Talk:North American English regional phonology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Alaska
Where is Alaska in this? 14/12/05
- If you have any published sources on English in Alaska you'd like to cite, you're welcome to add information about it to this page. --Angr (t·c) 08:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nasalization patterns in American English
Can anyone provide any insights into the nasalization patterns in American English? I think they're pretty distinctive of Am.E. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.64.133.51 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] phonology vs grammar
I came here looking for a discussion of English dialects that say "I wish I had" vs "I wish I would have" but all that's here is a lot of accent stuff. Accents are linguistically interesting (a lot more interesting if they are presented phonologically, though) but there is more to dialect than lexicon, morphology, and phonology. I have studied a LOT more linguistics than the average person (easy, because the average person hasn't studied any) so I know that's what these articles are missing, but I'm not enough of a linguist to answer the questions, so ... i'm sorry. Brassrat 19:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] request for citations
I don't think it is constructive to have the current alert cluttering this article requesting sources. While much of the information here is obviously based on primary-source observations (people who have visited or lived in regions and are familiar enough to write on this topic), I think that if anything, this article needs MORE information, which will also have to come from un-sourced observations from locals and knowledgeable travelers. I am obviously not opposing the use of available citations when possible, but one of the great things about wikipedia is the availability of information that isn't to be found in books or elsewhere.Wbbigtymer 06:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, No original research and Verifiability are policy that hold in every article, including this one. Anything based on primary-source observations that cannot be confirmed with reliable, cited sources has to go. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Look, no offense, but spare me of the dogmatic wikipedia policy crap. I can tell you right now that this article is for the most part reliable, but almost completely without any sort of citation and will remain that way if the quality of the information is to be preserved. Almost any "real" encyclopedia uses primary source information whenever possible, but they are very limited in what they can do when they don't include previously unpublished knowledge to at least use for consideration in their article. I'm sure wikipedia policy supports what you are saying, but frankly that policy has its own limitations and is limiting what quality contributers can do on wikipedia. If you fully believe what you are saying and un-sourced info “has to go” then you've just called for one less article on wikipedia, because this article loses all its meat when you only include cited material.Wbbigtymer 14:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- The difference between "real" encyclopedias and Wikipedia, of course, is that "real" encyclopedia are written by experts who can be trusted to get their facts straight. The only way Wikipedia will ever have a shred of credibility is to insist on the policies I mentioned. I for one would not shed a tear if all the unsourced, unverifiable information in this article was scrapped, even if that meant that only a stub remained. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Look, no offense, but spare me of the dogmatic wikipedia policy crap. I can tell you right now that this article is for the most part reliable, but almost completely without any sort of citation and will remain that way if the quality of the information is to be preserved. Almost any "real" encyclopedia uses primary source information whenever possible, but they are very limited in what they can do when they don't include previously unpublished knowledge to at least use for consideration in their article. I'm sure wikipedia policy supports what you are saying, but frankly that policy has its own limitations and is limiting what quality contributers can do on wikipedia. If you fully believe what you are saying and un-sourced info “has to go” then you've just called for one less article on wikipedia, because this article loses all its meat when you only include cited material.Wbbigtymer 14:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] lack of information
No mention of the Chicago accent? I am outraged? ex: "huner" insted of "hunter" -wasp
[edit] Wisconsin
I have reviewed the Midwest portion in detail, and though I have heard many of the variations they they state in MN and Upper Mich. At least 60% do not apply to Wisconsin, at least in the urban and rural settings I have lived in/visited. Many of the things in this section people from Wisconsin joke about as being "Minnesotan speech" I suggest removing this section as it references no sources, until it can be properly completed.
[edit] Map
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! |
Please anyone can find and post a map of the differents english american dialects, see the situation, i'm spanish and very interested in this theme of the dialects, i have a medium knowledge of USA geography but i'm highly confused about the differents places where each variant is dominant. Imagine anyone with a worst initial position.
Thanks
-Fco
[edit] North Central American English - Minnesota
I think that it is not factual to list the whole of Minnesota as being part of this very unrealistic dialect of American English. I don't think I've met one person in my whole life living in Minnesota that speaks in this way normally. This is why I'm changing it to say "Northern Minnesota" instead of "Minnesota". I think that the metropolitan area and southern Minnesota speaks General American English or Standard Midwestern. Believe me, I am a Minnesotan.
Alcarinquë 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Alcarinquë
-
- Wow, took almost two years for this reply. But yeah, I've traveled outside the state much more than a lot of people from Minnesota. Believe me, people from the Metro area and Southern Minnesota do have that Northern Midwest twang. You just have to travel outside the state to get a good juxtaposition. I grew up in the shadow of Downtown Minneapolis and every time I go out of town, people can usually tell I grew up in Minnesota, even though my accent is considered thin to many Minnesotans.
ColdRedRain (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Missouri
This article doesn't seem to accurately describe the type of speech used in Missouri. If someone changes that, I think they should note the variety of accents and dialects in the state. The article really doesn't say very much about Missouri, so being a Missourian (that's "muh-ZUR-in" to all you out-of-staters) I think it should be addressed.
Militantsalmon 00:10, 30 December 2006 (CDST)
[edit] Upstate New York?
I know that people who are not from New York automatically assume that when you say you're from New York that you're from NYC. Upstate New York English is a whole world different from NYC/NJ English. Why isn't Upstate NY English included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clutch414 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Central/ South Florida
This portion of the article ignores the fact that the great majority of residents who are not northern transplants, and who actually were born and raised in this part of Florida speak something much closer to American Broadcast English.
