[General] Is Australian English drifting ever more distant from its UK and USA cousins?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
Perhaps native speakers who learned the language the easy way and for whom the adaptation to its variants is a seamless process couldn't care less. Not so with English learners. We indefatigably burn hectolitres of midnight oil in the hope of being able to understand and be understood by as many people as possible. The language learned from textbooks and through the participation in courses tends to be very orthodox and the smallest deviation from the rules renders it at best severly disabled. I had once my hopes mercilessly dashed when after years of study I found myself on a farm in Norfolk UK :-?

Nowadays with the advent of satellite TV and Internet I feel disappointed, even angry at times when trying to decipher Australian English. What worries me more here than in the example above is that this time it is the whole country rather than just a local population of farmers that is effectively beyond my grasp.

Hence these questions:

1. Is the process of language differentiation set to continue?
2. Is the uniformity of the English language as dear to anyone's heart as it is - for pragmatic
reasons - to its learners?
 

SoothingDave

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Yes, language evolves constantly. But don't feel so out of it. There are places I've been to in my very own country where I have had difficulty with accents. I use the subtitles when watching movies like "Trainspotting" because of the thick accents. So while native speakers may have an advantage, we are not infallible when faced with other variants.

And, please, burn gallons or quarts of midnight oil. Even burn it by the 55 gallon drum. Not by the hectoliter. Is that unit actually used anywhere?
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
Nowadays with the advent of satellite TV and Internet I feel disappointed, even angry at times when trying to decipher Australian English. What worries me more here than in the example above is that this time it is the whole country rather than just a local population of farmers that is effectively beyond my grasp.

Hence these questions:

1. Is the process of language differentiation set to continue?
2. Is the uniformity of the English language as dear to anyone's heart as it is - for pragmatic
reasons - to its learners?
In what context have you noticed that, Jack? It's certainly true that some native speakers of non-Australian English have trouble with the Australian accent. But this only a temporary thing. Once your ear is accustomed to the accent, you should have no trouble - but that can take a variable period of time. I once had temporary work that involved working with an Irish woman as my secretary. I couldn't understand a word she said until she repeated it three times; so I had to stop taking that temporary job purely for that reason. I don't think it's just Australia that displays this accent problem.
Also, it's not just English. It also occurs in Spanish, probably for the same reason - it is a widely dispersed language, and different accents and slang etc. have arisen. If you learn Peninsula Spanish (the Spanish of Spain), you might have trouble understanding Argentinian or Nicaraguan Spanish.

1. Is the process of language differentiation set to continue?
It's hard to say. My own opinion is that, with the Internet, accents and vocabularies should converge rather than diverge. But with the weight of population in China and Asia generally, learning English, international English will probably become Sinosized.
This might lead to a reactionary retreat to traditional national standards in communities that want to preserve the language that they originally learnt.

2. Is the uniformity of the English language as dear to anyone's heart as it is - for pragmatic
reasons - to its learners?
Yes, to some, but for different reasons. Older Australians, such as me, don't like hearing Hollywood American becoming the normal dialect of our children. Many of us here are resistant to changes from Singapore and Hong Kong English (which some of us would judge as being substandard. One specific example is that the non-sentence "How to say X?" is likely to judged normal English one day soon.)
But these aren't pragmatic reasons. They are reasons of identity. One does not like to hear one's own language that has served one well all of one's life being corrupted.
For students, as you say, the reason is different. When you learn "English", you don't want to then be told that what you have learnt is only good for some places where English is spoken. That, at least partly, is why I, personally, believe in the notion of Standard English, even though no one actually speaks it, or can define it. One can at least tell when something is not Standard English.

I'd like to see other people's opinions too.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
1. Is the process of language differentiation set to continue?

Like raymott, I find it hard to say.

