Californian /A,a/

Marly   Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:40 pm GMT
Why is that Californian people pronounce some words with a back A /A/: like ''body'' /bAdi/ and others with a front/central A ''process'' ['pras@s], thaught /'that/. hawk [hak]?!

From the ''Phonetic Symbol Guide'' (Chicago Uni. Press) by Pullum and Ladusaw:

''LOWER CASE-A [a]''

IPA usage:
Cardinal vowel No.4: front unrounded. Described in ''Principles'' (p.8) as the vowel sound of Northern English BACK or Parisian French PATTE. In the speech of Chicago, Illinois (and in various other varieties of American English), the word POP is pronounced as IPA [pap] ''


''SCRIPT A'' /not possible to write here, but A is used instead in most web articles/

IPA USAGE:
Cardinal vowel No.5: open back unrounded.
AMERICAN USAGE:
Standardly, same as IPA if used, but for many linguists not distinct from [a]


What a mess.
While we know that CAUGHT and COT are pronounced identically in California, we don't know which is the sound both vowels merged into.
Is it [a], [A] or something in between.

American linguists are neglecting phonetics and are more into phonology.

But for a foreign student, phonetic approach would be more practical.

In the meantime, I'm stuck with the Longman pronunciation dictionary
that uses [A] exclusivelly: so, POP is [pAp], COT is [kAt], CAUGHT is [kOt and kAt], MOM is [mAM]. Forms like [pap] or [kat] although found are not listed.

What do you think?


Greetings from Austria.
Travis   Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:27 am GMT
>>Why is that Californian people pronounce some words with a back A /A/: like ''body'' /bAdi/ and others with a front/central A ''process'' ['pras@s], thaught /'that/. hawk [hak]?! <<

At least here in southeastern Wisconsin, GAE /A/ has come to be consistently realized as [a] (and can be considered to be /a/), except before historical /l/ (locally /L\/), where it has been merged with /O/ as something between cardinal [O] and [Q], and some other instances where it has been sporadically changed to /O/. While this is often referred to as being part of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, it is likely independent of it, being quite characteristic of the English here in the Wisconsin, as well as other parts of the Upper Midwest such as Minnesota, apparently even in dialects on the northern extremity of the Upper Midwest which otherwise lack a strong NCVS. Consequently, it very well not be due to the NCVS at all, but rather due to substratum influence, meaning it would predate the NCVS.

Consequently, as much of the population of California today is descended from internal immigrants from the Midwest who came there during the period right after WW2, the shifting of [A] to [a] may have been brought with some of them, were such to actually be due substratum influence rather than the NCVS. The reason to hypothesize such is that there currently is a vowel shift affecting low and mid vowels, which would serve to only back and raise historical /A/, rather than to front it as [a]. Consequently, any shifting of [A] to [a] in Californian English dialects would have to predate the California Vowel Shift, and would likely have been present in at least some dialects that had been brought to California from the Midwest historically. Of course, it would be expected that the California Vowel Shift would eventually actually return any [a] to something close to the original position of [A] for historical /A/.

>>In the meantime, I'm stuck with the Longman pronunciation dictionary
that uses [A] exclusivelly: so, POP is [pAp], COT is [kAt], CAUGHT is [kOt and kAt], MOM is [mAM]. Forms like [pap] or [kat] although found are not listed.<<

One should not expect such dictionaries to include pronunciations outside of General American and Received Pronunciation (which the realization of historical /A/ as [a] is definitely outside of), and nor should one expect that native speakers will necessarily pronounce words like pronunciation dictionaries specify. One especially should not expect them to take internal dialect variation within North American English and English English into account, which can be significant, or to mention pronunciations from without NAE and English English.
Travis   Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:23 am GMT
>>Nevertheless, California English is a variety of American English called "General American" or "Emerging General American" which covers most of the central and western United States.<<

To call Californian English "General American" is to not understand what General American is in the first place. The phonology has many clearly non-GAE features such as the California Vowel Shift (not just the low and mid vowel chain shift, but also the fronting of various rounded back vowels beyond such), monophthongization of all tense vowels in closed syllables, weak rounding of historical /o/ and /u/, and the significant raising of front vowels before /N/ beyond what is usual for more GAE-like dialects (which tend to only raise /{/ and /E/ if any vowels in such positions). While it is more GAE-like than, say, my own dialect, that still does not mean that it can be called "General American".

