English questions

[Darren]

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?

Given that words like "spa" and "bra" generate intrusive /r/, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to analyse "father" as /farðə/. In fact analysing BAD as TRAP + /r/ would neaten up the vowel system a lot, there's just no evidence in the form of intrusive /r/ for it.

Of course there's other problems in analysing AusEng as such; namely the merry/Mary distinction, which you'd have to analyse as /merəj/ ~ /merrəj/.

Apart from this, it works surprisingly well. Stressed syllables can be analysed as obligatorily /i ʊ e ɵ æ a ɒ/ + consonant and unstressed syllables as /ə/ + consonant. Long vowels are V + r (except /ɒ/ can't be followed by /r[C,#]/, and /ɵ/ must be followed by /r[C,#]/, so if you were very keen you could analyse them both as allophones of /ɔ/). Diphthongs you could probably call /ij ʊw æj aw aj æw/ (size=80]FLEECE GOOSE FACE GOAT PRICE MOUTH[/size]). Unstressed syllables get schwa plus /əj əw ər əl ən/ = happY follOW commA/lettER bottLE happEN. Thus I can claim that AusEng is a VC language rather than a CV one. It's genuinely not a bad analysis.

[Travis B.]

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?

Given that words like "spa" and "bra" generate intrusive /r/, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to analyse "father" as /farðə/. In fact analysing BAD as TRAP + /r/ would neaten up the vowel system a lot, there's just no evidence in the form of intrusive /r/ for it.

Of course there's other problems in analysing AusEng as such; namely the merry/Mary distinction, which you'd have to analyse as /merəj/ ~ /merrəj/.

Apart from this, it works surprisingly well. Stressed syllables can be analysed as obligatorily /i ʊ e ɵ æ a ɒ/ + consonant and unstressed syllables as /ə/ + consonant. Long vowels are V + r (except /ɒ/ can't be followed by /r[C,#]/, and /ɵ/ must be followed by /r[C,#]/, so if you were very keen you could analyse them both as allophones of /ɔ/). Diphthongs you could probably call /ij ʊw æj aw aj æw/ (size=80]FLEECE GOOSE FACE GOAT PRICE MOUTH[/size]). Unstressed syllables get schwa plus /əj əw ər əl ən/ = happY follOW commA/lettER bottLE happEN. Thus I can claim that AusEng is a VC language rather than a CV one. It's genuinely not a bad analysis.

This feels a bit forced to me, to be honest, though, and I'm not comfortable with phonemic analyses that are radically different for language varieties that are fundamentally crossintelligible. (For instance, I have no problem understanding AusE.) E.g. I could come up with a 'reasonable' analysis of my own dialect with phonemic vowel length for all vowels, phonemic vowel nasality, and phonemic consonant length, but the matter is I have no reason to believe that my dialect isn't crossintelligible with most other English varieties from other parts of the world, and far less radical analyses that position my own dialect much closer to other English varieties are just as viable. (However, I don't think my dialect can be analyzed without phonemic gemination, as shown by pairs like pizza [ˈpʰiʔtːsə(ː)] versus Nazi [ˈnatsi(ː)].)

[Darren]

This feels a bit forced to me, to be honest, though, and I'm not comfortable with phonemic analyses that are radically different for language varieties that are fundamentally crossintelligible.

Do not question The Analysis it is Perfect; all hail The Analysis and its Wonderous obligatory codas

[Travis B.]

This feels a bit forced to me, to be honest, though, and I'm not comfortable with phonemic analyses that are radically different for language varieties that are fundamentally crossintelligible.

Do not question The Analysis it is Perfect; all hail The Analysis and its Wonderous obligatory codas

And I didn't realize that the Arrernte substratum was that strong in AusE...

[Richard W]

This feels a bit forced to me, to be honest, though, and I'm not comfortable with phonemic analyses that are radically different for language varieties that are fundamentally crossintelligible.

As distinct analyses are quite possible for the same speech variety, I think they must be regarded as an uncomfortable possibility. Only in writing do we come close to communicating in phonemes - speech is quite different, and that process usually includes correcting mechanisms. More disturbing is someone having competing analyses for the preferred variety of their L1.

[Travis B.]

This feels a bit forced to me, to be honest, though, and I'm not comfortable with phonemic analyses that are radically different for language varieties that are fundamentally crossintelligible.

As distinct analyses are quite possible for the same speech variety, I think they must be regarded as an uncomfortable possibility. Only in writing do we come close to communicating in phonemes - speech is quite different, and that process usually includes correcting mechanisms. More disturbing is someone having competing analyses for the preferred variety of their L1.

