Who has the oddest dialect of all?

Tell me something odd about your dialect, and I shall rate it 1 to 5 on how odd I think it is.

I will say some things about my dialect (but I'm not rating my own)

pin-pen merged (I love this merger)
cot-caught merged
bother-father merged

I dont have the phones [1] or [@]. [1] is replaced by [I] and [@] is replaced by either [6] [I] or seldom [U].

Whenever two fricatives are next to each other, the first disappears, causing what I call the clothes-close merger.

<a> before /m/ or /n/ becomes [EjI_X] or something near it

'is' usually attacks whatever words are next to it, "what is that" becomes something like "Waz zat?

"untill" can mean "since". "I havent been to the farm untill last year!"

"them" and "him" are both pronounced [m=]

my /U/ is pretty close to /@/ I think

<<Tell me something odd about your dialect, and I shall rate it 1 to 5 on how odd I think it is.>>

Okay, I'll just throw some out at you...

I am cot-caught merged but father-bother unmerged:

cot ["k_hQt]
caught ["k_hQt]
father ["fA.D@`]
bother ["bQ.D@`]

I tend to use intrusive r:

I saw it [aI "sQ.r\ It]
drawing ["drQ.r\IN]
India and Persia ["In.di.@`. @n "p_h3`.Z@]

I'm Mary-merry-marry unmerged:

Mary ["mE@`.i]
merry ["mE.r\i]
marry ["m{.r\i]

And serious-Sirius unmerged:

serious ["sI@`.i.@s]
Sirius ["sI.r\i.@s]

And Tory-torrent unmerged:

Tory ["t_hO@`.i]
torrent ["t_hQ.r\@nt]

And hurry-furry unmerged:

hurry ["hV.r\i]
furry ["f3`.i]

But I'm horse-hoarse merged:

horse ["hO@`s]
hoarse ["hO@`s]

I have Canadian raising:

sight ["s6It]
side ["saId]

allowed [@"laUd]
about [@"bEUt]

And it even occurs when there's an intervening nasal:

pint ["p_h6Int]
ounce ["EUns]

That should be ["dr\Q.r\IN] rather than ["drQ.r\IN] - I don't use a trill there. ;-)

I don't think my accent is 'odd' (who really does?) but there are a few things that I think are interesting.

1. cot-caught and father-bother merged: I recently discovered that my merged low-back vowel is rounded, and possibly even raised, so it's [Q] or [O].

cot, caught [kQ?]
father ["fQ.D@`]
bother ["bQ.D@`]

2. Canadian raising: applies to /aI/ and /aU/ before voiceless consonants, and in words derived from raised vowels

sight [s6I?]
side [saId]

about [@.bEU?]
allowed [@.laUd]

southern ["sEU.D@`~] from south [sEUT]
housing [hEU.zIN] from house [hEUs]

3. Canadian shift: I'm not entirely convinced that this shift exists, but I have one of the elements. My TRAP phoneme is realized lower than most Americans', somewhere near [a_+]

4. Continuous ae-tensing: I have a range of allophones of TRAP before different consonants, something like this:

bag [beg]
bang [bEN]
ban [b{@n]
bad [ba_+d]
bat [ba_+?] (I'm not sure whether there's any difference between /ad/ and /at/ in vowel quality. I've seen transcriptions that show a difference, but I haven't noticed it in my own speech.

Those are all standard parts of Canadian English, but I have some other features that are a lot less common:

1. l-vocalisation: not as widespread as Travis's, but pretty noticeable. /l/ is realized as a high back vowel or approximant in post-vocalic situations. It varies in its exact realisation in different contexts, and it also tends to produce tense-lax mergers in the preceeding vowels

pill [pIo]
peel [pIo] before consonants, often [pi.o] before vowels

tell [tEo]
tail [tEo] before consonants, often [te.o] before vowels

pull [pUo]
pool [pu.o] doesn't merge with 'pull', unlike other tense-lax pairs

cold [koUd]
called [kQUd] often [kOUd]
culled [kOUd]

tile [taU]

2. Labiodental /r/: I tend to use [v\] in syllable-initials, especially after other consonants. The /r/ is also sometimes elided before tense vowels.

