearer on the this sound in any case? But yes, Germans by now seem to have learned the th well enough, but this thing put together is still a tongue-twister. They may pronounce it with the actual English th sounds, but twice the same; and not because they don't know which each one would be, but because the sounds are in so close proximity.--2001:A61:20E7:E901:2CA8:8671:4253:DC86 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jeffers & Lehiste (1979:140)

Italian[edit]

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)[reply]

Split into sections?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
‘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)[reply]

Removal of uncited claims, again[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]

Polish[edit]

Here are some "mistakes" that Polish people often make when speaking English. I don't have any sources for it, but feel free to put it into the article when you find some. Of course all of this is mainly about people without good knowledge about English phonology. Have fun.

1. /æ/, /ɛ/ and /ə/ (the latter when it's written "e") merge as [ɛ]. Example: bad and bet [bɛt̪].
2. /ʌ/, /ɑː/ and /ɒ/ merge as [ä]. Example: strut [ˈs̪t̪ɹät̪], father [ˈfäd̻ɛɹ] and got [ˈgɔt̪]. Vast majority of Poles subconsciously consider American English, which most speakers of are father-bother merged, a standard form of the language. It's also quite common to pronounce STRUT with [ä], and FATHER and GOT with [äː], a longer version of the same vowel. Words with GOT can as well be merged with THOUGHT as [ɔ], depending on the speaker. Some speakers may even merge all of STRUT, FATHER, GOT and THOUGHT as [ä] (or pronounce STRUT as [ä], and merge FATHER, GOT and THOUGHT as [äː].)
3. /ʊ/ and /uː/ merge as [u]. Examples: foot [ˈfut̪], goose [ˈgus̪].
4. /ɪ/ and /iː/ merge as [i] OR /ɪ/ is pronounced [ɘ] (as Polish "y") and /iː/ is pronounced [i] (as Polish "i"). Examples: bit and beat (1) both [ˈbʲit̪], (2) [ˈbɘt̪] and [ˈbʲit̪]. The first variant resembles some South African and Australian dialects, while the second one resembles New Zealand English.

5. /ɔː/ is shorter and a little more open: [ɔ]. Example: thought [ˈfɔt̪] / [ˈt̪ɔt̪]. It can also merge with STRUT, FATHER and GOT, as written above.
6. /ɜːɹ/ has a lot of possible realisations, notably [ɛɹ] (the most common one), [ɔɹ] and [uɹ]. Example: nurse [ˈn̻ɛɹs̻]. This somehow resembles Irish English, but it's very unlikely that a Pole would use [iɹ] in bird. It would be realised as [ˈbɛɹt̪].

7. /aɪ/ is pronounced [aj], with a strong off-glide. Example: like [ˈlajk].
8. /aʊ/ is pronounced [aw], with a strong off-glide. Example: mouse [ˈmaws̪].
9. /eɪ/ is pronounced [ɛj], with a strong off-glide. Example: day [ˈd̪ɛj]. This somehow resembles some southern English dialects.
10. /ɔɪ/ is pronounced [ɔj], with a strong off-glide. Example: choice [ˈt͡ʂɔjs̪].
11. /oʊ/ is pronounced [ɔw], with a strong off-glide. Example: go [gɔw].

12. /ɪəɹ/ is pronounced [iɹ]. Example: near [ɲiɹ]. This resembles mirror-nearer merger of American English.
13. /ɛəɹ/ is pronounced [ɛɹ]. Example: square [ˈs̪kwɛɹ]. This resembles American English.
14. /ʊəɹ/ is pronounced [uɹ]. Example: pure [ˈpjuɹ].

