From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alaska

Where is Alaska in this? 14/12/05

If you have any published sources on English in Alaska you'd like to cite, you're welcome to add information about it to this page. -- Angr ( t· c) 08:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Please someone add something! Why can't I find anything? I'm from the Northwest (Portland metro area), know Seattle pretty well, and have family in northern Washington, near the Canadian border. In addition, I've been to Vancouver and Victoria, B.C. on several occasions. I may be misguided, but, having listened to Sarah Palin in the past few weeks, and reading of other Alaskan anecdotes after googling upon the subject - I can assure you, this is definitely not to be lumped in with the Northwestern dialect of American. It (or at least Palin's idiolect) sounds more "Fargo" and and a little like Sasakatchewan & Prairie Canada (I'm using the t.v. show "Corner Gas" as reference, so forgive me). All in all though, it has a uniqueness to it. Please someone, elucidate us all on Alaskan English! Khirad ( talk) 06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Nasalization patterns in American English

Can anyone provide any insights into the nasalization patterns in American English? I think they're pretty distinctive of Am.E. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.64.133.51 ( talk •  contribs) 23:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the following comment online: "Americans and Australians may wish to try to pronounce Anglo-Saxon without the nasalization that distinguishes their accents from British accents; this is hard, but Anglo-Saxon should sound English, and absence of nasalization makes a big difference." [1] I think the article should address the nasal quality of (at least some) American accents. Or is it addressed in another article? (In which case a link would be sufficient.) Starple ( talk) 13:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

phonology vs grammar

I came here looking for a discussion of English dialects that say "I wish I had" vs "I wish I would have" but all that's here is a lot of accent stuff. Accents are linguistically interesting (a lot more interesting if they are presented phonologically, though) but there is more to dialect than lexicon, morphology, and phonology. I have studied a LOT more linguistics than the average person (easy, because the average person hasn't studied any) so I know that's what these articles are missing, but I'm not enough of a linguist to answer the questions, so ... i'm sorry. Brassrat 19:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

request for citations

I don't think it is constructive to have the current alert cluttering this article requesting sources. While much of the information here is obviously based on primary-source observations (people who have visited or lived in regions and are familiar enough to write on this topic), I think that if anything, this article needs MORE information, which will also have to come from un-sourced observations from locals and knowledgeable travelers. I am obviously not opposing the use of available citations when possible, but one of the great things about wikipedia is the availability of information that isn't to be found in books or elsewhere. Wbbigtymer 06:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

No, No original research and Verifiability are policy that hold in every article, including this one. Anything based on primary-source observations that cannot be confirmed with reliable, cited sources has to go. Angr ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Look, no offense, but spare me of the dogmatic wikipedia policy crap. I can tell you right now that this article is for the most part reliable, but almost completely without any sort of citation and will remain that way if the quality of the information is to be preserved. Almost any "real" encyclopedia uses primary source information whenever possible, but they are very limited in what they can do when they don't include previously unpublished knowledge to at least use for consideration in their article. I'm sure wikipedia policy supports what you are saying, but frankly that policy has its own limitations and is limiting what quality contributers can do on wikipedia. If you fully believe what you are saying and un-sourced info “has to go” then you've just called for one less article on wikipedia, because this article loses all its meat when you only include cited material. Wbbigtymer 14:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The difference between "real" encyclopedias and Wikipedia, of course, is that "real" encyclopedia are written by experts who can be trusted to get their facts straight. The only way Wikipedia will ever have a shred of credibility is to insist on the policies I mentioned. I for one would not shed a tear if all the unsourced, unverifiable information in this article was scrapped, even if that meant that only a stub remained. Angr ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Chicago: lack of information

No mention of the Chicago accent? I am outraged? ex: "huner" insted of "hunter" -wasp

Hear, hear. Chicago is special, and I would like to know more about it. I once performed what I thought was a reasonable Chicago accent in a play, only to receive a left-handed compliment from the director: "I didn't know you could do a New York accent...." :-) D A Patriarche ( talk) 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Wisconsin

I have reviewed the Midwest portion in detail, and though I have heard many of the variations they they state in MN and Upper Mich. At least 60% do not apply to Wisconsin, at least in the urban and rural settings I have lived in/visited. Many of the things in this section people from Wisconsin joke about as being "Minnesotan speech" I suggest removing this section as it references no sources, until it can be properly completed.

Map

Please anyone can find and post a map of the differents english american dialects, see the situation, i'm spanish and very interested in this theme of the dialects, i have a medium knowledge of USA geography but i'm highly confused about the differents places where each variant is dominant. Imagine anyone with a worst initial position.

Thanks

-Fco

Here's one detailed map that shows different dialects:
I haven't been able to find any other maps which seem detailed and accurate, and it would be useful if someone who's good at making maps could create a free map for this article. -- Apollo1758 ( talk) 03:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

North Central American English - Minnesota

I think that it is not factual to list the whole of Minnesota as being part of this very unrealistic dialect of American English. I don't think I've met one person in my whole life living in Minnesota that speaks in this way normally. This is why I'm changing it to say "Northern Minnesota" instead of "Minnesota". I think that the metropolitan area and southern Minnesota speaks General American English or Standard Midwestern. Believe me, I am a Minnesotan.

Alcarinquë 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Alcarinquë reply

Wow, took almost two years for this reply. But yeah, I've traveled outside the state much more than a lot of people from Minnesota. Believe me, people from the Metro area and Southern Minnesota do have that Northern Midwest twang. You just have to travel outside the state to get a good juxtaposition. I grew up in the shadow of Downtown Minneapolis and every time I go out of town, people can usually tell I grew up in Minnesota, even though my accent is considered thin to many Minnesotans.

ColdRedRain ( talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I know I don't talk that way. Now dat lady in da post office up in Foley, she got it bad don't ya know. In all seriousness if you live there you do not hear it. Tomsv 98 ( talk) 22:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Missouri

This article doesn't seem to accurately describe the type of speech used in Missouri. If someone changes that, I think they should note the variety of accents and dialects in the state. The article really doesn't say very much about Missouri, so being a Missourian (that's "muh-ZUR-in" to all you out-of-staters) I think it should be addressed.

Militantsalmon 00:10, 30 December 2006 (CDST)

Upstate New York?

I know that people who are not from New York automatically assume that when you say you're from New York that you're from NYC. Upstate New York English is a whole world different from NYC/NJ English. Why isn't Upstate NY English included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clutch414 ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC). reply


Central/ South Florida

This portion of the article ignores the fact that the great majority of residents who are not northern transplants, and who actually were born and raised in this part of Florida speak something much closer to American Broadcast English.

24.186.185.41 ( talk) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)1) I agree with the above, as everyone raised in areas from at least Dade to Palm Beach speaks "unaccented" Broadcast English. 2) The "inland" areas of South Florida have NOT kept their Southern drawls even a bit -- old people like Janet Reno and Bob Graham speak like that, but again, young "crackers" speak Broadcast English. 3) There are almost no non-Cubans who use the "Miami accent" (except to make fun of their Cuban friends). 4) How about a mention of Hialeah English! reply

I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of a qualified linguist on this topic ... I don't think the current description fully captures the region. Using myself and my family as an example, we're 2nd generation Central Floridians, whose accents seems more like "light southern" than anything else. 151.200.235.117 ( talk) 00:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

rhymes with dawn rather than don

This is a meaningless statement that is repeated several times in the article, as the whole premise of the American English regional differences article is that there are regional differences in pronunciation. One of those differences is that dawn and don themselves have varying regional pronunciations and indeed can have exactly the same pronunciation -- that being the case, nothing can rhyme with one "rather than" the other. It's like saying, rhymes with "here" rather than "hear." The statement is confounding to many native speakers of American English, let alone those who speak different dialects entirely. Langrel 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. A. P. Herbert wrote an article in Punch many years ago entitled Do you rhyme dawn with morn - I wish I had a copy, cannot find on web even in archives so no cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Philadelphia / Delaware Valley

I have lived in this region my entire life, and I have never heard a native say 'caught' as 'cot'. In fact in my experience, the 'aught' tends to be exaggerated. Guldenat 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Philadelphia area has a distinction between caught and cot. ...So? AJD 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply


