Talk:Australian English phonology

message: I'm not sure how to type in the "upside down" e to indicate neutral vowel. However it's very common nowadays, if not universal, with people under the age of 30, to hear this vowel pronounced as a flat and very pronounced "a".
For example: "My father is a doctor" will be pronounced by most young Australians (particularly female) as "My Fathah is a Doctah" with the stress moved from the first syllable and equal emphasis given to both syllables. 
A really obvious example is the pronuciation of "year" by most young people. Instead of a smooth transition to a final neutral vowel,  the word is now regularly pronouncedas "yee-hah" as if a double syllable.
--MichaelGG (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard those things too.  They do seem to me to be more common (but not universal) with young people in my experience. Accentman (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral vowel at end of word 

message: Do Australians pronounce these two words the same way? I've heard that Australians pronounce them the same merging the short "o" and the short "u" vowels before /l/ and another consonant when the consonant after the /l/ doesn't form another morpheme as in "gulls". 2602:306:3653:8A10:C86D:9A81:A3E8:8B53 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Such merger is possible in London (see the second volume of Wells's Accents of English), but I don't know about Australia. It's probably also possible there. Peter238 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do.  Speaking on behalf of all Australians, I declare that we pronounce them the same, with the vowel of LOT and CLOTH.  It's the same with "colt" and "cult".  Seriously, though, I'd say I do and others seem to but I couldn't say for sure.  It could vary from place to place (I'm from Sydney). Jimp 21:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Interesting that you have short "o" (the LOT vowel) in "colt". I have the GOAT vowel in that word. What about "volt", "bolt" and "dolt"? Do those have the LOT vowel for you? I have the GOAT vowel in those words. Do you pronounce "a dolt" and "adult" the same way? 2602:306:3653:8920:4DD1:65AF:320C:9D95 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, yes, it may be GOAT not LOT/CLOTH.  Actually, I'm not so sure that I distinguish LOT/CLOTH from GOAT before /lt/ or /ld/. Jimp 02:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you rhyme "coaled", "dolled" (all dolled up), and "sold"? For me, "dolled" has the LOT vowel whereas "coaled" and "sold" have the GOAT vowel. I don't think any modern English speakers distinguish between LOT and GOAT before /lt/ and /ld/ in words with only one morpheme like "volt" and "bold". Dictionaries I've seen all show the GOAT vowel in those words. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cold?s=t, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colt?s=t, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cold, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colt While I think these words historically had the vowel in LOT it has shifted to GOAT in modern English at least for most speakers. 2602:306:3653:8920:4DD1:65AF:320C:9D95 (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite an extraordinary claim to say that "no modern English speakers distinguish between LOT and GOAT before /lt/ and /ld/ in words with only one morpheme". It's obviously not true - this distinction is present in RP, and in (almost?) the whole North America, in which LOT is nearly always merged with PALM in all environments (except for a negligible minority of speakers), and the outcome of that merger is often an unrounded open back-to-central vowel , which has practically no chance of merging with  (the pre-lateral GOAT vowel). That said, "volt" can be pronounced with either GOAT or (more rarely) LOT in RP, whereas "bold" is pronounced only with GOAT - at least that's what the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary says. Also, I can't imagine the LOT-GOAT merger occurring in accents that don't feature a velarized  at all (e.g. traditional Tyneside (Geordie) and much of Ireland). Peter238 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The LOT vowel doesn't occur for most English speakers before /lt/ and /ld/ in words with one morpheme. Words ended in "-old" (cold, gold, fold, sold, old, hold) and "-olt" (volt, bolt, colt, dolt) are instead pronounced with the GOAT vowel for most modern English speakers. The only place where the LOT vowel occurs before /lt/ and /ld/ for most English speakers is in words with more than one morpheme like "dolled". 2602:306:3653:8920:4DD1:65AF:320C:9D95 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, it's true for , but the LPD shows that 13 monomorphemic words (Alt, Balt, bolt, fault, Galt, gault, halt, malt, salt, smalt, vault, volt, Walt) have  as a possible (but not the first choice) RP pronunciation. Peter238 (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, no, I'd use the LOT vowel for doll and dolled and the GOAT vowel for dole, coaled and sold but I can't say I distinguish between LOT and GOAT before /lt/ and /ld/ in words with only one morpheme.  Jimp 09:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you pronounce the word "adult"? Do you pronounce it the same way as "a dolt"? Do you ever have the STRUT vowel before /l/ and another consonant in words with only one morpheme, not two morphemes like "gulls". I remember reading on some English discussion forums back in the day where some Australians stated that they didn't make a big phonetic discussion between the LOT and GOAT vowel before /l/, the two vowels sounded close in the pre lateral environment but not merged. 2602:306:3653:8920:BCA0:CC6C:4F79:3510 (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rhyme "adult" with "colt", "cult", "volt", "bolt", "holt", "halt", "salt", "dolt", "unbolt", "revolt", "moult", "smolt", "jolt", "abvolt", "Harold Holt", etc. Jimp 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's something I have found that mentions a golf-gulf merger occurring in Australia http://www.academia.edu/3433266/_%C9%90lC_-_%C9%94lC_Sound_change_in_Australian_English_Preliminary_res_%C9%94_lts 2602:306:3653:8920:B493:B6E5:59E1:E317 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent find; thanks, E317!  I chuckled where they mentioned a deleted Wikipedia page in the Introduction.  Can we add the cult→colt merger to the article on that basis?  Pelagic (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  golf and gulf 

message: Is it true that the Australian accent is basically traditional cockney spoken into overpoweringly bright sunlight? Valetude (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for different vowel-sounds? 