15. /t/, /d/, /n/, /s/, /z/ are dental [t̪], [d̪], [n̪], [s̪], [z̪], not alveolar like in vast majority of English dialects. This resembles, at least regarding /t/ and /d/, some South African dialects.
16. Vast majority of Polish speakers (rather - ~99% of people who haven't studied English phonology) do not aspirate /k/, /p/, /t/ and /tʃ/. Example: key [kʲi]. This resembles South African English.
17. Poles very often devoice voiced word-final consonants. Unlike the vast majority of English native speakers who devoice them, Polish speakers very seldom lengthen the vowel before the word-final voiced consonant (as perceived by a native speaker). That makes bed and bet (and very often also bad and bat) to be pronounced exactly the same - [bɛt̪]
18. /ŋ/ is pronounced [ŋg] inside the word, and [ŋk] word-finally. Examples: singer [ˈs̪ʲiŋgɛɹ], doing [ˈd̻uwĩŋk].
19. /l/ is always clear [l], but can sometimes be dental [l̪]. This somehow resembles most dialects of Irish English.
20. /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /tʃ/, /dʒ/ are somehow retroflex, sounding harder and are not palatalized - [ʂ], [ʐ], [t͡ʂ], [d͡ʐ]. 21. Voiceless consonants can, by assimilation, be pronounced as fully voiced, for example Blackburn [ˈblɛgbɛɹn̪] 22. [i] often causes the preceeding consonant to palatalize. Example need [ɲit̪].
23. Very few people use alveolar trill or alveolar tap in place of alveolar approximant. Most Poles are able to produce it.
24. Very few people (~1% people who haven't studied English phonology) actually have any idea of the existence of /θ/ and /ð/, believing /ɹ/ is the only one sound that is different from the sounds of their language. The th's can be either fronted, merging with [f], [v], or dentally stopped, merging with [t̪], [d̪]. The most popular is fronted-stopped "mixture", that is [f] for /θ/, and [d̪] for /ð/. Very few people may as well merge them with [s̪], [z̪], but that's rather restricted to those, whose first or second language is German.

If only our bloody schools could teach proper English, nevermind the correct pronunciation...
--89.76.168.131 (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I didn't learn English phonology (at least formally, in any educational institutions) but most of the pupils in our (village-based) school had an idea of existence of correct pronunciations of 'th'. Of course, not everyone in the primary school could produce those sounds closely enough to the native pronunciation. However in the uni, 99% could reproduce the right sounds (and I didn't study English phonology ;) ). Quite often sheer knowledge about phonology doesn't come together with the performance in actual speech situations, when other elements of speech are considered more important for communication (grammar, idiomatic usages, choosing proper vocabulary for more nuanced meaning etc.) Ralphhalgas (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"However in the uni, 99%"
Opinion:
I am very skeptical about that.
I had the pleasure to take English classes at a technical university two years ago. The majority did not distinguish th and f, and some (I had the dubious pleasure of taking the exam in pair with such a person) even pronounced English vowels (and silent consonants) as you would reading in Polish {enołght} [also before you assume something - he did pass].
So I belive that we would need a GOOD source for any claims in the today vs that's no longer the case.
On another hand:
You could probably add to the list above: The vowel length indistinction (Polish language had lost vowel length distinction somewhere around Old-Middle period - that lack of distinction then carries on to Polish pronunciation of English) - again it need's sources. Which will be a bit problematic due to the fact that Poles commonly accept the prescriptive linguistic approach. That means that the "mistakes" are rarely documented. Dialects are "peasant speech" (you could argue nowadays there is a bit more tolerance of the dialects existence - there is still very long road ahead of us in this aspect) and the non-trill 'r' realization is a speech defect. 31.182.222.158 (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch[edit]

I recently came with a Dutch section. A fair part can be proven by a source with audible pronunciation examples of English with a Dutch accent soon. Some Dutch dialects have sounds that also exist in English but not in Standard Dutch (according to the phonology of English and Dutch) Hans Kamp (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your sources and must say that they are not sufficient to back up the claims made.
  1. An audio sample is not sufficient to back up claims made about dialects. This would constitute original analysis of a primary source, which is a no-no. So the Youtube examples are out.
  2. This article formerly had a lot of entries that took the assumption that if language A didn't have sounds of language B, that a native speaker of language A would have trouble with those sounds. This is not necessarily the case and, again, constitutes an original research problem of original synthesis.
  3. It is easy for non-experts to make claims about languages, and for experts to go beyond their research to make unsupported generalizations. This is why the best sources are of linguistic analyses of second-language learners. Most of the sources backing up claims in this article are reports of such research. The Martijn Boersma and Marco Schuffelen webpages are out. The Eileen Fiss article is also pretty low on the scale of sources we'd like to see; I could see it augmenting more rigorous studies, but I think it's insufficient by itself. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian pronunciation[edit]

As Italian I can say most of the section about Italian pronunciation is correct, but we generally don't pronounce apple as [æppel]. We generally pronounce it as [ɛppol]. We also pronounce water as [wɔter], with [e], and not [ɛ] (as in all other words of the list). Here are other informations:

