The sounds of American English

Travis   Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:08 am GMT
>>Travis mentioned that some perceive his dialect as sounding foreign or unusual, and I must say that I receive similar feedback in regards to my own dialect from individuals on a day-to-day basis. On many occasions, I have been in a room full of native Westerners (primarily Californians), and they were almost always perplexed by my dialect features.<<

I remember once being out in San Francisco, and finding that the service person I had to interact with to get something to eat at the airport there barely found my dialect intelligible at all. Of course, this person was not a native speaker of English, as he had a rather strong Mexican accent, but I was still astounded when he understood the next person in line right after me perfectly well after having practically no comprehension of my own speech.

>>Mind you, most of the people I know have a very limited knowledge of dialects, but they tend to notice features such as the unmerged lot-thought vowel, the lot-cloth split, the monophthongal long O, and the very distinct Northern Cities Vowel Shift. I have the first two stages of the NCVS, but I do not have the third. I also lack the mirror-nearer merger, but that is not a Northern Cities feature.<<

The thing is that most of said features, aside for the lack of the mirror-nearer merger, are rather typical of more General American-like varieties in this area; the main other difference is that local GA varieties have [ĕɪ̯̆]/[eɪ̯] and [ŏʊ̯̆]/[oʊ̯] where the local dialect has [e]/[e̞ː] and [o]/[oː] (and the local dialect actually has a contrast between [o]/[oː] and [ŏʊ̯̆]/[oʊ̯] due to l-vocalization).

Such local GA-like varieties seem to be far more comprehensible to others than more progressive and less GA-like varieties like my own. One example that really illustrates this is when my then team leader and myself spoke with some computer systems security analysts from France a while back; the guys from France understood my team lead, who speaks a more GA-like variety, perfectly well, while finding my own speech very hard to understand, as I speak in a toned-down version of my native dialect even at work*. They were amazed when we explained that we were both originally from here in southeastern Wisconsin, when one of the French guys asked me where I was from. (My team lead was also somewhat confused by the idea that my speech was hard to understand, as he was clearly very much accustomed to the dialect here even though he spoke in a more GA-like fashion than myself at work.)

* except when speaking with the security and building people at my work, which I typically actually speak in un-toned-down dialect with, as unlike many of my coworkers they are mostly actually from Milwaukee itself and almost uniformly speak either the same general dialect I natively speak (and with many forms which are absent from the dialect here as spoken by suburbanites like myself) or toned down versions of AAVE at work.
Travis   Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:47 am GMT
I should have given some background for the above. I am 24, and my former team lead (who has since moved to another part of the project I am working on) is probably somewhere in his mid-late 30s. And for some sociological background, the matter is that in the recent past here, just what one spoke was closely tied to one's social class amongst not just black people but also white people, with higher social class being closely associated with speaking rather GA-like varieties, and lower social class (particularly being working class) being closely associated with speaking less GA-like varieties. Amongst older people here, the vast majority of people who sound anything like myself are working class, and most middle-aged and older middle class people speak in a far more GA-like fashion than myself.

This has changed amongst younger people, as many middle class younger people have switched to speaking something that is essentially a compromise between the two in that it is phonologically very much like the traditional working class dialect here (and in some ways actually more progressive than it) but is syntactically and morphologically more like what their parents speak (particularly in that it lacks many more deprecated English syntactic and morphological features). What I myself speak at home is essentially an extreme form of such, in that it phonologically extremely progressive and un-GA-like, and very much akin to the traditional working class dialect here, and yet syntactically and morphologically it has only relatively limited differences from standard spoken NAE, mostly with regards to preposition and adverbial usage and some variation in preterite and past participle forms.
greg   Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:26 am GMT
Travis : « [...] "center" [ˈsɛ̃ɾ̃ɚ(ː)] [...] I myself have: "center" [ˈsɜ̃ːʁ] or [ˈsɜ̃ɾ̃ʁ̩ː] [...] ».

