Accent with the strangest vowel sounds

<<Plus, that describes some Americans, like me. Particularily in Minnesota and North Dakota (not sure about where else), many people have full Canadian Raising, but no Northern Cities Vowel Shift.>>

Oh, that's interesting. I'd have to say I'd be quite surprised to meet someone from Minnesota or North Dakota with no hint of the NCVS in their speech. Everyone I've ever met from those two states had at least some traces of the NCVS in their speech, even if it wasn't highly exaggerated.

I can readily and pretty reliably identify people from the Northern Midwest even if their accent isn't the most progressive along the NCVS. I can remember several instances of meeting people and hearing something that tipped me off and then I'd ask them where in the Northern Midwest they were from and they'd always be like "how'd you know?!" It's the vowels, baby ;)

Well, I couldn't place most American accents if I had to. I have no idea what Canadian raising or northern cities vowel shift sound like. And when people talk about California accents -- I lived in California for several years, and I never noticed any unique accent. Weird slang, sure, but no particular accent, even though all of my friends were natives.

I've certainly never identified any of the Canadians I've met on the basis of the way they talked, I'm afraid.

<<I can remember several instances of meeting people and hearing something that tipped me off and then I'd ask them where in the Northern Midwest they were from and they'd always be like "how'd you know?!" It's the vowels, baby ;)>>

Kirk, I'm my Irish accent, there's a chain shift that causes ''cord'' to be pronounced as /kArd/ and ''card'' to be pronounced as /k{rd/. Have you ever heard a speaker with this shift?

Many people that hear us mistakingly think that we have a card-cord merger because our pronunciation of ''cord'' sounds identical to how other speakers pronounce ''card''.

<<Kirk, I'm my Irish accent, there's a chain shift that causes ''cord'' to be pronounced as /kArd/ and ''card'' to be pronounced as /k{rd/. Have you ever heard a speaker with this shift?>>

I don't believe I have. However, I've heard of that phenomenon :)

<<Well, I couldn't place most American accents if I had to. I have no idea what Canadian raising or northern cities vowel shift sound like.>>

You might find these links helpful :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_raising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift

<<And when people talk about California accents -- I lived in California for several years, and I never noticed any unique accent. Weird slang, sure, but no particular accent, even though all of my friends were natives.>>

I've been told by non-Californians (and Americans not from the West) that I sounded Californian. Once again it's the vowels. The California Vowel Shift is quickly making its inroads amongst speakers here thruout the state--I hear clear examples of it every day in my speech and in others'. Check out this link with information on three of the main US vowel shifts currently taking place:

http://www.pbs.org/speak/ahead/change/changin/

Well, I'm not sure I ever heard some of the California Vowel Shift examples. It says it began in the 80's, and I lived there in the first half of the 90's, when I was 18-22. I wonder if it just hadn't caught on at that point?

<<Well, I'm not sure I ever heard some of the California Vowel Shift examples. It says it began in the 80's, and I lived there in the first half of the 90's, when I was 18-22. I wonder if it just hadn't caught on at that point?>>

Could be. It's still relatively young as a vowel shift, but I believe it's been spreading fast (and it's been noticed in Northern and Southern California so region doesn't have much to do with it apparently). Many people may be in an in-between stage where sometimes the vowels are realized in a more traditional position while at other times they're more progressive along the shift. I know it's that way for me.

Oops, somehow I accidentally sent the message above and it just put "Guest" there..that was me.

That would make sense. I have also never been to the midwest, so i'm not that familiar with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, although I'm guessing it's the same as the one that seems to put an intrusive "y" in front of vowels -- cat becomes cyat, Mary becomes Myirry? Sorry, I don't X-Sampa or anything else phonetic, so bear with.

Quote-''I have also never been to the midwest, so i'm not that familiar with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift''

Uriel,

Here are some examples of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. I think these are right:

caught - /kAt/
cot - /kat/
cat - /ke@t/

<<That would make sense. I have also never been to the midwest>>

I've been to the Midwest before but I also have friends here who were originally from the Northern Midwest so I can listen to them here.

<<so i'm not that familiar with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, although I'm guessing it's the same as the one that seems to put an intrusive "y" in front of vowels -- cat becomes cyat, Mary becomes Myirry? Sorry, I don't X-Sampa or anything else phonetic, so bear with.

Yes, that's one aspect of the NCVS. The vowel in General American "cat" (which is [{] in XSAMPA, by the way, and [æ] in IPA) becomes more like [i{] or [j{] in the NCVS. This doesn't affect other vowels in the NCVS.