  • The diphthong [eɪ] can sometimes be pronounced as [ɛ], like in David [dɛvid], bacon [bɛkon], compilation [kompilɛʃʃon] and Amy [ɛmi], but not always (Dave is pronounced [deiv]).
  • [ʌ] is generally pronounced [a], but it's pronounced [ɛ] in club [klɛb], rugby [rɛgbi] and curry [kɛrri]. Club can be pronounced [klab] as well, and rugby can be pronounced [ragbi] (but very rarely), and punch is pronounced [pantʃ] or [pɔntʃ].
  • [ʃ] is pronounced [ʃː]. The o in suffixes like -tion, -sion, -ssion, -son, -ton etc. is pronounced.
  • O's are usually pronounced [ɔ], so stop is pronounced stawp.--95.253.102.168 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced and unsourced data[edit]

I have not been aware of this article for long, but there seems to be a common theme in some of the comments on the talk page: this is that there is no available research material on the subject of errors made by native speakers of a particular language, so it should be acceptable instead to use anecdotal or unsourced data. I would like to point out that there are thousands of postgraduate theses and dissertations produced by students of applied linguistics and English language teaching which cover exactly this topic for a wide range of different languages. I lost count long ago of the number that I have examined. Some of these studies get published as books or journal articles but most of them are kept in university libraries. I don't know what WP policy is on such theses, but it is usually accepted in the academic world that if a thesis is succesfully submitted and defended it counts as having been published. It is not difficult to use bibliographic searches to track these down. I am strongly opposed to having unsupported claims about learner errors in an article like this that could well be read as basic source material by students. RoachPeter (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, Peter. In addition to dissertations and theses (which are totally acceptable), there are also oodles of journal articles that do studies of this sort of thing.
I have removed uncited claims that have accumulated since I last saw this page. I also removed the claim that Portuguese speakers may make their vowels "voiceless or reduced to secondary articulation of consonants" because the source provided did not back up the claim. Rather, it provided some phonetic features of Portuguese. The assumption motivating the use of this citation is that Portuguese speakers would be likely to transfer this trait to their English speech. This is seems reasonable, but we can’t really rely on inference for these sorts of claims. We would need a phonetic study on Brazilian Portuguese speakers learning English. Similarly, I have removed the following claims
  • Portuguese is more aspirated than Spanish (source) but less so than English, and its aspirated stops might be in post-stressed syllables, which is highly unusual for English.
  • The claim for Portuguese about epenthetic [i] (this source isn’t reliable and this source is not about ESL.
  • The claim that German speakers realize / as [. The source (Windsor Lewis, Jack (12 November 2006). "The Bleck Hendbeg Problem". Homepage of Jack Windsor Lewis. Retrieved 28 July 2014.) is talking about loanwords into German, which is close, but does not speak to whether speakers actually have difficulty with the sound when speaking English.
I was unable to corroborate a suspicious claim about Portuguese that certain vowels vowels might be breathy-voiced because I can’t access the source used for this, but it appears to be an introductory linguistics textbook (Callou, Dinah. Leite, Yonne. "Iniciação à Fonética e à Fonologia". Jorge Zahar Editor 2001, p. 20). Could someone help out with this?
I also made a few other changes that I can explain upon request. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~srp/portphon12.pdf actually does imply (pages 4 and 5) Portuguese speakers (it comments on both Brazilians and Portuguese, but says nothing about these traits being specific to Portugal) devoice their unstressed vowels or that [u] (and possibly [i]) are often reduced to secondary articulation, but it's indeed not about ESL and it's not in-depth. (So much that I wouldn't use this source, for example, to claim that Portuguese has allophonic syllabic consonants.) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French[edit]

The claim that French speakers "have trouble distinguishing between /r/ and /w/" is incorrect. The French do have troubles pronouncing English /r/ but I don't know any French speaker who confuses the two sounds.

And I think that it is excessive to say that French speakers "systematically" drop the /h/.

On the other hand, many typical elements of a French accent (ignorance of the notions of stress and reduced vowels, vowel confusions ([i] for /i/ and /ɪ/, [u] for /u/ and /ʊ/, [a] for /æ/ and [œ] for /ʌ/), no aspiration for /p/, /t/ and /k/, etc.) would be more relevant for this article, but these are not supported by proper sources. — ColinWillis (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recall noticing both features in an interview with Philippe Petit. Our anecdotal experiences are going to be varied, which is part of the reason why sources are so important. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my "anecdotal experience" is being French and speaking English almost every day with my numerous French colleagues. But I concede that it's just one pair of ears! — ColinWillis (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent, inaccurate and incomplete information[edit]

