I have the cot-caught and father-bother mergers, so they all have the same vowel. What I'm not quite sure of is which vowel I use. I have read that father-bother merges /ɑ/ and /ɒ/ to /ɑ/ and that cot-caught merges /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ to /ɑ/, so that is the vowel that I should have in all three words. However, I have noticed that other merged people, such as people in the Midwest and the West Coast, tend to sound different to me. It sounds to me like they are saying something closer to caht, lahng, etc. My own pronunciation sounds more like cawt, lawng. Could it be that this area merged /ɑ/ and /ɒ/ to /ɒ/ instead of the usual /ɑ/? And then it also happened in the cot-caught merger? Because my pronunciation sounds very...aw-y. Are there any regions where this has occurred?
cot-caught and father-bother merger
If your short O's sound aw-y, then you don't have the caught-cot merger, after all. Merged people say "caht" for both, and there's no "aw" sound at all.
Uriel: That's not true; some people (including many Canadians) do have a fully merged vowel that's rounded, sounding like "aw", [ɒ].
Jef: Yes, among low-back merged speakers, there's a continuum of variation, so some have a merged vowel that's phonetically [ɑ], and others have a merged vowel that's phonetically [ɒ]. The rounded vowel occurs among many Canadians, and in some parts of the western US.
Jef: Yes, among low-back merged speakers, there's a continuum of variation, so some have a merged vowel that's phonetically [ɑ], and others have a merged vowel that's phonetically [ɒ]. The rounded vowel occurs among many Canadians, and in some parts of the western US.
How about this speaker. It sounds like the merged vowel is "aw".
http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/12254131/file.html
http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/12254131/file.html
I'm both cot-caught and father-bother merged, as is typical among younger North Dakotans and Minnesotans (older folks around here tend to be cot-caught unmerged), and the vowel is /ɑ/, though in my speech it is realized in a more front position, the low-central vowel [a], because of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift.
IIRC in California the merged vowel is /ɔ/, the result is a gap that results in /æ/ backing to [a] there.
IIRC in California the merged vowel is /ɔ/, the result is a gap that results in /æ/ backing to [a] there.
I think Californians have either [ɑ] or [ɒ], depending on the extent to which they have the California Vowel Shift; [ɔ] sounds too tense for California, although I have heard [ɔ] realizations from some Pacific Northwesterners.
I'm from Western Pennsylvania, just south of Pittsburgh. And everyone has the same pronunciation as I do. Is it known for happening in this region?
Yes, I think I've read that the rounded vowel also occurs in SW Pennsylvania.
''Could it be that this area merged /ɑ/ and /ɒ/ to /ɒ/ ''
Merged vowel is unrounded /ɑ/ in:
1. Western US (except for some speakers in Washington and some
Californian sociolects like Valspeak) [low central merger is present in Tucson (AZ), according to prof. Labov, the merged vowel there is [ä] ]
2. Vermont
3. Erie, PA
5. merged regions/speakers in central Indiana and central and eastern Ohio
6. cities Toronto & Windsor (Ontario)
7. Atlantic Canada, especially St. John's (NF) where the vowel is low central: [ä]
Rounded /ɒ/ is preferred in:
1. Western and Central Canada, Northern Ontario (including Ottawa); Winnipeg has /ɒ/ even in ''fAther, MississAUga'' (the author of Oxford Canadian Dictionary is from Winnipeg and she used /ɒ/ in her dictionary, but many Canadians prefer the unrounded vowel, see above).
2. WesternPA (except in Erie)
3. merged regions of New England (except for Vermont), especially around Boston
Merged vowel is unrounded /ɑ/ in:
1. Western US (except for some speakers in Washington and some
Californian sociolects like Valspeak) [low central merger is present in Tucson (AZ), according to prof. Labov, the merged vowel there is [ä] ]
2. Vermont
3. Erie, PA
5. merged regions/speakers in central Indiana and central and eastern Ohio
6. cities Toronto & Windsor (Ontario)
7. Atlantic Canada, especially St. John's (NF) where the vowel is low central: [ä]
Rounded /ɒ/ is preferred in:
1. Western and Central Canada, Northern Ontario (including Ottawa); Winnipeg has /ɒ/ even in ''fAther, MississAUga'' (the author of Oxford Canadian Dictionary is from Winnipeg and she used /ɒ/ in her dictionary, but many Canadians prefer the unrounded vowel, see above).
2. WesternPA (except in Erie)
3. merged regions of New England (except for Vermont), especially around Boston
Low central merger to [ä], in
1. Tuscon AZ (by prof. Labov)
2. St. John's NF (by prof. Labov)
3. Minnesota (where NVCS meets the LOW BACK MERGER area).
(prof. Labov is silent on this one)
1. Tuscon AZ (by prof. Labov)
2. St. John's NF (by prof. Labov)
3. Minnesota (where NVCS meets the LOW BACK MERGER area).
(prof. Labov is silent on this one)
<<3. merged regions of New England (except for Vermont), especially around Boston>>
But I'm obliged to point out, as a Massachusetts resident myself, that the Eastern New England dialect is not low-back merged. "Cot" and "caught" merge with /ɒ/, but "father" and "bother" remain distinct with /ɑ/ (realized as either [a] or [ɑ]) and /ɒ/, respectively.
