Talk:General American

Vowels

The article has this text: "since all accents with cot and caught merged to /kɑt/ have also undergone the horse-hoarse merger" but I don't think that's accurate. Old-fashioned Boston accents are cot-caught merged but not horse-hoarse merged. They have 'cot, caught' /kQ:t/ 'court' /ko@t/; for /fQ:/, four /fo@/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makerowner (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

That's why it says "all accents with cot and caught merged to /kɑt/". In the old-fashioned Boston accent, they're merged to /kɒt/. —Angr 05:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that. Makerowner 03:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: shouldn't it be /kɑːt/ instead of /kɑt/ ?Mbruno 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Like most North American English accents, General American doesn't have phonemic vowel length. —Angr 07:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cronkite

"Since Cronkite was born in Missouri, and spent his first dozen years there, some assumed that General American was the regional accent of the state"

Who are some? I'd say most Americans know how people from Missouri generally sound and I doubt many foreigners are aware of where he was born and identify the region's dialect according to him. This needs a citation. 66.167.147.162 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I deleted the text. Missourians do not speak General American, as can be seen in how they pronounce the state /mɪzura/ instead of /mɪzʌri/. Sluggoster (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the Missouri comment, I live in Kansas on the Missouri border, and if anyone says "Missoura" they're seen as an uneducated hick. 68.90.169.12 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that there is a geographic split on the pronunciation: basically, north of the Missouri River it's Missouri, while to the south it's Missoura. Here in Columbia it's pretty much Missouri, although I am certain the large proportion of non-natives (like me) have an effect here. Wschart (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdated terminology

This page needs to be significantly re-written from scratch by a knowlegeable dialectologist. Most linguists have not used the term "General American" for the past 70+ years. This article, as now written, reflects common concepts prior to the 1930s. It is highly misleading for the average reader. This is a serious deficiency in a source that many students and interested lay people rely on nowadays. 71.220.136.50 08:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Rudy Troike <e-mail address removed>

It's true that American linguists rarely use the term "General American" anymore, but British linguists still use it quite commonly. The main reason for this is the different focus of American and British dialectology: American dialectology has tended to focus on the lexicon, while British dialectology has tended to focus on phonology. To the extent American dialectologists look at phonology at all, as with Labov's recent work in the Atlas of North American English, they tend to focus only on Americans with identifiable regional accents and ignore those without them. The telephone survey used for ANAE did not select people entirely at random, but actively searched for people belonging to the ethnic group that traditionally dominated the city in question, and accepted only people who still lived in the town where they were born and their parents had grown up. This process, while undoubtedly giving excellent results regarding the accent of locals, excludes enormous numbers of upper-middle-class Americans whose families have moved cross country several times in the last several decades. And what accent do those upper-middle-class, mobile Americans speak with? General American. GenAm is definitely not a dialect--it doesn't have a distinct lexicon or distinct morphological patterns, etc.--but it is an accent (or rather a group of closely related accents; it includes both cot=caught and cot≠caught varieties). But it's an accent American linguists tend to ignore and British linguists tend to oversimplify. —Angr 15:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced statements

I'm removing the following statements that have been tagged as needing a source for several months:

• The General American accent is not thought of as a linguistic standard in the sense that Received Pronunciation (RP) has historically been the standard, prestige variant in England, but its speakers are perceived as "accentless" by most Americans.
• however, the most formal varieties tend to be more conservative in preserving these phonemic distinctions [viz. cot/caught, Mary/marry/merry, wine/whine, pin/pen

If anyone can provide sources for these statements, feel free to add them. —Angr 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian English

