English vowel systems and lexical sets

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else perceive failure to front or at least centralize GOOSE and FOOT when they follow alveolar, postalveolar, and palatal consonants and don't precede /l/ as, well, really accented? E.g. when I try to exclusively pronounce GOOSE and FOOT with back vowels I feel like I am mocking someone's foreign accent.

[Lērisama]

To me it sounds like a Northern accent, rather than a foreign one, but it is certainly not what I'd say myself.

[anteallach]

Does anyone else perceive failure to front or at least centralize GOOSE and FOOT when they follow alveolar, postalveolar, and palatal consonants and don't precede /l/ as, well, really accented? E.g. when I try to exclusively pronounce GOOSE and FOOT with back vowels I feel like I am mocking someone's foreign accent.

No. A proper back vowel in GOOSE isn't what I normally do (maybe except before /l/) but I don't find I associate it with a foreign accent (unlike, say, a TRAP vowel which sounds like DRESS). My FOOT isn't really fronted that much anyway.

Given what you said about the previous consonant, I had a look at some spectrograms, all with the GOOSE vowel followed by /t/:
- There is perhaps slightly more fronting in suit and toot than in boot and coot, but the effect is pretty small, less than 100 Hz difference in F2. All these vowels are pretty much monophthongal, with F2 around 1600 Hz throughout the vowel. (I front the whole vowel.)
- After postalveolars (jute, shoot) the vowel is clearly a bit fronter, around 1800 Hz, with a slightly tendency to glide backwards to about 1700 Hz.
- After /j/ the vowel definitely starts further forward (even if I avoid the obvious /j/ bit at the beginning, it seems to be about 2100 Hz) and has a more obvious backwards movement during the vowel. If I just listen to the first half of the vowel it really sounds like [y].

[bradrn]

Are you sure this isn't plain old vowel length allophony?

I think it isn’t, because I just realised it forms a minimal pair with warder [ˈwoːɾɐ].

I’m returning to this post, because I just found some more words with this vowel: horse/hoarse, forth/fourth, quarter. (The latter two have marginal minimal pairs with n-plus-four-th and corder. There are also some obvious loanwords, e.g. Torah.) I can’t think of any other words which I unambiguously pronounce with this short vowel. Any ideas?

I’ve found another word belonging to this lexical set, namely off. At this point I think it’s fair to call this a new phonemic split, though what the conditioning factor is I couldn’t say.

[Darren]

I’ve found another word belonging to this lexical set, namely off. At this point I think it’s fair to call this a new phonemic split, though what the conditioning factor is I couldn’t say.

What vowel do you have in "gone"? That's often a funny one in AusEng dialects.

[bradrn]

I’ve found another word belonging to this lexical set, namely off. At this point I think it’s fair to call this a new phonemic split, though what the conditioning factor is I couldn’t say.

What vowel do you have in "gone"? That's often a funny one in AusEng dialects.

/ɔ/ (or if you prefer, /ɒ/).

[abahot]

I have some ideas about analyzing English high vowels.

(I don't remember the formal terms for these, so apologies in advance): some dialects (including my own) have the hire-higher and flour-flower mergers. I wonder if this could be analyzed as underlying /aj/ and /ar/, where both /j/ and /r/ pattern as semivocalic offglides, and syllables may have at most one offglide, so "hire" merges into "higher", /hajr/ becoming /haj.r/, to avoid a double offglide in one syllable.

Given other pre-rhotic vowel mergers for high vowels (like the mirror/nearer merger) of KIT and FLEECE, I have toyed with the idea of representing front close vowels as underlying /i/ with an offglide, and some of the diphthongs as similar but with /a/:
"fit" /fit/
"feat" /fijt/
"few" /fiw/
"fear" /fir/

"high" /haj/
"cow" /kaw/
"car" /kar/

This provides a neat theoretical analysis for both mergers I mentioned, but it doesn't extend as neatly to all other vowels, or to post-vocalic /l/, which triggers a similar vile/vial merger but no such similar merger of the KIT and FLEECE vowels. If anyone has any ideas on theoretical English vowel representations to explain such mergers, I would love to hear them.