The information provided in the article and on the talk page is terribly hit-or-miss. Are we really to believe that there is only one typical English pronunciation error made by Arabic-speakers, regardless of where they come from in the Arabic-speaking world? And at least one of the above comments (on Dutch errors) is by a native Dutch-speaker, who betrays the fact by a terribly unidiomatic opening sentence ('I recently came with a Dutch section', which can only mean he had an orgasm as he read it). The result of all this is a great deal of inconsistent, inaccurate and incomplete information, which is confusing rather than helpful to readers.80.60.103.23 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally inaccurate and misleading to equate articles with their talk pages, as they're clearly not the same thing. In case of the latter, as long as the discussion is on topic, the lack of sources and unidiomatic English shouldn't be anybody's concern, which cannot be said about articles. If you see bad English in articles, just fix it (see WP:NNS), but remember that you shouldn't do the same with comments on talk pages (see WP:TPO), nor should you even comment on unidiomatic English used there (see WP:NPA and, again, WP:NNS).
I don't know how you came up with the idea that the lists are exhaustive - of course they aren't. As long as you have the citations (see WP:OR), go ahead and add the pronunciation errors yourself. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I for one would not oppose a tag calling for expansion. Until we actually have more exhaustive information, that may satisfy the anon's concerns. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither would I. Tagged. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contrastive stress[edit]

In the section on Catalan the example "with sugar or without sugar? (the second sugar is more heavily stressed)" strikes me as confusing and quite possibly inaccurate. If this means that heavier stress on the second "sugar" is correct English, I would strongly disagree; and if it means that Catalan-speakers wrongly stress the second "sugar", I'd frankly be very surprised. In every language I've ever learned, it's the words for "with" and "without" that are stressed in sentences such as these, and Catalan is surely no exception: in "amb sucre o sense sucre?" it would be utterly illogical to stress anything but the prepositions "amb" and "sense". In fact, the stress on "without" is often so strong that the second sugar is simply omitted: "with sugar or without?" The only time I can imagine the second "sugar" being stressed is when you say "with or without sugar?" - but then "sugar" is of course no longer the second one! An alternative phrasing is "with sugar or without?", and here again it's the prepositions that get stressed. What I find I do when saying "with sugar or without sugar?" is keep the pitch relatively high throughout the sentence, but then lower it on the second "sugar" - precisely because of the stress on "without". In any case, neither "sugar" is stressed - all that changes is the pitch, which is of course something else. Anyway, why would this be a specifically Catalan error?188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weird example. The source also lists greenhouse vs green house, blackbird vs black bird. Would one of those be better? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Section on the pronunciation by the Germans[edit]

My edits to the section on the Germans were removed. As I have neither time nor inclination to go into research to find sources for what I know to be true, and I trust at least the well-informed Wikipedia reader knows that if he actually wants to know something he needs to go to the talk page - and also to give those patient editors ideas who may be wanting to look for the sources and re-insert - here goes:

  • [German speakers having a very German accent tend to realise /w/ as /v/ when speaking English.[26][27].] Most German speakers however know the difference between an English /w/ and a German one (that is, a /v/) and the peculiarly English sound of the former, and so tend, on the contrary, hypercorrectly realise a /v/ as a /w/ when speaking English (especially in near proximity to a /w/).
  • [The German /r/ is realised differently from the English /r/. Whereas in the former case the tongue touches the soft palate, in the latter case it does not.[26]] However, Germans usually do pronounce an /r/, when speaking English, in an English (American) way, and tend to be rhotic about it, except for the following:
  • Germans, even if well educated in English, pronounce the ending /ər/ (as in letter) as [ɐ] as in their native German ("lettuh").
  • Germans lesser educated in English may vocalize /r/ to [ɐ] in other places as they would in German, except after [ɑ]: there [ðɛ:ɐ], fear [fi:ɐ], more [mɔ:ɐ] (or even [mɔɐ]), pure [pçu:ɐ].

