Zompist Bboard Again

As a native speaker of German, I only use my 'real' idiolect with family and close friends from my home region in day-to-day life. (I also use it when I visit my home region.) Otherwise, I use a contact variety that is nowhere close to what people speak where I live now and I sometimes hypercorrect (e.g. Köni[k], which is neither a thing in my idiolect, nor in the place I stay, nor in Standard German). I still have problems with non-native speakers of German sometimes. I guess it's also about some kind of universal non-verbal communication (which I am bad at) and guessing what words and constructions are most basic in language courses.

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 1:09 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 11:27 pm I have alluded to this before here, but does anyone else here find that they have to deliberately not speak like they do at home to be consistently understood by non-native speakers of one's native language?

Note that a key factor seems to be how natural their informal English is ─ if they speak informal English naturally like a native English-speaker, even if they have an accent, they generally do not have a problem. On the other hand, if they do not speak naturally informal English, even if they have very little accent, if I make the mistake of speaking to them like I would to someone at home I am liable to not be clearly understood.

Why does this surprise you? Understanding other dialects has to be learned by exposure. My wife is Peruvian, and when she came here (many years ago) she had trouble understanding any dialects but General American. And why wouldn't she? She would not have encountered them as a foreign learner. Similarly I can understand her Spanish very well, but other dialects with more difficulty.

Partly it is that I never grew up thinking of there as being a firm demarcation between "dialect" and "Standard English", and while I had always heard of "non-standard English", that was something other people elsewhere spoke (e.g. the South, the Northeast, the Inner City) and was looked down on, whereas the English I grew up with was not looked down on at all here. The closest to this I grew up with was a distinction between "speaking informally" and "speaking carefully", but the latter is to only be used in certain circumstances like phone calls and formal meetings and like, and the former is expected in normal speech (when I told my parents about having to carefully pronounce "Arnold Palmer" to reliably get an Arnold Palmer at a coffee shop here, they said I was risking mocking their ability to speak English). While there was a vague idea of "Milwaukee dialect", this idea is more centered around lexicon, e.g. words like "bubbler" and "soda" (the standard Midwestern term, as you must know, is "pop") and "yah" (cf. StG ja), with only the more linguistically-inclined being really aware of things like the NCVS. As a result I have had to learn that I need to speak carefully to be reliably understood by my non-natively English-speaking coworkers, but I do not naturally do so outside meetings and calls, having lived my whole life "speaking informally".

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 11:27 pm I have alluded to this before here, but does anyone else here find that they have to deliberately not speak like they do at home to be consistently understood by non-native speakers of one's native language?

I can confirm some NAE dialects are difficult. I haven't had any experience with yours, but I know I can have trouble with a NY accent, for instance. I haven't noticed that New Yorkers make a special effort with the tourists, but maybe they do.
What they teach you is relatively formal; they'll teach you about BrE/AmE but not much beyond that. (Not that teachers are hiding anything from us; there's just a lot to learn about the English language) For really informal English, we have to rely on TV

I didn't know about these contractions until today, though I think I'd be able to figure them out after a while.

e.g. [d̥jɛː(v̥)] for do you have or [ˈaːõ̞ʔ]~[ãːːʔ] for I don't),

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 1:09 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 11:27 pm I have alluded to this before here, but does anyone else here find that they have to deliberately not speak like they do at home to be consistently understood by non-native speakers of one's native language?

Note that a key factor seems to be how natural their informal English is ─ if they speak informal English naturally like a native English-speaker, even if they have an accent, they generally do not have a problem. On the other hand, if they do not speak naturally informal English, even if they have very little accent, if I make the mistake of speaking to them like I would to someone at home I am liable to not be clearly understood.

Why does this surprise you? Understanding other dialects has to be learned by exposure. My wife is Peruvian, and when she came here (many years ago) she had trouble understanding any dialects but General American. And why wouldn't she? She would not have encountered them as a foreign learner. Similarly I can understand her Spanish very well, but other dialects with more difficulty.

