''Nobody pronounces 'hour' and 'are' the same.''
In some accents ''tower'', ''tire'' and ''tar'' are all pronounced the same way, closer to the pronunciation of ''tar'' and in those accents ''are'', ''our'' and ''hour'' are all pronounced the same way.
In English it's often possible to find some accent, somwhere, that breaks just about any pronunciation rule. Wouldn't it be more productive to simply concentrate on the most standard pronunciations? How many English students really want to talk like someone living in the hills of Arkansas or a suburban London slum?
The problem isn't when those English students are learning in class, but when they encounter said people on the street or in media. While I do teach standard pronunciation (complete with the IPA, which I force all of my lazy students to learn), questions have arisen on many occasions of "non-standard" pronunciations that they've heard in movies or television shows.
In time they will understand most non-standard pronunciations. You cannot teach them all, nor even a fraction of them. Most of their inability to understand stems from the fact that they are misunderstanding 80% of what they hear even in standard pronunciations. Whereas the remaining 20% is enough to infer meaning with standard pronunciations, that tiny margin disappears with non-standard pronunciations, and they simple understand nothing at all. Once they understand 80% of standard English instead of 20%, they'll understand enough of other pronunciations to understand them.
A good test of this with students is to ask them some completely off-the-wall question. Native speakers may be surprised, but they'll still understand the question. Many English students, however, despite a superficial appearance of good comprehension, will not understand even after several repetitions—because they normally understand very little, and when the context is unfamiliar they cannot correctly guess at what is being said.
Suggested "off-the-wall" questions:
1. "Jean-Pierre, Have you got a pet at home? If yes, what is its favourite hiding place?"
2. "Natsumi, if you were to find an alien in your bedroom tonight, how would you react?"
3. "Massoud, if you lived in the United States, how would the government there respond to the knowledge that you have been harbouring known terrorists in your house?"
4. "Anuradha, please reveal your aunt's deepest and darkest secret. Your cousin's an illegitimate child, isn't she? Something bad and terrible befell her mum, eh? You haven't got a cousin? Oh now, come, come, don't lie. How did it happen? Did the Indian government allow abortions twenty years ago?"
So nobody thinks the schwa sounds "slightly" different depending on the consonant that it precedes?
ta[ble] ----> short of BALL
se[ven] ----> " " [VEN]T
[to]day ----> U in GOOD
and so on.
It all depends on the person's accent (and, sometimes, the speed of speech). Some people say the "o" in "today" with an obvious vowel whereas others use a schwa. In slower speech, speakers might be more careful to pronounce the "actual vowel" rather than a schwa.
Yes Juan, I do.
I'd pronounce them:
table ~ taybul (this schwa is /u/)
seven ~ sev'n
today ~ t'day
police ~ p'lees
(the apostrophe representing the schwa sounds like /e:/)
Mi5 Mick sez:
<<Yes Juan, I do.
I'd pronounce them:
table ~ taybul (this schwa is /u/)
seven ~ sev'n
today ~ t'day
police ~ p'lees
(the apostrophe representing the schwa sounds like /e:/)>>
I knew it! :-) Finally I've been vindicated.
Mi5 Mick sez:
<<Halleluja bro!>>
Was there a hint of sarcasm in that sentence or was it a genuine expression of delight?! ;-) LOL, doesn't matter either way. I appreciate the input nevertheless.
The unstressed vowel by nature is highly variable, even for an individual speaker. The schwa is just an average of the more common unstressed vowel sounds, and it's hard to pinpoint it.
Juan,
My "hallelujah" pun was in response to "vindicated", something you'd hear in a sermon in the old days. :)
I've only been able to come up with the schwa before "l" as being different to the other ones; it's normally the case when the "l" is preceded by a consonant. It doesn't happen in the following words because the "l" is preceded by a vowel and the rhythm doesn't affect this either:
police ~ p'lees
polis ~ pol's
malice ~ mal's
* Correction:
police ~ p'lees
polis ~ pol's
polish ~ polish