Download PDF New Zealand Accent in contrast to RP

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online New Zealand Accent in contrast to RP file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with New Zealand Accent in contrast to RP book. Happy reading New Zealand Accent in contrast to RP Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF New Zealand Accent in contrast to RP at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF New Zealand Accent in contrast to RP Pocket Guide.
This article covers the phonological system of New Zealand English. While New Zealanders () specifically to faithfully represent a New Zealand accent, which this similar to that of other non-rhotic dialects such as Australian English and RP, Contrary to it, New Zealand /ɵː/ is typically realised with rounded lips.
Table of contents

Beyond critical denunciations and lay theories on the origins of the two Austral varieties Wakefield ; Hornadge ; Gordon et al. Linguists have also started documenting the changes that are typical of these varieties and specifically vocalic phenomena such as Hay et al. NZE and AusE are often cited as evidence for chain shifting e. For instance, Gordon et al. Cox, Palethorpe and Tsukada suggest that in AusE , the raising of the dress vowel occurred subsequently to the raising of the trap vowel, further supporting the push chain hypothesis for the short front vowel change and making the latter vowel the initiator of the whole process.

Authentic and recent data give us an opportunity to question the traditional representation of AusE and NZE and to describe the phonological and phonetic reality: what phonological and phonetic features, transported in the nineteenth century, fundamentally determined the development and, at the same time, froze the description of these two varieties?

What can we gather from the linguistic changes in progress? We then move on to the traditional representations that have been made of these two varieties, specifically of their short front vowel systems, which we will put in perspective on the basis of our results from the PAC-AUS and PAC-NZ corpora. Section 4 consists of a short presentation of these corpora. In Section 5, we notably show that, contrary to what has often been said about these varieties, there is intra-dialectal variation, be it phonological, phonetic or sociolinguistic, as evidenced by the variable rhoticity found in the PAC-NZ corpus Bartlett ; Viollain Indeed, the PAC-NZ data show that the chain shift is not completed for some speakers who do not have a fully centralized kit vowel but a crowded system as far as the front vowels are concerned see Viollain to appear , which leads to potential mergers near and square and near-mergers dress and fleece.

In AusE , the consensus on the push chain shift scenario initiated by the raising of the trap vowel see above has recently been reconsidered Cox and Palethorpe ; Cox , as empirical evidence of a reversal of this shift has been found. The history of New Zealand, and consequently of NZE , is closely intertwined with that of Australia and AusE , since many influential linguists have interpreted the historical precedence of the colonisation of Australia as having linguistic consequences on the emergence and evolution of NZE , assuming an Australian linguistic precedence over the formation of NZE.

Mitchell states that AusE emerged as a distinct variety of English in , that is, soon after New Zealand was first colonised by massive waves of European settlement. What is more, Australia emancipated from the United Kingdom sooner and more radically than New Zealand did 2. And, at the beginning of the twentieth century, New Zealand eventually refused to be part of the Australian Federation Hay et al. These historical facts have cultural and linguistic consequences in terms of the perception that the rest of the world has of the geopolitical superiority and linguistic prevalence of Australia over New Zealand.

From to , British convicts, free settlers and then assisted migrants settled in Australia. The period from to was characterized by the gold rushes to the Federation years and the proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act , with subsequent waves of British, Irish and other European, Chinese and American migrants.

In , the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that In , the discovery of gold in Otago triggered a gold rush that made the population of the region more than double in the two years between and Hay et al. That period saw the decline of massive immigration to New Zealand as the country underwent a period of severe economic depression. In the twentieth century, immigration continued but never reached the levels that it did in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Moreover, Australia became a more attractive destination for migrants in the twentieth century with the development of diverse socioeconomic opportunities. Hence, New Zealand in the twenty-first century is mostly a White Pakeha society, even though things are progressively evolving 4.

Websites and on-line references

This largely informed the way in which AusE and NZE were considered in relation to each other and described linguistically. Originally, Australia was an immigrant society, split between convicts and settlers, with an urban type of settlement until the s. From to , 80 convicts were sent to Australia. A few settlers also came from Australia, and most of the time from the British Isles before that and also from Wales but in far lesser numbers. One of the major distinctions in the origins of the migrants to Australia and New Zealand is the proportion of Scottish migrants who settled in the southernmost parts of the South Island of New Zealand and the proportion of Irish migrants who settled in Australia right from the beginning of its colonisation.

As we shall see, this had major phonological effects, notably as far as the survival of rhoticity in the southernmost regions of New Zealand is concerned. There are three equally possible explanations for this: the penal quality of the original settlement in New South Wales 6 , political anxiety on the part of the British Mother country the United States of America had declared their independence in and British rule risked being further shaken up as well as scientific amateurism.

Fortunately, in the second half of the twentieth century, those lay explanations were to be replaced by more scientific considerations on the origins of Australian and New Zealand pronunciations.