Vermont

This article mentions the Connecticut River as the western border of the New England dialect. Vermont has an accent distinct from Eastern New England; pronouncing the long "i" as "oy", for example. I added a short section describing some specific differences of Vermont from the rest of New England, and cited a reference. Why were they deleted? If this contribution needs improvement, please improve it. Dlaub ( talk) 13:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I deleted it because the things you listed as Vermont features were variously unmentioned in your reference (long "i" as "oy"), meaningless (pronouncing monophthongs like "ow" as diphthongs: "ow" is already a diphthong), or non-regional features found throughout the United States ("-ing" as "-in", glottalizing the T in words like "button"). The article you cited was non-scholarly, and described the features it did describe so vaguely that it was nearly impossible to tell what it was referring to. I'm sure there are interesting features of Vermont English, but you need to have them better described and better sourced. I'd look at the research of Julie Roberts at the University of Vermont to get a start on this; I would do so myself, but I'm on vacation this week and don't have access to my sources. AJD ( talk) 18:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for correcting my errors. A Google search gave me Roberts's paper: [3] which discusses the fronting of vowels (thanks again for the correct terminology), but I'm sure she has better sources. DLaub ( talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply


Sound files

This article would really be improved by someone uploading files to clarify the differences. 172.206.225.81 ( talk) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed move

I'd like to move this article to something like Dialects of North American English. "Regional phonology" is clumsy; people looking for this article wouldn't type "regional phonology" into the search box—they'd type "dialects". Thoughts? AJD ( talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Since this article deals only with pronunciation issues, not lexical, morphological, and syntactic issues, Accents of North American English would be more appropriate. — An gr 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
That's true. I don't know if there's a good reason for it not to deal with non-phonological issues, though; I've just mostly refrained from adding them because the title of the article is "regional phonology". I suppose that would open the article to bloat, since there's lots and lots of minor lexical variables that would clutter up the article. On the other hand, I think mentioning things like positive anymore in the Midland might be valuable to this article, and it'd be silly to exclude them just because the title of the page says "phonology". Maybe "Dialect regions of North American English"? The boundaries of dialect regions are principally identified on phonetic and phonological criteria, but in the places where they correlate with other aspects of language (like positive anymore, multiple modals, needs washed) they'd be fair game too. AJD ( talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
As I understand it, originally the boundaries of the dialect regions were defined by lexical criteria, and it's only been relatively recently with the work of Labov et al. that phonological criteria have been examined too. And rather to his surprise, he found that many of the lexical isoglosses that had been drawn in the 30s and 40s held good for phonological differences too, in particular the isogloss between the North and the Midland that groups Erie, PA, together with Pittsburgh rather than with the other cities on Lake Erie, Buffalo and Cleveland. — An gr 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Your point is largely correct, although the specific example you cite is wrong (the mid–20th century lexical research grouped Erie with the Inland North, and the result that Labov's phonological methodology grouped Erie with Pittsburgh instead was a major exception to the persistence of the boundary lines). But at the same time, most of the lexical isoglosses from the '40s were based on agricultural terms that are now obsolete, and you couldn't draw lines based on those features today. The known present-day lexical isoglosses typically have boundaries that are unrelated to the phonological regions: soda/pop, for instance. AJD ( talk) 14:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Okay, thanks for the correction. Anyway, I don't mind changing the name to Dialects of North American English if the scope is going to be widened to include lexical information (both old from the 1940s and new, covering things like soda/pop, sneakers/tennis shoes, and positive anymore (which I see is still a red link - I've been vaguely intending to start that article one of these days). — An gr 14:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Let's wait a bit to see if there are any other opinions. But for the time being, I'll make Dialects of North American English a redirect to this one. AJD ( talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Lack of credibility in unsourced opinion of claiming New Orleanians could be mistaken for New Yorkers ; No source or rationale to support similar immigration patterns

While including such characteristics of the Southern U.S. English as using "y'all" for second person plural, the New Orleans accent is so unlike the rest of the South and so similar to that of New York City that New Orleanians traveling in other parts of the USA are often mistaken for New Yorkers.

This was not cited by Labov. This is an opinion that someone wrote. This can't be supported by evidence. It is true than many from New Orleans and the area say ya'll. It's even true that there is a uniqueness of the accent. However, I have never heard of someone from New Orleans being mistaken for that of a New Yorker. Many have a southern drawl. And the black population has largely conformed into AAVE which would be undistinguishable from the New York dialect. All New Orleanians (especially the white population) has a southern drawl/ring to their overall tone.

Many pronunciations are surprisingly similar to that found in New York City and northern New Jersey, presumably arising from a similar mix of immigrants.

This hypothesis is also unsupported and has significant flaws. So I'll be deleting that quote. The patterns of immigration in New Orleans are irrelevant to that of the New York City area. The largest European ethnic group are the French, who primarily came in the 1600's and 1700's, as opposed to that most European descendants with New York City roots trace it to mid-to-late 1800's and early-1900's immigration. The largest ancestral background among white's in New York City are Ashkenazi Jews which is low demographically in New Orleans (especially compared to NYC).

If you were to look at the map of where the original Dutch colonized in the New York area (from as south as Hudson County, NJ and Staten Island, NY, as east as Nassau Co., Long Island and as far north as Orange Co., NY), you'd notice the NYC and similar Northern Jersey accent is virtually only prevalent in the places they colonized. This shows that when the English won the war and colonized the area, their mixture with the Dutch influence created the accent. The only groups that similarly immigrated to New Orleans to that of New York City/North Jersey were Irish and Italian immigrants. However, the same could be said to Scranton, PA, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and much of the Midwest and Northeast. All of those accents don't sound similar to the NYC dialect. Tom 173.72.121.29 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC). reply

Deleting of South Philadelphia being claimed as non-rhotic

South Philadelphia has been known for r-dropping, even though it has never been a characteristic of the rest of the region.

I deleted this quote because there is no citation. It doesn't seem to have much logic either. Philadelphia's accent has always been widely known to be rhotic. Tom 173.72.121.29 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC). reply

Utah?

'Case of the Missing 'T'" prominent among young Utah women. I know this article is more of a sociolect thing. I think there is a good need to find how English is used in Utah. Komitsuki ( talk) 09:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Clarification for Eastern New England

I have lived in Eastern New England my entire life so far, and rarely left. There is, yes, a lot of non-rhotic accents, but there is also, I think, a modified version of General American. The dipthongs aɪ, eɪ, aʊ, ɔɪ and oʊ seem to have become ɑi, ei, oi and ou. And what is the dipthong in can? Is it something like eə? That's my theory. And jimmies (Eeastern New England), for sprinkles, soggies for a king of hot dog (Providence), and wicked, as in wicked awesome (Eastern New England) were missed as regional vocabulary. And the prefix -tion has come to be pronounced as ʃɪn, not ʃən. This is just my opinion, but I think that this has become the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granitehead ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC) ~~Granitehead~~ reply

request for examples

I would like to add that I came here to understand the differences in pronunciation, but there are so few examples, it's pretty much worthless for that purpose, unless of course you're fluent in pronunciation symbols (I'm not). Can somebody please fill out the remainder that lack examples of "rhymes with" or "sounds like" so that the masses can appreciate the content? This is a fascinating topic for people not fluent in the symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tconrad ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

"Aspiration is a must"

A editor at IP 89.76.168.131 suggests, "brackets = aspiration is a must. [...] I don't see any proof that these dialects don't aspirate voiceless consonants, like General American." It is not the case that square brackets, which indicate phonetic as opposed to phonemic transcription, necessarily require aspiration marks. There is a range of broader or narrower descriptions within phonetic transcription. Furthermore, the fact that this page is describing realizations typical of a given region (as opposed to actual individual occurrences) suggests to me that a relatively broad transcription is the most honest way to go. Cnilep ( talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

