Talk:New Zealand English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents/List of glossaries portal

What is a glossary? It's a specialized type of annotated (stand-alone) list article, where the annotations are descriptions of the terms listed. Glossaries serve the primary functions of lists as well as present definitions to assist topic identification, link selection, and browsing. List structuring and annotation is covered in WP:LISTS, and glossary formatting is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries).
This article falls within the scope of the Glossaries WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glossaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

WikiProject New Zealand

(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)

New Zealand portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.

Archives
Archive 1 (Dec 2001 – Jan 2008)

[edit] Near/Square merger

I am surprised not to see in the "Distinction between /eə/ and /ɪə/" section the term "near/square merger", as this is widely used as google will show. Also, the "Lack of distinction between ferry and fairy" does not refer to "-arry" words: in "Mary", "marry", and "merry" some pronounce them identically, with a nasalized vowel. Jlittlenz (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I apologize for not posting earlier; anyway, this article should be similar in structure to Irish English, Canadian English, South African English and the like (although this article is so much better than that on SAfrEng); more specifically,

Sections 1, 6 (subsections 6.1 through 6.7), and 7 (subsections 7.1 through 7.8) should be merged into one section on Pronunciation; currently, phonology and phonetics are sometimes confused, and there is some repetition;
The IPA chart currently in section 1 should cite its sources--I'm not even sure it's entirely accurate;
There should be one section on vocabulary, with two subsections (differences with Australian [and possibly British] English, and vocabulary distinctive to New Zealand [with some examples] respectively).

But that's just my take on it. Corrections and suggestions are more than welcome! Jack^(Lumber) 19:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

IPA chart source is in the archive. 217.33.200.148 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eh

Anybody got any reference on the NZ use of "eh" ? Feels like it deserves a mention eh? Sweet as. AstroDave (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

These days more phonetically spelled "ay". I remember seeing it spelled thus in Barry Crump. Jlittlenz (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've even seen "aye"... AstroDave (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but 'aye' is a word in itself, plus some places prononce 'eh' as it is written, in the north of England for example. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wee

I think listing wee in vocabulary differences is a bit silly. Wee is a Scottish term apparently used in NZ. It is far less common in Australia but occasionally used, and certainly recognised. Meanwhile the alternate, "Australian" usage of wee is more widespread than that and is also used in the UK as slang for urine. Maybe it can come out of the list: neither usage is restricted to Aust or NZ. Format (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wee in Australia usually refers to urine, though it does occasionally mean small. In new Zealand it is the opposite - it is usually used to mean small, though (very) occasionally it is used to mean urine. That difference in primary meaning means it deserves a place on the list. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm - I think wee meaning urine is pretty common in New Zealand isn't it? Especially when speaking to infants and toddlers... Wee wee... up here in the so-called subtropics 'wee' means small too, occuring fairly often in the semifossilised phrase 'little wee ' Kahuroa (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

'Wee' is common usage for 'small' in Otago and Southland, much more so than further north. 'The wee house' as a term for toilet is generally a conscious pun, sometimes in the form 'wee hoose', as most of us are aware that 'wee' for 'small' is a Scotticism that has endured from colonial times. Koro Neil (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Herf"/"hurf"

About 20 years ago my Kiwi boss told me to "herf" something. A couple of years later another New Zealander told me that this meant, as I had assumed, "chuck/throw/toss out" and that it was a loanword from the Low German dialect. I haven't been able to verify that this is true or even whether it's commonly used in NZ. Anyone know? Grant | Talk 10:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean 'heff'... rather than hurf... I'd be surprised if it was a loan from low german, but I guess anythings possible. Maybe its more likely to be combination of heave and biff?? But even that seems doubtful Kahuroa (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard 'heff', but I have on occasion 'hurfed' things. I would understand it to mean 'throw, toss' in a general sense, not necessarily 'throw out', but it would be natural enough if it's followed 'toss' in that respect (to 'toss' something now often means 'toss it out'). 'Turf' is often used to mean 'throw', and is likely older – could 'hurf' be a portmanteau of 'heave' and 'turf'? Koro Neil (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sounds historical

Does anyone have any information about why it sounds like it does? It can't just be the adaptation of colonists to using Māori words, can it? What made English people taken out of England sound like this? plan 8 (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the populations are kept mostly seperate, there are sound changes. 220.253.138.16 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Women and Wellington

Another common feature of New Zealand English is the pornunciation of 'women'. Unlike Australian English, New Zenglish does not make a distinction between the pornunciation of 'woman' and 'women' as both are pronounced as 'woman' with the second vowel being relaxed.

