Talk:American and British English pronunciation differences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In refactoring this out of American and British English differences, I've added a lot of new individual words and rearranged the material. Most of the additions I made were from Wells, especially words he's marked with an asterisk as being different. I cross-referenced against various dictionaries, and generally where there was disagreement I cut the Gordian knot by just removing the word. No doubt I've added many shiny new mistakes. Joestynes 02:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed raspberry, because I'm pretty sure it is in fact a trap/bath word. (I haven't checked this, but it's not easy to check; British dictionaries don't generally show the short vowel pronunciations of BATH words, in spite of how common they are in the UK.) I think we should use phonemic transcriptions in many places, partly because it's what dictionaries (in Britain) generally do, partly because then we don't need to mention irrelevant detail like dark L, and partly because it allows for regional variation a bit better (though not perfectly): for example the short A /æ/ is actually [a] in much of the UK. But I should say that this page looks a lot better than the pronunciation section of American and British English differences used to look.--JHJ 17:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The trap-bath split page mentions the phonetic context as preceding [f, s, θ, ns, nt, ntʃ, nd, mpl], whereas raspberry has following [z]. Joestynes 11:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Some people say it with /s/ (well, I do, anyway). But regardless of that, the vowel variation in raspberry is presumably inherited from that in rasp, which is a straightforward BATH word. Maybe there should be some mention of raspberry (and also Glasgow, which also has BATH-type vowel variation before /z/) on the trap-bath split page, but I don't think it's needed here.--JHJ 12:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 FACE and GOAT vowels 2 Schwa / wedge 3 Issue with issyu vs ishu 4 Is it just me... 5 Loanword 'o' 6 The pronunciation of harass

[edit] FACE and GOAT vowels

I don't really think these can be thought of as British/American differences; there's too much variation on both sides of the Atlantic for that. I've left the GOAT one in with a comment on the variation because of the difference in the commonly used symbols, but I've deleted FACE, where /eɪ/ is commonly used for both RP and GA.--JHJ 19:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schwa / wedge

This

In GAm, realisations of [ʌ] and [ə] are more similar than in RP, and are sometimes viewed as stressed and unstressed variants of a single /ə/ phoneme. (This is reflected in the common American use of uh as a pronunciation spelling for schwa.)

was replaced with this

In RP, realisations of [ʌ] and [ə] are more similar to each other than in GAm; RP [ʌ] is closer to [ɐ].

Since the page really only details phonemic differences (ie that might be reflected in broad transcriptions) rather than phonetic differences, I have deleted the corrected version altogether. Joestynes 20:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there may be something worth mentioning here. Some Americans seem to perceive the vowel of cut and schwa as allophones of one phoneme, but in an RP context they're usually treated as separate phonemes /ʌ/ and /ə/. For example, the OED 3rd edition transcription scheme [1] uses different symbols for the vowel of strut and the first vowel of another in its "British" transcriptions, but the same symbol /ə/ in its "American" transcriptions. The OED even has a minimal pair: muzz /mʌz/ and one of the pronunciations of Ms /məz/. --JHJ 21:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That was the basis for the original para (which I wrote). My instinct was to revert the edit; however I cross-checked the replacement para against other Wikipedia articles and it seems to check out. It's possible that GAm "allophones" are phonetically more distinct than RP "distinct phonemes"; that would be a statement about phonetic tradition rather than objective reality, but still worth mentioning. I don't believe the new version's info merits inclusion, even if it is accurate. Joestynes 11:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who did the recent change but I agree with Joestynes because I had never noticed the distinction between the two until I read about it. Since the article is about the actual pronunciation differences (presumably noticeable differences) and not how dictionaries consider the phonemes, the deletion seems appropriate. AEuSoes1 06:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well how about replacing with something like this:

In GAm, realisations of [ʌ] and [ə] are often viewed as stressed and unstressed variants of a single /ə/ phoneme. (This is reflected in the common American use of uh as a pronunciation spelling for schwa.) RP transcriptions traditionally retain two distinct symbols.

