English questions

[Darren]

Conversely, while GenAm does apparently have monophthongal FACE and GOAT, they never sound like monophthongs to me. No American FACE ever sounds like Australian DRESS to me. Maybe it's because of tenseness or something.

[bradrn]

Conversely, while GenAm does apparently have monophthongal FACE and GOAT, they never sound like monophthongs to me. No American FACE ever sounds like Australian DRESS to me. Maybe it's because of tenseness or something.

I agree: they’ve never sounded monophthongal to me either. I think the common transcription is simply wrong.

[Travis B.]

Conversely, while GenAm does apparently have monophthongal FACE and GOAT, they never sound like monophthongs to me. No American FACE ever sounds like Australian DRESS to me. Maybe it's because of tenseness or something.

I agree: they’ve never sounded monophthongal to me either. I think the common transcription is simply wrong.

It depends on the variety. GA FACE may be [ĕɪ̆]~[eɪ], but in the dialect here diphthongal realizations are only commonly found word-finally. I personally lack a diphthongal FACE, but my mother and my daughter both sometimes have a diphthongal FACE in final position.

One note though is vowel length. GenAus DRESS is specifically short, whereas the FACE I am familiar with is unspecified for length (i.e. it can be long).

From listening to https://www.dialectsarchive.com/australia-23 and https://www.dialectsarchive.com/australia-47, the way that stressed is pronounced sounds distinctly laxer than my native FACE, particularly being more centralized than it even if it is not appreciately more open than it.

[Darren]

The other thing that gets me about GenAm is that their length contrast is very different to AusEng. Travis' allophonic "long vowels" don't sound particularly long to me, and GenAm "short vowels" often sound quite long. There's pretty much never any confusion between say, GenAm "cod" (theoretically [kʰaːt]) and AusEng "cart" [kʰaːʔt] or "card" [kʰaːd]. I think AusEng short vowels are shorter, especially before voiceless obstruent codas, so even e.g. GenAm "caught" [kʰaʔt] doesn't sound like AusEng "cut" [kʰăʔt].

Like when I hear an American saying "class", supposedly [kʰlæs], it definitely sounds a lot more like [kʰlæːs] to me ([kʰlæs] just sounds British).

[zompist]

GenAm "cod" (theoretically [kʰaːt])

Are you sure about that? It's [kʰaːd] for me, contrasting with [kʰat] for 'cot'.

(Intervocalically the voicing contrast is lost, and for me personally, the length contrast too. 'Writer/rider' are merged for me.)

[anteallach]

The other thing that gets me about GenAm is that their length contrast is very different to AusEng. Travis' allophonic "long vowels" don't sound particularly long to me, and GenAm "short vowels" often sound quite long. There's pretty much never any confusion between say, GenAm "cod" (theoretically [kʰaːt]) and AusEng "cart" [kʰaːʔt] or "card" [kʰaːd]. I think AusEng short vowels are shorter, especially before voiceless obstruent codas, so even e.g. GenAm "caught" [kʰaʔt] doesn't sound like AusEng "cut" [kʰăʔt].

Like when I hear an American saying "class", supposedly [kʰlæs], it definitely sounds a lot more like [kʰlæːs] to me ([kʰlæs] just sounds British).

My stereotype of an American accent definitely has a long vowel, or even a diphthong, there and in other BATH words. This may, though, be influenced by certain American accents: notably New York and Philadelphia have an actual phonemic split with lengthening or diphthongisation in BATH words (plus some others), and the Northern Cities Shift accents have diphthongisation too. I note that in Travis's vowel chart TRAP and DRESS seem to be so close together (bat is closer to head than it is to had) that I feel there must be something other than F1 and F2 which is supporting the distinction; perhaps it's similar to whatever is supporting the FACE/KIT distinction.

However I feel I've also heard American speakers (typically those cot/caught merged accents which have moved TRAP backwards into the space vacated by the merger) whose BATH vowels (at least those not followed by a nasal) sound more or less the same as the usual northern English short [a]. Also, if I try to say [kʰlæs] (as opposed to [kʰlas]) with a short vowel, it does sound a bit American to me.

GenAm "cod" (theoretically [kʰaːt])

Are you sure about that? It's [kʰaːd] for me, contrasting with [kʰat] for 'cot'.

