Talk:Canadian raising

The transcriptions in the text need to be rewritten in SAMPA

I'd appreciate an audio file that shows 'spider' and 'rider' not rhyming. I'm Canadian, and I can't imagine how they would not rhyme. (IPA vowel symbols strain my ability to memorize and hear in my mind's ear.)

I could potentially upload sound files showing the difference, since I pronounce the two vowels differently. If you still want it, just let me know and I get to it soon.Esdraelon (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be rewritten to be more clear. Spider and rider do rhyme, but only "loosely". I pronounce rider with a distinct "d", and spider somewhere between "spider" and "spiter"; the "d" in spider is somewhere between a "d" and a "t". It's hard to tell whether it the syllables in "spider" are spi/der or spid/er, whereas "rider" is definitely ri/der. If I exagerate the pronounciation to distinctly separate the syllables in spider to spi/der, then it rhymes with ri/der. Conversly, they also rhyme if I "slur" rider so the syllables are indistinct in the manner described for spider--T. Mazzei (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That thing of avoiding open vowels in cold climates is hard to believe. The phenomenon is much easier explained considering the vowel system of Scots.

The use of SAMPA representations in the article has made it virtualy incomprehensible. I can't even find sounds like /^/ on our chart of English sounds. ☮ Eclecticology 20:13, 2003 Oct 20 (UTC)

I've noticed a partial Canadian raising in the southeastern and possibly southern Wisconsin areas, which applies to /AI/ but not to /AU/. Hence, "writer" and "rider" do not share the same diphthong sound, yet at the same time "route" and "crowd" (yes, I know those don't technically form a minimal pair) do. On that note, I wonder whether there are any other areas of the US which have such a partial Canadian rising. 3:30, 21 Aug 2004 (CDT)

I changed this in the Canadian English article, but will let someone else do it here. Writer/rider have distinct vowels across much of the US. Perhaps they haven't split in New York or Boston, but out West they fit the IPA transliteration given for Canadian perfectly. This was something I'd discovered in my own speech, and I can hear it in others' speech, but the Canadian English article was the first time I'd ever seen it described. /au/ does not do this, like you said: loudish and loutish are homonyms; to disambiguate, I'd need to break loutish into two words, loute ish, and enunciate the /t/ as [t]. No such spelling pronunciation is required for writer/rider. kwami 10:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For me (an Ontarian), the vowels of loudish and loutish are different, and exhibit Canadian raising. The "ou" of "lout" is the same as that of "about", which is the canonical example of Canadian raising. --Saforrest 18:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would voice samples help? There's a page linked to that has only the Canadian pronunciation (which doesn't help if you're Canadian!). I can contribute one myself; my accent is anglo-quebecer, though. --Andrew 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How "Canadian" is Canadian raising?

I always questioned the term "Canadian raising" when studying linguistics, because I thought it was an odd generalization for a large country. I grew up in British Columbia and raise on /aI/ but not on /aυ/, which always led me to think that "Canadian" raising as we understood it was an Ontario thing only. I have since appreciated that Prairie-dwellers have their own version of the phenomenon -- I hear it much less with /aυ/ in British Columbia -- but it is not an identical pronunciation to what is found in Ontario, for example. Is there actually anything uniformly 'Canadian' about "Canadian raising," or is it just a regional phenomenon, which happens in varying degrees, with little to do with the US/Canadian border? J21 20:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not isolated to Canada and not all Canadians do it. I think it's called Canadian raising because the largest bloc of speakers who do it are Canadian. I could be wrong though. AEuSoes1 02:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Incomprehensible

Firstly (which ryhmes with Worstley) I found this article incomprehensible. I did not study linguistics and was hoping for some accesible information. I am Canadian and have lived in many Canadian cities and Spider and Rider always ryhme. Canadians don't say A Boat for about and we don't say aboot. I can say the prounciation but can't represent it in written form. I hope this article is on a list for rewriting. Hopefully by someone who can make it understandable for the average reader. Thanks

I'm not sure I've heard any accent that says aboot, even the stereo typical native canadian accent or the guy with the plaid, suspenders and the gun. . .--69.157.65.108 21:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)another Canadian - from ontario and have heard voices coast to coast (but maybe not them all)[reply]

The point the article makes (successfully, in my view) is that we don't say "a boot", but that anglophones without Canadian raising think we do. When a sound doesn't exist in your dialect, you're liable to grab for the closest approximate sound that does. For such people, "a boot" or "a boat" is the closest approximate, though since we have the sound, we don't understand how we could possibly be saying either of these.

Further, a lot of people have mentioned the spider/rider business. I don't know how I would classify my pronunciation of "spider", but it's not quite the same as "rider". It's more clipped, and the 'd' is closer to being voiceless (i.e. a 't'), almost like "spiter" but not quite. According to the West/Central Canadian English article, the sound of the middle consonant in both is an alveolar tap.