The 'e' sound when followed by an 'l' produces a vowel more like 'a' as in 'hat' rather than the typical 'i' sounds. This means, Wellington is pronounced as 'Wallington' to an Australian English speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.145 (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My experience contradicts your comment about the words woman and women. I'm a NZE speaker and I say woman as [wʊmən] and women as [wəmən]. I believe that I'd notice if someone pronounced both words the same and it's not something I've heard among adult speakers of New Zealand English.

As for Wellington/Wallington, this is an instance of the salary-celery merger that is characteristic of New Zealand English. This merger deserves mention in this article.

Ben Arnold (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation key

There are a couple of things I don't like about the pronunciation key. First, the idea that the vowel in ark is merely a long version of the vowel in run seems wrong to me. I'd have to spend some time working out what my tongue's doing when I'm saying those vowels but it's definitely in a quite different place.

The other thing I don't like is using the same symbol for about, bit, comma, roses and Rosa's. To me, a leading or trailing schwa is the same vowel as in run, and and an internal schwa is the same vowel as in bit. I think a New Zealand English speaker would find it counterintuitive to claim that a single symbol represents both the <i> and <er> in winner.

Ben Arnold (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of she as third person neuter

This seems to be less common than it was 50 years ago. I'm interested in the statement, This is similar to Australian English. I've heard Aussies use it, but I'd like to know how far back its use goes. I've heard a joke told by an Australian in which the punchline has a character saying "She'll be right mate," marking him as a New Zealander. I certainly understood that the phrase is a Kiwi one, but I was under the impression that the neuter 'she' was also ours. Did the expression travel west across the Tasman, or is it a shared inheritance? Koro Neil (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of /l/ in In Zid

This is nothing of critical importance (nothing I say on Wikipedia usually is), but I found a source that said /l/ has a "clear" and "dark" allophone in In Zid English. Maybe this is only for the cultivated varieties, maybe it's true for everyone; I'm not sure. I'll have to look again. Though I know that in AusE, /l/ is "dark" in all environments (like AmE), except for occasional l-vocalization, so it would make sense if NZE was the same way, but who knows. Thegryseone (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, more recent and/or more specialized sources are welcome. This is interesting, anyway. I mean, many American speakers (I'm not among them) will tell you that there's a clear L and a dark L. The truth probably is, the alleged "American clear L" is not as clear as they think it is--in RP, the clear L is clearer than that. My /l/ is dark in all positions, but some positions are probably darker than others. Webster's Third (1961) says, "The clearest /l/ in American speech is not as clear as in some foreign languages, and some phoneticians treat all occurrences of /l/ in the speech of most Americans as dark ... In the U.S., the clearest /l/'s occur in the speech of some Southern speakers [when /l/ is intervocalic]." Well, so much for In Zid English. Sorry for the tangent. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the RP clear L sounds like the Spanish L to me. When I speak Spanish, my L is one of the things I have to change. Most people (including me) just naturally do this without realizing it when they speak Spanish, because the American L just doesn't sound right for Spanish. Thegryseone (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And vice versa. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Phonetic Quality of NURSE in AusE and NZE

According to a recent study of AusE by Felicity Cox, NURSE is a rounded vowel in AusE (despite the fact that it's broad phonemic transcription is /ɜː/), that it is at least as high as /eː/, and that it has moved forward since the 1960's. So [øː] (with a retraction diacritic) might be an appropriate narrow phonetic transcription for the AusE vowel. From what I've read, the phonetic quality of the NZE NURSE is around there as well. The point I'm trying to make is that this isn't really something that distinguishes NZE from AusE so much as it is something that distinguishes both varieties from Northern Hemisphere varieties. And it brings up an interesting point: all the Southern Hemisphere varieties of English (including WSAfE) have rounded realizations of NURSE. I don't understand why this is. Thegryseone (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's not the only thing they have in common. The claim about the NURSE vowel was already there before my recent changes, I only added a cn tag to it. NZE NURSE is probably somewhat more exaggerated than its Australian counterpart--I remember reading about that New Zealand linguist named Turner who pronounced his own surname the way a German speaker would pronounce the word Töne. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the NZE NURSE might be a bit further forward than the AusE one, but I'm not sure if the two are always distinguishable from one another. I'm not sure what kind of difference is needed in the F2 values of two vowels for them to be distinguishable from each other. Thegryseone (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know if it's possible to make a quantative distinction based on the formant values of speakers of different dialects--in absolute terms. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

In the Pronunciation section:

"Documentary films from the first half of the 20th century featuring both Australian and New Zealand voices show that the accents were more similar before the Second World War and diverged mostly after the 1950s."