Until quite recently, I thought that the internet would reinforce film and TV in ensuring that there would always be a fairly standard English throught the world, with some form of American English becoming the biggest influence. However, I am not so sure now. The internet appears to have freed many people from the influence of prescriptive authorities, and millions of people who never put pen to paper are now churning out their thoughts daily. What was clearly sub-standard only twenty years ago is commonplace. Indian English, largely unknown outside the sub-continent, is now regularly seen. Sino-English will become more and more influential.

I think that a form of English will probably remain the main language of international communication, but it will be an English that does not have its base in BrE, AmE or any other identifiable variety. If that happens, the present varieties may drift farther apart from each other, though I don't think they will ever become really separate languages - the international variety will keep them mutually intelligible.

2. Is the uniformity of the English language as dear to anyone's heart as it is - for pragmatic reasons - to its learners?

As a teacher, I wish that there were fewer important varieties of English. When I began my teaching career, it was relatively easy for me to teach standard British English, and to reject as incorrect anything that didn't follow the rules of that variety. To do that today would be very hard on the learners. To insist that one variety is 'correct English' and that all others are in some way imperfect is clearly unreasonable. However, I now have to check far more carefully before I say that something is unacceptable. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to know exactly what is acceptable in the major examinations, FCE/CAE/CPE, BEC, ELTS, TOEFL, TOEIC, etc.

As a linguist, I am fascinated by the changes and developments in the language.
 

waflob

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Germany
I must confess to laughing out loud when I read about you ending up in Norfolk - at least you can't accuse them of talking too quickly :)

Actually, there was a bit of a scandal years ago when the Freedom of Information act allowed people to have access to their medical records. In Norwich, there were lots of records with the comment N.F.N and no satisfactory explaination for its meaning. After lots of asking, it turned out that it meant 'Normal For Norfolk'. Caused quite a fuss at the time.

As for the Australian question, I think that if there were more films (or entertainment in general) coming out of Australia, then people would have more exposure to it and not find it so confusing. I should point out that it's not just language students who struggle with this, but native speakers as well. Once you are comfortable with the accent (or Ozzy Twang, as it's reverently called), you realise that many of the words used are too unfamiliar to make sense. However, once you realise that 'strides' are 'trousers' then it's no longer unfamiliar and next time you see or hear it, you know what it means.

I feel your pain.
 
Last edited:

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
1. Yes, language evolves constantly. But don't feel so out of it. There are places I've been to in my very own country where I have had difficulty with accents. I use the subtitles when watching movies like "Trainspotting" because of the thick accents. So while native speakers may have an advantage, we are not infallible when faced with other variants.

2. And, please, burn gallons or quarts of midnight oil. Even burn it by the 55 gallon drum. Not by the hectoliter. Is that unit actually used anywhere?


1. Your argument does not convince me. I do not feel so out of it because of not being able
to understand and much less talk in prison or street slangs of a given country. I feel
perplexed and out of it when trying to make out what Julia Gillard wants to say when she
delivers a speech.

2. Let me see...1 gallon equals to 4 quarts, 8 pints, 16 cups, 256 tablespoons or 768
teaspoons. No, thank you I will stick to metric :roll: Is it used anywhere? How
about ... hmmm ... everywhere except the USA? ;-)
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
1. Your argument does not convince me. I do not feel so out of it because of not being able
to understand and much less talk in prison or street slangs of a given country. I feel
perplexed and out of it when trying to make out what Julia Gillard wants to say when she
delivers a speech.
But you should understand that Julia Gillard has a very "broad" accent which is not typical of how most cultured, urban Australians speak. She is a product of the trade unions and the political Left, and you shouldn't assume that she isn't speaking in the argot of prisons and street slang.
Anyhow, you can pick specific examples of individuals from any group who are difficult to understand.
 

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
In what context have you noticed that, Jack?


I was referring to the pronunciation. For example "left" is pronounced as "lift" (or at least that's how I hear it). I wonder if this common replacement of vowels (again according to my own perception) is formally recognized i.e. if it is reflected in the phonetic transcription in Australian English dictionaries.

