English questions

[Travis B.]

I have a coworker from Texas, and one thing I've noticed about his speech is that it sounds not too different from General American except that he uses y'all very liberally and does not use you guys at all. However, I've heard him say things such as [ˈstʌɹɘːɾə(ː)] for started to (I personally have [ˈsʲtʲʌʁˤɘːɾə(ː)]), which sound more like an northern dialect than GA, much the less Texan English. I'd expect GA proper to have [ˈstɑɹɾɘːɾə(ː)] or at least [ˈstɑɹɘːɾə(ː)], as to me a classic feature of GA proper is a lack of raising, even though many varieties of 'modern' GA under dialectal influence have raising for historical /aɪ/ alone (and this is increasing over time rather than regressive). This makes me wonder if he has connections to the northern US that he has not mentioned, and that his liberal sprinkling of his speech with y'all and avoidance of you guys is an explicit expression of Texan-ness to compensate.

[doctor shark]

I have a coworker from Texas, and one thing I've noticed about his speech is that it sounds not too different from General American except that he uses y'all very liberally and does not use you guys at all. However, I've heard him say things such as [ˈstʌɹɘːɾə(ː)] for started to (I personally have [ˈsʲtʲʌʁˤɘːɾə(ː)]), which sound more like an northern dialect than GA, much the less Texan English. I'd expect GA proper to have [ˈstɑɹɾɘːɾə(ː)] or at least [ˈstɑɹɘːɾə(ː)], as to me a classic feature of GA proper is a lack of raising, even though many varieties of 'modern' GA under dialectal influence have raising for historical /aɪ/ alone (and this is increasing over time rather than regressive). This makes me wonder if he has connections to the northern US that he has not mentioned, and that his liberal sprinkling of his speech with y'all and avoidance of you guys is an explicit expression of Texan-ness to compensate.

I haven't lived in Tex-ass for over two decades, so take my observations with a grain of salt, but Texas has had a lot of migration into the state in past years, and so the English spoken in urban Texas is probably more flavored to General American as opposed to the more stereotypical Texan dialect. In Corpus Christi, for example, it felt a bit mixed, and even my father's current wife (born and raised in Laredo and CC; has barely left the state) didn't sound as much Texan as it was perhaps more general southern. I also notice similar things in North Carolina as well, but I've been there only intermittently in the past decade and a half (even though NC is officially "home"), but also maybe because of the huge military population in the vicinity of Fort Liberty* (where my mother lives) and the large resultant migration.

*Formerly and currently known as Fort Bragg, but the new Bragg it's named for is not the Confederate General. No, not at all. Nope.

[Travis B.]

Do you guys analyze your varieties of English as having a phonemic contrast between /aɪ/ and /əɪ/? For instance, my dialect has /aɪ/ in Meyer, liar, Geiger counter, the Tiber river, hydra, and most cases of hydro- and /əɪ/ in mire, lyre, tiger, cyber-, hydrant, and hydrogen (/ˈhəɪdʒərdʒən/). While there is a general pattern in my dialect of historical /aɪər/ receiving /aɪ/, historical /aɪr/ receiving /əɪ/, and monomorphemic historical /aɪCər/ receiving /əɪ/, synchronically the pattern is simply too irregular to call it anything other than a phonemic split.

[Richard W]

For me, Meyer and liar, though the first is barely part of my active vocabulary, may surface as two syllables and therefore differ from mire and lyre, which are also infrequent words, possibly rare enough not to surface with monophthongs ([æː]). I'm not sure if the monophthongisations count as a register shift; it is related to the merger of stressed our and are, which I shed as I grew up. (No, this merger wasn't beaten out of me.)

[Man in Space]

Do you guys analyze your varieties of English as having a phonemic contrast between /aɪ/ and /əɪ/?

I do. I have partial Canadian raising that applies before intervocalic alveolar flapping; rider and writer differ only in the diphthong for me. I also distinguish Spyder (as in the automaker) and spider in the same way.

[Travis B.]

I'm not sure if the monophthongisations count as a register shift; it is related to the merger of stressed our and are, which I shed as I grew up. (No, this merger wasn't beaten out of me.)

It is curious that you don't merge stressed our and are ─ in the English I am familiar with this merger is negated only in very careful, emphatic, or high-register speech, where our merges with hour instead.

[Darren]

It is curious that you don't merge stressed our and are ─ in the English I am familiar with this merger is negated only in very careful, emphatic, or high-register speech, where our merges with hour instead.