I was going to add:

  • Germans usually pronunce the schwa as a brief vowel of the quality the way it is written, except if written with e, in which case it remains a schwa. So a /ʌ/, not /ɘ/ (indefinite article), about /ʌ'baʊt/ (not /ɘ'baʊt/), national /'næʃɔnæl/ or more rarely /'næʃɔnʌl/, not /'næʃɘnɘl/ and by way of exception Ms /mi:z/, not /mɘs/, because there's stress upon this schwa and the word is clearly not "Mess" and intentionally specifically not "Miss".
  • The sound [ɒ] does not exist in German and is not usually used when speaking English, even by well-educated speakers. A convenient way of pronouncing it is to use the General American pronunciation of the words in question; Germans intent on sounding British will, in all cases, replace it with /ɔ/.--2001:A61:20B0:7601:1C67:38FD:1743:DA78 (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can find sources backing up the uncited claims, they are welcome to re-add them to the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

imperfectly learning[edit]

I have removed the phrase "imperfectly learning" from this article. I am aware that there are major paradigmatic differences between those who are influenced by traditional (e.g. Chomskyan, theoretical, etc) linguistics vs, say applied linguists, and it may be that the person who wrote this had a particular understanding of the Chomskyan 'ideal native speaker-hearer' in mind. But referring to the speech of non-native speakers as "imperfect" does not reflect most current scientific thinking by contemporary work by scholars who research pronunciation and intelligibility. In fact, Southwood and Fledge (1999) refer to 'foreign accent' explicitly as "non-pathological speech produced by second language learners that differs in partially systematic ways from the speech characteristics of native speakers of a given dialect" (https://doi.org/10.1080/026992099299013). Similarly, Munro and Derwing (1995) define "accentedness" as "a listener’s perception of how different a speaker’s accent is from that of the L1 community." The phrase "imperfectly learning" is misleading as needlessly describes non-native pronunciation, or the learning process that led to that pronunciation, with evaluative language that is not particularly helpful if one wishes to understand the phenomenon of variation in pronunciation objectively.Joelh (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, it's been a while since the last time you brought this up. This has nothing to do with ideal speakers or, as far as I can tell, traditional vs applied linguistics. As I mentioned in the discussion from eight years ago, it's the transmission of language that is imperfect. I'm in favor of bringing more sources in, especially newer sources. I'm also in favor of sources, as I said in the previous discussion, that might help provide better wording. But in both of the sources you've identified, you've provided carefully-worded definitions of the accents themselves and not the process by which they occur.
Short of a better rationale for the changes and given the risk of misrepresenting the source cited (the quote from which is in the archived discussion), I'll be restoring the phrase in question. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes, long time no see, as it were! I guess I'll give up. I'm not very active on Wikipedia (clearly!) and I don't have the time or energy to continue pushing for this. I wish I could see it your way, but I have to say that as an applied linguist trained in the current sociocultural milieu, I just can't get my head around the notion of "imperfect" transmission of a language. I wish I had the time or energy to craft a sophisticated justification for this, but I don't! I wish you well and overall, apart from this small problem, I think this is a good page. :) Joelh (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: I see you are taking a stab at addressing this wording issue, but I don't like it. The phrase "insufficient grasp" is problematic not only because "insufficient" is itself a more judgmental term than "imperfect" but "grasp" implies a purely cognitive function removed from physicality; intellectually understanding something like a feature of a second language different from one's first doesn't necessarily translate well to practice. Learning, at least in regards to speech, involves both the nuanced use of physical articulators of speech and the auditory scrutiny of one's ears, both of which take practice outside of abstract understanding. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 13:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeusoes1: What about "incomplete"? I find "imperfect" equally if not more judgmental; one need not achieve the "perfect" level of internalizing English phonology in order not to exhibit non-native features—for an L2 speaker perfection is practically impossible—while "insufficient" doesn't rule out a close but not quite complete acquisition of English grammar, although, granted, it also implies that there is a "sufficient" level, which you may describe as vague or arbitrary—hence I suggest "incomplete".
Thank you for the clarification about "learning", but I didn't get that implication in the original wording, which is why I changed it in the first place. What about "acquisition"? Nardog (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch assimilation[edit]

The article claims that English 'better' would be pronounced as [bɛdə] due to voicing assimilation. However, I am unaware of any voicing assimilation that would cause this to happen. Dutch beter (better) [beːtər], and botten (bones) [bɔtə(n)] clearly have intervocalic voiceless stops. Instead, [d] in [bɛdə] might be a rendering of the intervocalic allophone [ɾ] of /t/ in both Australian and North American English. 80.114.143.57 (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Your explanation is echoed in the source that's cited. Collins & Mees do not attribute it to voicing assimilation. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement that [bɛdə] is pronounced as such due to voicing assimilation and corrected it.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greek[edit]

Greek is missing from this list and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.229.53 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some sourced information, feel free to add it. Red Jay (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong concept about the pronunciation of the French "h"[edit]

"French speakers have difficulty with /h/ and many delete it, as most French dialects do not have this sound"