which makes no claim that the underlying phones are more similar in GAm. Joestynes 11:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, but I'd suggest dropping the phonetic symbols [ʌ] and [ə], which are a bit confusing here, and using example words instead. After all, the vowels may not be [ʌ] and [ə]; it's just that /ʌ/ and /ə/ are the usual transcriptions of the two RP phonemes.--JHJ 12:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's taking a pronunciation distinction and changing it to, basically, a spelling one. "uh" is simply the closest thing in GAm spelling that comes to indicating a schwa; whereas in RP, they have "er." It also seems to imply that the two sounds are closer in GAm without stating it.AEuSoes1 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

However, there is some evidence (e.g. the OED transcriptions) that there is a tendency to regard the strut vowel and schwa as the same phoneme in GAm but not in RP and other British accents.--JHJ 21:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but that is not a pronunciation difference; it's a transcription one. OED only shows the ideology of a British editor, grammarian or linguist who noticed the difference or considered them different and I'd hardly consider the view of experts trained to notice the difference between schwa and wedge as indicative of regular speakers' ability to do so.

This can probably go in another article about RP and GAm differences but using only the OED reference to come to the conclusion that we're making seems a bit of a stretch.

I knew a fellow who had trouble telling the difference between scwha and wedge until he was told that schwa only appeared in unstressed syllables. Maybe a non-linguist RP-speaking editor could verify the other half of what we're talking about. AEuSoes1 21:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.oed.com/about/oed3-preface/pronunciation.html the OED's American pronunciations are "based on a model devised by Professor William Kretzschmar of the University of Georgia". I'd like to know how standard his analysis is, though, so I'm not suggesting basing anything entirely on the OED pronunciations.--JHJ 21:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, for both RP and GA the stressed vowel is a low mid central vowel, though lower in RP than in GA, that is more accurately transcribed [ɐ]. (In RP it needs to be lower to remain distinct from [ɜ], while in GA these vowels are distinguished by rhoticity, and there is greater leeway in height.)

I (GA speaker) generally hear schwa as being either [ɐ] or [ɪ] (or maybe [ɨ]). I believe the difference is allophonic, being decided by environment, but I understand this difference is phonemic in RP. Perhaps this is part of the reason for the different transcriptions? Either way, if we don't use distinct symbols for obscure vowels, then they will need to be transcribed as two vowels, [ɐ] or [ɪ]. kwami 22:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's what Wells (1982: 132) has to say about it: "GenAm characteristically has a somewhat backer quality of /ʌ/ than present-day RP, [ʌ+] as against [ɐ]; Scottish and Canadian speech are usually like GenAm in this respect, but southern-hemisphere accents like RP. ... Even in GenAm it may well be considered that stressed [ʌ] and unstressed [ə] are co-allophones of one phoneme." --Angr (t·c) 17:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with issyu vs ishu

The article presently states "In some words where [j] has been coalesced in GAm, it may be retained in RP: e.g. issue is RP ['ɪsjuː] or (as GAm) ['ɪʃuː]" ... I must take ['ɪʃ·juː] with this assertion... Anyone who said ['ɪʃuː] when speaking GAm would raise eyebrows and cause people to wonder what kind of bizarre accent they were trying to cover up with such an affectation. I can't think of an alternative example ATM...perhaps someone else can? Kwami? Tomer^talk 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I'm wrong. I say "ishyu", but according to the [American Heritage] dictionary (which, as everyone knows, is the only correct source for pronunciations), the only pronunciation given is "ishu". Tomer^talk 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

TShilo, you must be putting me on. The only real pronunciation reference is Webster's Third. Period. AHD can't hold a candle to W3. Get real, man. --JackLumber 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah :-p, but >:-o ...<back to my point? :-\> Tomer^talk 01:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just speak English instead of jotting down a haphazard hodgepodge of weird punctuation marks? Half-kidding. Anyways, that's what Webster's third has to say about the issue pronunciation issue:

/'i(,)shü, 'ish(,)yü, 'i(,)shůə, 'ish(,)yů, before a vowel often -_sh(y)əw; chiefly in the southern US -_sh(y)ə before a consonant or pause or before a vowel in a following word; chiefly Brit 'i(,)syü or 'i(,)syů or 'isyəw/.