(Intervocalically the voicing contrast is lost, and for me personally, the length contrast too. 'Writer/rider' are merged for me.)

Travis would transcribe it with [t], I think. But I'm not sure there's anything very different about his accent on this point; most English accents have at best weak voicing there and maintain the distinction in other ways (vowel length, glottal reinforcement, consonant length). So I wouldn't expect Wisconsin /d/ to be misheard as Australian /t/.

[Darren]

GenAm "cod" (theoretically [kʰaːt])

Are you sure about that? It's [kʰaːd] for me, contrasting with [kʰat] for 'cot'.

(Intervocalically the voicing contrast is lost, and for me personally, the length contrast too. 'Writer/rider' are merged for me.)

GenAm has much weaker stop voicing than AusEng, but I guess it's a bit overboard to describe them as fully voiceless.

[Travis B.]

The other thing that gets me about GenAm is that their length contrast is very different to AusEng. Travis' allophonic "long vowels" don't sound particularly long to me, and GenAm "short vowels" often sound quite long. There's pretty much never any confusion between say, GenAm "cod" (theoretically [kʰaːt]) and AusEng "cart" [kʰaːʔt] or "card" [kʰaːd]. I think AusEng short vowels are shorter, especially before voiceless obstruent codas, so even e.g. GenAm "caught" [kʰaʔt] doesn't sound like AusEng "cut" [kʰăʔt].

Like when I hear an American saying "class", supposedly [kʰlæs], it definitely sounds a lot more like [kʰlæːs] to me ([kʰlæs] just sounds British).

My stereotype of an American accent definitely has a long vowel, or even a diphthong, there and in other BATH words. This may, though, be influenced by certain American accents: notably New York and Philadelphia have an actual phonemic split with lengthening or diphthongisation in BATH words (plus some others), and the Northern Cities Shift accents have diphthongisation too. I note that in Travis's vowel chart TRAP and DRESS seem to be so close together (bat is closer to head than it is to had) that I feel there must be something other than F1 and F2 which is supporting the distinction; perhaps it's similar to whatever is supporting the FACE/KIT distinction.

One thing I should note is that at least in NAE vowel length is very sensitive to stress and word length (with vowels being longer in shorter words), so an allophonic short vowel in a monosyllabic word in an NAE variety may very well be longer than, say, an AusE phonemic short vowel in the same position, especially when the AusE vowel is also allophonically clipped on top of that.

As for my TRAP and DRESS, one thing I should note is that my DRESS varies very significantly depending on stress and register. In careful speech my TRAP and DRESS can be very close together, while in informal speech and especially when unstressed my DRESS is significantly centralized and there is much more distance between my TRAP and DRESS.

That said, I sometimes confuse TRAP and DRESS when hearing words pronounced by others or when learning words from people who did not grow up speaking the same dialect as myself. For instance, I have Star Tr/æ/k and k/æ/tchup, and sometimes I hear even my mother's DRESS (she grew up in Kenosha) as being TRAP simply because it is closer to [ɛ(ː)] than my native DRESS.

However I feel I've also heard American speakers (typically those cot/caught merged accents which have moved TRAP backwards into the space vacated by the merger) whose BATH vowels (at least those not followed by a nasal) sound more or less the same as the usual northern English short [a]. Also, if I try to say [kʰlæs] (as opposed to [kʰlas]) with a short vowel, it does sound a bit American to me.

You speak of TRAP versus BATH in NAE, which I find a bit odd because most NAE varieties lack the TRAP/BATH split, and while there is a phonemic split in TRAP/BATH in some East Coast dialects, and other environment-conditioned splits in many other NAE varieties such as my own (e.g. raising before /ŋ/ and /ɡ/), these are not along the same lines as the classic southern EngE or AusE TRAP/BATH split.

As for [a(ː)], in the NAE I am familiar with this is unambiguously COT (and PALM for those like my father who unlike myself do not have the spelling-pronounced resurrection of /l/ in these words). Interestingly enough, though, I do not confuse this with [a] for TRAP in the British TV I watch, which I hear as being TRAP.

GenAm "cod" (theoretically [kʰaːt])

Are you sure about that? It's [kʰaːd] for me, contrasting with [kʰat] for 'cot'.

(Intervocalically the voicing contrast is lost, and for me personally, the length contrast too. 'Writer/rider' are merged for me.)