This editor has gone through a number of articles and added aspiration to bracketed English transcriptions. I honestly don't have much of a problem with it myself (which is why I haven't reversed their edits). They've also changed the transcription of the English rhotic to an upside down r in a number of places, which I haven't fully checked.
Is the logic of opposition to aspiration that it might be confusing to lay readers more than the IPA already is? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
It would seem to me that this article should either use Wikipedia:IPA for English for the parts of words that are not showing the phonetic differences, or else use a strict phonetic pronunciation of the entire word in that dialect. Anything in-between seems half-assed and confusing. And I think the former is more useful, since the latter may highlight differences other than the one being discussed.
As for "r" vs. "ɹ", I've always been bothered by the former (my understanding is that very few if any regional pronunciations of English actually ever use "r", especially medially). Kwamikagami once explained why "r" was used (I believe his point was that the shape was familiar to English-speakers), and I think that changing it in a phonemic pronunciation would be editing against consensus, but I'd be happy to revisit it, probably at Wikipedia Talk:IPA for English.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 03:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I have noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. I concur with Curtis Clark that IPA for English seems to be the appropriate standard, and changes to that standard can be discussed at that page. Cnilep ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, there's no limit to how strict phonetic transcription can be and there's no specific line of what is broad and what is narrow. Making generalizations about broad regional pronunciations means that we'll want to be more broad, but being more phonetically precise isn't "half-assed." It's balancing the desire for accuracy with that of inclusiveness or generalities. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Sorry, by "half-assed" I meant being phonetically precise only where one happens to notice something that could be refined. Non-specialists (and I consider myself one) read this stuff, and it's important that they have a way of understanding where the detail is important and where it's not. In both my dialects of English ( GAE and SAE) initial stops are aspirated and medial stops are generally not, but that has no direct bearing on demonstrating vowel shifts. We should be consistent; I hope we all agree that uncritical acquiescence to inconsistency in an encyclopedia is half-assed.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

@Curtis: Just came across a French reader for English speakers, all in IPA. They use ⟨r⟩ for the French ar. Their point is, I think, the same as those people who use ⟨r⟩ for the English ar: It doesn't contrast with any other rhotic (unlike, say, in Spanish), and it's more familiar / easier to read that way. Recently at our IPA article I added an external link to a paper by Wells on transcription, where he discusses the the principles people use. One is broad vs narrow, of course, but another is simplicity: use ⟨t⟩ rather than ⟨t̪ʰ⟩ unless you really need the latter; English ⟨r⟩ for [ɹ̠ʷ], Hindi ⟨c⟩ for [t̠ʃ], etc. — kwami ( talk) 09:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Although "r" will continue to irritate me ([ɹ] doesn't look any weirder than [ə]), I certainly see your point, and I'm perfectly fine with the existing system (especially since I'm defending its use, above).-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The anon is quite mistaken to say that using brackets means we must show aspiration. There are lots of levels of representation. When aspiration isn't the issue under discussion, it should not be shown; doing so is distracting and confusing. The same goes for using [ɹ] instead of [r] for the English r-sound: if the exact articulation is the issue under discussion, we should use [ɹ] (or [r] if discussing Scottish English etc.). But if the articulation of the r-sound isn't the issue under discussion, we should use the more straightforward [r], just like virtually every phonetician who writes about English does (Jones, Gimson, Kenyon & Knott, Ladefoged, Wells, etc., etc.). Precision beyond the level necessary to make one's point is a bad thing; excessive precision does not result in greater accuracy. This is true in all sorts of fields, not just phonetics/phonology. Another example is geographic coordinates: I often see articles on cities here whose geographic coordinates are given down to six decimal places, which is ridiculous. You don't have to give the location of a city right down to the nearest meter, and you don't need to indicate every slight subphonemic detail of consonant articulation when you're discussing vowels. Angr ( talk) 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

While I agree with removing aspiration (see Talk:General_American#Aspiration), insisting on using ⟨r⟩ for the English rhotic (both here and in books) strikes me as incredibly silly. It's 2017, do we really need to insist on using a completely incorrect symbol just because it's easier to write? Or because ESL students might find it difficult to remember that the orthographic ⟨r⟩ corresponds to ⟨ɹ⟩ in IPA? This is essentially telling ESL students that they're too stupid to remember one symbol. Knowing how much effort you must make to sound even remotely native I find that an utterly baseless assumption. Besides, why stop there and not transcribe /tʃ/ as /ch/? Or /ɔː/ as /oː/ (which is more correct in the case of Modern RP and Australian English)? Just because something is established it doesn't mean that it's correct or reasonable.

No speaker of GA, Australian or Modern RP would ever use the alveolar trill. The fact that it can be used in Scotland and South Africa is not very relevant. Nowadays it's rare in Scotland and confined to broad speakers in South Africa, some of which don't even count as native speakers but L2 speakers of Afrikaans English! Mr KEBAB ( talk) 17:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey, Mr KEBAB, I'm with you on the "r" point. Do you think this is also something that should be rehashed on the Help_talk:IPA/English page (which, however, obviously is about phonemic rather than phonetic transcriptions)? The last discussion there on that topic seemed to be fairly in favor of the change, though the discussion was never officially closed or any consensus explicitly stated. Aside from what's already been said above, I think there is the argument that [r] has been more commonly used in the academic literature (though I agree that it strikes me as simply incorrect). Wolfdog ( talk) 18:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: Thanks, but I was just venting. Unless you have a (rather long) list of sources that use ⟨ɹ⟩ in phonemic transcription there's not much chance of other editors accepting our proposal. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
(Sorry, I failed to ping you properly last time.) On second thought, I think that you can create a thread on Help_talk:IPA/English. I'll obviously vote for /ɹ/ and so will Erutuon, I think. But I don't know about other users. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply

IPA for English

I'm noticing that there is a good bit of IPA on this page that does not follow the standard of Help:IPA for English. My reading of the discussion above is that this should be the standard, notwithstanding minor controversies. I'm going to change some things, such as the inverted r for rhotics. Cnilep ( talk) 00:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I changed ɹ→r and ɐɪ→ʌɪ but left ɝ and ɚ unchanged, since the help page includes both the single-character and the vowel+rhotic combinations. Cnilep ( talk) 00:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

User:Fête has restored his/her preferred transcription of Canadian raising as "[ɐɪ] for /aɪ/". The older version had "[ʌɪ] or [əɪ] for /aɪ/". Fête also changed a footnote at Help:IPA for English from ʌɪ to ɐɪ; the raised diphthong is not specified on that page but is mentioned in the footnote. I know that Ladefoged uses ʌɪ, and it's my impression that this is the most commonly used transcription (but phonetics and phonology are not my areas of specialization). I've asked Fête to comment here. Cnilep ( talk) 23:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I have restored your edit. There's a reason it is called raising. μηδείς ( talk) 00:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Someone might want to take a look at Fête's recent contributions to undo similar changes elsewhere. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
I have reverted this on three pages, but Fete insists it is correct and has restored on at least one. μηδείς ( talk) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
I hesitated to revert Fête myself, since I've undone quite a few of their seemingly good faith edits. Plus, it's my understanding that [ʌ] in the context of English often means "whatever the STRUT vowel is" which is often [ɛ] or [ɐ], but we don't have to be that phonetically precise, particularly when usage leans toward [ʌ]. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
I hope you meant "which is often [ɜ] or [ɐ]". STRUT as [ɛ] would sound like an overdone South African accent. — Peter238 ( v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Schwa

Unfortunately, there are only two vowel trapezoids in this whole article. And in neither one is the schwa present - and this is said to be the most common phoneme in English ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 02:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Schwa isn't really useful in vowel trapezoids because (1) it covers such a large range of the mid central zone and (2) it doesn't really change much from dialect to dialect and doesn't participate in vowel shifts. Aɴɢʀ ( talk) 09:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Defining regions of North American speech

It would be helpful to non-professional users such as myself to somehow highlight/define the "Midwest" and relate it to the various Midland regions documented. Logically, "Midland" is a great improvement on the ambiguous & confusing "Midwest", but unfortunately the latter is by far the commonest term in colloquial use, and what a user is likely to search for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

To build on D A Patriarche's comment, "the midwest" is not a well-defined concept, or rather, it is variously used to include any parts of the US not on an ocean coast. Recent changes to headings were mostly good, in that they changed to clearer or more specific descriptions (e.g. "Miami" to "Miami, Florida", "New York City" to "New York City metropolitan area"). But changing "The North" to "The Midwest (Northern Central United States)" is not an obvious improvement, as it is not clear how this is distinct from "North Central". Similarly, changing "North Central" to "Upper Midwest (North-Central)" seems less like an improvement in terminology and more like an ad-hoc solution to distinguishing it from the new "Northern Central United States" descriptor. To my mind, "North" is probably more distinctive to non-specialists (at least it's distinct from "South") than is "Midwest". (It's that place in the middle of the country where they don't have an accent. No, wait, they have Sarah Palin's accent. Or, no, Dan Rather? Um... at least it's not New York or California.) Also, for what it's worth, for many specialists "The North" includes New England as well as Inland North and North Central regions. I guess the parenthesis are an attempt to define the ambiguous "Midwest", but I would say that defining the regions in prose without new ad-hoc descriptors for the headings would be a better – or at least equally good – solution. Cnilep ( talk) 01:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC) reply

References?