Indeed, I'm too at loss how anyone could be surprised by the fact that non-native speakers of a language do not understand every accent/dialect of said language. The worse one speaks a language, the worse one's comprehension of the language and all its variations will be, and the closer to the standard one must speak in order to be understood. The mere fact that you didn't already tone down your regionalisms (and possibly pronunciation, which as we all know here is quite marked) and then are surprised baffles me, to be honest. When I'm talking to a non-native speaker of Dutch, I talk more slowly, try to articulate better, don't use any expressions and non-literal language, and so on. (Though I admit I have colleagues that don't understand that and are constantly misunderstoord by the non-native-speaking colleagues).


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 7:45 am Indeed, I'm too at loss how anyone could be surprised by the fact that non-native speakers of a language do not understand every accent/dialect of said language. The worse one speaks a language, the worse one's comprehension of the language and all its variations will be, and the closer to the standard one must speak in order to be understood. The mere fact that you didn't already tone down your regionalisms (and possibly pronunciation, which as we all know here is quite marked) and then are surprised baffles me, to be honest. When I'm talking to a non-native speaker of Dutch, I talk more slowly, try to articulate better, don't use any expressions and non-literal language, and so on. (Though I admit I have colleagues that don't understand that and are constantly misunderstoord by the non-native-speaking colleagues).

The big thing is that here we don't have clear ideas like that of, say, Alemannic versus StG. While on here I do speak of "my dialect" and whatnot, in everyday life the real distinction that people make here, myself included, is of register, of speaking "normally" or "informally" versus "carefully", and register is predicated on social context and not whom one is speaking with. You are right that I should put more effort into speaking carefully with non-native English-speakers, but it is not natural since everyday conversation is not typically in careful speech here.

Even in meetings, though, people often use informal pronunciations. For instance, in a Zoom call that was recorded, which I watched the recording of later, I caught myself using [ˈʁˤʷɛːːʁˤ] rather than the formal* [ˈʁˤʷɛːðʁ̩ˤ(ː)] a number of times for rather, and in a meeting I was in this morning, I noticed that one of my coworkers, for example, pronounced wanted to as [ˈwɒ̃ɘ̯̃ɾə(ː)] rather than the formal* [ˈwɒ̃ɾ̃ɘːt̚ʲʷˌtʲʰʷy(ː)] or [ˈwɒ̃ɾ̃ɘːt̚tʰə(ː)].

* This illustrates that the difference between "informal" and "formal" is distinct from "regional" versus "national standard", because these pronunciations are formal, yet are local. Contrast with formal General American [ˈɹʷæːðɹ̩(ː)] and [ˈwɒ̃ɾ̃ɨːt̚ˌtʰʉ(ː)] or [ˈwɒ̃ɾ̃ɨːt̚tʰə(ː)].

(I find that non-native speakers with an okay understanding of English generally do not have a problem with formal regional pronunciations, even when the values of the individual phonemes are distinct from those of General American, e.g. [ɛ] rather than [æ] for /æ/ generally does not prove a problem.)

One thing I've noticed is that I frequently mishear can't as spoken in other English varieties as can and have to rely on context to tell the two apart. This is because many English varieties have weaker vowel length allophony than what I am personally used to, and frequently have [kʰɛə̯n]~[kʰɛə̯ɾ̃] for can't with a non-short vowel, which for me is how can is pronounced (when not reduced to [kʰn̩]), and for me can't is [kʰɛ̃ʔ]~[kʰɛ̃ɾ̃] with a distinctly short vowel. Anyone else run into this issue?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:47 am One thing I've noticed is that I frequently mishear can't as spoken in other English varieties as can and have to rely on context to tell the two apart. This is because many English varieties have weaker vowel length allophony than what I am personally used to, and frequently have [kʰɛə̯n]~[kʰɛə̯ɾ̃] for can't with a non-short vowel, which for me is how can is pronounced (when not reduced to [kʰn̩]), and for me can't is [kʰɛ̃ʔ]~[kʰɛ̃ɾ̃] with a distinctly short vowel. Anyone else run into this issue?