I honestly don't take seriously phonemic vowel length and phonemic vowel nasality as possibilities for my own variety, because such an analysis runs into problems when you look closer and don't just naively analyze things in terms of minimal pairs and whatnot.

For instance, it is impossible to construct a word with arbitrary vowel nasality in my dialect, and vowel nasality is not loaned into my dialect intact (a borrowed nasal vowel normally ejects a nasal consonant afterwards*, highly affected imitations of French aside). A good example of this is how there is prom [pʰʁ̥ˤɑ̃(ː)m] and problem [pʰʁ̥ˤɑːmː] but *[pʰʁ̥ˤɑ(ː)m] and *[pʰʁ̥ˤɑ̃ːmː] are impossible. This implies that the correct analyses of prom and problem are the conservative analyses /pram/ and /prabm/ rather than the radical analyses /prã(ː)m/ and /praːmː/, with "phonemic" vowel nasality being a side effect of the assimilation of stop-nasal clusters rather than being an intrinsic phonemic property of the vowel itself. This is corroborated by the fact that any time a non-nasal vowel precedes a nasal consonant the nasal consonant on the surface is always long.

* This nasal consonant may then be elided, though, if it falls in a syllable coda that contains a following fortis plosive; however, it resurfaces if a vowel is then added after the fortis plosive.

[Raphael]

I sometimes wonder whether the notorious German habit of pronouncing "th" as /z/ when speaking English might be a result of generations of English teachers at German schools trying to get generations of German schoolchildren to pronounce an overly correct British upper class "th". What do you think - could there be something to that? Does the way upper class English people pronounce "th" sound a bit like /z/ to you?

[Lērisama]

I sometimes wonder whether the notorious German habit of pronouncing "th" as /z/ when speaking English might be a result of generations of English teachers at German schools trying to get generations of German schoolchildren to pronounce an overly correct British upper class "th". What do you think - could there be something to that? Does the way upper class English people pronounce "th" sound a bit like /z/ to you?

Which ⟨th⟩, and what upper class English pronounciation? I'm not aware of a major change between RP and SSBE in that pronounciation of either phoneme¹⁴, The voiceless [θ], of thistle, ether and thigh sounds anything like a [z], so I assume you mean the voiced [ð], of this, either & thy, which does sound like [z], unless it's pronouncdd as an affricate or stop [d̪͡ð d̪]⁵, or merged into [v]⁶. Maybe the true fricative pronounciation of [ð] is what you're thinking of, given the latter would lead to mergers in non-native speakers with /d/ and /v/ respectively.

¹ I.e. a WWII BBC broadcast or the Queen²³
² The queen of the United Kingdom and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc.
³ The Queen Queen, not the Queen Camilla we have now
⁴ With one major caveat below
⁵ Both common initially in SSBE, and I think In most Englishes worldwide
⁶ Also common, although a bit less frequent, in the same dialect set above, I think

[Travis B.]

In the English here both /θ ð/ initially are commonly [t̪ d̪] or [t̪θ d̪ð], except that initial /θ/ is often [θ] as well, in higher registers initial /ð/ is [ð], in lower registers initial /ð/ often merges with /d/ as [d~t], or after a nasal in the preceding word, where initial /ð/ commonly merges with the nasal as [n̪ː], or after a sibilant in the preceding word, where initial /ð/ is commonly realized as [z]. Intervocalically /θ ð/ normally are [θ ð] here, except for my daughter, where intervocalic /ð/ often merges with /d/ as [ɾ]. Finally and in consonant clusters /θ ð/ are commonly both realized as [θ] here except if the consonant cluster is with another voiced fricative, where /ð/ instead remains intact as [ð] or, if the voiced fricative is a sibilant, becomes [z].

[Raphael]

Which ⟨th⟩, and what upper class English pronounciation? I'm not aware of a major change between RP and SSBE in that pronounciation of either phoneme¹⁴, The voiceless [θ], of thistle, ether and thigh sounds anything like a [z], so I assume you mean the voiced [ð], of this, either & thy, which does sound like [z], unless it's pronouncdd as an affricate or stop [d̪͡ð d̪]⁵, or merged into [v]⁶. Maybe the true fricative pronounciation of [ð] is what you're thinking of, given the latter would lead to mergers in non-native speakers with /d/ and /v/ respectively.

I think I mean the latter.