While there's a lot of good information here, this article has huge problems with references. There are entire sections on regions which have no citations, and no clear source material. I'm guessing much of this material is from the ANAE but the article does not make this clear. For a specific example, the description of the Southern Shift in /info/en/?search=Southern_American_English cites Labov, Ash, and Boberg (2006) and A Handbook of Varieties of English. There are no sources for the Southern Shift in this article, or indeed any citations for the entire Southern American English section. There are some sources mentioned in the Bibliography section that are not cited in the text: for example Walsh (1995) appears to be a source for Vermont, and Dailey-O'Cain (1997) for Canadian Raising in the Midwest, but they aren't mentioned in the appropriate sections in the text. Sources are even less clear when the history or development of NAE or particular dialects are mentioned. It's stated that East Coast dialects had more influence from British English, and inland dialects have diversified less due to more recent settlement. In the Mid-Atlantic section it's stated that the Philidelphia Accent is probably the ancestor to GenAM: this is a pretty strong claim and isn't mentioned in the main Philidephia English article. This historical information is useful, but it's unclear where it comes from. -- JordanAMSmith ( talk) 18:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ JordanAMSmith: I see your point. I agree. If information is obtained from a source, then there should be an in-text citation for that specific information. I can fix this but it will take some time. LakeKayak ( talk) 00:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Midland as part of Southern

Regarding content, I wonder if it is appropriate to have Midland dialects grouped under a Southeastern Super-Region? This grouping is based off of fronting of /u, ʌ, oʊ, aʊ/, but Labov states in ANAE Chap 11 (p.137) that some of the dialects considered northern or southern don't fit the criteria for the Super-Region, namely Western PA and Savannah. Since most dialects within the Super-Region do fit the criteria set by Labov, Ash, and Boberg perhaps this grouping should be kept, but some mention made that certain dialects such as Western PA might have many of the features associated with the Midland but not necessarily the super region. -- JordanAMSmith ( talk) 18:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ JordanAMSmith: I have no objection whatsoever with not grouping Midland dialects as Southern. But I object to grouping Midland dialects as Northern. Therefore, if you wish to instate Midland in a separate section altogether, be my guest. LakeKayak ( talk) 19:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ JordanAMSmith:I agree with this. I noticed in the midland part for "regions by phonology" it states "/aɪ/ can be monophthongized before /l/, /m/, /n/, or /r/" I don't have the Atlas of North American English book, but Labov states in this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m33s that midland doesn't share these features with the south. In fact, just within 30 seconds of where that video starts, William Labov doesn't group the midland in with the "North" or "South." He states here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m17s it's "North," "Midland," and "South." I don't think Midland should be part of the southeaster super region, or the Northern. It's a dialect that isn't part of the Northern or South regions. I'm a noob on Wikipedia, so if anyone wants to make these changes how they feel is appropriate, feel free. Breakdancesimon ( talk) 20:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Why was this readded when video proof says that was not the case? Emykp ( talk) 23:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree. It shouldn't of been put back. Klaxonfan ( talk) 07:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Kelleher82: I don't think that the Mid-Atlantic dialect should be instated as a Northern dialect. Both geography and culturally, the area is Northern. However, linguistically, the dialect has fronted /aʊ/, /oʊ/, and /u/. None of which are found in the "North" class. Therefore, linguistically, although native to the North, the dialect is not "Northern".