[Nortaneous]

What KIT/FLEECE merger? These varieties just violate the proposed universal that consonants are preferentially syllabified into onsets, which most English varieties violate anyway unless you bring in ambisyllabicity. FLEECE has a tense realization of /i/ and a [j] offglide; NEAR has a tense realization of /i/ and a [r] offglide. -jl is a prohibited coda just like -jr. Some American varieties also prohibit -wl, so "school" is disyllabic, although this is complicated by the emergence of a monophthongal /o/ phoneme distinct from THOUGHT in words like "both", sometimes misspelled "bolth" for this reason.

"few" can't have /iw/ unless you posit that word-initial NEW is actually /jiw/, because e.g. a useful thing (not *an useful thing).

[Travis B.]

What KIT/FLEECE merger? These varieties just violate the proposed universal that consonants are preferentially syllabified into onsets, which most English varieties violate anyway unless you bring in ambisyllabicity. FLEECE has a tense realization of /i/ and a [j] offglide; NEAR has a tense realization of /i/ and a [r] offglide. -jl is a prohibited coda just like -jr. Some American varieties also prohibit -wl, so "school" is disyllabic, although this is complicated by the emergence of a monophthongal /o/ phoneme distinct from THOUGHT in words like "both", sometimes misspelled "bolth" for this reason.

"few" can't have /iw/ unless you posit that word-initial NEW is actually /jiw/, because e.g. a useful thing (not *an useful thing).

I would precisely analyze most NAE varieties at least as having ambisyllabicity, for the reason that flapping of /t d/, and in applicable varieties /n nt/, patterns with where ambisyllabicity would be expected.

Also, I should note the existence of NAE varieties (e.g. that here) that permit /il/ and /ul/; for me at least feel and school are monosyllables.

[abahot]

"few" can't have /iw/ unless you posit that word-initial NEW is actually /jiw/, because e.g. a useful thing (not *an useful thing).

I would posit in this analysis that the word "useful" starts with /ju-/ instead of /iw-/. This particular aspect of the analysis may be very specific to my dialect, and the only minimal pair I can think of is "you" vs. "ew", but to my ears "you" /ju/ and "use" /juz/ do not rhyme with "few" /fiw/ and "fuse" /fiwz/. (If anyone else thinks the same or differently about these words rhyming I would love to hear it.) Because of that I would posit that word-initial NEW is better analyzed as /ju/ than /iw/.

[anteallach]

"few" can't have /iw/ unless you posit that word-initial NEW is actually /jiw/, because e.g. a useful thing (not *an useful thing).

I would posit in this analysis that the word "useful" starts with /ju-/ instead of /iw-/. This particular aspect of the analysis may be very specific to my dialect, and the only minimal pair I can think of is "you" vs. "ew", but to my ears "you" /ju/ and "use" /juz/ do not rhyme with "few" /fiw/ and "fuse" /fiwz/. (If anyone else thinks the same or differently about these words rhyming I would love to hear it.) Because of that I would posit that word-initial NEW is better analyzed as /ju/ than /iw/.

I perceive them as rhyming; as mentioned above I have something like [yʉ] for GOOSE after /j/, and I think that's true both where the /j/ is word initial and where it follows another consonant. (Not after /j/ GOOSE is more like [ʉː].) I don't find the /iw/ analysis, presumably with initial /jiw/, ridiculous, but it isn't my intuitive one.

[Travis B.]

One thing I should mention is that in the English here there is a vile-vial merger, but it favors monosyllabicity, such that both merge to [va̟(ː)ɯ̯] in quick speech and [vă̟ĕ̯ɯ̯]~[va̟e̯ɯ̯] in careful speech (but when spoken very slowly they can become [va̟e̯ɯ(ː)]).

Likewise, there is a reel-real merger to [ʁʷˤi(ː)ɯ̯] in the English here.

[zompist]

One thing I should mention is that in the English here there is a vile-vial merger, but it favors monosyllabicity, such that both merge to [va̟(ː)ɯ̯] in quick speech and [vă̟ĕ̯ɯ̯]~[va̟e̯ɯ̯] in careful speech (but when spoken very slowly they can become [va̟e̯ɯ(ː)]).