—————
<aaa> → Schreibsignifikant (Schrift)
[aaa] → Sprechsignifikant (Lautschrift)
/aaa/ → fonematisierter Sprechsignifikant (fonematisierte Lautschrift)
{aaa} → Signifikat (Semantismus)

Eng → Englisch
BrE → Britisches Englisch, bzw. {RP, Received Pronunciation}
EVS → Englisch der Vereinigten Staaten, bzw. {GA, General American}
—————

Eng <cent(re)(er)> {centre, Zentrum, centro}
BrE /ˈsɛn·tə/ [ˈsɛn·tə]
EVS /ˈsɛn·tɚ/ [ˈsɛ̃·ɾ̃ɚ(ː)]
Travis /ˈsɛn·tɚ/ [sɜ̃ːʁ] [ˈsɜ̃·ɾ̃ʁ̩ː]

In deinem persönlichen Beispiel für <center> werden zwei verschiedene Aussprachen dargestellt, nämlich [#ʁ] gegen [#ɾ̃ʁ̩ː] — das kleine linksseitige Kreuz hinweist darauf, daß die beide in Endstellung sind. Was für mich ganz neu ist, sind die Tapsnasalierung d.h. [ɾ̃], die Präzens des französischklingenden Frikativlautes [ʁ] und auch, daß dieser von jenem gefolgt werden kann (jedoch wird der Laut [ʁ̩], der dem [ɾ̃] folgt, als **silbenbildender** stimmhafter uvularer Frikativ ausgewiesen). Also wirft es ein paar Fragen auf. Erstens, hast du gemeint, daß [ʁ̩ː] eine eigene Sprechsilbe bildet ? Zweitens (falls ja), soll den silbischen Endkonsonant [ʁ̩ː] als ein Vokal angesehen ?
greg   Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:45 am GMT
Tja, und drittens : was würde für deine taplose <center>-Aussprache die richtige Silbentrennung sein ? [sɜ̃ːʁ] (einsilbig) oder [ˈsɜ̃ː̃·ʁ] (zweisilbig) ?

Was deine persönliche Aussprache mit dem Tap betrifft, welche Silbentrennung klingt dir am besten : [ˈsɜ̃·ɾ̃ʁ̩ː] oder [ˈsɜ̃ɾ·̃ʁ̩ː] (beide zweisilbig) ?

Danke.
greg   Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:48 am GMT
ERRATUM : [ˈsɜ̃·ɾ̃ʁ̩ː] oder [ˈsɜ̃ɾ̃·ʁ̩ː].
Travis   Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:21 pm GMT
>>In deinem persönlichen Beispiel für <center> werden zwei verschiedene Aussprachen dargestellt, nämlich [#ʁ] gegen [#ɾ̃ʁ̩ː] — das kleine linksseitige Kreuz hinweist darauf, daß die beide in Endstellung sind. Was für mich ganz neu ist, sind die Tapsnasalierung d.h. [ɾ̃], die Präzens des französischklingenden Frikativlautes [ʁ] und auch, daß dieser von jenem gefolgt werden kann (jedoch wird der Laut [ʁ̩], der dem [ɾ̃] folgt, als **silbenbildender** stimmhafter uvularer Frikativ ausgewiesen).<<

Actually, my [ʁ] is not a uvular fricative, and surely not like that in French, but rather is a uvular approximant (like what often shows up intervocalically in German). Also, another note is that the elision of the nasal tap is not really related to the presence of [ʁ], as it would happen if, say, /ə/ followed it instead of /ər/. If anything, it rather is the elision of such which allows /ər/ to be realized as lengthening the preceding vowel, with that being followed by [ʁ], rather than as the expected [ʁ̩ː], as opposed to the presence of /ər/ helping trigger such elision aside having the nasal tap be followed by a vowel of some sort.

>>Also wirft es ein paar Fragen auf. Erstens, hast du gemeint, daß [ʁ̩ː] eine eigene Sprechsilbe bildet ? Zweitens (falls ja), soll den silbischen Endkonsonant [ʁ̩ː] als ein Vokal angesehen ?<<

[ʁ̩ː] is a syllabic uvular approximant, yes; it does not differ from my [ʁ] otherwise, though, aside from being slightly more open overall.

>>Tja, und drittens : was würde für deine taplose <center>-Aussprache die richtige Silbentrennung sein ? [sɜ̃ːʁ] (einsilbig) oder [ˈsɜ̃ː̃·ʁ] (zweisilbig) ?<<

Such is monosyllabic, and hence contrasts in that regard with the un-nasal-tap-elided pronunciation of "center", which is disyllabic.

>>Was deine persönliche Aussprache mit dem Tap betrifft, welche Silbentrennung klingt dir am besten : [ˈsɜ̃·ɾ̃ʁ̩ː] oder [ˈsɜ̃ɾ·̃ʁ̩ː] (beide zweisilbig) ?<<

I would syllabify it as [ˈsɜ̃·ɾ̃ʁ̩ː] rather than [ˈsɜ̃ɾ·̃ʁ̩ː] myself,
greg   Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:07 pm GMT
Ich denke, daß [ʁ̩] = [R_=] (silbenbildend → auch in X-Sampa [R=] einfacher geschrieben) und [ʁ̝] = [R_r] (angehoben) verwechselt worden sein können. Jedenfalls scheinen auf meinen Computerbildschirm beide IFA-Lautschriften für [R_=] & [R_r] identisch.

Allerdings ist (meines Wissens) das [ʁ̞] = [R_o] (gesenkt) der einzige rhotische Laut, der auch ein dorso-uvularer Sonorant (zumindest auf Standard-Deutsch) sein kann. Zum Beispiel in nicht-intervokalischem Vorkommen, könnte <Garten> {jardin, giardino} entweder [ˈgaʁ̞·tn̩] (dein uvularer Approximant → Sonorant) oder [ˈɡaʁ·tn̩] (der französischklingende Frikativ → Geräuschlaut) sein. Das sollte wahrscheinlich auch für <Ehre> {honneur, onore} gelten → [ˈeː·ʁ̞ə] (Sonorant) und [ˈeː·ʀə] (Frikativ).

Was denkst du daran ?
Travis   Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:35 am GMT
In German, it seems that uvular approximants and voiced uvular fricatives are largely interchangeable, with the general tendency being towards being an approximant intervocalically, and with most actual High German dialects (and also Low Saxon and East Low German dialects) having complete r-vocalization in syllable codas. One way or another, though, such in German do not seem as strongly fricative as in French. (On that note, my own dialect seems to be much more similar to German dialects than French in its uvular rhotics aside from the fact that it mostly lacks r-vocalization, unlike most actual High German, Low Saxon, and East Low German dialects.)
Travis   Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:21 am GMT
Actually, I would say that the overall variation in closeness found in German, aside from the r-vocalization found in it, also shows up in my dialect as well. Non-intervocalic, non-syllabic [ʁ] is noticably closer, sometimes being weakly fricative, than intervocalic and syllabic [ʁ], which are more open and often rather semivowel-like. (This seems to go to show that the presence of uvular rhotics in my dialect is almost certainly due to German substratum influence, despite the lack of r-vocalization...)
Uriel   Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:40 am GMT
<<I remember once being out in San Francisco, and finding that the service person I had to interact with to get something to eat at the airport there barely found my dialect intelligible at all. Of course, this person was not a native speaker of English, as he had a rather strong Mexican accent, but I was still astounded when he understood the next person in line right after me perfectly well after having practically no comprehension of my own speech.
>>

I have to admit that I have heard Travis speak, and he does sound a little unusual, even to a fellow American like myself. I think it's the delivery more than the accent.

Speaking of Mexican accents -- or rather, Mexican-American accents -- I am now so used to them that I barely hear them at all. But when I first moved to NM they sounded very odd, especially in their pitch patterns, which aren't quite like other people's. They either sound a little more "final" than would be warranted, or a little more questioning. Also, some of the sentence patterns are a little odd -- instead of asking "Do you have any stamps?" my ex-boyfriend would usually say (sort of wistfully, as if this was very sad, but he still clung to the hope that he might be wrong): "Hey, you don't have any stamps?"

