Talk:The Atlas of North American English

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Atlas of North American English article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

English Language

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Linguistics: Phonetics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible additional information?

The Atlas does not use standard IPA notation. So, could this article possibly provide a conversion from the Atlas's notation to standard IPA? If the answer is no, then the answer is no. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Added. Nardog (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, uh, I just deleted this section because I thought it was unencyclopedic. "What phonemic notation is used by this one specific book?" is not a question of major interest for an encyclopedia article describing the book and its significance. AJD (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't disagree more. First, the notation ANAE uses is not just some phonemic notation. It is diaphonemic and doesn't strictly follow the IPA's principles (as evident in the use of ⟨h⟩ and ⟨y⟩) to account for chain shifts easily. Second, it's not used by just "this one specific book". Not only is it seen in the co-authors' other works,[1][2] it's also been adopted by other authors.[3][4][5] Couldn't be more encyclopedic if you ask me. Nardog (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not IPA?

From the article: "The following tables provide a comparison between ANAE's notation and Wikipedia's diaphonemic transcription system," and the corresponding column of the tables is headed WP rather than IPA.

But Wikipedia's diaphonemic transcription system is the same as IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet), as far as I can tell, and IPA is far more widely known than "Wikipedia's diaphonemic transcription system." Why not just refer to IPA?

Omc (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no such thing as the IPA transcription system for English. There are competing IPA-based schemes for transcription of English (especially American English), so there is no neutral system to compare ANAE's with aside from the one that is widely used across Wikipedia. Nardog (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notation section

I don't understand why there's a huge section on this page about the notation ANAE uses. The notation used in any given research work isn't a particularly important fact about the work in the way that, say, its findings and its intellectual impact and influence are. The formant normalization methodology used in ANAE, for example, is of greater relevance for understanding the book's significance, and we don't spend a third of this article explaining that. Using that much space on explicating the notation doesn't help the reader get a clearer understanding of what ANAE is and why it's important. If there's an article on the varieties of notation used for expressing English phonemes, this could go there, since it is interesting and influential as an example of a phonemic notation system. But it's not that important a fact about ANAE. AJD (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this right above. If you're advocating for relegating the section below the findings, I can get behind that (so I just did it), but removing it altogether makes little sense. The notation is not only influential (how is that not an important fact about ANAE?!) but designed specifically to allow for systematic comparison between accents, which helps illustrate the aim of the volume. That's a weird beef you have. Nardog (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I'm getting too worked up about this; I spend a lot of time on WP:FANCRUFT-filled TV episode and character articles, where I'm like, no, Wikipedia does not need a comprehensive list of all of Toph Beifong's ancestors or whatever, and this felt like kind of the same thing to me. I don't think ANAE's phonemic transcriptions are all that influential, honestly—15 years later and they're not really very widely used, unlike ANAE's empirical and theoretical results. And devoting fully a third of the article about ANAE to something (i.e., an explanation of the phonemic notation) that makes up roughly 2% of ANAE's actual content, and doesn't appear to be highlighted as especially important in reliable sources about ANAE (though it is sometimes mentioned), seems like giving it WP:UNDUE weight, compared to the one third of this article that summarizes ANAE's 250 pages of dialectological results. AJD (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then expand the article. WP:UNDUE is part of the NPOV policy. One can't possibly give the book due or undue weight by describing its notation system. Nardog (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]