But I'm obliged to point out, as a Massachusetts resident myself, that the Eastern New England dialect is not low-back merged. "Cot" and "caught" merge with /ɒ/, but "father" and "bother" remain distinct with /ɑ/ (realized as either [a] or [ɑ]) and /ɒ/, respectively.
''Eastern'' New England is somewhat vague.
Vermont is cot/caught merged to /ɑ/
Maine and New Hampshire are cot/caught merged to /ɑ/ ~ /ɒ/
Eastern parts of Massachusetts are merged to /ɒ/.
I'm not sure about Connecticut, but I know Rhode Island is cc unmerged.
Vermont is cot/caught merged to /ɑ/
Maine and New Hampshire are cot/caught merged to /ɑ/ ~ /ɒ/
Eastern parts of Massachusetts are merged to /ɒ/.
I'm not sure about Connecticut, but I know Rhode Island is cc unmerged.
Lato sensu, Cot/Caught merger is just another name for the ''low back merger'', but you can have
low central merger (in parts of West and Atlantic Canada), low front merger (in Minnesota) etc.
The best name would be ''Father ~ Bother ~ Daughter ~ Dotter'' merger
[unrounded vowel:0, rounded:1]
Boston: 0011
NYC: 0010
Colorado: 0000
Manitoba: 1111
low central merger (in parts of West and Atlantic Canada), low front merger (in Minnesota) etc.
The best name would be ''Father ~ Bother ~ Daughter ~ Dotter'' merger
[unrounded vowel:0, rounded:1]
Boston: 0011
NYC: 0010
Colorado: 0000
Manitoba: 1111
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think it's suitable to use "low back merger" to describe the cot-caught merger found in Eastern New England, because Eastern New England has undergone no more phonemic mergers, and has no fewer phonemes, than General American in the low-back region.
That is to say, of the original three phonemes /ɑ:/, /ɒ/ and /ɔ:/, General American merged two of them, leaving one contrast:
father: /ɑ:/
bother: /ɑ:/
cot: /ɑ:/
caught: /ɔ:/
And Eastern New England has likewise merged two of them, leaving one contrast:
father: /ɑ:/
bother: /ɔ:/
cot: /ɔ:/
caught: /ɔ:/
So how does it make sense to say that one is low-back merged and the other isn't? Both of these dialects contain a basic phonemic contrast (between an "ah" sound and an "aw" sound, as it were) that is absent from Canada or the Western US (or SW Pennsylvania). I use "low back merger" to refer to the full merger that you mention (i.e. a combination of the father-bother and cot-caught mergers). I don't think we should bother worrying about a "low central merger" or "low front merger", because I think the important thing is where the phonemes originally were, not what their precise phonetic realizations are in each dialect.
<<''Eastern'' New England is somewhat vague.>>
Yes, the terminology is somewhat arbitrary. By Eastern New England I was basically referring to the area north of Rhode Island and east of the Connecticut River. So yes, Rhode Island is father-bother merged and cot-caught unmerged (and in simplistic terms, you could say that it's an intermediate dialect between Boston and NYC), and parts of SE Massachusetts (i.e. New Bedford and Fall River) also have a Rhode Island accent rather than a Boston accent. And yes, Vermont is also distinct because it seems to be fully low-back merged, with /ɑ:/; Connecticut I'm not sure about.
That is to say, of the original three phonemes /ɑ:/, /ɒ/ and /ɔ:/, General American merged two of them, leaving one contrast:
father: /ɑ:/
bother: /ɑ:/
cot: /ɑ:/
caught: /ɔ:/
And Eastern New England has likewise merged two of them, leaving one contrast:
father: /ɑ:/
bother: /ɔ:/
cot: /ɔ:/
caught: /ɔ:/
So how does it make sense to say that one is low-back merged and the other isn't? Both of these dialects contain a basic phonemic contrast (between an "ah" sound and an "aw" sound, as it were) that is absent from Canada or the Western US (or SW Pennsylvania). I use "low back merger" to refer to the full merger that you mention (i.e. a combination of the father-bother and cot-caught mergers). I don't think we should bother worrying about a "low central merger" or "low front merger", because I think the important thing is where the phonemes originally were, not what their precise phonetic realizations are in each dialect.
<<''Eastern'' New England is somewhat vague.>>
Yes, the terminology is somewhat arbitrary. By Eastern New England I was basically referring to the area north of Rhode Island and east of the Connecticut River. So yes, Rhode Island is father-bother merged and cot-caught unmerged (and in simplistic terms, you could say that it's an intermediate dialect between Boston and NYC), and parts of SE Massachusetts (i.e. New Bedford and Fall River) also have a Rhode Island accent rather than a Boston accent. And yes, Vermont is also distinct because it seems to be fully low-back merged, with /ɑ:/; Connecticut I'm not sure about.