Saying "spider" with the ending of "rider", thus emphasizing the 'd', sounds very drawn-out to me, almost New Yorkish. --Saforrest 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is very incomprehensible. All of the examples use that strange set of symbols, and if you don't understand them and the other linguistical jargon, it renders the article basically useless (I don't go to Wikipedia for indepth technical info, I go to it for an overview, like an encyclopedia) Anyways, I agree, as a Canadian I was disagreeing with all the examples, like "about -> a boat." I read the link to voice clips and came up with this: http://www.yorku.ca/twainweb/troberts/sounds/house.au . I guess it's just Americans exaggerating, to me it doens't sound like "a boat", but maybe it does to others. Maybe it's the same deal with the spider/rider buisness, but I can't understand the article enough. If we could come up with some phrases, I could record myself saying them and an American could as well, so we could have a bit of contrast. Anyways, I think this article really needs to be more understandable for a more, uh, casual (i guess) reader. --JakeParker 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel the same about Quantum field theory? The fact of the matter is that some articles are going to require a casual reader to click on the interwiki links to understand. This happens to be one of those articles. AEuSoes1 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't compare this article to quantum field theory. While the QFT article may not be written to be understandable by the average man, it should be written to be comprehensible to someone with knowledge of quantum mechanics. Writing it for joe-anybody or even someone who only knows newtonian physics would be wrong, because it would be redundent (like you said, interwiki articles are there for that purpose.) However, in my opinion, people shouldn't have to understand all the IPA symbols to get anything from this article. Even though this is categorized under phonology, it is also listed under "Canadian English" and "Languages of Canada". Canadians are the ones who seem confused on the talk page. I'm not saying we should remove the IPA content and linguistic jargon, but the article shouldn't depend soley on them. It would be no harm to add better examples and clarify existing ones so that casual readers can get something from the article as well. To summerize, QTF needs only be readable to those with knowledge of quantum mechanics, but people other than linguists may be interested in this small peculiarity of Canadian accents. --JakeParker 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that there's no better way to talk about pronunciation than with the IPA, especially with something that refers to a more technical aspect of speech. I think most people, especially Canadians, are confused because the article sounds like it's talking about something significant when it's really a very subtle phonetic aspect. I explained Canadian raising in person to someone who had it in her speech and she could barely hear it even after she understood the concepts. AEuSoes1 18:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal observations

I have observed during my many years in the praries exactly what Saforrest mentioned about the loud and lout pronunciation in all the western Canadian provinces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilord17 (talk • contribs) 23:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I have noticed that my pronunciations of "fire" and "spire" do not rhyme. I apply "Canadian raising" to "fire" but not to "spire". This doesn't fit any of the cases described in the article. Am I atypical? I lived my first four years in North Dakota, but my parents were from Montana (father) and Chicago (mother). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising of /ay/ before /r/ in some or all words has been documented in some parts of the North and Northeast, but (as far as I know) not very seriously examined as a variable. As for me, I apply raising in both fire and spire but not wire; I'm from Beverly, Massachusetts. AJD (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also do not raise in the word "wire". By the way, my mother's parents were both from Boston (Dorchester). Is the raising we're talking about a feature of the Boston accent? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know—I don't think any research has been done on this. AJD (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation of "about" is NOT an example of raising

There is no raising, no dipthongs, etc. It's just a different pronounciation of "out". Different accent != raising. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're really going to need to articulate yourself more clearly if you want to be taken seriously. Thanks. Thegryseone (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Are you sure that's necessary? After all, despite the paramount eloquence of your reply, I'm having trouble taking you seriously. Perhaps articulation is not the reason you have trouble comprehending the thrust of my commentary. You're really going to need consider that if you want to be taken seriously. Thanks. :)--72.39.35.178 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. You know how to use the dictionary and the thesaurus. I didn't mean you should be more pretentious with your language; I just meant you should learn how to spell "pronunciation" and to realize that "Different accent != raising" is not a sentence. Also you were arguing against research when you said "There is no raising, no dipthongs, etc." It doesn't seem to me like you understood what you were writing. You should study this subject some more, and you'll find that Canadian raising isn't restricted to the word "out" or even "about". Yes, "out" does indeed often (but not always) have a "different pronounciation" in Canada than in much of the U.S., but it isn't just "out". Thegryseone (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to claim the pronunciation of "about" is an example of Canadian raising, cite your sources as per WP:CITE. If you do not have a source--and all signs say you don't--perhaps you should study this subject some more.--72.39.35.178 (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refer you to the 1975 article "Canadian Raising" by Jack Chambers, in which Canadian raising is defined. That article is not online, sadly; but I can point you to any number of sources that are online and define it. AJD (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much AJD. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to consult the bibliography anytime. That's what it's for. Why should I have to cite my sources when they're already cited at the end of the article? Just scroll down and there they are. Thegryseone (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't realize I was free to read the bibliography, thanks for your permission. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, young man. Thegryseone (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's old girl to you, son. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]