The section referring to Canadian doesn't reflect different Canadian accents. I have never heard anyone pronounce sorry "sore-ee" and the statement "in Canadian English they are all pronounced with [-ɔɹ-]," is a generalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf1978 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is. The article on Canadian English also doesn't seem to make such a distinction. For what it's worth, the sore-ee pronunciation is the only one I've heard in Canadian media. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also the only one I've ever heard from real-life Canadians. It's as useful and reliable a shibboleth as the word "out" for telling whether someone is Canadian or American. —Angr 09:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. In addition, the word 'roof' is another word which is reliable for determining someone's Canadian or U.S. heritage (being pronounced as if the verb were a 'u' in U.S. English, or as if the user were speaking to his canine companion).Homely (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about that. I hear it both ways from Americans. Heck, my brother says it differently than I do. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And of course, there is the word 'process', which immediately tells the listener that you are of U.S. heritage when pronounced "praw-cess". Interesting that 'pronounced' is not likewise pronounced "praw-nounced", or 'professional' "praw-fessional". Another is the word 'semi', identifying the speaker as coming from the U.S. of A. if it's 'PRO'nounced "sem-eye", as opposed to "sem-ee".Homely (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Process" is only pronounced that way when it's a noun and stressed on the first syllable, so "pronounced" and "professional" are not apt comparisons. And Americans say both "semee" and "sem-eye" interchangeably. (At least I do!) —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that! Folks from the U.S. say 'praw-duce' too then? Weird. Thanks for sharing that. Interesting how language can be perverted from the original.Homely (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we say "proe-duce". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The noun 'produce' meaning 'vegetables and fruit', folks from the U.S. pronounce 'proe-duce'? Then, your "only pronounced that way (praw-cess)when it's a noun" logic seems faulty. How about the noun 'projector'. Also pronounced 'proe-jector'? According to your criteria, folks from the U.S. of A. pronounce that noun 'praw-jector', or likely 'praw-jecter', right? Interesting. Homely (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Process" (the noun) is pronounced with a short O, "produce" (the noun meaning fruits & vegetables) is pronounced with a long O. For Brits and Canadians it's the other way round. Big deal. "Projector" is stressed on the second syllable; the first syllable just has schwa. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So much for your 'noun' theory then! Thanks for sharing, though!Homely (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, so much for my noun theory then? I said "process" is only pronounced that way when it's a noun, I didn't say all nouns starting "pro-" are pronounced that way. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, another way to spot someone from the USA is to get them to say the letter 'z'! As you may know, they pronounce it 'zee', deviating from the original English 'zed'. Get them to tell you where they're going for the summer, and they'll say "we're going on vacation!" as opposed to "we're going on a holiday!"Homely (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not tell everyone lies like, "Americans have perverted the English language." We haven't perverted it anymore than anyone else. No dialects today in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand or the U.S. are terribly close to what English would have sounded like during the time of Shakespeare. Oh yeah, and just so you know, at least 303,054,000 people in this world call it "zee." At least 99,724,600 call it "zed" (I could be a bit off on this number, but it doesn't matter, because it will never equal 300 million). You confuse me Homely. In your first post you seem offended that Canadians could possibly pronounce the word "sorry" differently from Americans. That tells me you want to sound more American, rather than unique. In your later posts, you criticize the way Americans pronounce certain words. This says to me that you don't want to speak like Americans. Which is it? Make up your mind please. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You confuse me, 208.104.45.20. I've never posted anything regarding the word 'sorry'. Sorry. And, I'm not criticizing the way anyone pronounces words. Just pointing out how to spot someone from the U.S. by the way they speak. How do you pronounce v.a.l.i.u.m.?Homely (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That was Beowulf, my mistake. However, you were obviously criticizing the way Americans pronounce words. You compared us to a dog. I'm sure most uninvolved parties would agree with me on that one. Canadian pronunciation is no better than American pronunciation. I pronounce it ['væliəm], like most people in the United States; more specifically, those who know what Valium is. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

