Talk:General American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. April 2004 – September 2006
  2. October 2006 – March 2007


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Outdated terminology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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 IPA: /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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)