Talk:Non-native pronunciations of English

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, but we can't put this in the article without sourcing. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There are a number of problems with using this site, the most damning IMHO is that most of these recordings provide no analysis.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 18:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Brazilian Portuguese 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have never heard Germans pronounce 'th' as ,  or . The next similar sounds are  and . 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)
replies: text: Concerning the confusion of  and : Paradoxically, German speakers tend to use  instead of . The reason is that German does not make any distinction between  and , or  is often not the sound used (as we are told by dictionaries), but rather  (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  as both  or . Younger speakers tend to use  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  well, I do say " sumpin' ", ain't dat right? 89.71.157.40 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  German - need sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Italian 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Italian pronunciation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  French 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If anyone can find sources backing up the uncited claims, they are welcome to re-add them to the article. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on the pronunciation by the Germans 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If you have some sourced information, feel free to add it.  Red Jay (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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  with the sound . — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong concept about the pronunciation of the French "h" 

message: 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  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. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic