The sounds of American English

greg   Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:14 pm GMT
Uriel : « [...] to many English people the American accent sounds slurred because our delivery isn't as staccatto as theirs and the rhythm is very different, monotone because we lack the greater range of pitch variation that they have [...] ».

Es cierto que a algunos — y a los no anglófonos sobre todo — el tono de la voz en inglés estadounidense quizás les pueda parecer menos contrastado que el en inglés "clásico" (= pronunciación europea "estándar" o seudonormal). Además, la articulación anglofona norteamericana, por lo general por supuesto, da la impresión de ser bastante más aflojada que la de los angloparlantes nativos de Gran Bretaña — muy diferente podría sin embargo ser el caso de otros habitantes de las Islas Británicas, como los Irlandeses, por ejemplo. Por mi parte tengo la nítida impresión de que la gama tonal que mencionó Uriel, con toda la razón, no es el único factor en juego : asimismo, el nivel del contraste de la energía articulatoria desplegada me parece más alto en la anglofonia de Europa en comparación con la de Norteamérica.





Uriel : « [...] nasal because we talk more from the middle of our mouths whereas they talk more from the front [...] ».

Las vocales nasales (o nazalidas) pueden o no ser anteriores (o posteriores). Por ejemplo la nasal francesa /œ̃/ = /9~/ — como en Fr <un> = {uno, eins, one} — es anterior mientras que esta otra, /ɔ̃/ = /O/ — como en Fr <bon> = {bueno, gut, good} —, es posterior. Por consiguiente, no es la anterioridad vocálica (ni por lo demás la posterioridad) que determina el rasgo nasal, o solamente oral, de la vocal en cuestión. Creo que la nasalización de las vocales anglo-estadounidenses está ocasionada ante todo por la salida del aire expulsado a través de las fosas nasales (además de la boca naturalmente).





Uriel : « [...] along with all the heavy final R's we have. »

¡ Claro que sí ! Más aún cuanto que esa grafema final es vocalizado (la <r> es seudorótico).





Travis : « Forget about flapping /t/, /d/, and /nt/ - talk about *eliding* /t/, /d/, /n/, /nt/ [...] ».

Würdest du dann meinen, daß diese elidierte Foneme durch etwas anders (zB Knacklaut /ʔ/) ersetzt werden soll ?
greg   Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:16 pm GMT
ERRATUM :

lire → « [...] /ɔ̃/ = /Õ/ [...] »,
car /ɔ/ = /O/.
Travis   Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:29 pm GMT
>>Travis : « Forget about flapping /t/, /d/, and /nt/ - talk about *eliding* /t/, /d/, /n/, /nt/ [...] ».

Würdest du dann meinen, daß diese elidierte Foneme durch etwas anders (zB Knacklaut /ʔ/) ersetzt werden soll ?<<

That's the thing - they very commonly aren't replaced by *anything* even when such results in vowels coming into contact, and if they are replaced by something it is only the inconsistent insertion of an epenthic [j] or [w], and that only shows up if the preceding vowel phoneme is one of /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/, /ae̯/, /əe̯/, /ɑɔ̯/, or /ɔɪ̯/. If the preceding vowel phoneme is one of /e/, /i/, /ɒ/, /o/, /u/, /ae̯/, /əe̯/, /ɑɔ̯/, or /ɔɪ̯/ then a hiatus generally replaces the elided consonant(s). Otherwise, a diphthong is formed between the preceding vowel and the following vowel, with the following vowel becoming an offglide and losing its length distinction, or if the following vowel phoneme is /ə/ (or sometimes /ɪ/), particularly before a sonorant, the preceding vowel is simply lengthened (and made overlong if already long) with the following vowel being lost (and thus preventing the syllabicization of any following sonorant). Such loss of /ə/ (or sometimes /ɪ/) before sonorants also occurs when the preceding vowel phoneme is one of /e/, /i/, /ɒ/, /o/, and /u/, but such occurs less frequently overall than with historically "short" preceding vowel phonemes.
Guest   Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:33 pm GMT
In general terms, ugly with almost unbearable r's and nasal sounds, but easy to understand. It's amazing that I can understand something having had so little exposure to it.