Likewise, there is a reel-real merger to [ʁʷˤi(ː)ɯ̯] in the English here.

I guess I'd look at it the other way: what General American speakers distinguish these, and how?

Merriam-Webster thinks the first pair are both ˈvī(-ə)l, but thinks the second pair are ˈˈrēl / rē(-ə)l. The AHD does think vile is vīl, and agrees with MW on the others but offers rēl as an alternative for real.

I wonder if these are victories of phonemics over phonetics. The thing is, it's pretty hard to pronounce [Vjɫ] as one syllable: the tongue has to leap from the front to the back of the mouth, which will be perceived as a syllable. (No problem with clear [l].) I also disagree with the frequent assumption that syllabic r/l/n are phonemically shwa + C rather than a syllabic consonant.

(IIRC, Travis, you consistently have l# > [ɯ̯] but I'm not clear if you intend that as representing your personal lect, Milwaukee dialect, or General American.)

[Travis B.]

One thing I should mention is that in the English here there is a vile-vial merger, but it favors monosyllabicity, such that both merge to [va̟(ː)ɯ̯] in quick speech and [vă̟ĕ̯ɯ̯]~[va̟e̯ɯ̯] in careful speech (but when spoken very slowly they can become [va̟e̯ɯ(ː)]).

Likewise, there is a reel-real merger to [ʁʷˤi(ː)ɯ̯] in the English here.

I guess I'd look at it the other way: what General American speakers distinguish these, and how?

Merriam-Webster thinks the first pair are both ˈvī(-ə)l, but thinks the second pair are ˈˈrēl / rē(-ə)l. The AHD does think vile is vīl, and agrees with MW on the others but offers rēl as an alternative for real.

Merging these pairs seems pretty common in NAE in general, and I am not just speaking of the English here in southeastern Wisconsin either.

I wonder if these are victories of phonemics over phonetics. The thing is, it's pretty hard to pronounce [Vjɫ] as one syllable: the tongue has to leap from the front to the back of the mouth, which will be perceived as a syllable. (No problem with clear [l].)

The dialect here very frequently monophthongizes PRICE before /oʊ u w l/ outside of careful speech for probably this very reason.

I also disagree with the frequent assumption that syllabic r/l/n are phonemically shwa + C rather than a syllabic consonant.

The reason why I analyze syllabic /r l/ as schwa + C is because when a suffix beginning with a vowel is added after it in the dialect here, the vowel remains a syllabic version of the consonant but a second, non-syllabic consonant (which is generally closer than the syllabic consonant) surfaces after it, so that a syllabic consonant is not directly followed by a vowel.

As for syllabic /n/, I don't analyze it as schwa + C because in the dialect here syllabic /n/ may contrast with schwa + C in pairs like gotten [ɡ̥aʔn̩(ː)], which I would analyze as /ˈɡatn/, and informal getting [ˈɡ̥ɜɾɘ̃(ː)(n)]~[ɡ̥ɜːn], which I would analyze as /ˈɡɜtən/.

(IIRC, Travis, you consistently have l# > [ɯ̯] but I'm not clear if you intend that as representing your personal lect, Milwaukee dialect, or General American.)

This is reflecting both my idiolect and the English here in southeastern Wisconsin; note, though, that the glide is rounded after THOUGHT, GOAT (or shall we say GOAL), FOOT, and GOOSE, albeit not as rounded as the glide that sometimes gets inserted after final GOAT. Note also that it is near-close, not close, and that after FOOT it is realized as a lengthening of the vowel.

[Richard W]

"few" can't have /iw/ unless you posit that word-initial NEW is actually /jiw/, because e.g. a useful thing (not *an useful thing).

I don't think that's a strong enough argument, because unstressed the is /ðɪ‌/ before /j/ as well as before vowels.

[Richard W]

I have some ideas about analyzing English high vowels.
<snip>
"fit" /fit/
"feat" /fijt/
"few" /fiw/
"fear" /fir/

English is not a monosyllabic language, so please explain how you plan to analyse words like virulent and cirrus. Also give a thought to the difference between the verb tarry (rimes with carry) and the adjective tarry (rimes with starry). Are you planning to allow a distinction between the pronunciations of Sirius and serious?