208.104.45.20! You're making many mistakes! I didn't compare anyone to a dog! I stated that folks from the U.S. of A. say the word 'roof' as if it has a 'u' in it, ie: 'ruff' ... or, when said, sounds like they are speaking to their dog. "ruff ruff". Sorry that you were offended.Homely (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You were still obviously trying to insult Americans. You're just lying to make yourself seem innocent, even though you can't erase what you said. I don't care if you were directly comparing us to dogs or not. I am not the one who's offended. I just assumed other people would be offended by that. You're the one who's making many mistakes. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am American, and I pronounce roof with the vowel of you, like most Americans do. Homely: Yes, the information you provided is far from accurate; that aside, you have gone too far, and I think you should drop this utterly nonsensical Americans-have-perverted-the-original-language attitude. Also, remember that (as WP policy has it) this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the "General American" article; this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Jack^(Lumber) 23:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I pronounce roof with the vowel of you as well, and I am also American. The only other possible American pronunciation I can think of is to pronounce it with the vowel of hook. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Thank you, 208.104.45.20. Pronounce 'hook', replace the 'h' with an 'r' - 'rook'; replace the 'k' with an 'f' - 'roof', sounds like 'ruff'! Thanks.Homely (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experiance, people who pronounce "roof" and in "hook" pronounce "ruff" identical to "rough". - BillCJ (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Everybody pronounces ruff identical to rough; take a look at this video, where this guy says he got this whole idea of the "garadge rough" from Tim Allen on Home Improvement.

Take a look at the comments too. Doubtless, the best ones are "what are u on crack" and "Dude..you need to get laid." Jack^(Lumber) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already watched that video quite a few times, and I thought he was a complete moron, needless to say. It's actually funny that you brought that up, because I was one of the people who left a comment. I don't think he knew about the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. Of course he is going to hear that pronunciation of garage, because the people who pronounce it that way live right across the border from him. You should watch his previous video; it's almost as bad as that one. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's almost identical! Jack^(Lumber) 00:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's clear he doesn't really know what he's talking about. He's heard some Americans say [ɹʊf] (with the vowel of "foot") and believes that Americans in general say [ɹʌf] (with the vowel of "strut"), which is wrong. Some Americans say [ɹʊf] (with the "foot" vowel) and some say [ɹuf] (with the "goose" vowel). He's basically right about Canadian raising, but I think he's consciously using a very open [a] starting point for his diphthong. I bet if you listened to him talk normally when he wasn't thinking about his pronunciation, he'd say [əˈbəʊt]. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Angr. I believe he is consciously making the diphthong he uses in about more American. That's what confuses me about him. He doesn't seem to like the way Americans speak yet he makes his own speech sound more American. Don't the majority (majority meaning more than 50% of course) of Canadians have Canadian raising of the /aʊ/ diphthong? I am quite sure the answer is yes. That's why this commercial annoys me. We know he doesn't say [əˈbuːt]. It's just ignorant Americans who think that. However, he most likely doesn't pronounce it [əˈbaʊt] either. I will admit that some people in Vancouver and other places might pronounce it that way, but like I said, most people up there "raise" the /aʊ/ diphthong before voiceless consonants (and the /aɪ/ diphthong). But Molson had to pick a guy in the minority to do their commercial. It's kind of like using someone from the Inland North as an example of how all Americans speak (sounds familiar, huh?). 208.104.45.20 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy in that commercial is just an actor. For all we know, he is an American. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but I failed to mention it. The commercial still annoys me though. They should have used a real Canadian. I realize the commercial wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but I still wish they would make it more accurate. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The tuque is a hat! The chesterfield is a coach! Jack^(Lumber) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he still could have been an actor though. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the actor is a Canadian. Why are you so shocked? They could have used any number of Canadian actors to do this - Michael J. Fox, Matthew Perry, Leslie Nielson, Lorne Greene (would be difficult), William Shatner, Martin Short, John Candy (also difficult), Dan Akroyd, Jim Carrey, Conrad Bain, Tommy Chong, James Doohan, Mike Myers, Glenn Ford, Brendan Fraser, Robert Goulet, Phil Hartman, Norm MacDonald, Howie Mandel, Walter Pidgeon, Christopher Plummer, Donald or Kiefer Sutherland, Peter Jennings (difficult), Morley Safer, Monty Hall, Art Linkletter, Rich Little, Alex Trebek (some more difficult than others) ... etc., etc., all of whom would have pronounced it the same.Homely (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, Ugly.208.104.45.20 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh believe me, I understand ugly! I AM ugly!Homely (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Waste Management, Inc.? How come I'm not surprised?... Jack^(Lumber) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys--enoof already! Jack^(Lumber) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why there was a comma there, genius. What do you mean by "Waste Management Inc." Jack? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is "I" a vowel?

