Tiffany, I was referring to what is traditionally considered such, not what some "average" form of English in the US today would be. And second, remember that "cot"-"caught" merger is primarily a feature of western US, Canadian, and some northeastern US NAE dialects, and GAE is generally not derived from historical dialects in said areas. Furthermore, when you speak of "speakers of GAE", I really doubt that many actually really speak such, as it is rather idealized in nature to begin with, and is based on historical rather than current forms as well.
American standar accent
<<Phoneticists dramatically exaggerate the differences.>>
First of all it would most likely be phonologists and/or dialectologists who would do any such thing, and second of all, they don't. They're merely describing with academic peer-reviewed data how people speak. No phonologist has any agenda to hype up dialectal differences--what's the incentive?
<<In real life, everyone understands everyone, for the most part>>
Yes but mutual intelligibility and homogenous accents do not a perfect pair make. In fact it's far from that.
<<South Africans sound a lot like the English, and >>
Are ya kidding? You have tunnelvision syndrome when it comes to accents. The ones you're least familiar with you bundle together. I think many South Africans and English people would beg to differ. I certainly do, and I'm not even that well-versed in South African English.
<<Nigerians don't sound much different from people in Iowa.>>
Really--who can tell the difference between a Nigerian and Iowan accent? Who are *you* kidding?
First of all it would most likely be phonologists and/or dialectologists who would do any such thing, and second of all, they don't. They're merely describing with academic peer-reviewed data how people speak. No phonologist has any agenda to hype up dialectal differences--what's the incentive?
<<In real life, everyone understands everyone, for the most part>>
Yes but mutual intelligibility and homogenous accents do not a perfect pair make. In fact it's far from that.
<<South Africans sound a lot like the English, and >>
Are ya kidding? You have tunnelvision syndrome when it comes to accents. The ones you're least familiar with you bundle together. I think many South Africans and English people would beg to differ. I certainly do, and I'm not even that well-versed in South African English.
<<Nigerians don't sound much different from people in Iowa.>>
Really--who can tell the difference between a Nigerian and Iowan accent? Who are *you* kidding?
To my ears, the Kiwis, South African and English sound all uniquely different. Of course, they sound more similar to each other than them compared to a rhotic form of English
<<Tiffany, I was referring to what is traditionally considered such, not what some "average" form of English in the US today would be. And second, remember that "cot"-"caught" merger is primarily a feature of western US, Canadian, and some northeastern US NAE dialects, and GAE is generally not derived from historical dialects in said areas. Furthermore, when you speak of "speakers of GAE", I really doubt that many actually really speak such, as it is rather idealized in nature to begin with, and is based on historical rather than current forms as well.>>
Exactly.
<<Although Travis, many many Americans HAVE the cot-caught merger. How can speakers of GAE lack it?>>
About 40-50% of Americans have the "cot-caught" merger. I've seen varying estimates, but it's probably a bit less than 50% and no less than 40%.
Exactly.
<<Although Travis, many many Americans HAVE the cot-caught merger. How can speakers of GAE lack it?>>
About 40-50% of Americans have the "cot-caught" merger. I've seen varying estimates, but it's probably a bit less than 50% and no less than 40%.
I think I would tend to agree with you, Kirk -- if General American is simply speech that isn't associated with a particular regional accent, that covers a lot of territory and a whole lot of speakers, who would probably exhibit a lot of variation in individual features of their speech.
The main thing is that I prefer to reserve the term "General American" for a specific idealized "standard" form of NAE in the US, rather than to use it as a general catchall for NAE dialects which don't sound "accented" to most Americans. The reason for regarding it in such a fashion is that latter makes it a uselessly vague term, whereas the former makes it more like "standard Hochdeutsch", an ideal standard which does not necessarily correspond at all to most individuals' everyday speech. In turn, the reason for taking such a position is to avoid simply lumping together very large continuums of dialects as such, as it is advantageous when taking dialects under consideration to be more specific rather than less.
I like the old pioneer accent- sort of like Yosemite Sam!
I think some people make too much of rhotic vs non-rhotic. It's not uncommon to find towns in England in isolation with rhotic pronunciation, for example about 20 miles away is the town of Blackburn (or Blackburrrrrn as the locals say). This sound quickly dissipates in the accens of neighbouring towns.
I think some people make too much of rhotic vs non-rhotic. It's not uncommon to find towns in England in isolation with rhotic pronunciation, for example about 20 miles away is the town of Blackburn (or Blackburrrrrn as the locals say). This sound quickly dissipates in the accens of neighbouring towns.
Like Travis, I prefer to define GA as a rather specific idealized accent, similar to RP. Like RP, few people speak GA exactly, but many people approximate it. The more specific definition of GA gives us somewhat of a "universal standard" against which all other NAE dialects can easily be compared.
<<I think some people make too much of rhotic vs non-rhotic. It's not uncommon to find towns in England in isolation with rhotic pronunciation, for example about 20 miles away is the town of Blackburn (or Blackburrrrrn as the locals say). This sound quickly dissipates in the accens of neighbouring towns.>>
That's interesting. I seem to remember seeing figures saying that about 50% of the UK's land is covered by people who have rhotic accents, but that in terms of actual population by numbers, 90% of UKers are nonrhotic.
<<Like Travis, I prefer to define GA as a rather specific idealized accent, similar to RP. Like RP, few people speak GA exactly, but many people approximate it. The more specific definition of GA gives us somewhat of a "universal standard" against which all other NAE dialects can easily be compared.>>
Yeah I agree. It's a good benchmark to use to compare and contrast. As Travis said, at least in a linguistic sense, using "General American" as a catchall for conversational speech that isn't considered weird by most Americans is entirely too vague, so as hazy as GenAm is, there are set things we can use to compare and contrast with any particular US dialect which may be in question. We just all have to accept that our speech doesn't necessarily define or follow the arbitrary standard even tho we of course don't think we speak weird ;)
That's interesting. I seem to remember seeing figures saying that about 50% of the UK's land is covered by people who have rhotic accents, but that in terms of actual population by numbers, 90% of UKers are nonrhotic.