[Richard W]

There's also the frictionless approximant [ð̞], particularly post-vocally. I think that may be particularly prone to merger with [v].

[Nortaneous]

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

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

It's [jeə], with the [eə] vowel that appears before /m n/ in GenAm and in some Mid-Atlantic dialects for words where RP has [ɑː], so technically "yeah" has BATH (^:

[Travis B.]

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

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

It's [jeə], with the [eə] vowel that appears before /m n/ in GenAm and in some Mid-Atlantic dialects for words where RP has [ɑː], so technically "yeah" has BATH (^:

In the dialect here yeah is realized as [jɛ(ː)] or sometimes [jɛ̆ə̯̆]~[jɛə̯], but in Milwaukee dialect proper there is also yah [ja(ː)]. For the longest time I just thought of yah as an alternate pronuncation of yeah.

[Nortaneous]

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

It's [jeə], with the [eə] vowel that appears before /m n/ in GenAm and in some Mid-Atlantic dialects for words where RP has [ɑː], so technically "yeah" has BATH (^:

In the dialect here yeah is realized as [jɛ(ː)] or sometimes [jɛ̆ə̯̆]~[jɛə̯], but in Milwaukee dialect proper there is also yah [ja(ː)]. For the longest time I just thought of yah as an alternate pronuncation of yeah.

I was surprised when I heard yah for the first time - in the Nixon tapes. Very German!

[Travis B.]

It's [jeə], with the [eə] vowel that appears before /m n/ in GenAm and in some Mid-Atlantic dialects for words where RP has [ɑː], so technically "yeah" has BATH (^:

In the dialect here yeah is realized as [jɛ(ː)] or sometimes [jɛ̆ə̯̆]~[jɛə̯], but in Milwaukee dialect proper there is also yah [ja(ː)]. For the longest time I just thought of yah as an alternate pronuncation of yeah.

I was surprised when I heard yah for the first time - in the Nixon tapes. Very German!

Here in the Upper Midwest it's either a loan from German or a loan from North Germanic depending on where you are. It is also very location-specific, e.g. my mother, who grew up in a Polish family in Kenosha, which is a very Italian town, said that she only became familiar with it after she moved to Milwaukee. Likewise, I encountered coworkers who were from other parts of Wisconsin who specifically remarked on my use of it.

[bradrn]

I think I’ve mentioned previously that I have [jɑː] due to Afrikaans influence. (In South Africa it’s regularly written ja.)

[Travis B.]

One thing I notice in the dialect here is that there is considerable variation in the realization of NEAR -- it can vary between [ɪ(ː)ʁˤ] and [ĭ.ʁ̩̆ˤ]~[i.ʁ̩ˤ] depending on one's ideolect, stress, and register. Has anyone else noticed this?

[jal]

One thing I notice in the dialect here is that there is considerable variation in the realization of NEAR -- it can vary between [ɪ(ː)ʁˤ] and [ĭ.ʁ̩̆ˤ]~[i.ʁ̩ˤ] depending on one's ideolect, stress, and register. Has anyone else noticed this?

Isn't variation between [ɪ] and [ i ] in NEAR quite common across all English varieties?


JAL

[Darren]

Isn't variation between [ɪ] and [ i ] in NEAR quite common across all English varieties?

Not in non-rhotic ones

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else's English dialects have phonemic contrasts between 'rhotic' vowels and sequences of non-'rhotic' vowels and /r/? I ask because I can form distinct contrasts between [ɛ̝(ː)ʁˤ] (e.g. Mary/merry/marry) and [ɜːʁˤ] (e.g. every, note that this is not NURSE) and between [ɑ(ː)ʁˤ] (e.g. START) and [aːʁˤ] (e.g. already, all right). While [a(ː)ʁˤ] could be explained away as a regular phonological outcome of unstressed /ɔlr/, the /v/-elision in every cannot be explained away because it does not occur in several so cannot be treated as regular phonological outcome.

Similarly, there are many 'impossible' vowel-rhotic sequences that are made possible by elisions, such as [ɛːʁˤ] (e.g. Saturday), [ɛːːʁˤ] (e.g. rather), and [ʌːːʁˤ] (e.g. other ─ note that while [ʌʁˤ] is possible it only occurs before voiceless obstruents and [ʌːʁˤ] does exist uniquely in target).

It seems that in at least the dialect here the underlying phonemic system has not quite broken down and reorganized, as currently forms like this are not directly loanable or coinable, but is under considerable stress, and could very well drastically reorganize in coming generations.