For example, if I happen to watch an American movie in original version, I can understand very little for the first ten minutes or so, all what I hear are those terrible r's, but if I don't take it out and keep watching, then I get into the movie and forget about the accent.
Travis   Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:41 pm GMT
>>Es cierto que a algunos — y a los no anglófonos sobre todo — el tono de la voz en inglés estadounidense quizás les pueda parecer menos contrastado que el en inglés "clásico" (= pronunciación europea "estándar" o seudonormal). Además, la articulación anglofona norteamericana, por lo general por supuesto, da la impresión de ser bastante más aflojada que la de los angloparlantes nativos de Gran Bretaña — muy diferente podría sin embargo ser el caso de otros habitantes de las Islas Británicas, como los Irlandeses, por ejemplo. Por mi parte tengo la nítida impresión de que la gama tonal que mencionó Uriel, con toda la razón, no es el único factor en juego : asimismo, el nivel del contraste de la energía articulatoria desplegada me parece más alto en la anglofonia de Europa en comparación con la de Norteamérica.<<

I had to read this with Google Translator, so my reading may not have been too accurate, but I'm going to try responding...

I would have to say that such is applicable at least to General American versus Received Pronunciation, with RP being far more strongly articulated than GA, but I would not say that such is true with respect to, say, GA versus Estuary English; if anything, GA seems far more clearly articulated than Estuary English as a whole even in everyday speech in GA-like dialects.
Uriel   Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:23 am GMT
<<In general terms, ugly with almost unbearable r's and nasal sounds, but easy to understand. It's amazing that I can understand something having had so little exposure to it.

For example, if I happen to watch an American movie in original version, I can understand very little for the first ten minutes or so, all what I hear are those terrible r's, but if I don't take it out and keep watching, then I get into the movie and forget about the accent. >>


And I am kind of the same way with English movies -- it takes me a little while to retune my ear to their accents and pacing. Sometimes I have to listen to a passage more than once to get it -- and of course, when I do finally comprehend it, it seems so frickin' obvious!

Irish accents are usually much easier to understand than English -- they don't take nearly the same amount of adjustment or concentration. Scottish is harder than English. Australian and New Zealand accents fall somewhere between Irish and English for ease of listening.

I don't mean to imply that any of these are actually gibberish to me or that I can't understand them at all -- it just takes a little more "active listening" on my part to get through them -- a little more strain. Whereas some accents, like Irish, are easy enough to require almost no effort -- I get more passive comprehension from them, like half-listening to someone else's conversation at the grocerty store without really paying attention to it and still getting the gist of it. For most Brits I would have to really be focusing my attention on them to catch everything.


<<Las vocales nasales (o nazalidas) pueden o no ser anteriores (o posteriores). Por ejemplo la nasal francesa /œ̃/ = /9~/ — como en Fr <un> = {uno, eins, one} — es anterior mientras que esta otra, /ɔ̃/ = /O/ — como en Fr <bon> = {bueno, gut, good} —, es posterior. Por consiguiente, no es la anterioridad vocálica (ni por lo demás la posterioridad) que determina el rasgo nasal, o solamente oral, de la vocal en cuestión. Creo que la nasalización de las vocales anglo-estadounidenses está ocasionada ante todo por la salida del aire expulsado a través de las fosas nasales (además de la boca naturalmente). >>

You may be right. Honestly, we don't sound nasal to ourselves, but Brits are always complaining that we sound that way to them, and that is the reason that at least one dialect coach has given for that impression. I don't really have a better explanation, since it's a phenomenon I don't perceive myself. What that coach said was that since Americans talk more in the middle of their mouths (and indeed, tongue placement changes drastically if we try to "put on" a British accent), we tend to use our nasal resonator more than they do (the mouth having three main resonators). Could be; I don't know.