Travis would transcribe it with [t], I think. But I'm not sure there's anything very different about his accent on this point; most English accents have at best weak voicing there and maintain the distinction in other ways (vowel length, glottal reinforcement, consonant length). So I wouldn't expect Wisconsin /d/ to be misheard as Australian /t/.

This is not an oddity of my accent ─ English varieties in general tend to have at least partial phonetic final devoicing but, as you mention, preserve the fortis/lenis distinction through other means. And no, I do not confuse fortis and lenis final plosives in other English varieties.

[anteallach]

You speak of TRAP versus BATH in NAE, which I find a bit odd because most NAE varieties lack the TRAP/BATH split, and while there is a phonemic split in TRAP/BATH in some East Coast dialects, and other environment-conditioned splits in many other NAE varieties such as my own (e.g. raising before /ŋ/ and /ɡ/), these are not along the same lines as the classic southern EngE or AusE TRAP/BATH split.

They're not the same, but there is reason to think that they are related. The environments for lengthening and raising in Philadelphia in particular are very similar to the ones for lengthening in southern England; both include the voiceless fricatives other than /ʃ/ and the main difference is that in Philadelphia more pre-nasal environments are included. It seems very plausible that the Philadelphia system is descended from an early version of the southern English split, before the retraction of the BATH vowel to merge with non-rhotic START. The New York system involves more environments, but it looks like an expanded version of the Philadelphia one, in which case it can also be seen as a variant of the TRAP/BATH split.

I think my stereotype of an "American accent" has more lengthening and raising of short A in BATH environments (and of course before nasals) and I suspect that's partly because it is actually more prevalent there because of these East Coast split systems. Hence why I specified BATH.

Of course there was also a version of the TRAP/BATH split found in parts of New England, which was more like the southern English one and which I suspect is almost extinct. I think this IDEA sample (born Boston 1920) shows it; her path in the Rainbow Passage is not very different from my unsplit one but the vowel sounds similar to the one in arch, suggesting a BATH/START merger, and her TRAP vowels are obviously more in the [æ] or even [ɛ] area so I think path is genuinely a different vowel. (Some New Zealand speakers also have this phenomenon of clearly having the split but their BATH vowel sounding close to my TRAP.)

[Travis B.]

You speak of TRAP versus BATH in NAE, which I find a bit odd because most NAE varieties lack the TRAP/BATH split, and while there is a phonemic split in TRAP/BATH in some East Coast dialects, and other environment-conditioned splits in many other NAE varieties such as my own (e.g. raising before /ŋ/ and /ɡ/), these are not along the same lines as the classic southern EngE or AusE TRAP/BATH split.

They're not the same, but there is reason to think that they are related. The environments for lengthening and raising in Philadelphia in particular are very similar to the ones for lengthening in southern England; both include the voiceless fricatives other than /ʃ/ and the main difference is that in Philadelphia more pre-nasal environments are included. It seems very plausible that the Philadelphia system is descended from an early version of the southern English split, before the retraction of the BATH vowel to merge with non-rhotic START. The New York system involves more environments, but it looks like an expanded version of the Philadelphia one, in which case it can also be seen as a variant of the TRAP/BATH split.

I think my stereotype of an "American accent" has more lengthening and raising of short A in BATH environments (and of course before nasals) and I suspect that's partly because it is actually more prevalent there because of these East Coast split systems. Hence why I specified BATH.

Of course there was also a version of the TRAP/BATH split found in parts of New England, which was more like the southern English one and which I suspect is almost extinct. I think this IDEA sample (born Boston 1920) shows it; her path in the Rainbow Passage is not very different from my unsplit one but the vowel sounds similar to the one in arch, suggesting a BATH/START merger, and her TRAP vowels are obviously more in the [æ] or even [ɛ] area so I think path is genuinely a different vowel. (Some New Zealand speakers also have this phenomenon of clearly having the split but their BATH vowel sounding close to my TRAP.)

It is interesting that your stereotype of an "American accent" is based heavily on East Coast dialects; that is not what I'd think of if I had to pick a stereotypically "American" accent. East Coast dialects definitely sound "accented" to my ears in a way that classic GA is not (e.g. things like h[ɑ]rrible and Fl[ɑ]rida).