That's not correct, and more complex than that. The "h" in French doesn't make all the same sounds, most of them are mute, it's a "dialect" thing, and it worth for all French speakers. All the French speakers will explain you that the English "h" is also different from the English "h". So, what you say, is from an English point of view, that is not fluent in French, and is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "most French dialects do not have this sound" and "it's a dialect thing". The wording in your edits are not improvements, unfortunately, so I have reverted them. You may be confusing orthographic ⟨h⟩ with the sound [h]. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian[edit]

@Aeusoes1: Hi, firstly i didnt added anything because there is an entire separate page for that getting into it in detail (if ur removing Indian for being empty you gotta also remove the Thai section) and there are way too much info if you start adding secondly India has the second highest population of English speakers so mentioning Hungary which has an English speaking population of <1 mil and not mentioning India which has an english speaking population ~125,344,737 is weird, "arguably not non-native anyway" idk what you mean by that, india does have native speakers of ~226,449 but vast majority of population the population speaks it as their 2nd or 3rd lang with a total pop of ~125,118,287 AleksiB 1945 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cant even grouping every single English accent in India as one for example North Indians mainly pronounce the /n t d/ as apical /ɳ ʈ ɖ/ (or postalveolar) and /θ ð/ as /t̪ʰ d̪ʱ/, an assamese person will pronounce both of them as laminal alveolars while a Malayali might mostly pronounce /n t d/ as subapical /ɳ ʈ ɖ/ but malayalam also has apical alveolar /n/ and /t:/ (but no single /d/ only an /nd/ cluster) so they are also used and north and central indians will pronounce [z] as /d͡ʒ/ while a malayali or a tamil guy will always pronounce them as [s] and a lot more differences.
(ofc some people will pronounce them like they are in English) AleksiB 1945 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've effectively articulated a good reason why, even if we were to consider Indian English to be a form of non-native speech, we still can't justify having a section that is a catchall category for South Asian English speakers. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeusoes1: So having nothing is better than something? that article talks in detail about the different accents in india so its not a generalized catchall South Asian accent AleksiB 1945 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Having nothing is better than having something inaccurate, uncited, or misleading. I think it's inaccurate to consider the features of Indian English to be "non-native" when there are so many native speakers in the Indian Subcontinent who exhibit the features of Indian English covered in the Indian English article.
If you've got sources that discuss Indian English in the context of ESL (English as a second language), then we can see about including information in the article. But not until then. This article has been a repository for uncited information in the past, so there is now greater scrutiny on people adding uncited information. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeusoes1: [1] yes there are a lot of native speakers but considering the total population of india and L2 speakers it is way too low AleksiB 1945 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about linguistic sources that cover the features of Indian English in the context of ESL. Sources we could use to put content in this article. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeusoes1: here btw just mentioning that even the PM of India doesnt know english and many of the members of the parliament dont know english as well AleksiB 1945 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aleksi, I feel like I need to be explicit here. We don't want an empty section. If you aren't willing to do the work of providing content in this article with citations to reliable sources to back up claims made, then please don't bother. It's contentious to continue down the path you're going on and and a bit of a waste of other people's time. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeusoes1: Ok, so what is this then? I gave you all the "reliable sources" you were asking for what else do you want now? + what are you trying to say? that indians natively speak english? can i see a source for that huh? you are wasting my time ok? also i gave a reason why it should be included "India has the second highest population of English speakers so mentioning Hungary which has an English speaking population of <1 mil and not mentioning India which has an english speaking population ~125,344,737 is nonsense" AleksiB 1945 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an empty section makes no sense in this context. Sol505000 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sol505000: it wasnt an empty section there was a link to the main Indian English page, there is a whole essay about indian english phonology in that page AleksiB 1945 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to know why your contribution was reverted, you can see the edit summary here. If that summary is unclear, We can ask the reverting editor to clarify. In this case, that reverting editor is not me. It's @Nardog:. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:48, 18 March 2021(UTC)

Arabic[edit]

As a method for providing attribution to claims, this is less than helpful and has been reverted. We are given no indication of which source is backing up which claim, nor is there any pagination to help reviewing editors confirm the claims that are made. It looks a whole lot like FMM-1992 (talk · contribs) just plopped in the results of a search through an academic database.

I'm providing the list of sources here, as the citations themselves are well-formed and presumably at least some of these sources are worthwhile.

FMM's edit was also flagged as citing predatory journals. I'm not sure how to examine that. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-native_pronunciations_of_English&oldid=1205142240"