>>Travis,
Although I don't live in Wisconsin, never have, I imagine that the traditional accent there sounds something more like Minnesota and the Dakotas where there is some vowel lengthening. Some linguists attribute this to an East Anglia (eastern England) influence, others would be more cautious and say that we can't tell for sure.<<
Supposedly there is such here, at least according to the perceptions of others from outside the area, but I myself obviously cannot really perceive such; note that such may very well not actually be a general lengthening of vowels, but rather a more pronounced distinction between short and long vowel realizations (as realized vowel length seems to be more defined here than in most NAE dialects). Apparently, though, from what I have read on word-final devoicing phenomena here, such may be simply a means to preserve phonemic distinctions word-finally which would otherwise be weak or absent.
>>Radio and television seem to be doing much to errode traditional accents. This means that any regional accents in Wisconsin were almost certainly stronger before World War II, even before 1965 than they are today. While I still hear accents among Minnesotans who come from areas close to the Canadian border, Minnesotans I've encountered from Minneapolis sound pretty much like Americans in Seattle or Los Angeles, for that matter.<<
As for Minnesota, the main reason is that Minnesota is divided into two separate dialect regions, with southern Minnesota being distinct from northern Minnesota. Such is not really a matter of urbanization or like, as such is not simply limited to, say, the Twin Cities versus the rest of the state.
As for traditional features, while there are some which seem to have largely disappeared, such as the pronunciation of German /Y/ as [I] in German names (replaced by the pronunciation of such as [ju]), and there are some which seem to be preserved in the speech of only some, such as the use of "hey" in a fashion similar to Canadian "eh" (note that this is a Milwaukee dialect specific feature, and cannot be said to general with respect to English here in Wisconsin), there are plenty of new features that more than make up for any historical features which have been lost.
>>Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to destroy your views about Wisconsin American English overall but I hope you can always back them up with examples of some kind; examples that you have heard and collected personally from Wisconsin residents. It would be nice to see some of them on Antimoon although I can understand why you might not want to show too many of them if you plan on publishing them some day.<<
You asked for examples, and examples you will get. Here's a general laundry list of the more, well, interesting features of the dialect here. Note though that such features may not be apparent in higher registers, and not all individuals will necessarily have or fully express them.
1) Elision of *phonologically intermediate* 4, 4~, v, n, and sometimes D in intervocalic environments where the following vowel is unstressed (besides word-final positions, where such can occur across word boundaries irrespective of the stress of following vowels in some idiolects). Note that overall word stress does affect such, with more stressed words not experiencing such, and the maximum stress threshold varies by register and idiolect, with higher registers having lower maximum stresses for this. In many individuals idiolects, generally only grammar words or only grammar words and highly unstressed non-grammar short words are affected, whereas some individuals such as myself have a very progressive form of such where such is generalized, with all words being potentially affected at some given level of stress.
Note that this occurs after vowel nasalization, but there is also a vowel denasalization rule that occurs after it that denasalizes nasalized vowels which are very unstressed and which are no longer followed by a nasal consonant (except if the nasal vowel is word-final, where then such seems to occur less commonly). Also note that this occurs before the production of syllabic consonants and the initial allophonic production of vowel length. After elision, if a preceding vowel is not one of /e/, /i/, /o/, or /u/, it will form a diphthong with the newly following vowel, the length of which will be overall determined by the first component's original length. Also note that in more informal and less stressed speech a following /@/ may be assimilated to the newly preceding vowel, turning a previously short preceding vowel into a long vowel, and a previously long preceding vowel into an overlong vowel; this also has the effect of "hardening" a following consonant which would otherwise be syllabic in realization.
Most individuals here seem to have some degree of such, even though most individuals, especially middle-aged individuals, seem to limit such to grammar words, more common short words, or even a more limited set of cases. Also note in particular that many people will still have ["E~:ni:] for "any" alone but have [E:I~] or [E:I] for it in words like "anyone" and "anyways". However, most individuals understand the less progressive expressions of such here *and* cases involving very unstressed positions in long words, but some may be confused by very progressive cases involving words of intermediate length, especially in more stressed positions. One way or another, though, this is probably the most crossintelligibility-limiting phonological phenomena here, in its generalized form; I myself find that I generally have to suppress when speaking to people from without the area, or even when speaking to some individuals in the area who all but lack it.
2) Word-final devoicing, most commonly for sibilants but very commonly for fricatives and affricates in general, and at times for /d/ or for lenis stops in general utterance-finally. Note that such generally does not occur before vowels, and for stops such seems to be consistently disabled before sonorants overall except sometimes with /d/. Also note that such normally involves fortition for sibilants, but normally not for non-sibilant fricatives, even though one will at times hear fortition of /d/ or even /g/ or /b/ when in utterance-final positions. Note that many individuals lack devoicing of lenis stops altogether or limit such to /d/.
3) Word-initial interdental hardening outside of mere assimilation. /D/ is readily realized as [d_dD], [d_d], or [d] word-initially outside of more formal or careful speech, and /T/ will at times be realized as [t_dT] or [t_d] (but never actually [t]) word-initially as well. Note that some individuals will also do such hardening medially, but such is not common here in the Milwaukee area. There is also an exceptional case here where such will occur word-finally with "with" in certain cases, such as when being followed in turn by another word starting with /D/.
4) Lateral vocalization. Historical /l/ has become [L\] in careful speech here, but in most actual speech such is readily realized as [M\] or, when syllabic, as [M]. Such is likely to be perceived by individuals not familiar with the dialect here as /w/ as a result.
5) Uvular rhotics. Historical /r\/ has become [R] (whether it is approximant or fricative is another story; it seems to show up as either in practice depending on position and stress) in all positions except after labials and coronals and at times in word-initial position.
6) Splitting of the realization of historical /{/ between [E{] (sometimes [e{]) and [E] based on stress, such that many grammar words such as "can" and "am" receive [E], whereas most non-grammar words as well as the specific case of "can't" receive [E{] (or [e{]) except when given very little stress. Note that such is not phonemic, as all words can potentially alternate between [E{] and [E] when given the proper levels of stress. Note that the difference between said [E] and that from historical /E/ is generally not salient in most cases, but that from historical /E/ is often actually articulated as further back than that from historical /{/, which is never backed. I myself perceive the two as being distinct articulation-wise (which is why I was confused for the longest time by people hearing "can" here as if it were /kEn/), but apparently many do not hear the two as distinct.
7) The products of the Mary-merry-marry and hoarse-horse mergers involve the tense vowels [e] and [o] rather than the lax vowels [E] and [O]; note that while these are laxer than the normal [e] and [o] here, they still are much closer to them than to the normal [E] and [O] here, and thus are best still called [e] and [o]. Note that in certain cases a new [O] before [R] has been produced here, usually due to elision of intervening consonants; however, this [O] seems to be quite unstable (I preserve it, but very many do not), and is very often shifted to either [A] or [o] depending on the idiolect in question.
8) The Northern Cities Vowel Shift. I need not explain this one. Note that the realization of historical /{/ as either [E{] or [E] is part of this, but it is not part of the classical form of the NCVS. Also note that /O/ is not affected in the NCVS here, but rather /V/ is shifted towards [A] directly.
Do you need more examples?
|