I thought that the English word "I" was a vowel. I think it rhymes with the initial vowel in "byte" and "kite". But I cannot find it either in the IPA nor here. I must be doing something wrong. Could some kind person please tell me where it is in this article and in the IPA?

I started looking because the Wikipedia article on Linux gives the IPA as English pronunciation: /ˈlɪnəks/ and I cannot find the first vowel listed in the IPA. It displays on my computer as a small-caps i.

Thanks. Nick Beeson (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See General American#Vowels. The vowel of byte and kite (known as the "long I") is IPA /aɪ/ in most phonological transcriptions, and it's actually a diphthong (second table). Phonetically, we may say that it's composed of [a] + [ɪ], or [ä] + [ɪ] or something like that; before voiceless consonants, it may be [ə] + [ɪ] or [ɐ] + [ɪ] for some speakers (those for whom writer and rider are clearly distinct.) (In General American, at least...)

The IPA symbol /ɪ/ (small capital i) represents the vowel of bit and kit (first table), typically realized as a near-close near-front unrounded vowel; the most usual pronunciation of Linux has this vowel. Jack^(Lumber) 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consonants

Doesn't General American have a dark L only? It seems that people don't really know what they're doing here. P, t and k are always aspirated. Why doesn't the article mention this? It makes a big difference if you velarize L and aspirate p/t/k, because otherwise it's not General American. --nlitement ^[talk] 11:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GA, like RP, has a velarized l in the coda but a "clear" one elsewhere. I suppose we could mention that voiceless stops are aspirated, though the absence of this note is not because people don't know what they're doing. All varieties of American English (as far as I know) aspirate voiceless stops, so it might seem redundant. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it would only really be relevant to mention non-aspiration of voiceless stops in an accent that didn't aspirate them. I think some GA speakers have dark L in all positions, though. Tom Brokaw, for example. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

--- Modern American accents tend to have dark L in any position, while in British accents it's the opposite, light L is preferred, see Luciano Canepari and J.C. Wells for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.113.109 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be the case. Australians, however, seem to side with the Americans. I don't know if I use the "light l" ever in my speech, but I think I can imitate the "light l". It seems to be more of a flap. I could be wrong though.

Thegryseone (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of linguistic research

This page rather horribly misrepresents the results of Labov et al.'s TELSUR Project (which I worked on). The findings weren't that there was a section of the country where there was a lack of regionally marked features, the findings were that there is absolutely no part of the country where there aren't any regionally marked features. Think about it for a moment: A linguistic feature is simply an option to produce some bit of language in a particular way. Therefore, no matter how something is produced, it is marked for something—and if there's a cluster of features in a particular region (like, say, southern Iowa), then you have a bundle of regionally marked features.

Now, whether people perceive those features as regionally marked, that's a different issue—but the difference is important, and the writeup should be changed to reflect that.—DBowie (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this map comes from the TELSUR project, and it contains dots clearly labeled "Absence of any marked features on Map 1". And what the map on this page shows is the area where there is a cluster of such dots. But it probably is true that the majority of people who speak General American aren't included in the TELSUR data, because they wouldn't meet TELSUR's inclusion requirements (belonging to the historically predominant ethnic group of the city where they live, living in the same city where they were born and where their parents grew up, etc.). Of my four grandparents, two parents, two aunts, two sisters, and myself, no two people were born in the same city. Not one of these people grew up in the city where they were born (though one aunt grew up in the same urban conglomeration where she was born), and several of us moved to a different city in the middle of growing up. People like my family were excluded from the TELSUR project, but I suspect that people like my family are the majority (or at least a very large minority) of American English speakers. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading the map. The map isn't saying that the cluster has an absence of any marked features, it's saying that the cluster lacks any of the features marked on that particular map. Big difference. DBowie (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, that's the best we can do. —Angr 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DBowie, this article is not honoring the paper it is citing. It needs revision. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No Mention of Development

There is nothing about the origin and development of this accent at all. Surely the history of the accent is important in order to understand it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.196.182 (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ɚ and ɝ