train [tSv\e~]
treat [tSv\i?]
true [tSv\u]

I also use this after my NURSE vowel before coronals, I suppose as dissimilation.

nurse [n3\`v\s]

>> Canadian shift: I'm not entirely convinced that this shift exists, but I have one of the elements. My TRAP phoneme is realized lower than most Americans', somewhere near [a_+] <<

Why is it that everyone thinks that the Canadian shift doesn't exists? It is simply

/A/ -> /O/
/{/ -> /a/
and at the final stage: /I/ -> /E/

The fact that your trap is lower than most Americans, *and* the fact that you said: "I recently discovered that my merged low-back vowel is rounded, and possibly even raised" pretty much proves that you have the shift. I'm always amused when people think that they don't have the Canadian vowel shift or that the Canadian vowel shift doesn't exist, or the California vowel shift doesn't exist, or the Northern cities vowel shift doesnt exist. They certainly do exist, and almost everyone that I've met from Canada, California, or the Midwest have had at least some traces of the shift. Just because it isn't so extreme doesn't mean that you don't have it. It is certainly noticeable to me, for example, as my vowels are pretty middle of the road--I have no chain vowel shift such as those, so anyone with them really sticks out to my ears. Even the speakers on CBC news all have the shift. "The Lahst stahk of books my mawm gave me...",etc. I've yet to meet someone from one of those vowel-shifty areas who hasn't had at least some of the shift. Just because you haven't completely replaced your vowels with the shifted versions doesn't mean you don't have the shift.

When I questioned the existence of the Canadian Shift, I didn't mean to deny some of the individual elements. The rounded form of /A/ is common here, but I'm not sure about raising to [O]. Lowered /{/ is common as well. However, I've never noticed any difference between my /I/ and /E/ and their American equivalents, certainly not such a large one as /I/ -> [E] and /E/ -> [{]. What I am questioning is whether the two elements that I've heard are definitely connected (ie. that no one has lowered TRAP without rounded /A/). I'm not saying that there definitely is no Canadian Shift, I'm just saying that the evidence I've seen doesn't seem to prove 100% that there is.

>> However, I've never noticed any difference between my /I/ and /E/ and their American equivalents, certainly not such a large one as /I/ -> [E] and /E/ -> [{]. <<

Remember that the /I/ to [E] shift is the last part of the shift, so it is not surprising that it is much less common. Also, you are a male speaker, and males tend to be much more conservative when it comes to vowels. Young women tend to be the ones who lead vowel shifts. I have certainly heard many Canadians that pronounce words like "better" as what sounds just like my "batter". I have also heard many young teenagers shift /I/ to [E], when saying things like the "six o'clock".

>> The rounded form of /A/ is common here, but I'm not sure about raising to [O]. <<

Well, a shift merely moves a vowel in the direction of another vowel--it doesn't mean that you replace all your /A/'s with [O]'s. Also, people do not always have the shifted vowels when they speak. I remember talking to someone who didn't seem to have much of the shift at all, until he asked me how the "trahffic" was. I didn't even understand what he said at first and I had to think for a moment, and finally I thought "Ah...traffic."

The Canadian vowel shift also seems very similar to the California one. They just have more features. Most people only have the first few features, as it, like the Canadian vowel shift is a very recent innovation. But the shift is very real. Put becomes "putt", for example: "Putt it on the table."

Also, in Labov's Atlas of North American English, with his vowel measurements, he found that in order to separate the Canadian dialect from dialects in the US, the only phonological defining feature was the Canadian shift, which was almost completely absent from the US, except for some speakers in the West. As I recall, the people that he surveyed in Canada, almost all the dots were red--that was people that had the shift in all the major cities in Western and Central Canada. I remember that only two of the dots were green--that meant that those speakers did not match the criteria for a Canadian accent, because they lacked the shift, but had to be classified as having a Western US accent. Statistically speaking, almost all the speakers in Canada surveyed had the shift, whereas only a few in the Western US had the shift. He measured the vowels using a computer program.


