3

Yesterday in chat, an unfortunate event occurred. We were discussing how difficult it is to distinguish two morphemes in a foreign language that do not function as such in your own language. Then at some point two people were displeased at something I said; but I believe they had interpreted my line in a way not at all connected to what I meant.

Normally I would not go through this much trouble, but getting the same angry reaction from two different people I know well means that I need to set things straight. I hope they will read this and understand what I said, and consider it in the proper context.

As an example of a pair of vowels that are not very hard to distinguish, I brought up the example of /ʌ/ and /ɜ(ː)/ as they appear to a Dutchman, as in but and bird. I picked this situation because it is one I am intimately familiar with. I said that these vowels are easy enough for a Dutchman to distinguish, even though we don't have them as separate morphemes in Dutch. Then I said that someone with a strong Dutch accent in English would probably pronounce both vowels as /ɜ/, but that most of us get them about right with some practice (as opposed to certain more elusive distinctions).

I added that a Dutchman with a bad Dutch accent in English might pronounce but and bird almost the same. Then, as an afterthought, I considered that such a Dutchman would probably pronounce the r in bird, because r's are always pronounced in Dutch, so that he would say /bɜt/ and /bɜrt/ for but and bird. This is what I said:

A Dutchman might pronounce but and bird the same way.

< unrelated line by someone else >

Although someone whose English is bad enough to confuse /ʌ/ and /ɜ(ː)/ would probably pronounce the r in bird.

This was still about the Dutchman with a bad accent, but apparently my interlocutor missed that, since he didn't reply, suggested that I was born out of wedlock, and disappeared. Then someone else came in and accused me of making a prescriptivist statement about the accent of native speakers. I explained that this was about the accent of Dutchmen, not Americans, but he did not seem to read or accept that.

I will explain my line again. Some Dutchmen have a good accent in English. Their English can be rhotic or non-rhotic: of both varieties, good accents exist in Dutchland. However, because Dutch is exclusively rhotic, a Dutchman with a bad accent in English will almost invariably pronounce the r—he would not even think of the non-rhotic option; and so he will never pronounce bird as /bɜt/, but always as /bɜrt/. That was all I said.

In no way did I say that native speakers who pronounced the r had a "bad accent", which would be a silly statement anyway, in a serious discussion. All of this was about what it is like to pronounce vowels in a foreign language, never about native speakers.

closed as off topic by waiwai933 Nov 2 '12 at 8:12

Questions on English Language & Usage Meta Stack Exchange are expected to relate to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange or the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Don't worry about it. 1) the heat in the conversation was simply heat; it happens by unfortunate misdirection. 2) A rational understanding of the situation would seem that a non-native accent is somehow much too tied up with the non-natives first language and that any kind of statement about what should occur just could not be made. 3) Of any EFL speakers, I have found that the Dutch and the Scandinavians are the only Europeans to have a near flawless English accent (yay language teachers!), but that's no guarantee of actual native-like language introspection. – Mitch Nov 2 '12 at 13:53
  • @Mitch: Ad 1: thanks! Ad 2: not sure what you mean by "what should occur", but we can observe what occurs in fact, right? Ad 3: introspection is notoriously unreliable for anyone. In Dutch, there are plenty of native speakers who insist that they pronounce the n in plural nouns and verbs, while in fact only a few accent groups do so. – Cerberus Nov 2 '12 at 17:10
  • Re 2: what I meant is that unless a non-native speaker is a certified phonetician, their judgements about what really does and does not happen in a foreign language are highly factually, and a perceived obligatory 'should' would be considered even more than arrogant. That is, I think that they thought that you were saying what they -should- say, and they took umbrage at that. I think. – Mitch Nov 2 '12 at 18:34
  • @Mitch: Yes, that is probably what they thought, despite the context...I was truly very surprised. – Cerberus Nov 2 '12 at 18:41
  • I'm not sure what the question is here, Cerberus, but if you found somebody's comment offensive, why didn't you just flag it? That's what flags are for! – user16269 Nov 3 '12 at 3:10
  • @DavidWallace: It's not about offensiveness: I don't really care about being offended. And flags don't help solve the problem. This is about a huge and baffling misunderstanding that I would like to see resolved. They just need to read this. – Cerberus Nov 3 '12 at 3:33
  • "Need"? Do they? – user16269 Nov 3 '12 at 3:39
  • "Yesterday in chat, an unfortunate event occurred. We were discussing how difficult it is to distinguish two morphemes in a foreign language that do not function as such in your own language." Why would you discuss that here and not on Linguistics? I'm offended! :P lol – Alenanno Nov 4 '12 at 19:08

Browse other questions tagged .