If you have any objections, prior to making any further changes, I would rather you explain your side first. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 19:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Breakdancesimon: Free online PDFs of the ANAE are available on the page [ [4]]. You'll have to scroll down to see them. They appear under the section entitled "Data from the Atlas of North American English (ANAE)". LakeKayak ( talk) 00:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ LakeKayak: Thanks! Breakdancesimon ( talk) 00:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, here is what I found on pg. 267 of the ANAE. To start, the page is the analysis of a map. And a section of the summary is below.
"The light pink and red symbols show the widespread tendency for Midland speakers to delete the glide of /ay/ before resonant consonants: before /l/ in mile and while; before /r/ in tire and iron; and before nasals in time and line."
LakeKayak ( talk) 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm just going by what Labov said in that video interview. To quote Labov referring to Midland: "It's also phonologically quite distinct from the South, and doesn't share the monophthongization of the I and any of the other vowel system." Labov also made it seem like that Midland was neither in the northern region or southern. To quote him, "It's North, Midland and South." Labov also calls midland the "Buffer Zone" between North and South. I guess where I'm getting as it I really don't think Midland should be grouped with North or South, based on what Labov has said. Breakdancesimon ( talk) 08:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Breakdancesimon: With the information I obtained from the ANAE, I was only verifying whether or not "/aɪ/ can be monophthongized before /l/, /m/, /n/, or /r/" in the Midland, as such was a topic of dispute. LakeKayak ( talk) 20:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Breakdancesimon: As for whether or not Midland should be a part of the South, I think that the issue was already addressed on Talk:Southern American English/Archive 2#Southern American english page. Perhaps, you could speak to either Wolfdog or AJD about this as they resolved the issue on that page. LakeKayak ( talk) 20:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Breakdancesimon and JordanAMSmith: There is a difference between grouping the Midland in with the South and saying that the Midland is A PART OF the South. None of us is claiming the latter. You can certainly group Germany in with France (both fall under the category of "Europe" or "majority-white countries" or "first-world nations", etc.), but you can't say Germany is A PART OF France. The original question is "I wonder if it is appropriate to have Midland dialects grouped under a Southeastern Super-Region"? The answer is yes. In fact, look at the very source you have brought up: Labov. Look on the text on page 135 and the map on page 136 of his ANAE here. Wolfdog ( talk) 01:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: I haven't had time tonight to read through all this discussion so forgive me if I'm missing something here. My intent in the original post is NOT to deny the validity of Labov's grouping but rather, to bring attention to and discuss how we should treat these dialects which fit into midland or southern but don't have the super-region features: "Since most dialects within the Super-Region do fit the criteria set by Labov, Ash, and Boberg perhaps this grouping should be kept, but some mention made that certain dialects such as Western PA might have many of the features associated with the Midland but not necessarily the [southeastern] super region." Yes, midland is clearly a distinct dialect group with it's own set of shared features, yet in ANAE, by far the most complete and reliable study of North American dialects available, Labov also clearly states that midland is part of this super-region. So to me it seems the most reasonable to keep the super-region grouping based on fronting /u,ʌ,oʊ,aʊ/ as Labov does, yet I DO think we should note somehow that some accents have marked features of the more specific region without having the features of the super-region (e.g. Western Pennsylvania). JordanAMSmith ( talk) 04:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ JordanAMSmith: What are you considering the "more specific region" -- the Midland? Under the Southeastern United States in the "hierarchy" section of this article, I wrote that /u, oʊ, aʊ/ are fronted. In the Midland, those three super-regional features are true, plus the cot-caught merger is transitional, plus /ʌ/ is fronted. In Western PA, the three super-regional features are true, plus the cot-caught merger is completed, plus /ʌ/ is very open. So, which dialect are you saying has specific features of the region without having features of the larger super-region? We can certainly put Western Pennsylvania in a section outside of the Midland. Does that clear up things? Wolfdog ( talk) 17:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: OK. I've figured out exactly what was the issue with the Super-Region and Western PA and Northern Texas. Labov defines the Southeastern Super-Region by two features: fronting of /ow/,/aw/, and by a cot-caught distinction. By this definition, Western PA is part of the Midland, but since it has the cot-caught merger, it is not part of the super-region. Likewise, the texan panhandle is part of the south as it has /ay/ monophthongization, but since it has the cot-caught merger it is not part of the super-region. If we only define the Super-region by fronting, and not by /o/-/oh/ distinction as well (as you appear to be doing), then there is no issue at all with including WPA and the Texan panhandle in the super-region. I'm still not sure why Savannah is excluded by Labox. JordanAMSmith ( talk) 22:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: This appears to be what I was originally referring to in the ANAE: The Southeastern super-region is a well-defined region, as Appendix Ashows. Both homogeneity (.87) and consistency (.76) are high. It groups the Midland with the South and includes the original Midland area of the Mid-Atlantic States. New York City and Northern New Jersey are not included, since they do not satisfy the /ow/-fronting criterion, and Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania are excluded on the basis of their completed low back merger. A comparison with the AYM isogloss that defines the South by glide deletion shows two cities that are excluded from the Southeastern super-region but are included in the South: Savannah, Georgia, and Amarillo, Texas. With those exceptions, the South is a proper subset of the Southeast. I haven't looked at the ANAE in quite some time, but if I have a chance I will look more specifically into this. It seems like he's defining the southeastern super-region by /aw,ow/ fronting AND an incomplete or lacking <caught-cot> merger, but Western PA has completed the merger. If we ONLY define the southeastern super-region by the fronting, and not lack of the cot-caught merger, then W.PA is included. I'm not sure why Savannah, Georgia and Amarillo, Texas are excluded from the super-region, so I will have to look into why. They do have /ai/ monophongization, so they're definitely in the Southern dialect region. In any case, given Labov's own hierarchy map (ANAE Chapter 11.5; Figure 11.9), I am in currently in favor of keeping the Midland and South grouped together under the Southeast Super-Region. JordanAMSmith ( talk) 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks, @ JordanAMSmith: I'm glad we're actually now taking time to read what the ANAE has to say. It's the only way to group dialects without it being a battle between all our varying opinions. As for the reasons that Savannah and Amarillo are separated, Savannah is separated for a bunch of reasons (for one, its speakers are generally very inconsistent and transitional in many ways, which I mentioned in the article already: North_American_English_regional_phonology#Marginal_Southeast) and Amarillo is separated because it has a cot-caught merger, I suppose. Wolfdog ( talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ JordanAMSmith: Oh, also, where exactly do you see that Labov is saying that WPA is a part of the Midland? I feel I remember him saying that it used to be, but do you have the exact page? That would be helpful for me to check out. Thank you. Wolfdog ( talk) 03:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: I have confirmation. Again, I can only go off of the draft I have. So the page numbers will be a little off. Chapter 11 p. 131. "As noted above, the original Midland was related to Philadelphia and its surrounding region, along with Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania." LakeKayak ( talk) 00:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ LakeKayak and Wolfdog: If I need to cite something, how do I know if I'm working off the draft version or the published? I'm using the version here and navigating via changing the url. JordanAMSmith ( talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: Thanks for responding. I was just going by what Labov said here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m17s He also makes the case for a "North, Midland and South in another part of that Interview as seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m51s. The way he made it sound as if there's a Northern super region, a Midland region then a South super region. That's what I thought he mean't when he used the term "category," as if each have there own separate category. I could be reading in to what he said wrong in that interview, though. ( talk) 13:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
That's what I thought when William Labov was talking a bout this in those video's as well. As if a Northern class, Midland class, and Southern class of super regions exist. We all know various dialect umbrellas exist in the North, (in other words, he had to be talking super regions when discussing this) but the way talks here, as if Midland isn't part of the Northern class or southern (or south eastern) class of super regions. That Midland exist as it's own category, separate of those. Emykp ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Emykp: You're partly getting caught up in semantics. Yes, there is a separate Midland class and Southern class. No, Midland is not A PART OF Southern. However, yes, BOTH Midland AND Southern fall under a larger Southeastern linguistic area (whether you want to call this a region, a super-region, a super-super-region, or anything else). Again, see the link above. In writing, Labov et al themselves specifically call it a "super-region". Wolfdog ( talk) 17:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: That's what confuses me though in regards to this. Labov says in that University speech that Midland doesn't fall under any sort of North or South larger "region." As the video posted above states. Labov says "There's a North, Midland and South." <---- that's what confuses me as to why Midland would be grouped with an Northern super region or southeastern super region. I don't see how he couldn't be talking anything other than sort of a super region when talking about this. To give and example, he wasn't talking about Inland North, North central etc (which would fall under a North super region.) he just defined, North, Midland and South categories. I havn't read the book, or looked at the PDF (I'll look at it some over the coming weekend when I get more time) I still kinda think that Midland shouldn't be grouped under the South or North super regions for this page. Let's be honest, since two others brought this up, it is kinda confusing, especially when Labov seems to suggest that Midland doesn't fall in north or south system, with him literally saying that Midland is "quite distinct from the south" along with him stating that there's a "North, Midland and South" That's the kicker. As this page states, there are various dialect umbrellas that are part of a Northern super region. And therae are various other areas that fall under a southeastern super region. So why does Labov specifically say "North, Midland and South?" Yes, I'm confused, but so are a few others. Emykp ( talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Emykp: I believe I understand your confusion, but I also feel your (y'all's) confusion is stemming from the word "Southeastern" evoking scary thoughts of the word "Southern". This is making people apprehensive: "Columbus, Ohio doesn't have a Southern accent" I imagine being an example of such a concern, which is completely true: it doesn't. Remember that under the Southeastern super-region lies a huge array of dialects (some of them positively not Southern): Appalachian Southern, Texas Southern, yes, but also Texas Midland, Charleston Midland, all types of Midland north of the Southern States, Mid-Atlantic (Philadelphia, for example), Central Florida, South Florida (Miami, e.g.), and so on. All I can say is: read his writing. (Now that I listen to the video, I understand your confusion. He could just as well say "Philadelphia is very distinct from Southern", which is true. But that's not mutually exclusive with the idea that Philadelphia and Southern (and Midland) fall under a shared category, which is also true. Perhaps the Southeastern region wasn't an important point of that particular talk he gave, which is why he doesn't mention it. In fact, this is the most probable reason, since it allows his spoken and written words to ring true without contradicting each other.) Labov's writing describes how the Midland (and the other dialects I just listed) have more in common with Southern dialects than with Northern dialects. (These commonalities are already listed on the North American English regional phonology page, though I'd be happy to list them again or explain them out if this is what's confusing you.) It DOES NOT mean that these dialects are the same. Similarly, Canada and the American West easily fall under a larger super-region (that Labov never give a name to, but is obvious from his studies) that one might just as well call the "Northwestern super-region" even though San Diego natives would protest against being part of anything "Northern" and Californians and Canadians alike would grimace at being lumped together. Wolfdog ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: Thanks, I think I get more of a understanding of it now. You use the term same category for midland and south, when in that speech it seemed like they all 3 had separate categories. I'm not sure I agree with that picture on the page though. The term "related" is pretty powerful for a accent that Labov says is "quite distinct" from the South. I think that's why various people have asked about this on here. I think something needs to be cleaed up to make this at least less the case. I think that is where some of the confusion comes from. One last question though, why is this in the text "Southern and some Midland U.S. accents are often most quickly recognized by the weakening or deleting of the "glide" sound of the /aɪ/ vowel in words like thyme, mile, and fine, making the word spy sound something like spa." when Labov says that not the case for Midland in this part of that same lecture? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m33s Emykp ( talk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
There are Midland prone to monophthongization of /aɪ/ in restricted environments. One source (to say this) happens to be the Atlas of North American English. As for the lecture, I find it a little hard to follow. To be safe, I don't think the lecture should be used it as a reference. LakeKayak ( talk) 20:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
That's not what Labov says in the lecture. In terms of reference, Labov is the one that wrote the book, ANAE. Emykp ( talk) 20:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
As I said, the lecture was a little hard to follow. It also seems weird that Labov would say something to mean one thing in the lecture and say another thing to mean something else in his book. LakeKayak ( talk) 20:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Emykp: In the lecture, Labov does say that one way the Midland and the South are different is that the Midland "doesn't share the monophthongization of /aɪ/". He almost certainly means to say the "total monophthongization of /aɪ/" or the "Southern variant of the monophthongization of /aɪ/", or perhaps he's actually highlighting that both dialects have an /aɪ/-monophthongizing system, though each is unique. I know this seems like me putting words in his mouth, but once you read the ANAE, it is robustly demonstrated that the Midland does have its own version of /aɪ/ monophthongization that is less frequent, more variable, and more restrictive than the Southern version (namely, occurring only before resonants). This is why LakeKayak and I are being so pushy. I also know this pronunciation to be true from personal experience. Remember that spoken-word sources are more prone to vague, simplified, or less-planned-out descriptions (especially since he's speaking extemporaneously in a Q-and-A session). Writings, on the other hand, have been more carefully worded over the course of weeks, months, etc. Now go read! Wolfdog ( talk) 01:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Being from the mid-Atlantic region myself, I think it's stupid to have this super regions stuff. In fact, on many of these pages there seems to be this supreme slant towards making it like ANAE is the high and mighty in regards to any of this type of stuff. I don't think anyone groups it this way outside of ANAE. Since this is the case, I strongly disapprove of this being prevalent on the dialect related pages seen throughout wikiepdia. Since many have now brought this up, can we protest this? Put me in the camp that would rather list this stuff by individual dialect regions, not super duper regions. I been reading this type of stuff since the late 90's off and on, and ANAE is the only one that groups things like this. Klaxonfan ( talk) 05:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't see the point of this unless you can actually find sources that disprove or contradict the ANAE. The ANAE is widely regarded as the foremost study on this topic and it finds ways to organize dialects in a fashion so that you can choose to examine them anywhere from a broader larger level to a smaller city-specific level. (It self-admittedly overlooks the very smallest levels, like " Hoi Toider", which is spoken in no major city. Otherwise, it gives perhaps the most accurate view of the whole country.) On an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, which is organized into sections and sub-sections, this is a very helpful approach. Wolfdog ( talk) 19:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Klaxonfan: This proposed edit violates WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Unless you can find counterevidence, I cannot see your edit being approved. LakeKayak ( talk) 20:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The evidence about Labov saying that there's a North, Midland and South discredits that they should be grouped together. He said their different categories. We got in a debate earlier about youtube videos being allowed to be used or sourced on wikiepdia articles on the New York page, remember? And admin told me as long as it comes from a credible channel, it can be used. This would fall under that category. If certain other members on here will back me with this, we can make a debate whether Labov changed his mind later on or not. @ Breakdancesimon: @ JordanAMSmith: @ Molnizzle: @ Wolfdog: @ Emykp: The video is much more recent than 2006. If four or five others will back me, we can possibly affect change. Klaxonfan ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, Klaxonfan, but I disagree. In that YouTube video, Labov says nothing to discredit or dispel his earlier writings in 2006. Simply not talking about something isn't the same at all as disproving something. You need stronger evidence. And you're going to be hard-pressed to use Labov himself to disprove ideas that he and his own team coined/discovered, like the Southeastern super-region. Wolfdog ( talk) 12:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm backing Klaxnfan, as I feel Labov was saying Midland was a different category as well. Emykp ( talk) 23:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Emykp: RE:--Why was this readded when video proof says that was not the case?-- The line was reinstated because the ANAE specifically says that it was a variable feature. LakeKayak ( talk) 00:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Klaxonfan: As for whether or not Labov changed his mind, if he had, he would have probably said, "It was originally believed" or "I originally cited this as". This conclusion is solely based off how he writes. One example is in Chapter 17 of the ANAE:
"Traditionally, it was considered that /oh/ class words with vocalized /r/ were homonymous with the corresponding words without /r/. LYS (1972) reported that the distinction between source and sauce persisted: that even though native speakers thought they were the same, there was a significant tendency to pronounce the source class with a higher and backer vowel."
LakeKayak ( talk) 00:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Emykp: I'm surprised and disappointed by your backing Klaxnfan without reading Labov's actual writing, which I took the time to provide for you and that you said you would read over. Now I am beginning to wonder whether LakeKayak is right: that this really has become a blind matter of "just don't like it" among some editors. The constant use of some non-sequitur Labov soundbites (which you admit you poorly understand yourself) to argue against Labov's own writings is one of the most bizarre instances at argumentation I've encountered, especially when the writings have been made available to you in the spirit of open inquiry. What is happening here?? However many editors' personal feelings you can gather together, you still won't achieve verifiability. Wolfdog ( talk) 17:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Emykp, LakeKayak, and Klaxonfan: I've posted this talk on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, since the two sides of the issue here don't seem to be communicating in any productive way and I feel we're only going in circles. See here Wolfdog ( talk) 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) @ Breakdancesimon and JordanAMSmith: @ AJD and Molnizzle: See the sentence above. Thanks! Wolfdog ( talk) 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply


The argument "Labov saying 'there are three dialects: North, Midland, and South' implies there is no southeastern super-region" is the same as the argument "saying 'there are three major languages of Switzerland: German, French, and Italian' implies there is no such thing as the Romance Languages." Not mentioning the southeastern super-region in a context in which it's not important is not evidence that it isn't a thing. AJD ( talk) 04:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ AJD: Interestingly, you can see that I made a very similar argument above using Germany and France as examples! Obviously, my explanations are not convincing to other editors. Feel free to participate on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Wolfdog ( talk) 19:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I personally view William Labov as viewing the North, Midland and South as separate super regions in the above interviews. Even in the text of the front article page it states that the mid-atlantic could be part of a potentially Midland super-region according to William Labov. That's just my opinion from reading all of this. I'm for Midland being part of it's own super region. Molnizzle ( talk) 22:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Molnizzle: What are you referring to when you say "the front article page"? Please be specific. Thanks! Wolfdog ( talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Molnizzle:,@ Wolfdog:,@ Klaxonfan:,@ LakeKayak:,@ Emykp:,@ Breakdancesimon: Ok, I've been out of this discussion for a while. Looking over the ANAE and the arguments above I don't see why we should not have the South and Midland grouped together under the "Southeastern Super-Region". Labov explicity makes this grouping in the ANAE, and provides a well-defined phonological justification for the super-group. Nobody is saying that Midland and Southern are not distinct dialect groups in their own right, but the fact that they share the phonological change of fronting /ow/ and /aw/ makes it perfectly reasonable, and I would argue correct, to group them together. Look at map 11.11, pg. 137, ANAE Chap. 11. And Figure 11.9 on Page 149. Really chapter 11 provides full justification for this grouping. Labov, Rosenfelder, and Fruewald (2013): One Hundred Years of Sound Change in Philadelphia: Linear Incrementation, Reversal, and Reanalysis talks about the Southeastern Super-Region and in fact directly references Map 11.11 from the ANAE as well. I see absolutely no reason why the Super-Region shouldn't be used to group Midland and Southern together - it has a sound phonological basis and once again, it's in no way saying that Midland and Southern aren't distinct, just that they're related in "strong fronting of /ow/ and /aw/, which none of the other dialects have. So for my orginal comment that started this discussion: I wonder if it is appropriate to have Midland dialects grouped under a Southeastern Super-Region? The answer, to me, seems like a pretty solid 'Yes.'. Labov DID say that certain dialects; namely the Texas Panhandle and Savannah, Georgia, and Western PA, were grouped into Southern, Southern and Midland respectively, while NOT being part of the super-region. From what I've gathered this is due to the fact that the Panhandle, Savannah-Charleston on the coast, and Western PA have the cot-caught merge, and he used cot-caught distinction as one of his criteria (along with /ow,aw/ fronting) for defining the super-region in ANAE chap 11. JordanAMSmith ( talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Obviously, I agree. I'm still waiting to hear solid, evidence-based reasons not to agree. We can close the discussion here and now, or else have some third-party editors try to help us on the dispute noticeboard, which I only opened up because I sensed a lack of listening-to-reason had entered the conversation. Thank you, JordanAMSmith, for looking at the actual sources which LakeKayak and I have been asking participants to read over and over again. Other participants: please just read the ANAE. It's all clearly laid out. Wolfdog ( talk) 03:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ JordanAMSmith: Okay. Then the discussion may shift slightly. Could we possibly have a section on the tree diagram for the dialect that are apart of the Midland or the Southern dialects but not necessarily the super-region? That may resolve your issue. LakeKayak ( talk) 16:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I am going to make this change and see how it works out. LakeKayak ( talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Wait! Hold on; I'm still trying to figure out from Jordan what is meant by dialects that are a part of the Midland but not the super-region. Wolfdog ( talk) 01:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Hmmm... OK. Jordan is correct, based on how Labov defines the Southeastern super-region, but not on how we defined the region in the tree hierarchy; should we change it then? And as for this new category, what were you going to name it? Wolfdog ( talk) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, I already made the change on the tree diagram, prior to your response. Now the name that appears is work-in progress name, "Imperfect Southeast dialects". Here "imperfect" is used to mean that the dialect does not fit "perfectly" into the Southeast super-region. However, if you have a potentially better name, I am willing to hear it. LakeKayak ( talk) 15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog and LakeKayak: Unfortunately "imperfect" sounds, though unintentionally, like a value judgment. Maybe "Southeastern Proper" and "Southeastern with completed or transitional cot-caught merger"? That might be too long-winded though. To clarify the difficulty here, Labov's criteria for the southeastern super-region are /ow/,/aw/ fronting and a lack of the /o/,/oh/ merger. WPA and the Texas Panhandle have the merger, thus the exclusion, and from my understanding Savannah is pretty variable person-to-person and is also excluded. However, if we look at figure 11.9, it appears that he's categorizing the cot-caught merger as a separate development not tied to the existing dialect hierarchy -- there are two trees: one for the normal hierarchy and one for cot-caught. (I don't suppose we could do this here.) So, for the purpose of the tree at the top of this page, we might want to make a note about Western PA, etc. rather than trying separating the southeastern super-region into questionably-named subgroups. JordanAMSmith ( talk) 17:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ JordanAMSmith: I completely agree. However, in the meantime, other editors have asked us to stop editing the page while the discussion/dispute is ongoing. By the way, where have you seen that /aw/ fronting defines the Southeastern super-region (we also include the fronting of /u/ in the tree diagram)? I can't remember even some of the information I myself once found. Also, where do you see that WPA is currently considered to be a subset of the Midland? Wolfdog ( talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: You are correct about WPA! I was probably thinking about older studies that presented a more expansive midland region. Labov says that the Mid-Atlantic and Pittsburgh used to be Midland, but have undergone rapid changes in the latter 20th century and no longer are. In 11.11 only /ow/ fronting is included in the definition, but in the hierarchy (11.15) he groups Midland and Southern under 'strong fronting of /ow/ and /aw/. In chapter 12, /u/ and /ow/ fronting are both mapped as Midland and Southern features (even though /u/ is not listed as a criterion for the southeast in 11.11). Chapter 12 also talks about /aw/ fronting being a defining characteristic of the south and midland (espeically in the Mid-Atlantic, Atlantic South, and some inland areas like Kansas City and Indianapolis) but once again, it's not one of the criteria given in 11.11 JordanAMSmith ( talk) 21:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Klaxonfan: You appeal to the fact that you are from the Mid-Atlantic and that "Growing up, I'd literally 'never' heard anyone say the local dialect sounded more like the southeast. Turns out it isn't part of the region. Regards to midland, Labov seems to categorize North, Midland and South as different categories in his lecture video. And that Midland is quite distinct from the South. Interview was given in 2013." Great. So, you're finally on board the Labov train, agreeing that what he says is highly respected in the sociolinguistics community. However, your statement that "Turns out it isn't part of the region" is false. Do you want proof from the same year of the video in 2013? OK then... let's see what he says in a written publication in 2013 called One Hundred Years of Sound Change in Philadelphia: "One way of looking at sound change in Philadelphia is to examine the end result in terms of the dialect geography of North America. Figure 16 displays the ‘Southeastern super-region’ from ANAE map 11.11. The gray symbols indicate speakers with two defining characteristics: fronting of the nucleus of /ow/ beyond 1200 Hz and the maintenance of the cot/caught distinction. This region includes the South, and extends beyond it to embrace the southern part of the Midland area and Philadelphia and other Mid-Atlantic cities" (p. 48). This means that Mid-Atlantic speakers bring the vowel sound of goat to the front of the mouth (often something like "eh-oo"), and do not pronounce cot and caught the same. Isn't that true of Philly and the Mid-Atlantic? That makes it part of the Southeastern super-region. He is saying the South is similar to Philly IN THESE PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS. So, I'm still not sure what you're denying or disagreeing about. Wolfdog ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Wolfdog, I think I actually understand Klaxonfan's statement "Turns out it isn't part of the region". @ Klaxonfan: The entire geographical Mid-Atlantic region is not encompassed in the Mid-Atlantic dialect region, only the Southern half right on the coast. As you say that you're from New York, you are actually not in Mid-Atlantic dialect region. However, your assessment is correct that you are from the geographical Mid-Atlantic region. Thus said, the dialects of New York City and New York State both are not apart of the Southeast super-region. So, there is a chance that you are correct in saying that your dialect is not apart of the Southeast super-region. LakeKayak ( talk) 20:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply
LakeKayak If this is true, it's just confirming my concerns that the dispute is breaking down into semantics. Here is a clear way to put it: New York City is not a part of the Southeastern super-region, but Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Wilmington are. And it is only the latter three cities that Labov refers to as the "Mid-Atlantic dialect region" proper. Wolfdog ( talk) 19:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: But doesn't the Philadelphia dialect have a fair number of things in common with the New York City dialect? I've run into multiple people who were born and raised in Philadelphia who sound like they speak rhotic versions of the New York City dialect more or less. I've even run into some who sound like they have the /æ/ tensing before nasal consonants of traditional New York City English (where some words have it but others do not). Tharthan ( talk) 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Tharthan: I can answer this question. While the two are similar, they are still in separate dialect regions. Philadelphia has fronted /oʊ/ and /uː/ whereas New York does not. The fronting of back consonants was the primary criterion for the Southeast super-region. LakeKayak ( talk) 22:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ LakeKayak: Ah. I see. Thanks for clearing that up. Tharthan ( talk) 23:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
You're welcome. LakeKayak ( talk) 21:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Marginal Northern?