In some cases it is difficult to know what the writer is talking about when the discussion is in the abstract and example words are not provided. How about an example each for /ɚ/ and /ɝ/? I suspect they're reduced to the same vowel in my dialect, which is why I can't figure out the difference. Thanks. 71.101.144.17 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, they're the same sound, but two symbols are used to facilitate comparison with other dialects of English. "Murder" is /ˈmɝdɚ/, and probably every GenAm speaker pronounces both vowels of that word identically, but because (for example) the same word is /ˈmɜːdə/ in RP (with two slightly different vowels), it's convenient to transcribe the American pronunciation as /ˈmɝdɚ/ rather than something more phonetically precise, like /ˈmɹ̩dɹ̩/. (Nevertheless, there are scholars who do transcribe both vowels the same way; the system we use here isn't the only one used.) —Angr 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The new Merriam-Webster Advanced Learner's Dictionary uses /ɚ/ for both vowels. Incidentally, that IPA scheme is really innovative, and somewhat weird at that. For example, each diphthong comes in two versions, depending on whether the following sound is a vowel or not. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Map

Doesn't the "accentless English" this page describes extend far beyond the very limited map? I would think that, to east, the spread should include Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan (except the Yoopers, of course), and to the west far more of the plains states. No one has any preconceived notions of how Michiganders speak, unlike, say, those silly-sounding southerners.

35.8.239.42 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have preconceived notions about how Michiganders speak. It's called the Northern cities vowel shift. Read about it and learn. Thegryseone (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Except Michiganders do NOT talk like that. Our dialect has æ as in cat, caught does not sound the same as cot OR cut, and we do not pronounce /ɛ/ like [ɐ].

71.227.63.1 (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a bogus map. There is no such thing as a region-free accent. Every person has accent. I can hear the accent of the people who fall in that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.142.227 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely right that it is an accent in the same way that a New York City accent is an accent. It's just that for some reason, the accents from that region are not looked down upon as much as an East Coast accent or a Southern accent. That's just how it is in America for whatever reason. The reason those accents are stigmatized probably has something to do with the associations we have with them. However, I'm not sure where those associations came from. I do think that some upper class, highly educated people on the East Coast, for example, might speak with an accent that sounds more like a Midwestern one. Maybe that's just the way I hear it. It's possible that there still are features in their accent that distinguish them from Midwesterners though. It might take a linguist to hear them. Thegryseone (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's more than just not being stigmatized. The map is based on the data from this map, which shows 10 regional features of vowel pronunciation in American English, and includes small black squares to show people who have none of those regional features. The eastern Nebraska/central Iowa/northwest Illinois region shows a concentration of those black dots, meaning the people there don't have any of the 10 regional pronunciations illustrated - rather, for each one of the features mentioned, the people there have the "regionally unmarked"/"rest of the country" pronunciation. —Angr 07:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, but in a way their speech still is marked if you think about it, by not having those features, but other ones instead. They have to have some features in their speech if they are speaking. Thegryseone (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well of course they have some pronunciation! But the point is that their pronunciation is (for these 10 features at least) the one that is not associated with a specific region, but rather the one "everyone else" uses. For example, their GOAT vowel is neither the pure monophthongal, very back [o:] associated with the stereotypical Minnesota/North Dakota accent, nor the fronted [ɵʊ] of Philadelphia and the South Midland, but the "vanilla" [oʊ] that's heard everywhere else in the country. —Angr 09:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm not trying to argue with you or insult your intelligence. The point I'm trying to make is that the "vanilla" pronunciation is still regional, it's just a much larger region outside of Philly/South Midland and Minnesota/North Dakota. Thus people from Minnesota/North Dakota might be able to hear that the "vanilla" pronunciation is different from theirs and possibly identify it as being from another region, albeit a much larger one. That's all I'm saying. Sometimes I just comment on stuff. A response isn't always required :). Thegryseone (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that the map should extend further west, but maybe not northeast, due to the above-mentioned vowel shift. MXVN (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Accent change through time/generations?

I'm very sure that American actors on the silver screen have distinct differences in their accents during the earlier decades of last century. I think this should be detailed in this article too - American accent shifts through time. Lhw1 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pronunciation has shifted (and always will shift) somewhat (the unfortunate death of the New Yorker "boyd"', for example), but what you may be noticing most is the difference between the cultivated Mid-Atlantic English accent used on-screen in those days and the more vernacular-tolerant accents used since. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange Font Rendering!