' and , are primary & secondary stress; ü is as in "moon," ů as in "foot," other symbols are self-explanatory. Hope this helps.--JackLumber 13:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So I'm not a freak then...well, at least not bcz of how I pronounce "issue". My point stands then, that we need to find a better example, if, indeed, one exists. Tomer^talk 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Based on a cursory investigation, I'd say that the commonest General American pronunciation is the "coalescing" one. Assuming there is such a thing as General American. I personally would table the ishu until someone comes up with a better solution.--JackLumber 19:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion, my oxford electronic dictionary has ['ɪsjuː] and ['ɪʃuː] as equal transcriptions of issue (no pronunciation is associated with American and British speech as this dictionary tends to do). However, tissue is ['tɪʃuː]. I pronounce tissue as a perfect rhyme of issue but I honestly wouldn't notice if someone epenthisized a [j] right after the /ʃ/. I'm not saying that GA does one or the other, I just don't think that it's all that marked or even noticeable. AEuSoes1 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The somewhat cumbersome transcription of Webster's 3rd actually highlights your point, AE—some nuances are really hard to catch. "Tissue" & "issue" rhyme in my own speech too. Not surprisingly, W3 transcription of "tissue" goes exactly like "issue" (except for allowing for a dialectal "tishee" in the phrase "tissue paper.")--JackLumber 18:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it just me...

Or are a lot of these entries seemingly written for linguists? In order to effectively read this entry, chances are, you are already aware of the content. It's fairly incomprehensible to someone not already well versed in linguistics. I think more examples should be given to make this article useful for laypersons.

I agree completely. Whereas the other articles on differences between British and American English (e.g. the one on spelling differences) are extremely clear, this one is incomprehensible to the non-linguist. I think this article should be a candidate for a complete re-write to make it useful for non-specialists. ~~

[edit] Loanword 'o'

Can't see this mentioned anywhere. There's a marked difference between RP and GAm of loanwords with the letter 'o'. For example the penultimate vowels in risotto and gnocchi are pronounced with ɒ in RP but oʊ in GAm. Also applies to French and Spanish loanwords.

(Curiously, both RP and GAm agree on the use oʊ of for the final vowel.)

Anyway, I'm not a trained linguist so maybe someone else could write this up properly if it's not buried in there already.

That sounds fairly accurate, but I don't know if it's OK with others yet. Your observation on the "different" British vowel is simply to do with the normal pronunciation of "o" before two or more consonants, eg. doting (oʊ) vs. dotting (ɒ). -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Some examples are already in the Miscellaneous pronunciation differences table; there is a remark "(And A in many other foreign names and loanwords)" in the chianti-gulag-pasta row in the table. Something similar for O would I think suffice; it applies to some such words but by no means all. Add any you can think of to the table (check dictionaries first though: dictionary.com disagrees with you about the American pronunciation of risotto ) jnestorius^(talk) 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The pronunciation of harass

I am trying to determine which pronunciation of 'harass' is favoured by whom - American vs British, or do both countries allow both variants? I should appreciate any help you could give me.

Charl Meyer (South Africa)

In American English, stress is usually on the second syllable; in British English traditionally on first. That's pretty much it. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard both ['hærəs] and [hə'ræs] (or [hɑ'ræs]) in native American English speakers. I'd argue that the latter is more common nowadays amongst the younger generation with the former being preferred by older generations, at least in Southern speakers. --Alai 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out AHD's usage note. Second-syllable stress does appear to be commoner, however. My pronunciation is kinda like [hə'ɹe(ː)əs]. JackLumber. 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)