Pronunciation issue

Lazar   Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:26 am GMT
There's a pronunciation issue that I've been wondering about, relating to the treatment of "l" in different dialects. I've got three questions:

1. Does the name "Taylor" rhyme (perfectly) with "trailer"?

2. Does the adjective "polar" rhyme (perfectly) with "stroller"?

3. Imagine a word "haily", describing weather conditions in which there's a lot of hail. ("Haily" is to "hail" as "snowy" is to "snow" or "rainy" is to "rain".) Does "haily" sound exactly the same as the name "Haley"?
Californian   Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:29 am GMT
Yes yes and yes.
Deborah   Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:17 am GMT
Yes yes and no, not quite. I say "haily" with an L that sounds almost like the hard Russian L and "Hayley" with an alveolar(?) L. For some reason, I don't make that distinction with "Taylor" and "trailer".
Tiffany   Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:28 am GMT
Yes to all 3
Lazar   Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:39 pm GMT
Thanks to everyone for your responses!

<<I say "haily" with an L that sounds almost like the hard Russian L and "Hayley" with an alveolar(?) L.>>

Yes, the hard Russian L-type sound would be a velarized alveolar L, whereas the other one is alveolar.

<<For some reason, I don't make that distinction with "Taylor" and "trailer".>>

I'm just curious: for the word pairs "Taylor~trailer" and "polar~stroller", would you say that you use the Russian hard L or the alveolar L?
Guest   Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:27 pm GMT
I'm a Californian, and I think I pronounce the number 3 pair differently. For "haily", I use a "dark" L and for "haley" a "clear" L. For the first pair, I use a "clear" L, and the second pair, a "dark" L.
Kirk   Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:35 pm GMT
Haha, what a geographically diverse set of responses! I guess I'll just be another Californian responding...

<<There's a pronunciation issue that I've been wondering about, relating to the treatment of "l" in different dialects. I've got three questions:

1. Does the name "Taylor" rhyme (perfectly) with "trailer"? >>

Yup, exactly.

<<2. Does the adjective "polar" rhyme (perfectly) with "stroller"? >>

Yeah, those perfectly rhyme for me, too.

<<3. Imagine a word "haily", describing weather conditions in which there's a lot of hail. ("Haily" is to "hail" as "snowy" is to "snow" or "rainy" is to "rain".) Does "haily" sound exactly the same as the name "Haley"?>>

As the others have commented, "haily" is slightly different than "Haley" for me:

"haily" ["he5=.i]
"Haley" ["he.li]

I've noticed that when there's a choice, my speech favors the syllabic [5=] pattern in derived forms. Thus, for another example, my "settler" is never *["sEt.l@`] but the normal base word for "settle" ["sE.45=] plus -[@`], thus trisyllabic ["sE.45=.@`].

How do you pronounce all these, Lazar?
Lazar   Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:38 am GMT
<<Haha, what a geographically diverse set of responses!>>

Okay, I'll provide some data from the East. ;-)

<<How do you pronounce all these, Lazar?>>

Like you, I don't distinguish the first two pairs but I do distinguish the last one.

Taylor ["t_heI5.@`]
trailer ["t_hr\eI5.@`]

polar ["p_hoU5.@`]
stroller ["str\oU5.@`]

"haily" ["heI5.i]
Haley ["heI.li]

But I wouldn't say that the [5] is syllabic. The /l/ in "haily" (and in the first two pairs) basically combines with the preceding vowel for me (hence the pattern of syllabification in my transcriptions). This "combined /l/" is darker, and I just intuitively sense it going with the preceding syllable rather than the following one. In the case of my /o/ phoneme, it induces significant allophony: Generally I realize that phoneme as [7U] (for instance "Poe" [p_h7U]), but when it's combined with /l/, the onset gets rounded, so it's [oU].

Here's one interesting thing: I treat the "combined L" as non-syllabic with /e/, /o/, /i/, and /u/:

trailer ["t_hr\eI5.@`]
polar ["p_hoU5.@`]
feeling ["fi5.IN]
ruler ["ru5.@`]

But I treat it as syllabic with /aU/, /aI/, and /OI/:

howler ["haU.5=.@`] or ["haU.@.l@`] (I'm undecided on which transcription is better for me)
smiling ["smaI.5=.IN] or ["smaI.@.lIN]
oily ["OI.5=.i] or ["OI.@.li]

Thus, even though I happen to have diphthongal realizations for /e/ and /o/, I tend (when analyzing my own speech) to treat /e/ and /o/ along with /i/ and /u/ as "historical monophthong" phonemes, while distinguishing them from /aU/, /aI/, and /OI/ which I consider "historical diphthong" phonemes. The rule is: an "l" can combine with a historical monophthong in the same syllable, but with a historical diphthong it induces breaking.

<<I've noticed that when there's a choice, my speech favors the syllabic [5=] pattern in derived forms. Thus, for another example, my "settler" is never *["sEt.l@`] but the normal base word for "settle" ["sE.45=] plus -[@`], thus trisyllabic ["sE.45=.@`].>>

Me too. I always pronounce "settler" and "rattler" as trisyllabic ["sE.45=.@`], ["r\{.45=.@`].
Tiffany   Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:31 am GMT
Now I really want to know the difference between the clear L and the dark L. I've asked this before, but the idea is not clear in my head. Does this mean I pronounce all three with one or the other? The dark L I am guessing?
Presley.   Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:53 am GMT
Tiffany, are you Californian?
Lazar   Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:13 am GMT
<<Now I really want to know the difference between the clear L and the dark L. I've asked this before, but the idea is not clear in my head.>>

The clear L is an avleolar sound (made with the tongue touching the ridge behind the teeth); it occurs at the beginning of syllables, as in "light" or "Lee". The dark L is velarized (the tip of the tongue is touching the ridge behind the teeth, but at the same time the tongue is raised up, so the L sound is made more in the throat); it occurs at the ends of syllables, as in "role" and "pail".

<<Does this mean I pronounce all three with one or the other? The dark L I am guessing?>>

If you pronounce all six words with the same L, then it's probably the dark L. Here's something that might help: (I'm pretty sure that) for most speakers, "holy" has a dark L whereas "slowly" has a clear L.
Tiffany   Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:57 am GMT
Presley,
Sorry, no. I was born and raised in Miami, FL, but I do live in California at the moment for work.

Lazar,
I'll take your word for it that I use the dark L, but I can't differentiate well at this point. My husband will probably look at me funny as I go around the house pronouncing "pail" and "light" to see if I can finally understand the difference.
Lazar   Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:11 am GMT
<<I'll take your word for it that I use the dark L, but I can't differentiate well at this point. My husband will probably look at me funny as I go around the house pronouncing "pail" and "light" to see if I can finally understand the difference.>>

Well...what I explained to you in my last post was basically the "textbook" explanation. In truth, for many speakers (like me), there is often some degree of velarization in all our L's, so saying "pail" and "light" may not even be a good demonstration of the distinction.

The main reason why I indicate a distinction between clear and dark L when I transcribe my speech is because it's a convenient way to show how pairs like "freely"~"really" and "daily"~"haily" don't rhyme for me. So it's really only because of these non-rhyming pairs that I can perceive any appreciable difference.
Tiffany   Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:45 am GMT
Is it possible that I pronounce even "light" with the dark L?
Guest   Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:11 am GMT
Hmm... For me, "freely" and "really" have different vowels, as well as different L's. (I'm a Californian, BTW.)