Then, of course, there were also the wordings that were obviously direct translations from Spanish grammar -- you "get down from" a car rather than getting out of it, and you go to the gas station to "put gas" rather than fill up (and "put gas" is never followed by the usual "in the tank" -- it just stands alone, like "poner gasolina" would).
Travis   Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:26 pm GMT
>>I have to admit that I have heard Travis speak, and he does sound a little unusual, even to a fellow American like myself. I think it's the delivery more than the accent.<<

I think the biggest factor in cases like this is more just familiarity with the more progressive forms of the dialect here more than anything else. The main reason is I have had practically no problems speaking how I normally do on an everyday basis with many foreigners who have lived at least a bit of a while here in southeastern Wisconsin or in the Chicago area, such as the many people from the former Soviet Union at my workplace, whom I speak to no differently than any of my other coworkers without any problems at all. The only foreigners that I have talked to which have really had problems with how I speak are ones who have never really lived in this general area, such as French guys from Airbus, who were probably only familiar with GA and RP, or that particular serviceperson at the SF International Airport, who probably was only accustomed to hearing people speak Californian English and relatively GA-like dialects.
Travis   Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:29 pm GMT
Whoops - those guys were not from Airbus but rather were from a French computer security consulting company.
Guest   Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:58 pm GMT
<<Speaking of Mexican accents -- or rather, Mexican-American accents -- I am now so used to them that I barely hear them at all.>>

One thing I've noticed about the way some Mexican-Americans speak (at least here in SoCal) is their tendency to pronounce initial 'e' as [ae], especially when preceding an 'l': al-ephant, al-evator, al-ementary. The mayor of Los Angeles and some of the Hispanic councilmen are often mocked for the way they pronounce L.A. ("al lay"). This strikes me as odd because you'd think they'd pronounce it the same way they pronounce the Spanish masculine definite article, "el".
Travis   Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:19 pm GMT
>>One thing I've noticed about the way some Mexican-Americans speak (at least here in SoCal) is their tendency to pronounce initial 'e' as [ae], especially when preceding an 'l': al-ephant, al-evator, al-ementary. The mayor of Los Angeles and some of the Hispanic councilmen are often mocked for the way they pronounce L.A. ("al lay"). This strikes me as odd because you'd think they'd pronounce it the same way they pronounce the Spanish masculine definite article, "el".<<

Hmm... I myself tend to have a completely different perception of them myself. Probably the first thing I notice is that all the instances of /r/ sound to me like /d/. The other thing I often notice is that there is neither aspiration nor preglottalization of fortis plosives, and likewise there is no clear allophonic vowel length or phonemic vowel length; the combination of these features often leaves me rather confused, because then it is very hard for me to pick out which obstruents, and in particular which plosives, are supposed to be fortis and which are supposed to be lenis (with all plosives ending up sounding lenis to me, as I do not intuitively perceive the actual voicing of obstruents in English).
Damian in Edinburgh   Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:24 pm GMT
The Sounds of American English have been heard all over this city during the past month due mainly to our International Festival which includes the famous Fringe.....every year brings a tidal surge from across the Atlantic. A now sliding quid and a rising buck can only increase this trend.

You guys over there naturally distinguish all the varieties of American English there are on offer but to most of us over here, including myself for the most part, they all seem to sound alike....American, full stop (or period as you say).

Unless, that is, they come from the American Deep South when even some of the dumber ones amongst us here can identify the reasonably well known accent as such, or at least notice that it sounds "different" from the run of the mill American accent. Not many of them do have Deep South accents anyway - at least I don't hear many out and about, if any at all really that I can recall, not that a make any kind of vow to keep an ear at the ready on the off-chance of hearing an American accent. Actually American voices are pretty hard to miss generally, even above the hustle and bustle of Princes Street, if you'll pardon me for saying so!

Never mind - I doubt very much indeed that the average local citizen on the streets of St Louis or Omaha or Chicago or wherever would be able to pinpoint ANY British accent, except... perhaps, perhaps, perhaps ....they spoke like HM Liz or 4W&1F Hugh or ex PM Tony. But there again, they could be mistaken for Aussies...by all accounts that seems to be the experience of a good many British visitors to the USA, especially those areas not really used to many international tourists in any appreciable numbers, certainly not on a level with the Europe.