[anteallach]

It is interesting that your stereotype of an "American accent" is based heavily on East Coast dialects; that is not what I'd think of if I had to pick a stereotypically "American" accent. East Coast dialects definitely sound "accented" to my ears in a way that classic GA is not (e.g. things like h[ɑ]rrible and Fl[ɑ]rida).

The thing is that it isn't a real accent; it's a portmanteau of features from various American accents, often (I think) the ones which sound most striking to me. For example, it has a rather front LOT, because that's the furthest from my own back rounded realisation, and it's at least somewhat prone to monophthongisation of PRICE, for similar reasons, but that causes those two vowels to be more similar than I think they are in any real American accent. I wouldn't take it very seriously other than as indicating which features of American accents stand out most strongly to me.

[Travis B.]

It is interesting that your stereotype of an "American accent" is based heavily on East Coast dialects; that is not what I'd think of if I had to pick a stereotypically "American" accent. East Coast dialects definitely sound "accented" to my ears in a way that classic GA is not (e.g. things like h[ɑ]rrible and Fl[ɑ]rida).

The thing is that it isn't a real accent; it's a portmanteau of features from various American accents, often (I think) the ones which sound most striking to me. For example, it has a rather front LOT, because that's the furthest from my own back rounded realisation, and it's at least somewhat prone to monophthongisation of PRICE, for similar reasons, but that causes those two vowels to be more similar than I think they are in any real American accent. I wouldn't take it very seriously other than as indicating which features of American accents stand out most strongly to me.

And these often don't exist in the same dialect -- for instance, a mid-to-front LOT is characteristic of Inland North dialects, but a general monophthongized PRICE is stereotypically Southern (there is an optionally monophthongized PRICE in my own dialect, but only before /oʊ ʊ u w l/).

[Travis B.]

One thing I have noticed is that at least in the English I am familiar, there is dissimilation between medial /n/ and final present participle endings' consonants even when there is intervocalic elision. For instance, I am used to in informal speech getting [ˈɡ̥ɜɾɘ̃(ː)(n)]~[ˈɡ̥ɜɘ̯̃n]~[ˈɡ̥ɜːn] but raining [ˈʁʷẽːɾ̃ɘ̃(ː)ŋ]~[ˈʁʷẽːɘ̯̃ŋ]~[ˈʁʷẽːːŋ], with ?[ˈʁʷẽːɾ̃ɘ̃(ː)(n)]~[ˈʁʷẽːɘ̯̃n]~[ˈʁʷẽːːn] being disfavored. Anyone else notice this kind of dissimilation in English?

For me "raining" is phonemically /renɪŋ/ but I'd say [ŋ] only in careful speech. Usually there's an [n] in there, but sometimes just nasalization.

It's interesting that you consider the [n] to be allophonic. In the dialect here, the [n] is not allophonic at all, because the alternation between [ŋ] and [n] or a nasal vowel with an elided consonant is found only in present participles (and then generally not when used predicatively) and the word something [ˈsʌ̃mθn̩(ː)]. Otherwise, e.g. in gerunds, [ɘ̃(ː)ŋ] stays [ɘ̃(ː)ŋ] and does not become [ɘ̃(ː)(n)], and vice versa.

[zompist]

For me "raining" is phonemically /renɪŋ/ but I'd say [ŋ] only in careful speech. Usually there's an [n] in there, but sometimes just nasalization.

It's interesting that you consider the [n] to be allophonic. In the dialect here, the [n] is not allophonic at all, because the alternation between [ŋ] and [n] or a nasal vowel with an elided consonant is found only in present participles (and then generally not when used predicatively) and the word something [ˈsʌ̃mθn̩(ː)]. Otherwise, e.g. in gerunds, [ɘ̃(ː)ŋ] stays [ɘ̃(ː)ŋ] and does not become [ɘ̃(ː)(n)], and vice versa.

Often your transcriptions look odd to me till I've worked through them and said the word multiple times and think "OK yeah that could happen." A lot of crazy stuff happens at the phonetic level-- as my phonetics book pointed out. And we can be highly influenced by the spelling.

In this case though it seems like the reverse. The gerund/participle division has a history going back to Middle English, but I'm not convinced any observed behaviors go back to that. Mostly I think it's a matter of stress-- the stress pattern differs in "The Mets are beating the Cubs!" vs. "The thugs administered a beating". The final -ing can get secondary stress in the gerund.