  • ‎New Zealand Accent In Contrast to RP on Apple Books?
  • New Zealand English phonology.
  • View Te Ara in.
  • INTRODUCTION?
  • Cookies 100 Recipes!
  • Commando #4880: Showdown.
  • Story of Steve the Betta Fish (Science Knowledge for Kids Book 1).

However, some of these scientific accounts were still informed by the dominant linguistic ideology as they essentially relied on a monogenetic vision of the origins of both AusE and NZE. This hypothesis underlined the English southeastern nature of these colonial varieties. Consequently, what we analyse as a form of linguistic hierarchy seemed to place the British standard at the top, then the British varieties that were said to have influenced AusE and NZE , such as Cockney, and then AusE and, at the bottom, NZE that was seen as the result of both British and Australian influences.

Horvath and Gordon et al. This was considered a sound hypothesis among the scientific community until it was questioned by more recent work. For example, Britain 90, quoting Haines refined the profile of the average migrant towards Australia:.

Accents of English: Volume 3: Beyond the British Isles - J. C. Wells - Google Buku

English government assisted immigrants came predominantly from the southern, rural, or suburban low-wage rural counties and tended to be agricultural labourers, or to claim a pre-industrial trade. Britain argues that the Irish contribution to AusE is not necessarily direct, in the sense that AusE inherited Irish features, because the Irish population in Australia was a minority compared to the population coming from the south of England.

However, Irish migrants did represent a large minority and contributed to making specific features the indisputable majority features in Australia, therefore ensuring their survival. In other words, where they used identical features to those brought by other settlers, especially settlers from the south of England, they made those features most likely to survive the process of new-dialect formation. These elements point to the fact that research on the origins of AusE , and similarly of NZE , as we shall see in the next section, is ongoing and still trying to go beyond historical and theoretical preconceptions see Clark et al.

Settlers from Scotland mainly came from the Lowlands and settled in Otago and Southland, the two southernmost regions of the South Island. The Irish presence was weaker in New Zealand than in Australia, especially because, during the first wave of massive immigration planned by the New Zealand Company, Irish migrants were intentionally pushed aside Gordon et al. As in the case of AusE , a monogenetic account of the origins of NZE prevailed in the literature for quite a while that presented the typical migrant to New Zealand as coming from London or the areas around London.

Moreover, Trudgill himself ; Trudgill et al. On the basis of the study of the Mobile Unit recordings, he concludes that the movement of this vowel is really a twentieth-century innovation in NZE.

More Books by Ann-Kathleen Kraetzig

We understand that the issue of the origins of the colonial varieties of English is not straightforward and that researchers have to look beyond apparent British, Irish or Scottish legacies to AusE and NZE. What is interesting then is the different paths that the two linguistic communities followed. We will focus on two phenomena that allow us to study this linguistic distinctiveness, namely rhoticity and the short front vowels kit , dress and trap that are involved in a chain shift in both varieties.

Australia and New Zealand share a common piece of linguistic history insofar as both varieties have been described through the filter of the British standard, and as their origins have been theorized on the basis of some historical and linguistic preconceptions. Section 3 describes the traditional representations of AusE and NZE in the system of English varieties and the subsequent frozen representation of both varieties. The Australian and New Zealand accents of English are very similar to one another. South African, although differing in a number of important respects, also has a general similarity to Australian.

These facts are not surprising when we consider that all three territories were settled from Britain at about the same time, the English language becoming established in each around the beginning of the nineteenth century. All reflect the developments that had taken place in the south of England up to that time: they are non-rhotic and have bath broadening.

A negative outcome of this geographically convenient account of AusE and NZE was that the representation of the two pronunciations was merged in a number of studies and seen through the filter of the British standard.

Navigation menu

A further corollary was a globalised description of the dialects, with neither geographical specificity nor any individualised report of historical development. To illustrate our point, let us consider the short front vowels of the trap , dress and kit lexical sets in AusE and NZE , which are among the most distinctive features in these varieties. Hay et al. Table 1. Hay, Maclagan, Gordon We also note that the systems presented by Cox or Horvath and Mitchell only differ in one phoneme, i.

As for the representations of NZE , the difference is more radical to the extent that Hay et al. As a matter of fact, Wells is the first to comment on the fact that the vowel in dress is closer in AusE and NZE compared to the British varieties. What is also interesting to notice is that, if Wells states that NZE is basically similar to AusE which is, in turn, rather similar to RP , he puts forward in his representation one of the most distinctive features of modern NZE , that is the centrality of the kit vowel.

He symbolises this centrality with schwa whereas, in the rest of his Accents of English , he has established it as a reduction vowel. There seems to be a bit of a paradox here since Wells describes the two varieties as basically similar whereas NZE is represented as having a very unusual kit vowel when AusE has a standard close front vowel. One should also be aware that contemporary Australian and New Zealand linguists rely heavily on authentic data and acoustic analyses and that, as suggested in Section 1, they have always been keen to promote distinctiveness in their descriptions of AusE and NZE.