I personally suspect it might have more to do with the fact that some of our vowels are a lot less tense, and the way our short Os and long I's are more shifted in the direction of an A sound -- whereas to me, their I's often seems to drift off in the the direction of an OI, their short O's sound more like long O's, and their long O's are an odd sound I just don't ever make at all (or think I make, anyway) -- almost like an O that morphs into an EW.

OI and long O sounds never seem to engage the nose at all, even when Americans say them, although A's of all types do. English people sound almost like they are occluding their noses when they talk, so I can see why they hear a major contrast.
Jasper   Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:05 pm GMT
Uriel, I think they might all be referring to General American English; Southern American English sounds too different to be grouped with it.

Speaking of SAE, it fascinates me endlessly how a dialect can be perceived as utterly nasty by GAE speakers, but charming by speakers in the UK. It's a dichotomy that so far has not been explored. Do you have any insights on the matter?

For my own part, GAE doesn't sound nasal to me except the dialects spoken around the Great Lakes; rather, I'd classify GAE as having a "chewing gum" effect.
greg   Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:15 pm GMT
Uriel : « [...] the way our short Os and long I's are more shifted in the direction of an A sound -- whereas to me, their I's often seems to drift off in the the direction of an OI, their short O's sound more like long O's, and their long O's are an odd sound I just don't ever make at all (or think I make, anyway) -- almost like an O that morphs into an EW. »

¡ Caramba ! Ahora que ya eres atraída por la percepción de la fonación, vas a necesitar lanzarte a la transcripción de la pronunciación → eso supondría aprender el AFI (alfabeto fonético internacional) y también el X-Sampa (alfabeto fonético internacional legible por ordenadores sin Firefox etc)... ¡ Sería mucho más simple para mí de entender lo que quieres decir con la "O" y la "A" etc ! Los dos alfabetos son muy faciles de aprender. ¿ Que crees ?
;)





Travis : « I would have to say that such [[→→que a algunos — y a los no anglófonos sobre todo — el tono de la voz en inglés estadounidense quizás les pueda parecer menos contrastado que el en inglés "clásico" (= pronunciación europea "estándar" o seudonormal)←←]] is applicable at least to General American versus Received Pronunciation, with RP being far more strongly articulated than GA, but I would not say that such is true with respect to, say, GA versus Estuary English; if anything, GA seems far more clearly articulated than Estuary English as a whole even in everyday speech in GA-like dialects. »

Stimmt. Trotzdem bin ich gerade am Wundern, ob ästuarisches Englisch eigentlich "schlechter" als Standard-Angloamerikanisch geäußert wird. Keine Ahnung dazu. Vielleicht kommt es auch darauf an, wer die Zuhörer sind : Englischmuttersprachler, Nichtmuttersprachler oder bloß Englischlerner.





Travis : « Forget about flapping /t/, /d/, and /nt/ - talk about *eliding* /t/, /d/, /n/, /nt/ [...] ».
greg : « Würdest du dann meinen, daß diese elidierte Foneme durch etwas anders (zB Knacklaut /ʔ/) ersetzt werden soll ? ».
Travis : « That's the thing - they very commonly aren't replaced by *anything* even when such results in vowels coming into contact, [...] ».

Leider brauche ich echt ein Wortliste (!) mit zugehöriger Aussprachen (!!) um, was du meinst, richtig zu ergründen. Zum Beispiel, wie bitte würdest du En <centre> <Atlantic> <don't> <twenty> <wanton> <mayn't> <daunting> von Standard-Sprechangloamerikanisch auf IPA/X-Sampa transkribieren ?
Travis   Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:35 am GMT
>>Travis : « I would have to say that such [[→→que a algunos — y a los no anglófonos sobre todo — el tono de la voz en inglés estadounidense quizás les pueda parecer menos contrastado que el en inglés "clásico" (= pronunciación europea "estándar" o seudonormal)←←]] is applicable at least to General American versus Received Pronunciation, with RP being far more strongly articulated than GA, but I would not say that such is true with respect to, say, GA versus Estuary English; if anything, GA seems far more clearly articulated than Estuary English as a whole even in everyday speech in GA-like dialects. »

