1. their /v/ is weak, since they have it as an approximant, which is weaker than a fricative. In Eng, it is a fricative. Even in english, /v/ can have its approximant as an allophone: this occurs probably in phrases like "five sixty", since it is a v+s cluster.
2. They replace the approximant /w/ in English with the nearest sounding approximant in their lingos--and that is, /v/.
3. They even have troubles pronouncing /w/, since their vowels /u/ and /U/ got messed up in some cases. The trick is start with the vowel /u/ (this makes you round ur lips and forcing ur bottom teeth away from lips), then say the remaining. Pronounce "Well" as "uell"
4. Even tho they have aspirated stops /p/, /t/,and /k/, they hardly use them in their natively spoken languages. So, when they see /p/, /t/ and /k/, they end up prononcing unaspirated stops everywhere.
5. Some Indian languages got retroflex stops /t/ and /d/ (and Sanskrit does). Eng got Alveoler /t/ and /d/. So they end up producing retroflex variants
6. They got alveolar trilled /r/. In AmE, it is not trilled at all and it is rounded. Observe how Indians pronounce /r/ in "right" (along with their released t)
7. in AmE, vowel plus r = just a rhotic vowel, with some historic neutralizations. Indians dont see the vowel nature of r: it doesn't touch the roof of mouth.
8. They dont produce diphtongs /aI/ and /aU/; instead they end up producing /ʌɪ/ and /ʌʊ/, since the latter are the closest ones they have in their lingos.
9. they don't have /ɔ/ and /ɔɪ/. Instead, they produce /oʊ/ and /ɑɪ/
10. They sound like they got BrE accent. I think this is partly to do with their not having /æ/ in their lingos. So, they produce something like /ɑ/, because that's what they have. It has nothing to do with broad-A split (trap-bath split) in English.
11. They don't have /ɛ/ as in bet. But they can perceive the difference between this and /eI/ and can produce /ɛ/.
12. The other problem is their syllabizatoin. In their lingos, the syllabization principle is neat and simple: V, VN, CV, CVN, CCV, CCVN, etc, where V, C and N denote a vowel, consonant or nasal respectively. They apply this internalized principle, internalized because if you ask for that principle, they have hard time coming up with it. This syllabization is another major culprit in their english accent: they end up pronouncing some consonant clusters which are permitted in their native lingo syllabization but which are not permitted in Eng.
13. Another thing I noticed with their consonants: even though books claim that they got stop consonants, etc, when I see them pronounce, for instance, unaspirated k [ k ], they produce fricative [ x ] as in the /k/ sound in worker. That's the case with the word "ghazal". So, this leads to stress-related problems in Eng.
14. Their syllabization principle is also another hurdle when it comes to stressing English words. Add this with English syllabization principles, which vary with the tempo (for instance, C.-J. Bailey discusses it in his works)
15. Complaints about their intonation: they just pronounce word by word, some of them claim to have Queen's pronounciation;) It has nothing to do with BrE. Just an side effect of their native languages. So, you should better give em tips on compressing phrases like "I'll = aisle", etc
![]()