The chart for words such as Florida (under "Characteristics") is displaying strange nonstandard characters in the IPA for "orange" and "origin" in the "RP" and the "NY/NJ and the Carolinas" columns. Under RP I see the correct "backwards alpha" for the open back rounded vowel except that it's larger and in a gothic (sans serif) font. Under NY/NJ and the Carolinas I have the same problem for the open back unrounded vowel. My CPU can definitely render these symbols correctly because for all other words in the chart they show up correctly! In orange and origin there is a stress indicator before the vowels in question. When I try to replace one of the nonstandard symbols with the correct character in "Edit," it reverts to the strange version right before my eyes as soon as it touches the stress indicator. Does anyone else have this problem? I can't quite guess if it's my computer or Wikipedia's problem. Either way, it's bizarre. Ejoty (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I know what you're talking about. My old computer used to do that. Sometimes my new notebook does it as well. What I do with my new(er) notebook is click on refresh and that fixes it. That might not work for your problem though. Thegryseone (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It all looks right to me, and the transcriptions are all enclosed in {{IPA}} tags, so whatever's going wrong, I'm pretty sure it's going wrong at your end, and not in the Wikipedia page. +Angr 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. Refresh doesn't change anything. It looks like I have to play around with settings a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.6.146.16 (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Article not reader-friendly

"improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia" This article is supposed to be an "easy-to-use" resource.

It is far too technical for even an intelligent, educated reader that is not a specialist in linguistics.

Franklinjefferson (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The use of the IPA symbols make this article useless to the standard reader. 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.93.249.2 (talk)

Which America?

There have been some recent canges to the Lead to remove so-called US-centrism, such as in this diff. This user changed the phrase "Despite its name, the accent is not restricted to the United States; it is quite common in parts of Canada" to "True to it's name, it is quite common in the United States and parts of Canada". The user's edit summary states "AMERICAN does not imply United States. Stop being USA-centric"

However, the first line of the article states "General American (GA) is a major accent of American English." To clraify further, the Lead of the American English article states "American English (variously abbreviated AmE, AE, AmEng, USEng, en-US, also known as United States English, or U.S. English) is a set of dialects of the English language used mostly in the United States." The general context of the articel also makes it clear that the United States, not the continents of the Americas, is the primary scope of the dialect.

In addition, as discussed above, the linguists who use theis term use the name "General American", not "General US-American" or "General United States accent". The abaove discussion also points out that the term is primairly used by British linguists, for whom "American" almost always refers to the USA.

As a solution, I've removed the phrase "Despite its name," from the original sentence, as that phrase seems to be the one causing the over-reactions. I'm also open to other solutions, if someone has a better option. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In General American, the IPA vowel symbol <ʌ> is improper and misleading