The our-are merger is very shibbolethy of AmEng for me. Here the usual pronunciation of our is [æː(ə)] which is quite distinct from are [aː] but also distinct from hour [æˑo̯wɜ]

[Travis B.]

It is curious that you don't merge stressed our and are ─ in the English I am familiar with this merger is negated only in very careful, emphatic, or high-register speech, where our merges with hour instead.

The our-are merger is very shibbolethy of AmEng for me. Here the usual pronunciation of our is [æː(ə)] which is quite distinct from are [aː] but also distinct from hour [æˑo̯wɜ]

How would you analyze these? To me /aʊr/ and /aʊər/ in isolation (but not when followed by a vowel in the same word) always merge as [ɑɔ̯wʁ̩ˤ(ː)], while for the sake of comparison /ɑr/ is [ɑ(ː)ʁˤ].

[Darren]

It is curious that you don't merge stressed our and are ─ in the English I am familiar with this merger is negated only in very careful, emphatic, or high-register speech, where our merges with hour instead.

The our-are merger is very shibbolethy of AmEng for me. Here the usual pronunciation of our is [æː(ə)] which is quite distinct from are [aː] but also distinct from hour [æˑo̯wɜ]

How would you analyze these? To me /aʊr/ and /aʊər/ in isolation (but not when followed by a vowel in the same word) always merge as [ɑɔ̯wʁ̩ˤ(ː)], while for the sake of comparison /ɑr/ is [ɑ(ː)ʁˤ].

I honestly don't really know, without resorting to something silly like saying it's /æː/ (thus the only unchecked BAD vowel)

[Travis B.]

The our-are merger is very shibbolethy of AmEng for me. Here the usual pronunciation of our is [æː(ə)] which is quite distinct from are [aː] but also distinct from hour [æˑo̯wɜ]

How would you analyze these? To me /aʊr/ and /aʊər/ in isolation (but not when followed by a vowel in the same word) always merge as [ɑɔ̯wʁ̩ˤ(ː)], while for the sake of comparison /ɑr/ is [ɑ(ː)ʁˤ].

I honestly don't really know, without resorting to something silly like saying it's /æː/ (thus the only unchecked BAD vowel)

How would that be silly? In the English here, the only instances of final TRAP are yeah, what I would write, for lack of a standard spelling, as neah, and some words such as have where TRAP is sometimes exposed word-finally by final consonant elision.

[Darren]

How would you analyze these? To me /aʊr/ and /aʊər/ in isolation (but not when followed by a vowel in the same word) always merge as [ɑɔ̯wʁ̩ˤ(ː)], while for the sake of comparison /ɑr/ is [ɑ(ː)ʁˤ].

I honestly don't really know, without resorting to something silly like saying it's /æː/ (thus the only unchecked BAD vowel)

How would that be silly? In the English here, the only instances of final TRAP are yeah, what I would write, for lack of a standard spelling, as neah, and some words such as have where TRAP is sometimes exposed word-finally by final consonant elision.

It would imply that BAD is a rhotic vowel. Which is not so silly perhaps after all, although it implies that "bad" is phonetically /bærd/. As for yeah, that'd be /jeː/ with plain old SQUARE.

Is TRAP in "yeah" a widespread AmEng thing? It sound weird to me

[Man in Space]

Is TRAP in "yeah" a widespread AmEng thing? It sound weird to me

Yeah, it is. I find any other realization weird-sounding.

Speaking of…I am confusing myself because I realized I seem to have a height distinction in reduced vowels, but I can’t quite pin down what it is. I mean I contrast schwa and schwi (the latter might even be my default realizations) but it doesn’t seem to lend itself to an easy determination as to what conditions it; I’m wondering if schwi is maybe even my default reduced vowel realization. I saw the word “merlons” and immediately thought “that’s distinct from Merlins”.

[Lērisama]

Is TRAP in "yeah" a widespread AmEng thing? It sound weird to me

Yeah, it is. I find any other realization weird-sounding.

Weird. I find anything other than SQUARE odd for yeah, and I don't remember ever registering Americans as saying it weirdly, unlike Darren, although I suppose an American TRAP sounds similar to a British SQUARE, so I could have just not noticed the similar phone corresponds to a different phoneme.

[Raphael]

Isn't the main difference between SQUARE and TRAP length?

[Travis B.]