Could New York City be considered marginally Northern the way that some accents are marginally Southern? Labov et al say on Chapter 17 of the ANAE:

"The dialect regions described in this chapter are united by two prominent features: a split short-a system and raised /oh/. Nevertheless, they are assigned to different dialect regions in Chapter 11. New York City is basically a part of the North, as shown by its conservative treatment of the back upgliding vowels /uw/ and /ow/ (Chapter 12) and the front upgliding vowels /iy/ and /ey/. In contrast, the fronting of the back upgliding vowels makes the Mid-Atlantaic region a part of the Southeastern super-region, uniting the Midland and the South (Map 11.1, Chapter 12)."

Any input is appreciated. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 01:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

What is your intention here? Do you not like the fact that New York City English stands alone as its own section? (By the way, the misspelling is also present in my published copy of the ANAE.) Wolfdog ( talk) 19:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Wolfdog: My initial intention was actually to attempt to condense the tree diagram bullet point for New York City English. It seems that most of the bullet points for other dialects seem to take up only one line, whereas New York City English takes up two. The reason to do this would only be to make the tree diagram easier to read. LakeKayak ( talk) 23:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

By the way, I think I know what my problem really is. The bullet point for New York City English seems to be rather long because as a stand-alone bullet point, the nature of /oʊ/, /uː/, and /aʊ/ have to be addressed on top the cot–caught distinction, the father–bother merger, and the split short–a system used. (The first one is mentioned for every dialect bullet on the page. Without mentioning the second and third, as it says further down on the page, it is implied the father–bother merger does occur and the dialect uses the nasal short-a system.)
Also, I was thinking at one time of mentioning the lacking of the pin–pen merger under "New York City English" as the absence of the merger is mentioned under "Northern and North Central United States". However, there is no way to do that if that means that the bullet will go to a third line. The bullets of the other dialects don't seem to have that issue because the feature of /oʊ/, /uː/, and /aʊ/ are addressed in the head bullet for the super-region. That is the issue I was trying to resolve. However, if it isn't feasible, then I can live with it. LakeKayak ( talk) 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
How about just removing the phrase "father-bother variability", which is obviously not a really defining feature. That will keep NYC all on one line. Wolfdog ( talk) 01:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, unfortunately, the page explicitly states that unless otherwise address, it is implied that the dialect is father–bother merged. And this is not 100% true in the case of New York City. LakeKayak ( talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: The issue with the father-bother merger is that traditionally it does not occur in New York City. However, there has been some variability reported. Therefore, it may be misleading to say either way 100%. LakeKayak ( talk) 15:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ LakeKayak: My only point is it's not a major or defining feature of NYCE, so removing it probably wouldn't spark any controversy. Better to do that then try to force NYCE into some semi-invented super-dialect purely for aesthetic reasons. Wolfdog ( talk) 16:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, "Imperfect" sounds a little more judgmental than "Marginal". Wolfdog ( talk) 16:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Whoops. That sentence was meant to go under the section above. Wolfdog ( talk) 01:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Wolfdog: This was a proposal to see what potentially could be done. However, if it seems to be not feasible, then no big deal either way. I'm at least glad I asked first. LakeKayak ( talk) 01:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Any justification to put Eastern New England in the North?