It would be interesting to see what you’d make of my variety, where the primary difference is vowel quality ([kʰæːn] vs [kʰɑːn(t)]).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:47 am One thing I've noticed is that I frequently mishear can't as spoken in other English varieties as can and have to rely on context to tell the two apart.

I can have this problem with speakers when they pronounce can't the same as cant. I often cannot be sure whether they instead stressed can. There's also the problem of unreliable distinction of cannot and can not, chiefly in written contexts. There's also the problem that their formally written pasts are indistinguishable.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:47 am One thing I've noticed is that I frequently mishear can't as spoken in other English varieties as can and have to rely on context to tell the two apart. This is because many English varieties have weaker vowel length allophony than what I am personally used to, and frequently have [kʰɛə̯n]~[kʰɛə̯ɾ̃] for can't with a non-short vowel, which for me is how can is pronounced (when not reduced to [kʰn̩]), and for me can't is [kʰɛ̃ʔ]~[kʰɛ̃ɾ̃] with a distinctly short vowel. Anyone else run into this issue?

I do get this issue with Americans who have (roughly) [ˈkʰænʔ] for "can't", which maps much closer to AusEng [ˈkʰæn] "can" rather than [ˈkʰaːnʔ] "can't". Funnily enough the length contrast is actually reversed between the two dialects (for me "can" is aberrantly short /æ/ rather than long /æː/ in e.g. "can" n.)

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:40 am (for me "can" is aberrantly short /æ/ rather than long /æː/ in e.g. "can" n.)

I see this minimal pair frequently cited for the BAD–LAD split. I’m not sure my ‘can’ has the distinction, but then again the split is weird in my idiolect. (For one thing, my BAD and LAD both have long /æː/, so I can’t even call it by that name.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:50 am

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:40 am (for me "can" is aberrantly short /æ/ rather than long /æː/ in e.g. "can" n.)

I see this minimal pair frequently cited for the BAD–LAD split. I’m not sure my ‘can’ has the distinction, but then again the split is weird in my idiolect. (For one thing, my BAD and LAD both have long /æː/, so I can’t even call it by that name.)

Your idiolect seems to be (impressionistically) South African at heart with only surface AusEngisms, and dialect mixing often results in the copying of a split without accurate copying of the environment. But anyway I've never seen two descriptions of the æ(ː) split that exactly tally.

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:55 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:50 am

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:40 am (for me "can" is aberrantly short /æ/ rather than long /æː/ in e.g. "can" n.)

I see this minimal pair frequently cited for the BAD–LAD split. I’m not sure my ‘can’ has the distinction, but then again the split is weird in my idiolect. (For one thing, my BAD and LAD both have long /æː/, so I can’t even call it by that name.)

Your idiolect seems to be (impressionistically) South African at heart with only surface AusEngisms, and dialect mixing often results in the copying of a split without accurate copying of the environment.

Yep, that assessment sounds about right to me.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:03 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:47 am One thing I've noticed is that I frequently mishear can't as spoken in other English varieties as can and have to rely on context to tell the two apart. This is because many English varieties have weaker vowel length allophony than what I am personally used to, and frequently have [kʰɛə̯n]~[kʰɛə̯ɾ̃] for can't with a non-short vowel, which for me is how can is pronounced (when not reduced to [kʰn̩]), and for me can't is [kʰɛ̃ʔ]~[kʰɛ̃ɾ̃] with a distinctly short vowel. Anyone else run into this issue?

It would be interesting to see what you’d make of my variety, where the primary difference is vowel quality ([kʰæːn] vs [kʰɑːn(t)]).

I don't have an issue at all when listening to varieties where can't has a back or central vowel because this unambiguously distinguishes can't from can and I don't mishear can as can't in the first place.

