Do the words *hot, caught, not* have the same vowel in standard AmE?
Thanks.
Thanks.
A question to Americans - vowels
What is standard AmE? It doesn't exist. Lots of Americans pronounce those words with the same vowel, so if you do, it'll be fine in American English.
They are pronounced the same or nearly the same in a wide variety of Northern dialects.
I've also noticed that in the area I grew up in (Northeastern Connecticut), "cot" and "caught" are merged (as [kɑ̟?]), but "pod" and "pawed" are kept separate (as [pɑ̟d] and [pɒ:d]). I.e. before unvoiced syllables, the two phonemes seem to be merged or near-merged, but before voiced syllables they are not.
The "cot-caught" merger is definitely spreading, and in many areas the two phonemes are so close together that it takes you a while to notice the difference.
I've also noticed that in the area I grew up in (Northeastern Connecticut), "cot" and "caught" are merged (as [kɑ̟?]), but "pod" and "pawed" are kept separate (as [pɑ̟d] and [pɒ:d]). I.e. before unvoiced syllables, the two phonemes seem to be merged or near-merged, but before voiced syllables they are not.
The "cot-caught" merger is definitely spreading, and in many areas the two phonemes are so close together that it takes you a while to notice the difference.
Western American English dialects are low back merged, but the merger is spreading: Western PA, Kentucky, Central Ohio, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and eastern parts of Massachusetts are merged too, and Florida is experiencing a change from a transitionally merged to fully cot/caught merged.
In Great Lakes Areas, many vowels are now unrounded because of the Northern Cities Vowel shift, for example in this clip (in ALL, SUPERBALL, CALLED)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtbbWlaJC-k
In Great Lakes Areas, many vowels are now unrounded because of the Northern Cities Vowel shift, for example in this clip (in ALL, SUPERBALL, CALLED)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtbbWlaJC-k
<<Do the words *hot, caught, not* have the same vowel in standard AmE?>>
All I can say is that they do for me. I'm from California.
All I can say is that they do for me. I'm from California.
For me, "hot," "cot," and "not" have the same vowel, but "caught" does not.
Anyone know why "dog" is usually pronounced with the "caught" vowel rather than the "cot" vowel? Or is this just me?
Anyone know why "dog" is usually pronounced with the "caught" vowel rather than the "cot" vowel? Or is this just me?
i thought in standard amE, dont 'hot' and 'not' had a different vowel than 'caught'?? unrounded and rounded respectively
@entpark
i think its because of the 'lot-cloth split', put words like 'dog' into the 'caught' category
@entpark
i think its because of the 'lot-cloth split', put words like 'dog' into the 'caught' category
Has anyone noticed that the American /ɪ/ (as in sit) is different from the /ɪ/ in PR pronunciation. The American one sounds a little bit like /e/ (as in set).
Any dictionary on standard American English (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Random House, The American Heritage Dictionary etc.) will tell you that /ɑ/ (as in 'hot', 'not') and /ɔ/ (as in caught) can be distinct phonemes.
They will also tell you the distribution of these two vowels among those who maintain the distinction between them.
Cot, rock, job, pod, pond, doll, solid, knowledge, yacht, spot, bother, cotton, John, involve...have /ɑ/.
Saw, lawn, author, gnaw, appal, all, bought, thought, paw, talk, chalk, raw, sauce...have /ɔ/.
Dog, off, often, loss, cost, cloth, cough, trough, soft...have /ɔ/.
Calm, drama, ah, father, calve, psalm...have /ɑ/.
But as others have said, and as you must yourself know if you have read treads about the cot-caught merger, it is also perfectly acceptable not to make any distinction between these two vowels.
So what is yout question?
They will also tell you the distribution of these two vowels among those who maintain the distinction between them.
Cot, rock, job, pod, pond, doll, solid, knowledge, yacht, spot, bother, cotton, John, involve...have /ɑ/.
Saw, lawn, author, gnaw, appal, all, bought, thought, paw, talk, chalk, raw, sauce...have /ɔ/.
Dog, off, often, loss, cost, cloth, cough, trough, soft...have /ɔ/.
Calm, drama, ah, father, calve, psalm...have /ɑ/.
But as others have said, and as you must yourself know if you have read treads about the cot-caught merger, it is also perfectly acceptable not to make any distinction between these two vowels.
So what is yout question?
Any dictionary on standard American English (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Random House, The American Heritage Dictionary etc.) will tell you that /ɑ/ (as in 'hot', 'not') and /ɔ/ (as in caught) can be distinct phonemes.