I suppose we are all familiar (certainly English students are ;-)) with this duality:

detail /'di
Image1.gif
te
ıl, US dı'teıl/

Are we about to have to grapple with a "triplity" in the near future?

Having read all the posts in this thread I am persuaded to suspect that the differences in pronunciation are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Does the process of differention affect also grammar, idioms, collocations?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
2. Let me see...1 gallon equals to 4 quarts, 8 pints, 16 cups, 256 tablespoons or 768
teaspoons. No, thank you I will stick to metric :roll: Is it used anywhere? How
about ... hmmm ... everywhere except the USA? ;-)
I think that SD was referring to the 'hectolitre' unit rather than the metric system. I have spent a fair part of my working life in countries that use the metric system, and I have never heard the word used. I have seen it sometimes in economic/business reports.
 

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
But you should understand that Julia Gillard has a very "broad" accent which is not typical of how most cultured, urban Australians speak. She is a product of the trade unions and the political Left, and you shouldn't assume that she isn't speaking in the argot of prisons and street slang.
Anyhow, you can pick specific examples of individuals from any group who are difficult to understand.

Indeed this comes as a revelation to me. I normally automatically assume that heads of state speak "Oxford" or "BBC" or "Harvard" English of their respective country. Also I believe that the language we speak is one of the strongest means of expression of our identity and if a politician wants to ensure a large or influential following in a democratic society, they first and foremost should make sure that the language they speak coincides or resonates well with that of their supporters.

I now realize that having been little exposed to any "Australian English" other than that spoken by Julia Gillard, I may have built my case in this thread on entirely mistaken grounds! Following your post I listened to a number of videos broadcast by Sky News Australia (freely available on Internet) and to my horror :lol: (I should say relief rather) I found very few deviations from what I am used to on (in/at?) say the BBC news.
Just to give you a few examples, "make" sounded to me more like "mike", "precious" more like "capricious" without "ca" in front, "safer bet" more like "safer bit", "west" more like "wist".

At the end of the day, as a result of all the views presented by English teachers and other members in this thread I find myself a different man i.e. not as radical about what is discussed here as just a few days ago. Perhaps it is a good thing to know - with a bit of practice - where people we meet come from without even asking them? :roll:
 

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
I think that SD was referring to the 'hectolitre' unit rather than the metric system. I have spent a fair part of my working life in countries that use the metric system, and I have never heard the word used. I have seen it sometimes in economic/business reports.


Thank you for turning my attention to this possibility which escaped me entirely. The metric system has been in use in my country ever since I remember and the use of all the prefixes denoting the division or multiplication of a unit of measure by the factor of ten is for me as automatic as the use of the unit itself. Hecto means one hundred times more.

You also made me realise that the term "hectolitre" is used in my language idiomatically to express large quantities of liquids and that I made a common mistake of translating an idiom verbatim from one language to another.

My apologies to SD for being facetious (I hope he/she will read this)
 
Last edited:

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
There are two forces- the drive towards standardisation and a more homogeneous English for international communication and the drive for national and regional models. They will continue to operate alongside each other. Many speakers already vary the way they speak according to the person they're with. It's a bit like centripetal and centrifugal forces- one driving to create and change and one acting as a brake to hold things together.

Raymott's example of How to say xxx? and others like depend of and What means xxx? are so common among some groups of non-native speakers that they will probably cross over into the mainstream.

I think the impact of Sino-English will be lower than Raymott and 5jj suggest- there will be plenty of loan words and phrases, as we have so much more contact now than we did. People were saying the same about Japanese twenty years ago and we have lots of Japanese loan words in English now and things like all your bases are belong to us, but what else? I don't see why this should be particularly different with China. There has been a huge rise in trade and political relations, and this will have an impact, but this has not been accompanied by a similar cultural exchange- we do business, tourism and so on, but I don't see why this will have much impact on English. A few thousand loan words is more likely to me, which is what has happened every time before.

