Bob and Frog

Guest   Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:59 pm GMT
I was listening to the samples on the Speech Accent Archive, and I noticed that in the Inland North samples, Bob is usually [bab] but it seems that frog is different with every other speaker. I believe that some even have [frAg], but don't quote me on that. Someone on the Michigan Accent thread implied that they pronounced pop as pawp, which I am guessing is [pQp], but I always thought it was [pap]. What is the reason for all of these variations? Is this a part of the NCVS that I have overlooked?
Kess   Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:03 pm GMT
NCVS accents have BOB [bab] or [bAEb]; POP [pap] or [pAEp]

AE is the vowel used in General American ''BrAxton, JAckson..''


BOB [bQb], POP [pQp] pronunciation is used by many speakers in Canada, Boston, Valley Girl speech and WestPA; but [bAb], [pAp] is used there as well...
Travis   Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:35 pm GMT
I have "bob" [ba:b] or [ba:p] and "frog" [fr\Q:g], [fr\Q:k], [fRQ:g], or [fRQ:k], and do have the NCVS. One thing you must remember is that not all NCVS-speakers are identical in their degree of the NCVS; there are many who unround historical /O:/ into [A] but there are also many who retain rounding as [Q]. For instance, my mom is from Kenosha, further south than here in Milwaukee, and she generally has [A] in many words where I consistently preserve the rounded [Q].

Also note that the NCVS is not necessarily as simple as it is made out to be. For instance, in the dialect here /r/, /l/, and /w/ interfere with the NCVS, promoting back vowels and often rounded vowels where one might expect [a]. For instance, I have [A] from historical /rA:/ and /A:r/ (when not before a fortis obstruent, where I have [V] from /A:r/), and I hear many here who seem to actually have a weakly rounded [Q] from /A:r/ not before a fortis obstruent.

Similarly, I have [A] from historical /lA:/ in open syllables, [Q] and [A] in free variation from historical /lA:/ in closed syllables, and [AM] from historical /A:l/ (note though that most such cases are actually quite new, as my dialect preserves /O:l/ from Middle English /al/ as [QU]).

Furthermore, I have a three-way distinction between /wa/, /wA/, and /wQ/. In this case /wa/ is generally found in more literary, newer, or foreign words, most non-literary and non-core words have /wA/, and most core words have /wQ/. However, things are not actually quite as simple as such would indicate, as such actually overlap in a free variation pattern where /wa/ can be [wa] or [wA], /wA/ can be [wA] or [wQ], and /wQ/ is always [wQ], with [wA] and [wQ] for /wa/ and /wA/ respectively being less careful than [wa] and [wA] for them respectively. Of course, this distinction is likely due to the backing and rounding influence having /w/ being strongest in the most common, most native, and oldest words and being the weakest in the least common, least native, and newest words. At the same time, it is not exactly consistent, as "suave" has /wa/ but "Guatemala" has /wA/, for instance.
Guest   Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:23 pm GMT
Thank you for the answers. Josh, I have also never heard [pQp] in the Inland North. As Kess pointed out, I always thought that to be a Californian thing. Unless my hearing is bad, I think the sample from Syracuse on the Speech Accent Archive uses [frag] instead of [frQg] or [frAg]. Travis, the /wa/, /wA/, and /wQ/ distinction seems common as well. I think I have the same as you for suave and Guatemala.

http://accent.gmu.edu/browse_language.php?function=detail&speakerid=114
Travis   Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:35 pm GMT
>>Thank you for the answers. Josh, I have also never heard [pQp] in the Inland North. As Kess pointed out, I always thought that to be a Californian thing. Unless my hearing is bad, I think the sample from Syracuse on the Speech Accent Archive uses [frag] instead of [frQg] or [frAg].<<

I've never heard [Q] in "pop" in the Inland North or Upper Midwest either - always just [p_hap] (or theoretically [p_h{p], even though honestly I've never heard anyone with such an extreme NCVS). As for Syracuse having [a] in "frog", they must lack the lot-cloth split or at least did not apply it to "frog", so the resulting historical /Q/ ended up eventually getting NCVS-ed to [a].

>>Travis, the /wa/, /wA/, and /wQ/ distinction seems common as well. I think I have the same as you for suave and Guatemala.<<

I do have to note, though, that /wa/ versus /wA/ versus /wQ/ is rather weird, at least here, because I do not have such a three-way contrast in any other positions, rather just having a phonemic contrast between /a/ and /Q/. Such does explain why, though, words which had earlier Early New English /wa/, /wQ/, and /wO:/ confused me to no end for the longest time as to what phonemes and even what sounds they have...