It seems that Labov et al. do not consider Eastern New England English (ENE English) to be apart of the Northern dialect. Labov et al. use the absence of the cot–caught merger to be a criterion for the dialect region. I really stumbled upon this by accident from the page Northern American English which states that, while ENE English is arguably native to the North geographically, it is not apart of the North linguistically. Any thoughts? LakeKayak ( talk) 22:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Again, use "a part" to mean "constituent" and "apart" to mean "separate", otherwise it gets very confusing! If you look at the hierarchy, Eastern New England meets every criterion to be a part of the North (4 or 5 phonological criteria), except for the cot-caught criterion. You can argue that this is enough that it should be its own separate branch, but then we may as well break up the whole Southeastern and Marginal Southeastern region into its component dialects (which I repeatedly discouraged during the whole Midland/Southern/Southeastern debate). This hierarchy is based on phonological closeness and historical relationships, rather than exactness. The relationships between dialects are almost never exact... never simply cut-and-dry. If by "aligned" we mean falling under the strict phonological definition for positive characteristics, then ENE is at least 80% Northern-aligned, according to this page, just as Western Pennsylvania is 75% Midland-aligned and Canada is 100% Western-aligned. Wolfdog ( talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [whoops... forgot to sign at the actual time] reply

Lawyer

Kbb2, I'm just as confused by you as you are by me. How is the difference already clear between /ɔɪ/ and /ɔj/? And, in fact, this is really besides the point, which is that the on-glide of this diphthong is what's distinct. Did you read the article first before reverting me? It gets its data from the Harvard Dialect Survey which shows the transcriptions as [ɔj] versus [ɒ]. So I'm confused as to why you're confused. Wolfdog ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Wolfdog: Because /ɔɪ/ is the CHOICE vowel and /ɔj/ is a sequence of /ɔ/ (the THOUGHT vowel) + /j/. Nobody would use both of those transcriptions to mean the same thing in one work. The fact that /ɔ/ has an allophonic range that's separate from /ɔɪ/ is obvious. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 09:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Kbb2, <j> after a vowel in English-language transcriptions is just a way to represent a front- and up-gliding diphthong. /ɔɪ/ has come to be standard, but /ɔy/ is what Labov uses, and /ɔj/ is what Vaux uses. The actual article uses these exact transcriptions: /ɒ/ and /ɔj/, which correspond to Vaux's [ɒ] and [ɔj]. So, actually, you have one of your transcriptions on the page exactly the opposite of what the article uses! Meanwhile, your other choice of transcription is failing to present the low-vowel nature of the vowel. You're representing [ɒ] and [ɔj] in the article as /ɔj/ and /ɔɪ/, respectively. Huh?? Doesn't make sense. If you insist on keeping the transcription at the phonemic level (not my preference, but I seem to be the compromiser here) then it should at the very least be /ɑj/ (/ɑ/ + /j/) and /ɔɪ/, though I personally prefer in this case the phonetic transcriptions because they shows exactly how Southerners pronounce the vowel AND are actually what the source says. We tend to deviate from the sources during these discussions quite a bit. Wolfdog ( talk) 11:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Wolfdog: It's a way to represent a diphthong only if you choose to. It's not an established practice and it has disadvantages, not to mention its controversial nature. On Wikipedia, there's an established tradition of transcribing the second elements of the diphthongs with ⟨ɪ⟩, ⟨ʊ⟩ and ⟨ə⟩. There's no possibility of confusion when you write /ɔɪ/ and /ɔj/, nobody who can read IPA would think those represent the same thing (you don't use multiple variants of phonemic transcription within one article).
⟨ɔy⟩ as used by Labov isn't IPA.
I've added an explanation above the table.
You're mistaking phonemic and phonetic transcription. ⟨ɔ⟩ says nothing about the quality of the vowel apart from the fact that it's back, rounded and considerably lower than /u/.
If all varieties that pronounce lawyer as /ˈlɔjər/ have the cot-caught merger, I see no problem with writing /ˈlɑjər/. We shouldn't posit a phonemic contrast that doesn't exist. But if they don't, /ˈlɔjər/ is the only logical option. I mean... is there anyone else who'd be confused by this? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 11:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I'm not mistaking anything. Just preferring to represent the transcription that's actually in the source. You make a lot of high-level assumptions that newbies won't necessarily make. Southern American English is a complex set of dialects, some with the cot-caught merger and most without, so we need to find a way to represent the vowel that definitively does not assume a merger. We also have to keep in mind that Southern then will not perfectly conform to our GenAm phonemes. But basically, the representation [ɒ] in Hedges/Vaux corresponds to our GenAm phoneme /ɑ/ LOT/PALM, not /ɔ/ THOUGHT. (I know the fact that law by itself as /lɔ/ might throw you off.) I also have no problem writing /ˈlɑjər/ if you want to keep things at the phonemic level. Wolfdog ( talk) 12:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
(As you can imagine, cot-caught merging readers will neutralize the distinction to /ɔ/ anyway. Wolfdog ( talk) 13:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)) reply
The source says "/ɒ/ as in 'saw'", so they are clearly using ⟨ɒ⟩ to mean THOUGHT. Nardog ( talk) 17:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Nardog Yeah, that's strange, since I don't think the Vaux study intended [ɒ] to represent the vowel of saw, so I wonder why Hedges does. I'd bet that Hedges, from Brigham Young University, herself has the cot-caught merger, already taking THOUGHT /ɔ/ and LOT /ɑ/, leading her to pick saw. Here's another reason my thinking this is so strong: the traditional Southern THOUGHT vowel is something like [ɑɒ~ɔo] (see here), yet Southerners certainly never say anything like [ˈlɑɒjəɹ] and they also don't use a steady, non-gliding vowel of the [ɔ~o] variety (except in some tiny dialect enclaves; see the same source), so [ˈlɔjəɹ] also comes across as wrong to me, whereas phonetically [ˈlɒjəɹ] sounds right. In the absence of me finding a difference source, though, I understand leaving it and apologize that I overlooked her mention of saw. Very odd. Wolfdog ( talk) 20:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
⟨ɒ⟩ is already in Vaux's survey representing the vowel of saw, though in square brackets instead of slashes. Nardog ( talk) 20:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Ah, true. Maybe it was the square brackets that threw me off. (Ironically, I pronounce my own saw vowel with [ɒ].) I apologize to Kbb2. Wolfdog ( talk) 20:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

GOAT-fronting

The overview for Canadian and Western American accents says that GOAT remains backed, but then the subsection on California says that GOAT-fronting exists in Californian English. These statements are self-contradictory. If a lack of GOAT-fronting is used to define the region, then the English of California (and Oregon and Nevada [1]) isn't a part of the region, and if they must be in the region, then GOAT-fronting or lack thereof can't be used to define the region. What's the solution to this? Tyrui ( talk) 06:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not exactly sure, and I doubt the researchers themselves would be sure either. GOAT-fronting is an innovation showing up all over the country. The source that defines the Western dialect region, the Atlas of North American English (Labov et al.) gets its nationwide data from the 1990s, while the California source you provide (Fridland et al.) is much more recent and far narrower in scope. Also, language change does not happen in clear-cut ways that work perfectly well for logical hierarchies and reader-friendly pigeonholes. Speech features in a certain community can innovate in new directions, reverse course back toward earlier forms, stagnate or remain static, or any bizarre combination of these. Wolfdog ( talk) 13:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Valerie Fridland, Tyler Kendall; 5. On the Uniformity of the Low-Back-Merger Shift in the U.S. West and Beyond. Publication of the American Dialect Society 1 December 2019; 104 (1): 100–119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-8032957
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:North_American_English_regional_phonology&oldid=1209414425"