The vowel sounds in ''cat'' and ''bag''

I speak RP (more or less) and for me, it's like this:

cat = [kEt] or [k{?]
bag = [bE:k]

The variation with 'cat' depends on how formally I'm speaking.

>> bag = [bE:k] <<
Does RP have final consonant devoicing?

Probably not officially... but I'm lazy, so I tend to devoice final consonants which should really be voiced, and replace final invoiced consonants with a glottal stop.

*and replace final unvoiced consonants with a glottal stop.

They are the same vowel sound and length for me, but I think most other accents have some differentiation- usually the length. For example, in the South East of England "cat" always has a short vowel sound, however, bag tends to be stretched; this is true in both RP and Cockney. There used to be a comedy character on TV called Waynetta Slob who illustrated this vowel stretch for comic purposes - "I am 'avin a faaaaaag!!!"

<<For me the difference is vowel length.

cat = /k{t/
bag = /b{:g/>>

Of course most English speakers will also have a longer vowel in "bag" than "cat" but I'd analyze it as nonphonemic for my dialect (and most others) since it clearly only happens before voiced sounds. Thus, for me:

/k{t/ -> [k_h{t]
/b{g/ -> [b{:g]

<<These are different phonemes in AusE. Here are a few minimal pairs (with the word (or name) with the short vowel first).

"an" / "Ann"
"span" (past tense of "spin") / "span" (as in "wing span")
"can" ("able") / "can" (the container)
"ran" (past tense of "run") / "Wran" (family name of a former NSW premier)>>

Now those are true examples of phonemic vowel length--one of the fascinating things about Australian English, I think!

I am from Minnesota, also, but I pronounce it differently from Bill. Cat is definitely with a {, but the a in bag is slightly different, I would say between [{] and [e]. I never pronounce an a as [i{]. as I am totally free from the NCVS. I always thought {-->i{ was limited mostly to the suburbs of The Cities in Minnesota (e.g., "Iapple Vyalley") but I know American Nic is from the Red River Valley, so it must be present there as well.

That was me, sorry.

<<I never pronounce an a as [i{]. as I am totally free from the NCVS.>>

Maybe, but I somehow doubt that. Every person I've ever met from Minnesota or other such Upper Midwestern states has had some degree of NCVS influence upon their speech. It may not be extreme but it's noticeable.

<<I always thought {-->i{ was limited mostly to the suburbs of The Cities in Minnesota (e.g., "Iapple Vyalley") but I know American Nic is from the Red River Valley, so it must be present there as well.>>

For some NCVS speakers it also may not be as extreme as [i{]. It can be [e{] or [E{] with the first component barely noticeable but still higher than actual [{].

<<Cat is definitely with a {, but the a in bag is slightly different, I would say between [{] and [e].>>

Yeah that makes sense since "-ag" raising is common there.

Kirk-- It really seems to me that most of my outstate friends and I, as well as natives of the Twin Cities proper use a un-dipthongized [{]. I will admit, though, that some suburbanites [i{] is very strong indeed, but mine is as pure as can be.

<<Kirk-- It really seems to me that most of my outstate friends and I, as well as natives of the Twin Cities proper use a un-dipthongized [{]. I will admit, though, that some suburbanites [i{] is very strong indeed, but mine is as pure as can be.>>

Ok, well I'll take your word on that but I wasn't just responding to the [{] thing but the more general claim about the NCVS not affecting your speech (of course the NCVS is so much more than just the /{/ -> /i{/ shift).

You're right, I guess I was only referring to the one aspect of the NCVS.

This is likely simply a matter of vowel length allophony, which tends to be common to most English dialects; note that this contrasts with Scots and some Scottish English dialects, which have only limited allophony which affects only certain vowel phonemes.

But going back to word-final devoicing, it is really interesting that some English English dialect would have it. It is present here to some or less of an extent, but that is due to a substratum which already had it, rather than it being developed independently; that makes me wonder how it would have developed in an English English dialect. But then, the presence of it to some degree in an English dialect does not seem that strange, considering that various North American English dialects may very well have at least some kind of limited word-final devoicing for some fricatives and affricates.

>>For some NCVS speakers it also may not be as extreme as [i{]. It can be [e{] or [E{] with the first component barely noticeable but still higher than actual [{].<<

Yep. At least here in Milwaukee, for example, the most common realization of historical /{/ is [E{], with [e{] and occasionally [I{] appearing sporadically, and a full [i{] being generally absent.