[edit] rhymes with dawn rather than don
This is a meaningless statement that is repeated several times in the article, as the whole premise of the American English regional differences article is that there are regional differences in pronunciation. One of those differences is that dawn and don themselves have varying regional pronunciations and indeed can have exactly the same pronunciation -- that being the case, nothing can rhyme with one "rather than" the other. It's like saying, rhymes with "here" rather than "hear." The statement is confounding to many native speakers of American English, let alone those who speak different dialects entirely. Langrel 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Philadelphia / Delaware Valley
I have lived in this region my entire life, and I have never heard a native say 'caught' as 'cot'. In fact in my experience, the 'aught' tends to be exaggerated. Guldenat 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the Philadelphia area has a distinction between caught and cot. ...So? AJD 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vermont
This article mentions the Connecticut River as the western border of the New England dialect. Vermont has an accent distinct from Eastern New England; pronouncing the long "i" as "oy", for example. I added a short section describing some specific differences of Vermont from the rest of New England, and cited a reference. Why were they deleted? If this contribution needs improvement, please improve it. Dlaub (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it because the things you listed as Vermont features were variously unmentioned in your reference (long "i" as "oy"), meaningless (pronouncing monophthongs like "ow" as diphthongs: "ow" is already a diphthong), or non-regional features found throughout the United States ("-ing" as "-in", glottalizing the T in words like "button"). The article you cited was non-scholarly, and described the features it did describe so vaguely that it was nearly impossible to tell what it was referring to. I'm sure there are interesting features of Vermont English, but you need to have them better described and better sourced. I'd look at the research of Julie Roberts at the University of Vermont to get a start on this; I would do so myself, but I'm on vacation this week and don't have access to my sources. AJD (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sound files
This article would really be improved by someone uploading files to clarify the differences. 172.206.225.81 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed move
I'd like to move this article to something like Dialects of North American English. "Regional phonology" is clumsy; people looking for this article wouldn't type "regional phonology" into the search box—they'd type "dialects". Thoughts? AJD (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since this article deals only with pronunciation issues, not lexical, morphological, and syntactic issues, Accents of North American English would be more appropriate. —Angr 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's true. I don't know if there's a good reason for it not to deal with non-phonological issues, though; I've just mostly refrained from adding them because the title of the article is "regional phonology". I suppose that would open the article to bloat, since there's lots and lots of minor lexical variables that would clutter up the article. On the other hand, I think mentioning things like positive anymore in the Midland might be valuable to this article, and it'd be silly to exclude them just because the title of the page says "phonology". Maybe "Dialect regions of North American English"? The boundaries of dialect regions are principally identified on phonetic and phonological criteria, but in the places where they correlate with other aspects of language (like positive anymore, multiple modals, needs washed) they'd be fair game too. AJD (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, originally the boundaries of the dialect regions were defined by lexical criteria, and it's only been relatively recently with the work of Labov et al. that phonological criteria have been examined too. And rather to his surprise, he found that many of the lexical isoglosses that had been drawn in the 30s and 40s held good for phonological differences too, in particular the isogloss between the North and the Midland that groups Erie, PA, together with Pittsburgh rather than with the other cities on Lake Erie, Buffalo and Cleveland. —Angr 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your point is largely correct, although the specific example you cite is wrong (the mid–20th century lexical research grouped Erie with the Inland North, and the result that Labov's phonological methodology grouped Erie with Pittsburgh instead was a major exception to the persistence of the boundary lines). But at the same time, most of the lexical isoglosses from the '40s were based on agricultural terms that are now obsolete, and you couldn't draw lines based on those features today. The known present-day lexical isoglosses typically have boundaries that are unrelated to the phonological regions: soda/pop, for instance. AJD (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the correction. Anyway, I don't mind changing the name to Dialects of North American English if the scope is going to be widened to include lexical information (both old from the 1940s and new, covering things like soda/pop, sneakers/tennis shoes, and positive anymore (which I see is still a red link - I've been vaguely intending to start that article one of these days). —Angr 14:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Let's wait a bit to see if there are any other opinions. But for the time being, I'll make Dialects of North American English a redirect to this one. AJD (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the correction. Anyway, I don't mind changing the name to Dialects of North American English if the scope is going to be widened to include lexical information (both old from the 1940s and new, covering things like soda/pop, sneakers/tennis shoes, and positive anymore (which I see is still a red link - I've been vaguely intending to start that article one of these days). —Angr 14:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your point is largely correct, although the specific example you cite is wrong (the mid–20th century lexical research grouped Erie with the Inland North, and the result that Labov's phonological methodology grouped Erie with Pittsburgh instead was a major exception to the persistence of the boundary lines). But at the same time, most of the lexical isoglosses from the '40s were based on agricultural terms that are now obsolete, and you couldn't draw lines based on those features today. The known present-day lexical isoglosses typically have boundaries that are unrelated to the phonological regions: soda/pop, for instance. AJD (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, originally the boundaries of the dialect regions were defined by lexical criteria, and it's only been relatively recently with the work of Labov et al. that phonological criteria have been examined too. And rather to his surprise, he found that many of the lexical isoglosses that had been drawn in the 30s and 40s held good for phonological differences too, in particular the isogloss between the North and the Midland that groups Erie, PA, together with Pittsburgh rather than with the other cities on Lake Erie, Buffalo and Cleveland. —Angr 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's true. I don't know if there's a good reason for it not to deal with non-phonological issues, though; I've just mostly refrained from adding them because the title of the article is "regional phonology". I suppose that would open the article to bloat, since there's lots and lots of minor lexical variables that would clutter up the article. On the other hand, I think mentioning things like positive anymore in the Midland might be valuable to this article, and it'd be silly to exclude them just because the title of the page says "phonology". Maybe "Dialect regions of North American English"? The boundaries of dialect regions are principally identified on phonetic and phonological criteria, but in the places where they correlate with other aspects of language (like positive anymore, multiple modals, needs washed) they'd be fair game too. AJD (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