I honestly don't really know, without resorting to something silly like saying it's /æː/ (thus the only unchecked BAD vowel)

How would that be silly? In the English here, the only instances of final TRAP are yeah, what I would write, for lack of a standard spelling, as neah, and some words such as have where TRAP is sometimes exposed word-finally by final consonant elision.

It would imply that BAD is a rhotic vowel. Which is not so silly perhaps after all, although it implies that "bad" is phonetically /bærd/. As for yeah, that'd be /jeː/ with plain old SQUARE.

What about father though? Doesn't that have a long vowel even though it would be silly to analyze it as having an underlying rhotic?

Is TRAP in "yeah" a widespread AmEng thing? It sound weird to me

Yes, this is the standard pronunciation of yeah in NAE.

As for /jeː/ for yeah to me, that feels odd because yay in NAE is /jeɪ/ (which for me is [je̞(ː)]).

[Lērisama]

Isn't the main difference between SQUARE and TRAP length?

SQUARE is lengthened DRESS in every non rhotic dialect, I think. TRAP is significantly lower than that in my dialect, somewhere between [æ] and [a]¹

¹ [a] the front vowel the IPA want you to use it for, not the central one everyone does use it for²
² Admittedly the concept of frontness breaks down a bit at this part of the vowel space. Does anyone know of frequency plots for non-cardinal vowels?

Edit: Travis posted. Farther has for me been been entirely replaced by further in speech, so I would say it [fɜːðə] (with NURSE) or give it a spellong pronunciation of [fɑːðə] (with PALM/START). To be abundantly clear, I have [jɛː] (with SQUARE) for yeah and [jɛj] (with FACE) for yay

[Raphael]

Isn't the main difference between SQUARE and TRAP length?

SQUARE is lengthened DRESS in every non rhotic dialect, I think. TRAP is significantly lower than that in my dialect, somewhere between [æ] and [a]¹

¹ [a] the front vowel the IPA want you to use it for, not the central one everyone does use it for²
² Admittedly the concept of frontness breaks down a bit at this part of the vowel space. Does anyone know of frequency plots for non-cardinal vowels?

Edit: Travis posted. Farther has for me been been entirely replaced by further in speech, so I would say it [fɜːðə] (with NURSE) or give it a spellong pronunciation of [fɑːðə] (with PALM/START). To be abundantly clear, I have [jɛː] (with SQUARE) for yeah and [jɛj] (with FACE) for yay

Thank you!

[Travis B.]

Edit: Travis posted. Farther has for me been been entirely replaced by further in speech, so I would say it [fɜːðə] (with NURSE) or give it a spellong pronunciation of [fɑːðə] (with PALM/START). To be abundantly clear, I have [jɛː] (with SQUARE) for yeah and [jɛj] (with FACE) for yay

I actually said father, not farther.

And yes, I am perfectly aware of dialects in which farther has been 'replaced' by further; I put 'replaced' in quotes because further is actually the conservative form and farther is an innovation, so lacking farther may be a conservatism rather than an innovation. (In my dialect one normally uses further even though farther does exist.)

[Lērisama]

I actually said father, not farther.

Ah. In that case, father is [fɑːðə], with PALM/START. It could be that all long vowels get analysed as having a rhotic in my dialect, although I think I prefer a analysing none of them with /r/ – etymological PALM/START, CAUGHT/NORTH/FORCE and COMMA/LETTER.have entirely merged here, so it seems a bit weird to analyse some of them with rhotics and some without.

And yes, I am perfectly aware of dialects in which farther has been 'replaced' by further; I put 'replaced' in quotes because further is actually the conservative form and farther is an innovation, so lacking farther may be a conservatism rather than an innovation. (In my dialect one normally uses further even though farther does exist.)

[Travis B.]

I actually said father, not farther.

Ah. In that case, father is [fɑːðə], with PALM/START. It could be that all long vowels get analysed as having a rhotic in my dialect, although I think I prefer a analysing none of them with /r/ – etymological PALM/START, CAUGHT/NORTH/FORCE and COMMA/LETTER.have entirely merged here, so it seems a bit weird to analyse some of them with rhotics and some without.

I personally prefer rhotic-less analyses of long vowels in non-rhotic varieties, unlike some people here, and instead treat them as having intrusive-r (aside from non-rhotic NAE varieties which typically do not have intrusive-r), because otherwise one gets an odd asymmetry of that intrusive-r applies to COMMA/LETTER despite it being a short vowel, which significantly confounds the analysis. Also, such analyses add 'rhotics' to words such as father and palm which never had a rhotic in the syllable with a long vowel in the first place.