<<Like Travis, I prefer to define GA as a rather specific idealized accent, similar to RP. Like RP, few people speak GA exactly, but many people approximate it. The more specific definition of GA gives us somewhat of a "universal standard" against which all other NAE dialects can easily be compared.>>
Yeah I agree. It's a good benchmark to use to compare and contrast. As Travis said, at least in a linguistic sense, using "General American" as a catchall for conversational speech that isn't considered weird by most Americans is entirely too vague, so as hazy as GenAm is, there are set things we can use to compare and contrast with any particular US dialect which may be in question. We just all have to accept that our speech doesn't necessarily define or follow the arbitrary standard even tho we of course don't think we speak weird ;)
>>Yeah I agree. It's a good benchmark to use to compare and contrast. As Travis said, at least in a linguistic sense, using "General American" as a catchall for conversational speech that isn't considered weird by most Americans is entirely too vague, so as hazy as GenAm is, there are set things we can use to compare and contrast with any particular US dialect which may be in question. We just all have to accept that our speech doesn't necessarily define or follow the arbitrary standard even tho we of course don't think we speak weird ;) <<
Intuitively, for me and seemingly for most here, the speech here is "right", the formal speech here in particular is "standard", and everyone elses' simply sounds funny, "General American" included (yes, I find speech samples that are supposed to be in it generally rather "off"-sounding). However, the more that I actually look at the details of the dialect in the area I'm from, the weirder and weirder it seems, compared to what I have formally thought of "General American" as being. For example, comparing the insistence by others here that pronunciation of word-initial /D/ in NAE dialects is always [D] no matter what with how my native dialects seems, from listening to others, where it seems like [D] in that position really is systematically avoided by most speakers in everyday speech, either through assimilation or through stopping. Likewise, from actually listening to others, it does really seem like the word "yah" (I wanted to write "ja", but that might confuse some) is extremely prevalent here in everyday speech, which is also a very, very un-GAE feature. Thusly, at this point, it is rather clear that as "standard" as at least formal speech here may seem, speech here is actually significantly different from what formal ideal GAE really is, as subjectively "correct" as it may seem.
Intuitively, for me and seemingly for most here, the speech here is "right", the formal speech here in particular is "standard", and everyone elses' simply sounds funny, "General American" included (yes, I find speech samples that are supposed to be in it generally rather "off"-sounding). However, the more that I actually look at the details of the dialect in the area I'm from, the weirder and weirder it seems, compared to what I have formally thought of "General American" as being. For example, comparing the insistence by others here that pronunciation of word-initial /D/ in NAE dialects is always [D] no matter what with how my native dialects seems, from listening to others, where it seems like [D] in that position really is systematically avoided by most speakers in everyday speech, either through assimilation or through stopping. Likewise, from actually listening to others, it does really seem like the word "yah" (I wanted to write "ja", but that might confuse some) is extremely prevalent here in everyday speech, which is also a very, very un-GAE feature. Thusly, at this point, it is rather clear that as "standard" as at least formal speech here may seem, speech here is actually significantly different from what formal ideal GAE really is, as subjectively "correct" as it may seem.
>>If one does have to specify what "General American" is, which is practically by definition idealized and formal, one can probably vaguely write it out, with respect to phonology, as:
Is rhotic
Has "father"-"bother" merger
Lacks "cot"-"caught" merger
<<
hmm. Interesting. When I hear someone without the cot-caught merger, I usually ask 'Where are you from?' To me, it sounds quite accented to not have this. It also bothers me when I hear it on tv. 100% of the news stations and the shows that are produced in this region do not have the distinction, and when I hear someone, like for example, Peter Funt from Candid Camera, he definitely soudns like he has an accent because he does not have the merger. I've also never heard voicemail systems and telephone operators that don't have the merger. In other regions, do they actually speak without the merger on TV?
Is rhotic
Has "father"-"bother" merger
Lacks "cot"-"caught" merger
<<
hmm. Interesting. When I hear someone without the cot-caught merger, I usually ask 'Where are you from?' To me, it sounds quite accented to not have this. It also bothers me when I hear it on tv. 100% of the news stations and the shows that are produced in this region do not have the distinction, and when I hear someone, like for example, Peter Funt from Candid Camera, he definitely soudns like he has an accent because he does not have the merger. I've also never heard voicemail systems and telephone operators that don't have the merger. In other regions, do they actually speak without the merger on TV?
>>In other regions, do they actually speak without the merger on TV?<<
Most definitely yes.
Most definitely yes.
>>Most definitely yes.<<
Wow, that's amazing! I thought that people on the TV were all supposed to sound the same. It would be weird to hear the unmerged sounds.
Wow, that's amazing! I thought that people on the TV were all supposed to sound the same. It would be weird to hear the unmerged sounds.
Well, yes, ''General American'' as described above, would sound a bit accented to people from western UStates...I've read that the most accentless American English is spoken in Colorado (but they merge Cot/Caught, Don/Dawn)...
<<And second, remember that "cot"-"caught" merger is primarily a feature of western US, Canadian, and some northeastern US NAE dialects>>
Those aren't the only places where the cot-caught merger exists though. I'm from Florida and I pronounce ''cot'' and ''caught'' both as /kAt/.
Those aren't the only places where the cot-caught merger exists though. I'm from Florida and I pronounce ''cot'' and ''caught'' both as /kAt/.