But I'd be surprised if you never get /ŋ/ > [n] in gerunds even in fast speech. Try out "They gave him a beating he won't forget!" or "There's a lot of good eating downstate."

[Travis B.]

For me "raining" is phonemically /renɪŋ/ but I'd say [ŋ] only in careful speech. Usually there's an [n] in there, but sometimes just nasalization.

It's interesting that you consider the [n] to be allophonic. In the dialect here, the [n] is not allophonic at all, because the alternation between [ŋ] and [n] or a nasal vowel with an elided consonant is found only in present participles (and then generally not when used predicatively) and the word something [ˈsʌ̃mθn̩(ː)]. Otherwise, e.g. in gerunds, [ɘ̃(ː)ŋ] stays [ɘ̃(ː)ŋ] and does not become [ɘ̃(ː)(n)], and vice versa.

Often your transcriptions look odd to me till I've worked through them and said the word multiple times and think "OK yeah that could happen." A lot of crazy stuff happens at the phonetic level-- as my phonetics book pointed out. And we can be highly influenced by the spelling.

In this case though it seems like the reverse. The gerund/participle division has a history going back to Middle English, but I'm not convinced any observed behaviors go back to that. Mostly I think it's a matter of stress-- the stress pattern differs in "The Mets are beating the Cubs!" vs. "The thugs administered a beating". The final -ing can get secondary stress in the gerund.

But I'd be surprised if you never get /ŋ/ > [n] in gerunds even in fast speech. Try out "They gave him a beating he won't forget!" or "There's a lot of good eating downstate."

To me to say /ŋ/ > [n] in gerunds, even in fast speech, feels like I am deliberately imitating someone else's dialect. I understand it perfectly well, but it does not feel natural at all for me to say myself.

[Travis B.]

BTW, there were two types of present participle endings in Middle English, -ende/-inde/-and and -inge (which you will often see written as -ynge). It is not inconceivable that both types of endings survived into modern English varieties, even if Standard English standardized upon -ing.

[jcb]

Even after nearly two decades of learning about linguistics, I still struggle to hear the difference between /A/ and /O/ (and /a/ and /Q/ that other dialects have). How non-COT-CAUGHT mergerers do it on a daily basis still sorta baffles me.

It sort of comforts me that /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ still sound near identical to you, because of my different but somewhat relateable experience of learning Finnish and failing on a regular, long-term basis to hear accurately their /æ ɑ/ distinction, despite, of course, having one of my own. (The Finnish pair are generally a bit more central than mine.) I can hear it, but I often get tripped up trying to follow it (or produce it) in more rapid speech.

For me, FWIW, there’s a very significant length distinction betwen COT and CAUGHT.

(1) Is this length distinction related to tenseness/laxness? (CAUGHT being tense, and COT being lax.)
(2) Do you not have an allophonic length distinction triggered by the following consonants? (In my dialect, voiced obstruents trigger the preceding vowel to lengthen.)

[Lērisama]

For me, FWIW, there’s a very significant length distinction betwen COT and CAUGHT.

(1) Is this length distinction related to tenseness/laxness? (CAUGHT being tense, and COT being lax.)
(2) Do you not have an allophonic length distinction triggered by the following consonants? (In my dialect, voiced obstruents trigger the preceding vowel to lengthen.)

I'm not sasasha, but I'm another Brit, and I can answer thede questions.

1. Kind of. COT is lax, but I'm not sure I'd consider CAUGHT tense; it's in the historical r-set¹, which I'm not sure how to classify.
2. Yes, I at least have a phonetic 4 way length distinction, although I believe there are no 4 way minimal pairs. For a 3 way one, have [b̥ɛ̆ʔ b̥ɛt̚ b̥ɛːt̚] ⟨bet bed beared⟩

¹ Yes, I know CAUGHT had no /r/, but only because of the spelling. It patterns as a historically rhotic now long vowel, merging with NORTH/FORCE.

[jcb]

For me, FWIW, there’s a very significant length distinction betwen COT and CAUGHT.

(1) Is this length distinction related to tenseness/laxness? (CAUGHT being tense, and COT being lax.)
(2) Do you not have an allophonic length distinction triggered by the following consonants? (In my dialect, voiced obstruents trigger the preceding vowel to lengthen.)