//
Really?
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dog
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/song
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dawn
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/don
//
Really?
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dog
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/song
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/dawn
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/don
One of the benefits of using an alternative to the IPA is the ability to use a single symbol for a sound pronounced differently in different dialects. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language uses ‹ŏ› for the vowel in cot (kŏt) but ‹ô› for the one in caught (kôt).[18] Some American speakers pronounce these the same way (for example, like IPA [ɒ] in the Boston dialect, or like IPA [ɑ] in the American West); for those speakers who maintain the distinction, depending on the accent, the vowel in cot may vary from [ɑ] to [æ], while the vowel in caught may vary from [ɔ] to [ɑ], or may even be a diphthong. Using one symbol for the vowel in cot (instead of having different symbols for different pronunciations of the o) enables the dictionary to provide meaningful pronunciations for speakers of most dialects of English.
'' Merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ]
To assess the degree of merger of [A] and [ɔ], a series of paired-sample t-tests was calculated. For each of the six dialect regions, one paired sample t-test was computed for F1 and one was computed for F2. Significant differences in this analysis suggest distinct vowels, whereas non-significant differences in both F1 and F2 suggest a merger. Due to the large number of comparisons, the p-value was set at
.005 for this analysis.
A merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ] was found for the Mid-Atlantic talkers (t(7)
= 2.8, p = .03 for F1 and t(7) = 2.2, p = .06 for F2), the Midland talkers (t(7) = 2.4, p = .04 for F1 and t(7) = 2.1, p = .07 for F2), and the Western talkers (t(7) = 3.5, p = .01 for F1 and t(7) = -.22, p = .83 for F2).
The New England talkers exhibited a near-merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ] (t(7) = 5.5, p = .001 for F1 and t(7) = 3.7, p = .007 for F2).
Finally, [ɑ] and [ɔ] were clearly distinct for the Northern talkers (t(7) = 7.6, p < .001 for F1 and t(7) = 7.1, p < .001 for F2) and the Southern talkers (t(7) = 6.7, p < .001 for F1 and t(7) = 4.9, p = .002 for F2).7 ''
http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~cclopper/clopper_thesis.pdf
To assess the degree of merger of [A] and [ɔ], a series of paired-sample t-tests was calculated. For each of the six dialect regions, one paired sample t-test was computed for F1 and one was computed for F2. Significant differences in this analysis suggest distinct vowels, whereas non-significant differences in both F1 and F2 suggest a merger. Due to the large number of comparisons, the p-value was set at
.005 for this analysis.
A merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ] was found for the Mid-Atlantic talkers (t(7)
= 2.8, p = .03 for F1 and t(7) = 2.2, p = .06 for F2), the Midland talkers (t(7) = 2.4, p = .04 for F1 and t(7) = 2.1, p = .07 for F2), and the Western talkers (t(7) = 3.5, p = .01 for F1 and t(7) = -.22, p = .83 for F2).
The New England talkers exhibited a near-merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ] (t(7) = 5.5, p = .001 for F1 and t(7) = 3.7, p = .007 for F2).
Finally, [ɑ] and [ɔ] were clearly distinct for the Northern talkers (t(7) = 7.6, p < .001 for F1 and t(7) = 7.1, p < .001 for F2) and the Southern talkers (t(7) = 6.7, p < .001 for F1 and t(7) = 4.9, p = .002 for F2).7 ''
http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~cclopper/clopper_thesis.pdf
<Any dictionary on standard American English ...>
Oh, so *standard American* does exist then. Yay.
Lilly, sorry but your links do not work.
I also read this
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhowdoa.html
OK. The bottom line:
A merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ] was found for the Mid-Atlantic talkers.
The New England talkers exhibited a near-merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ].
Finally, [ɑ] and [ɔ] were clearly distinct for the Northern talkers.
Thank you all very much indeed.
Oh, so *standard American* does exist then. Yay.
Lilly, sorry but your links do not work.
I also read this
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhowdoa.html
OK. The bottom line:
A merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ] was found for the Mid-Atlantic talkers.
The New England talkers exhibited a near-merger of [ɑ] and [ɔ].
Finally, [ɑ] and [ɔ] were clearly distinct for the Northern talkers.
Thank you all very much indeed.
By 'standard' I meant not strongly marked as regional or otherwise dialectal. There are many different forms of standard/general AmE. I would definitely classify both the cot-caught merged and the unmerged pronunciation as standard.