Dialects section:

"Some speakers from the West Coast of the South Island retain a half Australian accent[citation needed] from the region's 19th century goldrush settlers."

If the accents didn't diverge until the 1950s why would the 19th century gold rush have anything to do with the closer-to-Australia pronunciation on the west coast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.8.2 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll notice that it does say "citation needed". That doesn't make any sense to me either because all New Zealand accents could be thought of as "half Australian". Thegryseone (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Half Australian" is so colloquial to be meaningless/confusing. Which half? Needs better wording, and references. Format (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I figured out what that means now and I have a source for it. When they say "half Australian", they're actually referring to just one feature. According to my source, there are conservative South Island speakers who use /æ/ in words like dance and example. This is known to be an Aussie feature though not all Aussies do it. Thegryseone (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Most distinctive?

Article says in opener the most distictive feature is the i sound... isn't that POV? Opinion? To this Australian the most distinctive thing is the e sounds, as in, the All Blecks. Format (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a little POVish. What I was trying to do was clarify what I thought the previous writer meant. Fish and chips is really the only dependable shibboleth. I imagine you're younger than 40 years old and from someplace besides Greater Melbourne. In Melbourne, TRAP and DRESS sound more Kiwi-like (though KIT sounds very un-Kiwi-like). So a Melbournian very well might pronounce "All Blacks" just how you described it. Also older Australians in general might pronounce it close to that as well. The TRAP vowel has changed in Australia. It is now pronounced [æ] by younger non-Melbournians and it's lengthened in certain environments and raised before nasals. So what I'm saying is that's not a dependable shibboleth if you're talking to an older Aussie or a Melbournian, while the KIT vowel is, although it appears that there are exceptions to this as well, e.g., Sydney. The real situation is complicated as you can see. Thegryseone (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a Melburnian, and the All Blecks pronunciation sounds quite jarring to me. The whole "Victorians switch e and a around" is a odd invented on the internet thing as far as I can tell. (I think that might be what you are referring to?) No, I am not younger than 40! Australians of any area or any age saying All Blecks, I must say, is news to me. I thought of this as I recently saw a program on the murder of Janelle Patton. They showed the murderer being interviewed in the NZ police station; the main thing in his accent that stood out was the e sound replacing a. His i pronunciations didn't really stand out to my ears. Of course this is all original research too. Format (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well where did you grow up and how long have you been living in Melbourne? Also how old are you? Where did your parents grow up? How educated are you? What do you consider your social class to be? I don't mean to make things so personal, but this stuff is nice to know if you're doing linguistic research. Of course it's your choice if you want to tell me or not. What I'm saying is not original research. It's not my research at all. I'm basically quoting from a book about the phonology of the different varieties of English. It says 2 things about Aussie English: 1.) The vowel in words like sack a.k.a. TRAP has lowered, i.e., become less Kiwi-sounding since the 1960's. Some linguists did research on the speech of Aussie males in the 1960's and this was compared to research done on Aussie males in the 1990's. They concluded that TRAP had lowered. What this probably means is that it is now pronounced more like [æ]. I'm not sure how old the guys they studied in the 1960's were nor am I sure how old the blokes they studied in the 1990's were, hence the guess about your age. I probably should have said younger than 65 or even 70, because if the guys who they studied were adolescents in the 1960's, then they easily could be in their 60's today. 2.) It also said that "the regional differences in front lax vowels are clear" in Australia. The front lax vowels are TRAP, DRESS and KIT, just in case you didn't know. The book says that,

Sydney and Newcastle [I know you know where those two places are as an older Aussie, I just like linking stuff], just to its north in New South Wales, have substantial centralisation of the KIT vowel, though less extreme than in most sociolects of New Zealand English. Melbourne has this vowel raised nearly nearly to cardinal [i], and also has raised both DRESS and TRAP vowels consistently more than other areas of Australia, as first noted in Bradley and Bradley (1979). This occasionally leads to misunderstanding between Melbournians and other Australians.

So apparently Melbournians young and old still raise TRAP more consistently than other areas of Australia.