Basically, the NCVS is moving in the opposite direction in several areas in comparison to how the California Vowel Shift is moving. While traditional General American has [k{t] for "cat," in NCVS it's [ki{t] and in the CVS it's [kat]. [a] is a front low vowel which is the vowel in Spanish "padre" while the back low vowel [A] is the vowel in English "father."

Meanwhile, while traditional General American has [kAt] for "cot," the NCVS has [kat] (which you'll notice sounds the same as CVS "cat") and the CVS has something approaching [kOt] for "cot."

<<Here are some examples of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. I think these are right:

caught - /kAt/
cot - /kat/
cat - /ke@t/>>

I think "cat" may also be /ki{t/ for many NCVS speakers, as I mentioned before, but otherwise that looks fine. For me personally, with CVS features in my speech, if I'm using more traditional vowels those are [kAt] [kAt] and [k{t] for me, while sometimes I may have something approaching [kOt] [kOt] and [kat] for those words.

<<so i'm not that familiar with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, although I'm guessing it's the same as the one that seems to put an intrusive "y" in front of vowels -- cat becomes cyat, Mary becomes Myirry? Sorry, I don't X-Sampa or anything else phonetic, so bear with.

<<Yes, that's one aspect of the NCVS. The vowel in General American "cat" (which is [{] in XSAMPA, by the way, and [æ] in IPA) becomes more like [i{] or [j{] in the NCVS. This doesn't affect other vowels in the NCVS.>>

There are actually northern Americans which palatalize consonants? I thought that the palatalization of consonants was a unique Caribbean thing. I'm from the Caribbean and my accent has some palatalization in certain consonants. In my accent, ''car'' is /ka:r/ [k_ja:r]. It's often written is ''cyar'' when people are trying to represent our accent.

Where in the Caribbean are you from, Robert?

At least in my dialect, there are NCVS features in informal speech, but they seem to be incomplete, and often different states in the shift coexist for certain phonemes. For example /o/ can be either a pure highly rounded monophthongal [o], a severely backed, slighly *raised* version, and slightly less rounded of the same, or sometimes in word-final position a strongly rising centralized diphthong in rather emphatic speech. The first of these versions is the conservative version, and tends to be favored in formal speech, and it coexists with the second of them, which shows up primarily in informal speech alongside the first version. The third version is also interesting in that it has moved *against* the direction of the NCVS, as it is centralized (I have even heard it occasionally as practically overtly fronted as [2Y] or possibly even [2y] in my sister's speech), rather than backed and or lowered.

Likewise, /A/ seems to vary freely between [A] and [a]. Like with /o/, it tends towards towards one extreme more than another dependent on register, with [A] being preferred in formal speech, and increased shifting towards [a] occurring with increasing informality, but this shifting is not mandatory, as [A] may still show up alongside [a] in informal speech. One special case in all of this is the word "yah" ("ja"), which *always* uses a practically pure [a] and never uses [A]; this is an interesting case in that it may indicate a marginal phonemic distinction, as it does not behave like most words which use /A/ with respect to variation in realization. This word is also interesting in that it is conflated with the word "yeah" (/j{/), as its usage is practically identical to such, and people seem to treat it as just a pronunciation variant of such; however, if it truly were, it would be specifically going against the direction of the NCVS. Yet, at the same time, if it were truly just a slightly different realization of such besides the standard [j{], it would explain its behavior without adding new phonemic distinctions besides those "standard" here (but again, it has been shown that in certain cases, new distinctions which apply to only very small groups of words may be necessary to explain marginal cases which cannot be easily be explained via allophony).

One different case is /E/, which seems to always be fixed in a shifted position, in which it is just slightly backed.

/{/ in general seems rather high, being slightly lower than and to the *front* of [E], except in stressed formal speech. However, it is not diphthongized as anything like [e@]. Also note that in informal speech before /n/ it seems to simply become [E], to the effect that "than" and "then" appear to be homophones in informal speech; I myself remember effectively regarding the two as just different spellings for two words with the same pronunciation in elementary school.

/e/ seems simply unaffected, being slightly higher than and significantly to the front of /E/, and being a pure monophthong except before vowels or in formal speech when word-final. It is as if the NCVS skipped over /e/ and went straight from /E/ to /o/ in the dialect here, unlike in some particularly strongly NCVS-ed dialects.

An interesting case though is /O/, which seems to have no noticable shifting, at least for me, no matter the register, unlike /o/, /A/, /{/, or /E/. It is as if there is simply a break in the NCVS in my dialect which just applies to /O/ alone, as if the shift just skipped over it. If it has shifted at all, it would probably be a very slight downward shift, even slighter than the backward shift of /E/.

Whoops, meant that /{/ is very slightly lower than and to the *front* of /E/. Actually, it is probably more to the front of /E/ than it is lower than it, to the effect that the distinction between the two is more based on frontness than height.