>> (ie. that no one has lowered TRAP without rounded /A/). <<

No, it's merely that /A/ and /O/ merge "which allows a backward shift of /æ/, followed by a downward and backward movement of /e/. (Labov)", according the the Atlas of North American English.

He also says:
"The most striking difference between Canada and the other regions is found for /æ/: F2 for Canadian /æ/ is at 1725 Hz, lower than all other dialects except Providence. The short /e/ mean for Canada is among the two lowest of the dialect means. The merged /o ~ oh/ class is at the highest and backest level of the /o/ distribution." (not using IPA) Thus it doesn't mean that Canadians simply replace /æ/ with /a/, but rather it moves in the direction of /a/, and on average Canadians have a lower /æ/ than any dialect of the US has on average (besides Providence). Also, it's not so much that /A/ becomes /O/, but that they merge at the highest and backest levels compared to the average of that of most dialects in the US.

Here are some of my own:

I use a uvular approximant r (except after coronals and labials):

far ["fA:R]
red ["RE:d]
sorry ["sO:Ri:]
furry ["fR=:i:]

I have l-vocalization in all positions:

cold ["k_ho:Ud]
really ["RI:Mi:] (can also be ["Ri:Mi:] or have [L\] rather than [M])
plenty ["p_hM\Ei] (can also have [L\] rather than [M\])
lisp ["M\Isp] (it is more usual to have [L\] here, but such vocalization is very common)


Note that this does not result in any mergers of preceding vowels, unlike in Josh Lalonde's dialect. However, /o/ and /ol/ are often only weakly distinguished in practice.

I have intervocalic elisions of /t/, /d/, /v/, /n/, /D/, especially before syllabic consonants (in the case of /t/, /d/, /v/, and /D/) or /i/ and /I/ (in the case of /n/), where then the syllabic consonants are often desyllabicized while the vowels are lengthened and the first vowels' original nasalization is often preserved:

little ["LI:M]
matter ["mE{:R]
rather ["RE{::R]
seven ["sE::n]
over ["o::R] or ["o:R=:]


As one can see above, overlong vowels and vowels that "should" be nasalized but aren't may result from this.

When elisions occur which involve /E{/ or a lax vowel other than /Q/ before the elided consonant, I form falling diphthongs or triphthongs from the consonants:

any ["E~:i] or ["E:i]
money ["mV~:i] or ["mV:i]
phonetic [f@~:"nEIk]

I also have elisions of [4] in other places, such as:

sort of ["sOR@:]

I have final devoicing except before words starting in vowels or approximants for fricatives and affricates; I also have sporadic final devoicing of stops, in particular at the ends of utterances and especially for /d/.

have ["hE{:f]
mouth (verb) ["ma:UT]
rose ["Ro:s]
garage [g@:"Ra:S]
fudge ["fV:tS]
hand ["hE{~:nt] (sporadic)

I have very strong maintenance of tense-lax distinctions for postvocalic obstruents and especially plosives through vowel length allophony and postvocalic fortis plosive glottalization despite any assimilation or devoicing - note that such may not be obvious as such may not match up with orthography:

lobster ["L\a:pstR=:] (this has /b/ underlyingly)
Pabst ["p_hE{?pst] (this has /p/ underlyingly)

Note that I normally do not transcribe postvocalic fortis obstruent glottalization, and I am only transcribing it for "Papst" here to illustrate the difference.

I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift:

trap ["tSr\E{p]
father ["fa:DR=:]
caught ["k_hQ?]

I have Canadian Raising:

sight ["s@I?]
side ["sa:Id]

allowed [@"L\a:Ud]
about [@"b6U?]

I have Canadian Raising even with an intervening nasal:

pint ["p@I~?]
ounce ["6U~ns]

I have allophony of /s/ between [s] and [S_+] (even though I normally just transcribe such as [s]), with [S_+] when before /p/, /t/, /m/, /n/, /r/, /l/, and /w/ and [s] in all other positions including before /k/:

sill [sI:M]
spill : [S_+pI:M]
still : [S_+tI:M]
skill : [skI:M]
smell : [S_+mE:N]
swill : [S_+wI:M]
miss : [mIs]
mince : [mIns]