The thing you're referring to is called the salary-celery merger. It occurs in New Zealand English. However, that's not what I'm talking about here. I realize that nothing in this world is true 100% of the time. There are always exceptions. You could be an exception. Also books on phonology can be wrong sometimes. Thegryseone (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The things you quote do not really fit my experiences of living in Melbourne for 40 years (if I understand them correctly!) I have never really heard of any of these Melbourne accent differences or misunderstandings before - Melbourne produces a lot of national television (in previous decades a greater proportion than now, but it still produces a lot) and interstate viewers have no problem with the accents as far as I know. The main difference I have heard is with castle, though not all Victorians say that the same way anyway. It is not too big an issue - I just thought the NZE article making a pronouncement about the "biggest difference" from AustE was a pretty big call. It think there is a problem comparing the accents in such a basic way because there is variation at least in the intensity or broadness of accent across NZ from my small experience there. This is probably the case in Aust as well-doesn't stand out to me as much as I am Australian. The main Australian region with a (slightly) different accent is South Australia - this is already alluded to here in the NZE Article. Format (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is that big of a deal either. I am just an amateur linguist babbling on and on about stuff. I'm not trying to argue with you (not that you said I was), I just really enjoy discussing this stuff. Books can be wrong. What they say about Australian English isn't the last word. You can always do your own research and listen to the way Aussies from various places and of various ages pronounce their vowels and consonants. After all, you're the Aussie here. I'm American and I've discovered lots of differences in the regional dialects of American English just by using my ears. A lot of these differences aren't written about anywhere. So like I said, books on phonology don't tell you the whole story anyway. There are a lot of subtleties.

From a worldwide perspective, the centralization of the KIT vowel in New Zealand is an unusual feature. The only other places I can think of that do that are some Scottish English accents, South African English (although it's more restricted there) and the Inland North dialect region in the United States (although it's less extreme there and the majority of speakers probably don't even do it). If you don't understand what I mean by centralization, let me explain. I mean they pronounce words like kit with a vowel that is closer to the one you would probably use at the beginning of about or in the last syllable of braces or stated. I do believe most linguists would consider the pronunciation of the KIT words in New Zealand to be the "biggest" difference from Australian English or at least the one that's easiest to hear, but like I said, I don't really want to argue with you because I've enjoyed this discussion and because you're a native Aussie and I'm not. She'll be right. Hooroo mate. Thegryseone (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is interesting. As you state the New Zealand kit pronunciation is distinctive. That is possibly the first and most distinctive thing Australians identify as different when they hear New Zealanders speak for the first time. (As for other English speakers who knows? Don't know if North Americans and UK speakers hear it the same way.) After awhile it becomes apparent there are other vowel shifts apparent: iggs for brickfast, All Blecks being obvious ones mentioned in this article. (New Zealanders mostly use the long a in chance, but that isn't noticeable to Australians because many Australians, and all South Australians, say that too.) The NZ kit pronunciation is sometimes used in a similar way to the Canadian a-boat (about) - it stands out and is exaggerated/parodied as the difference. I guess my initial comment as worded appeared to dispute the way the article was worded, but you're putting up a good argument for it staying. Format (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as an American I'll tell you that the Aussie accent and the Kiwi accent are more different from one another than the American accent and the Canadian accent. American accents and Canadian accents are extremely similar. I'm pretty sure Americans are the only people in the world who can hear the difference. Even Canadians don't realize that they sound different from Americans.

I don't think I have clarified this, but in general you're right about the Kiwi pronunciation of black and eggs for breakfast. The New Zealand front lax vowel shift tends to be more extreme than that of Australia. However, if you were to compare your TRAP and DRESS vowels to my American ones, they would probably be a bit more raised. Yours would be between mine and a Kiwi's. I was just trying to say that it's not like TRAP is never raised in Australia (it had to be raised at one time in order for DRESS to be raised, which caused KIT to be raised and fronted, making fit sound more like a shortened version of feet to speakers of some other varieties of English; this is called a chain shift btw), it's just that almost all Kiwis do it and it can be more extreme sometimes (especially among young women), sounding closer to your DRESS vowel. Thegryseone (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Phonology section

I've restored the phonology section that was removed due to the belief that it wasn't referenced. The problem was that the reference was not footnoted properly, so it wasn't clear enough to the reader that it was actually there in the reference section. If there are any queries about my action, please bring them up here before any changes are be made. – Marco 79 18:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:New Zealand English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents