The "How Do You Pronounce X" Thread

[anteallach]

I get the impression from this that /V[+back]l/ and especially /V[+back]lC/ and /V[+back]l#/ sequences are very unstable in English dialects, considering that pretty much all the respondents here have different distributions and realizations, whether phonemic or phonetic, of historical phonemic back vowels in these positions, including people who speak NAE varieties (Nort and myself), AusE varieties (Darren and vlad), EngE varieties (anteallach), or varieties that are somewhere between SAE and AusE (bradrn).

I think the instability is mostly before word-final and pre-consonantal /l/, especially the latter, though the merger of TRAP and DRESS before /l/ found in New Zealand and parts of Australia does happen if the /l/ is intervocalic; it even gets called the celery/salary merger.

My distribution is quite similar to vlad's, including the patterning of the two GOAT allophones. However I retain STRUT in all the words which historically have it, and I'm even less convinced of a distinction between GOAL and LOT before pre-consonantal (except /j/: volume has LOT) or word-final /l/ than he is. I also have that LOT/GOAL vowel in bald (but not bawled) unless I'm artificially distinguishing it from bold.

[Travis B.]

I think the instability is mostly before word-final and pre-consonantal /l/, especially the latter, though the merger of TRAP and DRESS before /l/ found in New Zealand and parts of Australia does happen if the /l/ is intervocalic; it even gets called the celery/salary merger.

There is a change from KIT to DRESS before /l/ in some NAE dialects; for example, the dialect here has DRESS rather than KIT in the first syllable of Illinois, and my mother (who grew up in Kenosha) also has this change in milk; I know some people apparently also have this change in vanilla but I am not personally familiar with it.

[abahot]

I have heard this lowering in milk, vanilla, since, disintegrate, and antisemitic, by speakers of various dialects of American English.

(Further, I have heard the first vowel in "miracle" pronounced as [eɪ], which may be the realization of the DRESS vowel before /r/ here in American English and part of the same phenomenon.)

[vlad]

I have heard this lowering in milk, vanilla, since, disintegrate, and antisemitic, by speakers of various dialects of American English.

I'm pretty sure in the case of antisemitic it's a lexical difference, and not an accent-based sound change.

It may be because there's a lot of common words ending in -etic (e.g. alphabetic, anesthetic, athletic, diabetic, genetic, magnetic, pathetic, poetic, sympathetic, synthetic), and few or none (depending on your definition of "common") ending in -itic (arthritic, hermaphroditic, syphilitic, parasitic).

[äreo]

I've heard the lowering in pillow as well.

[bradrn]

(Further, I have heard the first vowel in "miracle" pronounced as [eɪ], which may be the realization of the DRESS vowel before /r/ here in American English and part of the same phenomenon.)

I’ve observed this in my own speech, not just in ‘miracle’ but in other words too:

miracle [ˈme̞ɻʷɵkʰu]
illustrate [ˈe̞ɫəs̞t̞͡ʂʷæ͡ɪt]
irritate [ˈe̞ɻʷətˢæ͡ɪtˢ]

What’s weird is that it only seems to happen in a few words, e.g. ‘mirror’ is still [ˈmɪɻʷɐ].

[Glenn]

@bradrn: I frequently have this pronunciation in "miracle," but I don't seem to have it in any of the other words that you mentioned.

[vlad]

miracle [ˈme̞ɻʷɵkʰu]
illustrate [ˈe̞ɫəs̞t̞͡ʂʷæ͡ɪt]
irritate [ˈe̞ɻʷətˢæ͡ɪtˢ]

What’s weird is that it only seems to happen in a few words, e.g. ‘mirror’ is still [ˈmɪɻʷɐ].

Are all those /r/'s really labialized? I only have labialization/labiodentalization word-initially and in the onset of a stressed syllable.

[bradrn]

miracle [ˈme̞ɻʷɵkʰu]
illustrate [ˈe̞ɫəs̞t̞͡ʂʷæ͡ɪt]
irritate [ˈe̞ɻʷətˢæ͡ɪtˢ]

What’s weird is that it only seems to happen in a few words, e.g. ‘mirror’ is still [ˈmɪɻʷɐ].