PS I don't have a problem understanding most Australians and Australian English has influenced BrE- many younger speakers have adopted things like intonation patterns from it, so I don't see it drifting away on its own. Julia Gillard hasn't struck me as hard to understand when I have heard her on the news. She does sound 'very' Australian to me, but I can follow what she's saying.
 
Last edited:

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
I was referring to the pronunciation. For example "left" is pronounced as "lift" (or at least that's how I hear it). I wonder if this common replacement of vowels (again according to my own perception) is formally recognized i.e. if it is reflected in the phonetic transcription in Australian English dictionaries.
No, it isn't. The reason is partly that general dictionaries give phonemic, not phonetic, pronunciation guides, and also because not all Australians have the same accent. "Left" in the Macquaire DIctionary (Australia's major national dictionary) is given as /lɛft/ and "lift" as /lɪft/.
It's true that the Australian /ɛ/ is closer to /ɪ/ than say, the British, /ɛ/ is; but it's not close enough to present the Australian pronunciation of "left" as being /lɪft/. And if you come to Australia and start saying "lift" to mean "left", people will not understand you.

(If the Australian accent is freaking you out, please don't try listenting to NZ English)
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
Indeed this comes as a revelation to me. I normally automatically assume that heads of state speak "Oxford" or "BBC" or "Harvard" English of their respective country.
That's an unusual assumption. People don't choose their accent after they've become elected to office. So are you saying that you think all previous British Prime Ministers have had similar accents?

Also I believe that the language we speak is one of the strongest means of expression of our identity and if a politician wants to ensure a large or influential following in a democratic society, they first and foremost should make sure that the language they speak coincides or resonates well with that of their supporters.
Australians hate fakes. We know how Julia Gillard speaks, and if she suddenly adopted a different accent during an election campaign, her chances of re-election would fall dramatically.

I now realize that having been little exposed to any "Australian English" other than that spoken by Julia Gillard, I may have built my case in this thread on entirely mistaken grounds!
Amazing! I can only suggest that you not make such broad generalisations about language on such little evidence in future.

At the end of the day, as a result of all the views presented by English teachers and other members in this thread I find myself a different man i.e. not as radical about what is discussed here as just a few days ago.
That's great! We are performing a useful public role if we can moderate such ill-conceived prejudices. I congratulate you on being willing to learn. We occasionally get posters here who have such strong fixed ideas that no amount of logic, evidence, or opinion will budge.
 

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
Indeed this comes as a revelation to me. I normally automatically assume that heads of state speak "Oxford" or "BBC" or "Harvard" English of their respective country.
That's an unusual assumption. People don't choose their accent after they've become elected to office. So are you saying that you think all previous British Prime Ministers have had similar accents?

Also I believe that the language we speak is one of the strongest means of expression of our identity and if a politician wants to ensure a large or influential following in a democratic society, they first and foremost should make sure that the language they speak coincides or resonates well with that of their supporters.
Australians hate fakes. We know how Julia Gillard speaks, and if she suddenly adopted a different accent during an election campaign, her chances of re-election would fall dramatically.

Please suffer me to make yet one comment on this. Mind you I didn't imply anywhere that Heads of state should change their accents the moment they become elected, and I would similarly imagine that Julia Gillard's chances of a re-election would fall dramatically were she to change her manner of speech over night. What I believe is that politicians aspiring for high positions in the government do bring their personal twangs or argots into line with what is considered formal or generally accepted as appropriate for them, gradually as they ascend the ladder. The use of formal English by someone coming from humble origins in my opinion does not represent a disloyalty, upstart airs, haughtiness or you name it, but that person's deference to existing norms of behaviour. Whether all previous British PMs have had similar accents is impossible for me to judge, but in all likelihood they followed the rules of their day.
In conclusion I do not think that my assumption that Australian Prime Minister spoke anything else but the formal version of the language was false. Thanks to your comments I now know however that - well grounded as it might be - it led me astray.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
In conclusion I do not think that my assumption that Australian Prime Minister spoke anything else but the formal version of the language was false. Thanks to your comments I now know however that - well grounded as it might be - it led me astray.
In a country such as Australia, which is comparatively young (European-wise), we are a nation of immigrants from all over the world. There is a typical accent, but not everyone speaks it. However, almost every competent naturalised citizen does vote, even those who can't speak English well.