We therefore witness a movement in both Australia and New Zealand away from the previously dominant linguistic ideology that used the British standard as the reference system of representation for historically related varieties such as AusE and NZE. Cox 7 perfectly expresses this movement:.


  1. Take Jennifer Instead.
  2. Black Pepper and Strawberries: A Selection of Short Stories and Verse.
  3. Overview of English accents?

    4. The phonemic transcription system proposed by Mitchell derives from the contrasts present in Received Pronunciation of British English RP , which was, at the time, the external standard for Australian English. However, transcription as a technique for indicating pronunciation should reflect aspects of speech production and, as AusE no longer holds RP as its external standard, the transcription system should reflect speech patterns based on Australian norms. Indeed, the choice of phonemic symbols could seem incidental but the phonemic representation of a specific variety of English constitutes the first degree of phonological abstraction that is meant to say something about the system of opposition in that variety.

    What is more, as Cox points out, transcription is also meant to provide information on the acoustic corollaries of the sounds of a specific variety. In the same way, choosing the exact same symbols for all three varieties might say something true about the similarities between these systems but may well overlook major realisational differences. It seems to us that the potential choices made by researchers are largely influenced by identity issues, namely that Australian and New Zealand phonologists want it to be acknowledged that Australia and New Zealand do have their own voices.

    Different views of what a phoneme is emerged in Australia and New Zealand that started questioning the number of aspects of speech production that a phonemic transcription should indicate. We shall see that representing contrastivity is a complex issue. But our point here was to underline a major change in the linguistic tradition in Australia and New Zealand as far as representing the vowel systems of these varieties on the basis of an external British standard is concerned.

    Australian and New Zealand linguistics show a long tradition of fieldwork and corpus making. On more scientific grounds, Mitchell and Delbridge went walkabout in the country for an innovative sociolinguistic survey of adolescent speakers. Closer to us, Australian linguists accelerated the pace of corpus-building so as to get acoustically efficient and representative data, both from diachronic as well as from synchronic points of view Cox and later pub.

    The Mobile Unit MU consists of recordings collected between and of speakers born between and ; the Intermediate Archive consists of recordings collected in the s of approximately speakers born between and , from four different sources and consequently from different geographical areas in New Zealand; finally the Canterbury Corpus 12 is an archive collected by students in linguistics since The latter constitutes a judgment sample, which means that it aimed at recording an equal number of men and women, younger and older speakers, and an equal number of speakers from a privileged socio-economic background and speakers from lower social classes.

    What is more, the principles, methods and tools that we use in the PAC programme are not the same as those on which these projects rely. Thus, we intend to integrate our work to the research on both these varieties. However, additional tasks may be added see Section 5 on variable rhoticity in NZE.

    Three locations with three family networks were chosen with reference to the ternary sociophonetic spectrum of AusE , in Northbridge, Sydney, Deniliquin and White Cliffs. The adults may fall into the categories of Australian working and upper middle classes Przewozny This location was chosen because it is the capital of the Otago region, which constitutes, with the Southland region, the southernmost parts of New Zealand. The two regions have always been described by Wells or, more recently, by Bartlett as a resistant pocket of rhoticity in a non-rhotic territory.

    Dunedin was also chosen because it is one of the four main urban centers in New Zealand, which ensures a diversity of potential informants, as far as age, sex, socio-economic background and geographical origins are concerned. All our informants are Pakeha, which means that they have Anglo-Saxon or European origins. There are, therefore, no Maori informants in our corpus as Maori-accented English constitutes a distinct variety Gordon et al.

    Among the thirteen informants that constitute the final corpus, there are five men and eight women; three informants are between the ages of 18 and 20 two women and one man , five informants between 43 and 51 three women and two men and five informants are between the ages of 65 and 76 three women and two men. Maps 1 and 2.

    This has to do with the emergence of new focused varieties in these two countries through the levelling of minority variants Hickey ; Trudgill And yet, Australia does display a certain amount of regional variation a Sydneyite may usually tell a speaker from Perth or from Cairns. A feature of contemporary AusE that is not subject to variability is its non-rhoticity, although evidence of historical variable rhoticity among six male Australians born between and was analysed by Trudgill and Gordon and re-evaluated by Lonergan and Cox We will not have the opportunity to discuss this issue at length here and prefer to refer to Navarro and Viollain The data from several Australian corpora point to the fact that rhoticity was brought to Australia both by speakers from the south of England, as the process of R-dropping Wells was not completed in England in the second half of the eighteenth century, as well as by speakers from Scotland and Ireland.

    A similar report is presented by Gordon et al.