Stimmt. Trotzdem bin ich gerade am Wundern, ob ästuarisches Englisch eigentlich "schlechter" als Standard-Angloamerikanisch geäußert wird. Keine Ahnung dazu. Vielleicht kommt es auch darauf an, wer die Zuhörer sind : Englischmuttersprachler, Nichtmuttersprachler oder bloß Englischlerner.<<

A key thing here is simply that it does not seem like Europeans (outside the UK and Ireland, of course) are really exposed to English English dialects other than Received Pronunciation, and thus the image they have of English English is largely shaped by RP. As English English dialects go, the *only* one that really sticks out to me as being particularly clear is RP. which is not nearly as widely spoken in the UK as GA-like dialects are spoken in North America.

>>Travis : « Forget about flapping /t/, /d/, and /nt/ - talk about *eliding* /t/, /d/, /n/, /nt/ [...] ».
greg : « Würdest du dann meinen, daß diese elidierte Foneme durch etwas anders (zB Knacklaut /ʔ/) ersetzt werden soll ? ».
Travis : « That's the thing - they very commonly aren't replaced by *anything* even when such results in vowels coming into contact, [...] ».

Leider brauche ich echt ein Wortliste (!) mit zugehöriger Aussprachen (!!) um, was du meinst, richtig zu ergründen. Zum Beispiel, wie bitte würdest du En <centre> <Atlantic> <don't> <twenty> <wanton> <mayn't> <daunting> von Standard-Sprechangloamerikanisch auf IPA/X-Sampa transkribieren ?<<

In most modern General American-like dialects those words when not spoken carefully (aside from "mayn't", which really does not exist in NAE) would be something like (with vowel quantity being left open in places where phonemic and allophonic vowel length would differ):

"center" [ˈsɛ̃ɾ̃ɚ(ː)]
"Atlantic" [æɾ̥ˈɫæ̃ɾ̃ɨʔk]
"don't" [ˈdɤ̃̆ʊ̯̃̆(n)ʔ(t)] (or when followed by a vowel, [ˈdɤ̃̆ʊ̯̃̆ɾ̃])
"twenty" [ˈtʲʰwʌ̃ɾ̃i(ː)] or [ˈtʲʰwɛ̃ɾ̃i(ː)]
"wanton" [ˈwɒ̃(ː)(n)ʔn̩(ː)]
"daunting" [ˈdɒ̃(ː)ɾ̃ɨ̃(ː)ŋ]

I myself have:

"center" [ˈsɜ̃ːʁ] or [ˈsɜ̃ɾ̃ʁ̩ː]
"Atlantic" [ˈɛ̞ɾ̥ˈɰ(ˡ)ɛ̞̃ɨ̯̃ʔk] or [ˈɛ̞ɾ̥ˈɰ(ˡ)ɛ̯̃̆æ̃̆ɾ̃ɨ̯ʔk]
"don't" [ˈdõʔ] (or when followed by a vowel, [ˈdõ] or [ˈdõɾ̃])
"twenty" [ˈtʲʰwʌ̃ĩ̯] or [ˈtʲʰwʌ̃ɾ̃iː]
"wanton" [ˈwɒ̃ʔn̩ː]
"daunting" [ˈdɒ̃ɨ̃ŋ] or [ˈdɒ̃ɾ̃ɨ̃ŋ]

In my case, where I have two pronunciations listed, the first is the more casual pronunciation and the latter is the more careful pronunciation; however, the distribution of the two are not always the same, as in some cases, such as with "twenty", I use the former almost exclusively outside very careful or stressed speech, whereas in other cases, such as with "daunting", the two pronunciations are more evenly distributed, being largely conditioned by stress and overall carefulness.
Travis   Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:45 am GMT
Slight change from the above:

"Atlantic" [ɛ̞ɾ̥ˈɰ(ˡ)ɛ̞̃ɨ̯̃ʔk] or [ɛ̞ɾ̥ˈɰ(ˡ)ɛ̯̃̆æ̃̆ɾ̃ɨ̯ʔk]
Uriel   Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:07 am GMT
<<Uriel, I think they might all be referring to General American English; Southern American English sounds too different to be grouped with it.