In Australia, we don't vote for people on the basis of their accents. We vote for whichever lying, back-stabbing clown we think will run the country least dangerously for the next three years.
 

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
We vote for whichever lying, back-stabbing clown we think will run the country least dangerously for the next three years.


I sometimes reflect on why I even bother to cast my vote in presidential or parliamentary elections in my country. You put your finger on it far more competently than I ever could :-|.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Fascinating thread.

One thing is certain: languages become more locally distinct over time. Professor Higgins says he can place an Englishman within 6 miles of his place of birth, 2 in London. There is some truth in this, because English has been in England for a very long time. In America, People generally can't tell that Captain Kirk (William Shatner) is from Montreal, or that Captain Von Trapp (Christopher Plummer) is from Toronto. In part, this is because English in North America has had less time to differentiate into highly distinct local variants. There are just regional tendencies, except in New England, where city accents now exist (after 400 years).

Linguists also use this fact to determine the age of linguistic settlements: the European languages are far more different from each other than the Indian languages, which leads to the widely-accepted consensus that the Indo-European language group made its way at some point from Europe towards India, rather than the other way around.

As for whether TV or the internet will help standardise, I agree the jury is out. Certainly some expressions will be transmitted in this way (I've seen quite a few former Americanisms in the Mancunian speech of the Corrie cast recently) but whether the effect is powerful enough to homogenise English overall seems pretty unlikely.

I imagine we'll end up having a larger and larger difference between "proper" English (which will become more and more similar everywhere) and everyman's local colloquial English, to the point where English-speaking people will ultimately become practically bilingual -- as with Italians, who speak their local dialect as well as "standard" Italian, or Jamaicans, who speak Creole and, if educated, English.

Just my two cents.
 

JarekSteliga

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
Fascinating thread.

1. One thing is certain: languages become more locally distinct over time. Professor Higgins says he can place an Englishman within 6 miles of his place of birth, 2 in London. There is some truth in this, because English has been in England for a very long time.

2. Linguists also use this fact to determine the age of linguistic settlements: the European languages are far more different from each other than the Indian languages, which leads to the widely-accepted consensus that the Indo-European language group made its way at some point from Europe towards India, rather than the other way around.

3. I imagine we'll end up having a larger and larger difference between "proper" English (which will become more and more similar everywhere) and everyman's local colloquial English ...

1. Polish has been in Poland for a very long time, but Professor Higgins (or his Polish opposite number) would miserably fail in all but a few regions. What I am saying is that your theory holds true on condition that the country in question has not recently been ethnically rolled into one as Poland was in 1945.

2. It may be a widely-accepted consensus, but is a real Eureka to me!!! Thanks for sharing.

3. Would you not agree that there is one more English which has every right to be on your "list"? Could not English as a Second Language (ESL) be considered as an important variant with so many giving it a try for better or worse? I have a gut feeling that ESL speakers far outnumber more than one "everyman's local colloquial" ;-)
I wonder if the relationship between the adopted sibling (ESL) and the natural one (native English) could not be looked at in a separate thread of this forum?
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I agree there are a few forms of something we could loosely call International English, but no, I don't think ESL is one of them, it's heterogeneous, and those who speak 'ESL' do so with a great deal of interference from their mother tongues; those interferences aren't characteristics of English, just the various sorts of confusion multilingual people can struggle with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top