Are all those /r/'s really labialized? I only have labialization/labiodentalization word-initially and in the onset of a stressed syllable.

I’ve never been entirely sure about the precise quality of my /r/s, but I’m pretty sure they are labialised, yes.

[Travis B.]

miracle [ˈme̞ɻʷɵkʰu]
illustrate [ˈe̞ɫəs̞t̞͡ʂʷæ͡ɪt]
irritate [ˈe̞ɻʷətˢæ͡ɪtˢ]

What’s weird is that it only seems to happen in a few words, e.g. ‘mirror’ is still [ˈmɪɻʷɐ].

Are all those /r/'s really labialized? I only have labialization/labiodentalization word-initially and in the onset of a stressed syllable.

I myself only labialize my /r/'s word-initially.

[anteallach]

I have some lip action in /r/ after a stressed vowel, but less than in word-initial position. Curiously, it is also usually apical after a stressed vowel, whereas it is laminal in word-initial position, with the tip of the tongue down near the lower teeth.

[TomHChappell]

How do you pronounce <breakfast>?
IML I (think I) pronounce it [ˈbɻek fəst] .

[Travis B.]

How do you pronounce <breakfast>?
IML I (think I) pronounce it [ˈbɻek fəst] .

/ˈbrɛkfəst/ [ˈb̥ʁˤɜʔkfɘsʲtʲ]

[Richard W]

How do you pronounce "various" and "rule"? I'm particularly curious as to whether non-rhotic speakers have a syllable final rhotic in the bisyllabic pronunciation or the first, or an onset /ɹj/. I'm not sure how one objectively distinguishes the two possibilities.

[jal]

How do you pronounce "various" and "rule"? I'm particularly curious as to whether non-rhotic speakers have a syllable final rhotic in the bisyllabic pronunciation or the first, or an onset /ɹj/. I'm not sure how one objectively distinguishes the two possibilities.

I'm not a native speaker, but I'm pretty sure there's no "syllable final rhotic" in "various"? Mmm, checked Wiktionary, and it seems that the GenAm pronunciation has, weird. Anyway, like Wiktionary says, I'm 99% sure that the "r" in "various" is the onset of the second syllable in BrE, and there's an vowel following (not a /j/), although I think it's more like /ɪ/ than /i/.

Of course, an alternative theory would be that the /r/ is the coda, and the /r/ heard in BrE is just a linking r :).


JAL

[Travis B.]

How do you pronounce "various" and "rule"? I'm particularly curious as to whether non-rhotic speakers have a syllable final rhotic in the bisyllabic pronunciation or the first, or an onset /ɹj/. I'm not sure how one objectively distinguishes the two possibilities.

I am not non-rhotic, as you probably would have gathered, but for me in various /ˈvɛ̝rjəs/ [ˈvɛ̝ːʁˤjɘs] the /r/ feels ambisyllabic to me (like the /d/ in hideous /ˈhɪdiəs/ [ˈhɪ̈ːɾjɘs]), while in rule /rul/ [ˈʁʷˤu(ː)ʊ̯] I do not even have a /j/ in the first place (like most present-day North Americans).

[Raphael]

Can you determine, with any kind of certainty, to which syllable an intervocalic consonant belongs?

[Travis B.]

Can you determine, with any kind of certainty, to which syllable an intervocalic consonant belongs?

The basic rules in the English I am used to are that if an intervocalic consonant precedes a stressed syllable or is initial (with the exception of the /t/ in to, today, tonight, and tomorrow), then it belongs to the stressed syllable, otherwise it is ambisyllabic.

[jal]

Can you determine, with any kind of certainty, to which syllable an intervocalic consonant belongs?

In Germanic languages that's pretty difficult, afaiu. I recall a post on John Wells's blog years ago that he had a discussion with a German dictionary publisher that marked stress on the vowel (e.g. "h'aben") because the intervocalic consonants are ambisyllabic. Of course, for languages with a more strict syllable structure it can be easier to determine (though a realize this can lead to circular reasoning).


JAL

[Raphael]

Thank you!