>>I've heard working class Chicagoans say blæk for 'block' so they might say bæ-dee for 'body' but I don't know for sure.<<

Just for the record, that is an advanced sort of NCVS, which goes beyond historical /A/ being realized as [a] as it is here. Just so you know, the NCVS is not really class-linked at all, unlike what you might imply by your post, even though it does tend to be more pronounced in lower registers.
Guest   Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:56 am GMT
Is /A/ in this recording realized as [a]?

http://alt-usage-english.org/archive/both_ad.mp3
Travis   Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:00 am GMT
>>Is /A/ in this recording realized as [a]? <<

That sounds more like [A] than [a] to me at least.
Guest   Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:12 pm GMT
I think so too though the site has him down as a Californian.
andre in usa   Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:25 pm GMT
<<In New York and Boston "body" sounds slightly different with the -ah- sound higher up in the throat in Boston and the -ah- sounding like -aw- in New York (baw-dee).>>

You got them mixed up. It's "aw" in Boston and "ah" in New York.
Lazar   Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:38 pm GMT
<<You got them mixed up. It's "aw" in Boston and "ah" in New York.>>

I'll second that. In Boston, "body" would be pronounced ["bQ4i] (in pseudo-phonetic General American notation, "bawdy").

Mind you, the Boston accent has a separate phoneme /a/ which is quite fronted compared to most North American English dialects (just based on my own limited experience listening to Chicago speakers on TV and in real life, I'd say that it's quite similar in quality to the Chicago /a/). But you need to remember the unique low vowel system of the Boston accent: the unrounded front phoneme /a/ is found in words like "father", "spa", and "car" (essentially equivalent to RP /A/), but not in words with orthographic <o> like "body" or "job".
Kirk   Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:53 am GMT
<<Why is that Californian people pronounce some words with a back A /A/: like ''body'' /bAdi/ and others with a front/central A ''process'' ['pras@s], thaught /'that/. hawk [hak]?! >>

I'm from California and I've heard of such a thing. All those words are pronounced with back [A] here. What you described sounds like something from the Northern Midwest.

<<While we know that CAUGHT and COT are pronounced identically in California, we don't know which is the sound both vowels merged into.
Is it [a], [A] or something in between. >>

Yes, we pronounce "caught" and "cot" the same here in California. Everyone has a back vowel for those, generally [A]. I've never heard those with a front vowel from someone here. Some may move it back and round it slightly, so it approaches [Q] or even [O], but I'd say I and most others generally have [A]. Here are some pronunciations of mine:

"father" [fA:D@`]
"bother" [bA:D@`]
"law/la" [lA]
"paw/pa" [p_hA]
"pot" [p_hAt]
"sawed/sod" [sA:d]
"thought" [TAt]
"body/bawdy" [bA:4i]
"tot/taught" [tAt]
Kirk   Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:06 am GMT
Correction to above post--it should read "I'm from California and I've *never* heard of such a thing."
Guest   Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:04 am GMT
I pronounce body as well, body, not bah-dee, and process as pro-sess, not prah-sess or pross-ess.
Mari   Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:18 pm GMT
"Stop the train!"
--I live in Southern California and have NEVER heard the above pronounciations. Admittedly, I don't live in the biggest city in CA (quite the opposite) but when I have visited cities like San Diego or San Fransisco I have heard no such talk either. I may be mistaken, but I really have never heard any Californian speak with those (A] sounds-- Again, admittedly, I have never been in real Northern parts of CA so Marly's observation could be centered on "Northern" CA cities.

Also, I have asked around and a friend brought up a different pronounciation key that Californians are "known to use".
He said that paired vowels were slightly emphasized seperately.
p A I r
fr I E nd

))My friend amazed me with how he could speak like that and I have no less heard his idea than I have heard Marly's.
Kirk   Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:04 pm GMT
<<--I live in Southern California and have NEVER heard the above pronounciations. Admittedly, I don't live in the biggest city in CA (quite the opposite) but when I have visited cities like San Diego or San Fransisco I have heard no such talk either. I may be mistaken, but I really have never heard any Californian speak with those (A] sounds-- Again, admittedly, I have never been in real Northern parts of CA so Marly's observation could be centered on "Northern" CA cities.>>

Are you familiar with X-SAMPA? We're using X-SAMPA to transcribe here. [A] is the "ah" sound as in "father."

<<Also, I have asked around and a friend brought up a different pronounciation key that Californians are "known to use".
He said that paired vowels were slightly emphasized seperately.
p A I r
fr I E nd>>

But those aren't diphthongs in the spoken language...I'm not sure what you're trying to convey there. Would you mind using X-SAMPA if you know it?
Travis   Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:07 pm GMT
>>I pronounce body as well, body, not bah-dee, and process as pro-sess, not prah-sess or pross-ess.<<

>>Also, I have asked around and a friend brought up a different pronounciation key that Californians are "known to use".
He said that paired vowels were slightly emphasized seperately.
p A I r
fr I E nd <<

One should not try to use the spellings of words as things to base expressing pronunciations off of in English, as they are "designed" for not even the phonology of Early Modern English, much the less North American dialects of Late Modern English, but rather that of Late Middle English. Rather, one should use IPA or X-SAMPA for such, which you can get more information on at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA
Yolanda   Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:01 pm GMT
A note to KIRK and TRAVIS.
Mari is young. Leave her and her growing mind alone.

PS- If you (Kirk) cannot decipher the sounds and need exact dictionary phonemic spellings -work on your background usage. I think I know what Mari is getting at.... Are you saying that CA people speak like Texans do in the movies.?