[Richard W]

Additionally, squirrel and disyllabic squirrelling may need some special consideration. My non-rhotic speech has /r/ in the latter, as optionally do Arian and Aryan. For the latter, it would seem that yodicisation is an active process, with the second 'a' being stressed in the derived abstract nouns.

[Travis B.]

I have some ideas about analyzing English high vowels.
<snip>
"fit" /fit/
"feat" /fijt/
"few" /fiw/
"fear" /fir/

English is not a monosyllabic language, so please explain how you plan to analyse words like virulent and cirrus. Also give a thought to the difference between the verb tarry (rimes with carry) and the adjective tarry (rimes with starry). Are you planning to allow a distinction between the pronunciations of Sirius and serious?

ahabot probably is not thinking of varieties without the Sirius-serious merger...

Anyways, all in all, ahabot's analysis probably is certainly not applicable to the English here, where for a synchronic analysis I would probably give something like this:

fit: /fɪt/
feat: /fit/
few: /fju/
fear: /fɪr/

(Yes, the English here is Sirius-serious-merged.)

[anteallach]

I have some ideas about analyzing English high vowels.
<snip>
"fit" /fit/
"feat" /fijt/
"few" /fiw/
"fear" /fir/

English is not a monosyllabic language, so please explain how you plan to analyse words like virulent and cirrus. Also give a thought to the difference between the verb tarry (rimes with carry) and the adjective tarry (rimes with starry). Are you planning to allow a distinction between the pronunciations of Sirius and serious?

As Travis says I think this is for a North American variety with lots of neutralisations before intervocalic /r/, so virulent and cirrus will go with fear and the verb tarry with tear.

There are variations on this sort of approach which allow for varieties which don't have these neutralisations. The old Trager-Smith system used /h/ as an extra glide for centring diphthongs (and sounds which pattern with them) which would lead to /ih/ in fear and serious (and bisyllabic pronunciations of idea and theatre) contrasiting with simple /i/ in Sirius and fit. (I don't like this much, because I think /lɔh/ is a more plausible analysis of loch than of law, but it exists as an analysis, and you can change the /h/ to something else to deal with that criticism.)

Or, for fully non-rhotic accents, you can go with a contrast of /r/ vs. /rr/ between vowels, with the first /r/ in the latter lengthening the vowel: Sirius /ˈsirijəs/, serious /ˈsirrijəs/, merry /ˈmeri(j)/, Mary /ˈmerri(j)/, marry /ˈmari(j)/. (At least for Southern English speech, you probably want different basic vowels in TRAP and START, so maybe the adjective tarry would be /ˈtɑrri(j)/.) I find this a bit weird, probably partly because it requires the convention opposite to the one inconsistently used by the orthography, but I think it can explain the surface forms.

[Travis B.]

There are variations on this sort of approach which allow for varieties which don't have these neutralisations. The old Trager-Smith system used /h/ as an extra glide for centring diphthongs (and sounds which pattern with them) which would lead to /ih/ in fear and serious (and bisyllabic pronunciations of idea and theatre) contrasiting with simple /i/ in Sirius and fit. (I don't like this much, because I think /lɔh/ is a more plausible analysis of loch than of law, but it exists as an analysis, and you can change the /h/ to something else to deal with that criticism.)

Or, for fully non-rhotic accents, you can go with a contrast of /r/ vs. /rr/ between vowels, with the first /r/ in the latter lengthening the vowel: Sirius /ˈsirijəs/, serious /ˈsirrijəs/, merry /ˈmeri(j)/, Mary /ˈmerri(j)/, marry /ˈmari(j)/. (At least for Southern English speech, you probably want different basic vowels in TRAP and START, so maybe the adjective tarry would be /ˈtɑrri(j)/.) I find this a bit weird, probably partly because it requires the convention opposite to the one inconsistently used by the orthography, but I think it can explain the surface forms.

I personally don't really like 'cute' analyses such as these, which try to solve so many phonological problems in an analysis, yet open up so many other problems that are just as bad as the problems they attempt to solve. I prefer more conventional analyses in this regard, even if they have open questions like why does intrusive-r get inserted after some vowels and not others.