In General American, the vowel in STRUT is central. The phoneme is usually realized as open-mid [ɜ] or near-open [ɐ]. By contrast, the symbol <ʌ> is properly for a back vowel, the unrounded equivalent of /ɔ/. While this back symbol <ʌ> is often used for historical reasons, it does not convey the contempory sound, and its use causes confusion. In the following study, although the symbol <ʌ> is used, it stands for the central vowel /ɜ/, which is in between the front vowel /ɛ/ and the back vowel /ɔ/, but more open. Here is a Bark scale chart for the American English vowels. Notice, the vowel in but /ɜ/ (so-called <ʌ>) is central - being clearly in between bet /ɛ/ and pot /ɔ/. [1] (Compare the British English vowels where the <ʌ> symbol stands for central vowel /ɐ/. [2]) Here is the larger context of the comparative vowel studies at the University of Helsinki.[3] Haldrik (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The vowel charts you've provided back up what Roca & Johnson say, which is that the vowel of strut is a [ʌ] that is a little fronted in "American English" (which I assume is equivalent to GA) and central in RP. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Look again. Compare the other two American open-mid vowels: to the front is /ɛ/ bet and to the back is /ɔ/ pot. Properly, an unrounded open-mid back vowel /ʌ/ would be about the same position as /ɔ/ pot - the only difference would be, one would have unrounded lips, and the other rounded lips. But as you can see, the American strut vowel is clearly no where near the back vowel pot. Rather, it is in between bet and pot - in the CENTER. This exactly why linguists describe the American strut vowel as /ɜ/ - a central vowel. (Precisely, this American strut vowel /ɜ/ is mid-rounded, more open, and slightly more back than absolute center, but still more front than the other the American back vowels. Now compare the American strut vowel to near open vowels. Look at the relative positions of the near-open back vowel in American /ɑ/ farther and in British /ɑ/ fast. Now compare the relative positions of each strut <ʌ> symbol. Compared to /ɑ/, the American strut vowel but is as far toward the front as the British butter is, perhaps slightly farther. There is no dispute, the British use the back vowel symbol <ʌ> wrongly to represent the central vowel /ɐ/. But the Americans use this symbol wrongly too. Relative to their respective vowel systems, the American strut vowel is just as central as the British one is. Now regarding the absolute locations per the Bark scale, the American strut vowel is almost exactly between the British /ɐ/ butter and /ɑ/ fast. So again, even in absolute terms, the American strut vowel, like the British one, is more central than the British /ɑ/ fast. It is a central vowel. Haldrik (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the strut vowel is a cardinal open-mid back vowel. We all agree that speakers of only a few dialects articulate it this way and that the others have it more fronted. You're making the case that it's forward enough in GA that using <ʌ> is incorrect, which is a rather subjective case to make. I haven't personally seen any linguist describe the strut vowel as phonetically [ɜ] in GA and I would be very surprised to see one use this character between slashes as you have done. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the strut vowel is 'more fronted'. In other words, it is central. In fact, it is quite far away from the back. The strut vowel is far away from [ʌ] because of the same reason it is far away from [ɔ]. It is NOT a back vowel. It is a central vowel, and most American dialects - especially General American - realize it as [ɜ], albeit midrounded and more open. The continuing use of the <ʌ> symbol refers to archaic linguistics, when it was a back vowel, but the vowel has long since shifted more front in all common British and American dialects. Haldrik (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between "central" and "more fronted." Who says that it's shifted in all American dialects? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

'All dialects'? You seem to have misread what I said. LOL! I did note 'old fashioned' White Americans who live in Piedmont, didnt shift it. Haldrik (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I missed the word "common." Anyway, as you said in your talk page, you don't have ready access to electronic sources. If you find a citation that you think might be helpful, let me know and I'll see if I can't get it for you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Glottal Stop

Why is glottal stop not included in the consonant table? T is usually stopped when it's before an N or at the end of a syllable. As in words like "button" or "night". --65.34.193.54 (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be. Wolfdog (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The glottalization in GA is even talked about on the article page itself. Wolfdog (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The table is of phonemes and the glottal stop is not a phoneme in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What dictionary are using General American?

American heritage dictionary? or Merriam-Webster dictionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.181.97.230 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merriam Webster's Learner's dictionary uses G.A. of Western type (cot-caught & pol-Paul completely merged to /a/): http://www.learnersdictionary.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.90.100 (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

/æ/ before nasal consonants

• Am I wrong in firmly believing that the diaphoneme /æ/ is not actually pronounced as [æ] before a nasal consonant in General American? There seems to be no mention of this pretty unique feature of GA on this article. For example, "pants" in GA is not [pænts], but rather [pɛənts] or [peənts]. Here, you can listen to five pronunciations of the word: http://www.forvo.com/word/pants/#en. Notice how both U.K. speakers say [pænts] and that this does not sound the same as the U.S. and Canadian speakers' pronunciation of the word. Wolfdog (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that about my own speech. I'm not sure about how common the feature is and what variation there is with other dialects (parts of New York lexicalize a similar feature). Diaphoneme even mentions some of the alternations. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The same for me. In conversation, someone speaking entirely standard American but who casually slips in an open-voweled pronunciation of [pænts] would--merely by the difference of that single vowel sound--certainly cause me or other GA native speakers to raise an eyebrow. Also, I realize that in my own personal dialect and I believe widespread GA, /æ/ in the form of [ɛə] is heard before the nasal consonants [n] and [m], but makes an entirely different sound before [ŋ] (thus making an exception to the exception). So for GA speakers, the word bang may either remain pronounced [bæŋ] or else be pronounced something along the lines of [bæɪŋ], [bɛɪŋ], [bɛːŋ]; but not [bɛəŋ]. Wolfdog (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This kind of variation (in the degree of raising of [æ] before, say, n, d or g) is widespread in the U.S., even among people who in most respects are described as speaking "General American". See Phonological history of English short A and its discussion of "Non-phonemic æ-tensing". More on this can be found in chapter 13 of the Atlas of North American English. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanity Check