I'm not sasasha, but I'm another Brit, and I can answer thede questions.

1. Kind of. COT is lax, but I'm not sure I'd consider CAUGHT tense; it's in the historical r-set¹, which I'm not sure how to classify.
2. Yes, I at least have a phonetic 4 way length distinction, although I believe there are no 4 way minimal pairs. For a 3 way one, have [b̥ɛ̆ʔ b̥ɛt̚ b̥ɛːt̚] ⟨bet bed beared⟩

¹ Yes, I know CAUGHT had no /r/, but only because of the spelling. It patterns as a historically rhotic now long vowel, merging with NORTH/FORCE.

I messed that up. I meant to say that COT (/A/) is tense, and CAUGHT (/O/) is lax. (The spelling of these two words/sounds constantly confuses and tricks me, because COT is spelt with an "O", but sounds like /A/, and CAUGHT is spelt with an "A", but sounds like /O/. And, again, I have no intuition for which is which, because they're completely merged into /A/ for me.)

(1) Anyways, in my dialect, I'd call /i e u o A/ tense, and /I E { U V/ lax. (The tense ones are allowed before /r/ (except sorta [ u]), and the lax ones disallowed, except [V], which is an allophone of /A/ in certain situations.) What tenseness would you call /Q/ and /V/ ?
(2) How long is the vowel in BERT?

[anteallach]

(1) Is this length distinction related to tenseness/laxness? (CAUGHT being tense, and COT being lax.)
(2) Do you not have an allophonic length distinction triggered by the following consonants? (In my dialect, voiced obstruents trigger the preceding vowel to lengthen.)

I'm not sasasha, but I'm another Brit, and I can answer thede questions.

1. Kind of. COT is lax, but I'm not sure I'd consider CAUGHT tense; it's in the historical r-set¹, which I'm not sure how to classify.
2. Yes, I at least have a phonetic 4 way length distinction, although I believe there are no 4 way minimal pairs. For a 3 way one, have [b̥ɛ̆ʔ b̥ɛt̚ b̥ɛːt̚] ⟨bet bed beared⟩

¹ Yes, I know CAUGHT had no /r/, but only because of the spelling. It patterns as a historically rhotic now long vowel, merging with NORTH/FORCE.

I messed that up. I meant to say that COT (/A/) is tense, and CAUGHT (/O/) is lax. (The spelling of these two words/sounds constantly confuses and tricks me, because COT is spelt with an "O", but sounds like /A/, and CAUGHT is spelt with an "A", but sounds like /O/. And, again, I have no intuition for which is which, because they're completely merged into /A/ for me.)

(1) Anyways, in my dialect, I'd call /i e u o A/ tense, and /I E { U V/ lax. (The tense ones are allowed before /r/ (except sorta [ u]), and the lax ones disallowed, except [V], which is an allophone of /A/ in certain situations.) What tenseness would you call /Q/ and /V/ ?
(2) How long is the vowel in BERT?

My accent is a bit of a hybrid in that it's not fully non-rhotic, but I'd classify the stressable vowels as follows:
- short/lax: TRAP, DRESS, KIT, LOT, STRUT, FOOT. LOT, not merged with PALM in BrE, clearly belongs here.
- tense: FACE, FLEECE, GOAT, GOOSE. These tend to be diphthongised to at least some extent in many accents and tend to pattern with the more established diphthongs (PRICE, CHOICE, MOUTH), though the diphthongisation tendency is relatively weak in my own accent.
- long lax: PALM, START, THOUGHT, NORTH, FORCE, NURSE, SQUARE, NEAR, CURE. There can also be some diphthongisation in these, but here this means centring diphthongs. As you can see most of these come from vowels before historic /r/, and they can form length contrasts with the short vowels; the details vary from accent to accent but in particular it is common for SQUARE and DRESS to be mainly distinguished by length.

(The two remaining lexical sets are BATH and CLOTH. For most BrE speakers CLOTH is the same as LOT, while BATH is either the same as TRAP (as it is for me) or the same as PALM.)

For me length allophony is strongest in the tense group: seed is much longer than seat, whereas the difference between Sid and sit is relatively slight. But it does exist in the other two groups, which is how you get four lengths