Speaking of SAE, it fascinates me endlessly how a dialect can be perceived as utterly nasty by GAE speakers, but charming by speakers in the UK. It's a dichotomy that so far has not been explored. Do you have any insights on the matter?

For my own part, GAE doesn't sound nasal to me except the dialects spoken around the Great Lakes; rather, I'd classify GAE as having a "chewing gum" effect. >>

Well, 'course we talkin' 'bout GAE, sugah! I don't think most non-Americans are too familiar with our other accents, so they would probably be referring to "movie American" when they talk about our speech.

No idea why Brits love Southern US accents so much. Since they tend to consider us one big collective Jethro anyway when they're stereotyping us, you'd think Southerners would be the uber-Clampetts, but no, they find them delightful, while the rest of us are counting their toes. (Sorry, grandma. Am I still in the will? ;P) I'm guessing it's because the traditional Old South accent is also non-rhotic, and they feel a little kinship there. Someone else pointed out on another thread that some of the vowels might be similar to some in England. Ya got me, I'm afraid. But I, too, have heard more than one Englishman wax lyrical about those magnolia-dripping voices.

As a GAE speaker myself, I find Southerners range anywhere from quaint and unusual-sounding to dear-god-please-use-sign-language-from-now-on. And that's just in my own family, none of whom live more than fifty miles apart in Louisiana. How they achieve that much variation in such a small space is beyond me -- I'm guessing it has to do with their respective economic strata.

<<¡ Caramba ! Ahora que ya eres atraída por la percepción de la fonación, vas a necesitar lanzarte a la transcripción de la pronunciación → eso supondría aprender el AFI (alfabeto fonético internacional) y también el X-Sampa (alfabeto fonético internacional legible por ordenadores sin Firefox etc)... ¡ Sería mucho más simple para mí de entender lo que quieres decir con la "O" y la "A" etc ! Los dos alfabetos son muy faciles de aprender. ¿ Que crees ?
;) >>

Hee hee -- you hate to post in English on this forum, and I hate X-Sampa -- we all have our little foibles, don't we? ;P
Travis   Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:36 pm GMT
Also, the pronunciation of "daunting" listed above is inaccurate, as it ignores that word-final syllables with purely sonorant codas take long vowels in isolation in the dialect here; it should be:

"daunting" [ˈdɒ̃ɨ̃ːŋ] or [ˈdɒ̃ɾ̃ɨ̃ːŋ]
Guest   Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:56 pm GMT
<< Speaking of SAE, it fascinates me endlessly how a dialect can be perceived as utterly nasty by GAE speakers, but charming by speakers in the UK. It's a dichotomy that so far has not been explored. Do you have any insights on the matter? >>

GAE speakers perceive SAE as nasty not because of how it sounds but because they perceive the American South itself as nasty.
Jasper   Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:20 pm GMT
"GAE speakers perceive SAE as nasty not because of how it sounds but because they perceive the American South itself as nasty."

I don't know if I can agree with that, Guest. Most of the dialects sound nasty to even me, even though I'm a "hybrid" speaker myself. It has to do with the sound of the language, not the people who speak it.

I concur with Uriel: some of the dialects, particularly the non-rhotic upper class ones, are quaint and charming, while others--the hillbilly ones--are unbearable to hear...
Guest   Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:04 pm GMT
Social connotations of an accent really have no influence whatsoever on how you will perceive it, it is pretty obvious from you last sentence...