I am not a linguist, but is sure does seem that the vast majority of modern newscasters speak with a California Accent (as might be expected given where Hollywood is). Perhaps things were different in the Cronkite era but as of now news anchors and reporters sound like they just walked in off off Hollywood Blvd.

Alas, I don't have any citations, so this is WP:OR and thus can't be used in the article. Perhaps some linguist could comment and perhaps provide a link to a source? Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between a California accent and GA? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by GA. If it is defined as the way Walter Cronkite talked, then it has more of a drawl and a slower cadence. If it is defined as the way most newscasters and television actors speak today, no difference that I can detect. Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused here. If there's no difference, what's your point? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the map titled "The area of the United States where the local accent is most similar to General American" contains Lake Michigan and does not contain the Pacific Ocean. If Hollywood is the area of the United States where the local accent is most similar to General American, the map should show Southern California, not the Midwest.

BTW, I asked a coworker who recently arrived from Japan and is learning English, and he also perceives the speech of Southern California to be the same as that of most major newscasts. Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But you just said you don't know the difference between the two. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What a shock. I don't know the difference between two things that are identical (Southern California English and Broadcast English). Your point being? Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have enough training to perceive the difference between California English and the English of the Midwest, how can you be so sure that the media portrays one and not the other? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a direct quote where I said I cannot perceive the difference between California English and Midwestern English. You are saying things that are not true. Please stop doing that. I clearly stated that I cannot perceive the difference between Southern California English and Broadcast English and that I can easily perceive the difference between Southern California / Broadcast English and Midwestern English. Please try to respond to what I actually write instead of setting up a Straw Man. Guy Macon (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you've modified your earlier post to clarify. See WP:REDACT; I've marked the recently included text.

This is the first time you've said you can tell the difference between California English and Midwestern English. Is it something you intuitively sense or are there things, like the cot-caught merger, that you can point to as identifiers? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You have not said that you can tell the difference between Russian and Japanese; If you don't have enough training to perceive the difference between Russian and Japanese, how can you tell whether Southern California English and Broadcast English differ? (See how easy it is to draw conclusions from what someone didn't write instead of what they did write?)

Regarding my request that you "Please provide a direct quote where I said I cannot perceive the difference between California English and Midwestern English" your failure to do so is duly noted. Again I ask that you to please refrain from writing things that are not true. You might also explain exactly what part of "it has more of a drawl and a slower cadence" you are having trouble understanding.

You have yet to even try to dispute my conclusion that the vast majority of modern newscasters speak with a Southern California Accent. Instead you are engaging in cheap debating tricks such as deliberately misunderstanding my words and refusing to answer direct questions. If you have any actual evidence or even a personal opinion that Southern California English and Broadcast English differ or that Midwestern English and Broadcast English are similar, this would be a good time to bring it out. Further pointless grilling on your part will be ignored. Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, dude. Calm down and bring some sources to the table and we'll talk. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Do you agree or disagree that the accent used by vast majority of modern newscasters (which I will call "Broadcast English" for convenience) is more similar to a Southern California accent than it is similar to a Midwestern accent?

That's not what sources seem to say. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Midwestern accent sounds very local, newscasters don't use the nasal Chicago, Cleveland or Detroit accent. Their accent is more similar to the South Californian accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.90.100 (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said they did. See Inland Northern American English and contrast to General American accent we are describing here. Rmhermen (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)