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:40 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:47 am One thing I've noticed is that I frequently mishear can't as spoken in other English varieties as can and have to rely on context to tell the two apart. This is because many English varieties have weaker vowel length allophony than what I am personally used to, and frequently have [kʰɛə̯n]~[kʰɛə̯ɾ̃] for can't with a non-short vowel, which for me is how can is pronounced (when not reduced to [kʰn̩]), and for me can't is [kʰɛ̃ʔ]~[kʰɛ̃ɾ̃] with a distinctly short vowel. Anyone else run into this issue?

I do get this issue with Americans who have (roughly) [ˈkʰænʔ] for "can't", which maps much closer to AusEng [ˈkʰæn] "can" rather than [ˈkʰaːnʔ] "can't". Funnily enough the length contrast is actually reversed between the two dialects (for me "can" is aberrantly short /æ/ rather than long /æː/ in e.g. "can" n.)

To make it worse, for many North Americans can't is [kʰɛə̯n]~[kʰɛə̯ɾ̃] without a glottal stop, especially before a vowel or semivowel.

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:40 am Funnily enough the length contrast is actually reversed between the two dialects (for me "can" is aberrantly short /æ/ rather than long /æː/ in e.g. "can" n.)

Note that unlike in AusE, vowel length is either non-phonemic or only marginally phonemic, depending on how one analyzes things, in most NAE dialects. For instance, while in my dialect I can form minimal pairs on vowel length alone, (e.g. latter [ˈʟ̞ɛɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)] versus ladder [ˈʟ̞ɛːɾʁ̩ˤ(ː)]), in the vast majority of cases these can be analyzed away, e.g. as /ˈlætər/ versus /ˈlædər/ in this case.

IMD "can" has /ɛ/ when it's not reduced to [kn̩]~[gn̩] and "can't" is typically stressed, e.g. "you can do it" [ˌjʉɡn̩'dʉɪʔ] vs. "you can't do it" [jɪˈkʰẽəʔd̥ʉɪʔ]

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:08 pm IMD "can" has /ɛ/ when it's not reduced to [kn̩]~[gn̩] and "can't" is typically stressed, e.g. "you can do it" [ˌjʉɡn̩'dʉɪʔ] vs. "you can't do it" [jɪˈkʰẽəʔd̥ʉɪʔ]

I wonder how widespread /ɛ/ for can is, because I would have noticed it if it were present in the variety here due to it being centralized in the dialect here, whereas /æ/ before a nasal is a front-to-center falling diphthong here (in my own idiolect it is often a front monophthong before nasals, but I'm weird in that way). This is how I can tell the dialect here has /æ/ in ketchup, because it has a front vowel for it, whereas if it had /ɛ/ as the orthography would indicate it would be centralized.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:43 pm

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:08 pm IMD "can" has /ɛ/ when it's not reduced to [kn̩]~[gn̩] and "can't" is typically stressed, e.g. "you can do it" [ˌjʉɡn̩'dʉɪʔ] vs. "you can't do it" [jɪˈkʰẽəʔd̥ʉɪʔ]

I wonder how widespread /ɛ/ for can is, because I would have noticed it if it were present in the variety here due to it being centralized in the dialect here, whereas /æ/ before a nasal is a front-to-center falling diphthong here (in my own idiolect it is often a front monophthong before nasals, but I'm weird in that way). This is how I can tell the dialect here has /æ/ in ketchup, because it has a front vowel for it, whereas if it had /ɛ/ as the orthography would indicate it would be centralized.

Common but not universal on the East Coast. Catch, am, and ketchup also have /E/.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:47 am One thing I've noticed is that I frequently mishear can't as spoken in other English varieties as can and have to rely on context to tell the two apart. T

Anyone else run into this issue?

I can generally distinguish can from can't with most pronounciations...which drives me nuts when I can distinguish them, while my Youtube Closed Captioning types <can> for can't and <can't> for can>...usually for the same speaker. {never heard anyone say cant, though, even on the D&D channels)

...particularly when I'm watching British speakers speaking one dialect or another of English (Dr Becky can and does switch dialects if the occasion calls for it in her opinion) and when I'm watching Korean speakers speak English (Aaron And Claire always do finely)