message: How do Australians typically pronounce this word? With a scwha sound for the first "a" or a short "a" for the first "a", like "add-ult"? 205.173.37.116 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: either but definitely leaning schwa first a --Saruman-the-white (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I'll use either – sometimes /ˈædʌlt/ (AD-olt) and sometimes /əˈdʌlt/ (uh-DOLT) – but I can't discern a pattern as to when. (? More likely to stress the first syllable for the noun and the second for the adjective, but not consistently.) Pelagic (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I've listened to AuE a lot and I think that  (or  - same thing) is the predominant variant, but I'm not sure. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  adult 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Australian English phonology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050629091104/http://www.shlrc.mq.edu.au/%7Efelicity/vowelmod_prelateral_environ.pdf to http://www.shlrc.mq.edu.au/%7Efelicity/vowelmod_prelateral_environ.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've just reverted revision 742367463 by an anon with the IP starting with 60.240..., because he didn't say whether he checked the citations, just "seems to me to be part of the statement" in the edit summary, which would actually confirm that it's original research. So, anon, did you check the citations? Do they say that  is often pronounced rounded?
I'm not sure about the word 'often'. What I've heard from Australians ranges from an ordinary RP  to a vowel that you could describe as a lowered cardinal , which sometimes is indeed somewhat rounded. Then again - maybe I haven't listened to enough native speakers of AuE to judge the frequency of occurrence of these allophones.
 Maybe you could check the citations, since you're so interested in Australian (and New Zealand) English? Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The stated citation says "The lowered F3 for /ɜː/ may also indicate rounding as this vowel also has a fronted constriction for many SAusE speakers."--Officer781 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rounded NURSE - citation check needed 

message: The Copper Triangle area is or was rhotic but this article doesn't mention it at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustyRedSkies (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add it yourself if you're aware of a reliable source that mentions it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhotic 

message: I've removed vowel charts added by . They are original research and some of the vowel qualities just don't look correct to me.
Pinging  in case he wants to add something. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. If indeed the vowel charts of the broad variety are "spot on", perhaps we could find a source for it? I checked the source "An acoustic phonetic study of broad, general, and cultivated Australian English vowels" and it doesn't seem to have specifically broad charts (unless I didn't check close enough or it was the wrong source). Other than that I defer to your knowledge since I'm not well-read in this area.--Officer781 (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reinstated the vowel charts of the broad variety. The fact that they're based on formant values shouldn't disqualify them from being included on Wikipedia, and if nobody is questioning the accuracy of those charts (which does seem to be the case), I see no problem with including them. I don't think they violate WP:OR (yes, I changed my mind). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure no problem. I haven't been in touch with Australian phonology for some time now so I consider my knowledge on it kind of rusty. Maybe some of the other regular English phonology editors could comment? You could ping them here if you want.--Officer781 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vowel charts 

message: The WP article International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects has AuE vowels that indicate two problems:
* inconsistency with the present article; 
* lack of indication (ideally in a footnote) as to the presumption of broad/cultured or other variant of AuE — choice of which (or allowance for all) is yet another issue.  
—DIV (120.17.34.107 (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just nominated that article for deletion. It's badly written and just unnecessary. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency with "International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects" 

message: It would be a comprehensive and definitive research project that merited its own top-level section in an article on the phonology of a whole national language variety. In this article, the AusTalk project gets such a section, but this appears to be on the basis of press releases at the time it was funded. Five years on, following the links it's difficult to get at the corpus AusTalk gathered. The AusTalk website has gone and redirects to a linguistic corpus platform called Alveo.
To access the AusTalk corpus you have to sign up  and this requires submitting a form to Alveo, then agreeing to terms and conditions that don't appear to be visible at the time of registration. It's not clear that the corpus is open content despite apparent government funding via Nectar. The page about the corpus  has a link to browse it but this link is broken and just takes you back to the Alveo homepage. It's not clear to me that this project is sufficiently notable to get its own section here, or even any mention at all in view of its apparent obscurity. It is not to Australian English phonology what the OED is to English lexicography, for example. Without additional evidence to the contrary I propose to remove it.
If by some chance the researchers in possession of the corpus see this message please just put the bloody thing online in a straightforward way (even dumping the files on an FTP server like the old days would do), as it's a great shame to see the work that must have gone into it, not to mention the cost, go to waste. Beorhtwulf (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  AusTalk