Canadian Raising

Guest   Sat May 26, 2007 1:57 am GMT
Does Canadian raising exist all over Canada, or are there places where it doesn't exist?
Travis   Sat May 26, 2007 3:15 am GMT
Note that there are some exceptions to be above, in that there are some words which are trisyllabic in General American of this sort which are disyllabic in my dialect, such as "veteran", which for me is normally ["vEtSr\I~:n], and which I would pronounce trisyllabically as ["vE4R=:I~:n] if I forced such a pronunciation. I myself use a quadrisyllabic pronunciation of "veterinary" ["vEtSr\I~:ne:Ri:] (is this what you mean by "three syllables"?), and find the pentasyllabic pronunciation (which might be what you mean by "four syllables") (which for me would be ["vE4R=:I~:ne:Ri:] of it overly careful and lengthy subjectively. The thing is that my dialect is much more apt to reduce unstressed /@r/ in medial positions after a plosive to just [R] or [r\] (or even have it undergo metathesis to [R@] or [r\@]) than many North American English dialects closer to General American. Note, though, that in such words which in GA are trisyllabic, such as "library" (for me ["L\a:Ibr\e:Ri:] or ["M\a:Ibr\e:Ri:]), generally remain trisyllabic in my dialect rather than underlying /@/ elision (while longer words in GA frequently undergo such elision in my dialect). Ack - I myself would never say [vE4R=:I~:"ne:Ri:I~:n] in Real Life unless I was deliberately trying to be really, really careful - It would probably really come out as only four syllables, as [vEtSr\I~:"ne:RjI~:n], which is still a good bit long for a single non-compound word... As you can see the British write and pronounce the shortened form as Marm, or is it that I spelling it wrong i.e. ma'am is pronounce marm. The matter, though, is that if "madam" because of the trap-bath split became [m@"dA~:m] or ["mA:d@~m] and then the [@d] or [d@~] were elided, it would be just [mA~:m] (assuming that the following /m/ would renasalize the /A/ in the second case) in southern English English dialects. Considering that most southern English English dialects are nonrhotic, "marm" would represent /mA:m/, would be [mA~:m] and thus identical with the pronunciation of "madam". One note, though, is that even though it is spelled that way, which would imply /"m{@m/ or /m@"{m/ (or maybe you could consider that to be /"m{{m/ or /m{"{m/), it is really pronounced monosyllabically in North American English, being [mE{~:m] here and [m{~:m] in General American.
Guest   Sat May 26, 2007 3:22 am GMT
Lazar   Sat May 26, 2007 4:09 am GMT
Somebody copy-pasted a combination of three or more posts that Travis made on other threads.
Sarcastic Northwesterner   Sat May 26, 2007 4:30 am GMT
>> Note that there are some exceptions to be above, in that there are some words which are trisyllabic in General American of this sort which are disyllabic in my dialect, such as "veteran", which for me is normally . . . <<

Wow o_O !...but what does it have to do with Canadian raising?
Lazar   Sat May 26, 2007 5:13 am GMT
<<Wow o_O !...but what does it have to do with Canadian raising?>>

Did you read what I just wrote? Some troll copy-pasted a combination of three or more posts, unrelated to Canadian raising, that Travis has made on other threads.
LIlly   Sat May 26, 2007 2:05 pm GMT
''Does Canadian raising exist all over Canada, or are there places where it doesn't exist?''

It is less frequent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Josh Lalonde   Sat May 26, 2007 2:10 pm GMT
I've read that it is less common in BC. I was there recently and didn't notice it, which probably means that they have it.
Shatnerian   Sun May 27, 2007 2:58 am GMT
<<It is less frequent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.>>

I would have to disagree. Canadian raising for both /aU/ and /aI/ are generally quite common in the Prairies.

Take a look at the recordings on this page: http://web.ku.edu/idea/northamerica/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan.htm

I agree with Josh about British Columbia. There are many people in British Columbia that do not even have raising for /aI/, but this feature is generally restricted to individuals under the age of thirty-five. Of course, this is especially true for the cities of Vancouver and Victoria.

Canadian raising is pretty much an accepted standard of General Canadian speech. From what I have noticed, almost all newscasters, radio personalities, etc. have it to a certain degree.
Josh Lalonde   Sun May 27, 2007 4:04 am GMT
<<Canadian raising is pretty much an accepted standard of General Canadian speech. From what I have noticed, almost all newscasters, radio personalities, etc. have it to a certain degree.>>

I have an article here that says that Canadian Raising is more variable in the cities, with some speakers not showing it at all, but that's not my experience. My mother is from Montreal, and she definitely has it; a lot of TV and radio here comes from Toronto, and they have it. I don't know the Prairies as well, but someone I know from Regina definitely has it.
I agree that Cdn. Raising is standard here, but the actual realisation varies somewhat. Here in Ontario the normal raised allophone of /aU/ is [EU], but other parts of the country have the more widespread [@U] or [6U]. Apparently in Nova Scotia raised /aU/ is sometimes homophonous with /o/.
LongIsland   Sun May 27, 2007 4:40 am GMT
''Canadian raising is pretty much an accepted standard of General Canadian speech.''

Well, Canadian Oxford Dictionary does not use it.
I'd say it's a (colloquial) variation rather than the norm.
LongIsland   Sun May 27, 2007 4:42 am GMT
I agree that Cdn. Raising is standard here, but the actual realisation varies somewhat. Here in Ontario the normal raised allophone of /aU/ is [EU]...


Yes. And Many Americans have [EU or aeu] for [au]: house, out, about...
Lazar   Sun May 27, 2007 5:01 am GMT
<<Well, Canadian Oxford Dictionary does not use it.>>

That's because Canadian raising is basically an allophonic phenomenon, and the COD (as everyone can see here http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195418166/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7919835-1142316# ) gives phonemic, not phonetic, transcriptions. The COD ignores Canadian raising no more than it also ignores the allophonic flapping of /t/ and /d/ which is universal in North America. Are you suggesting that norm-adhering Canadians would pronounce "better" with a voiceless plosive [t]?

<<I'd say it's a (colloquial) variation rather than the norm.>>

No, I'm pretty sure that Canadian raising *is* the norm in Canada.
Travis   Sun May 27, 2007 5:08 am GMT
>>That's because Canadian raising is basically an allophonic phenomenon, and the COD (as everyone can see here http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195418166/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7919835-1142316# ) gives phonemic, not phonetic, transcriptions. The COD ignores Canadian raising no more than it also ignores the allophonic flapping of /t/ and /d/ which is universal in North America. Are you suggesting that norm-adhering Canadians would pronounce "better" with a voiceless plosive [t]?<<

At least here, though, Canadian Raising seems very marginally phonemic, if only because it has not fully diffused through all cases in which it could potentially affect considering the phonological rules of my dialect; even though it is consistent with respect to the classical cases in which it could affect, its influence on other cases (speciflcally /aI/ or /aU/ followed by /@r/, /Ir/ or /r/ in the same morpheme) seems lexicalized. At the same time, such is likely not really due to firmly established phonemicization but rather due to incomplete sound shift (which is likely to be completed at some point in the future).
Josh Lalonde   Sun May 27, 2007 2:14 pm GMT
Of course, it's also marginally phonemic in such pairs as 'writer/rider', where the presence or absence of Cdn. Raising shows whether [4] is /t/ or /d/. And no, I don't think you can say that it's a colloquial variation. There is no alternation between casual speech with raising and careful speech without it, or between lower-class speech with raising and higher-class without it; in the areas in which it occurs, everyone has it in all speech styles.