Talk:General American English

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)

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)

I have to disagree on the Missouri comment, I live in Kansas on the Missouri border, and if anyone says "Missoura" they're seen as an uneducated hick. 68.90.169.12 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that there is a geographic split on the pronunciation: basically, north of the Missouri River it's Missouri, while to the south it's Missoura. Here in Columbia it's pretty much Missouri, although I am certain the large proportion of non-natives (like me) have an effect here. Wschart (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a lot more nuanced than just "♪♪You say Missouree, I say Missourah, Let's Call the Whole Thing Off". Missouri is a big state and a crossroads, and there are quite a range of geographical and social dialects spoken there. For what it's worth, St. Joseph, where Cronkite was born, is clearly outside the northern strip of Missouri that our map includes in the GA region of the Midwest. Kansas City, where Cronkite lived till he was 10, is an even greater distance outside the GA area. Besides, he only lived in KC till he was 10! Then, still well within his formative years, he moved to Texas (Houston). If Cronkite spoke GA, he must've learned it for his job; but I honestly don't know why he is singled out as an example anyhow. (As of this post, there is still no ref. supporting the claim, btw.) There is something about his way of articulating — at present, I can't quite put my finger on it; it could be a more subtle affectation peculiar to the man, rather than actual accentual features — but there is something about it that says to me, "That is not GA". It's not far off from GA perhaps, but that's true of several accents' phonetic features overall. Imho, the remark about Cronkite really ought to be supported by a good, strong citation or it ought to be removed. IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

@Angr: Your above comments (from a few years ago, I realize) are very interesting. It would help me a lot if you could direct me, specifically, to where you learned that the ANAE non-randomly sought certain less-cosmopolitan members of certain ethnic groups of certain cities. Is that stated somewhere exactly in the ANAE itself or did you read some other text describing the TELSUR approach? Thanks... Sorry I keep asking for stuff! Wolfdog (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Repy to I don't know if it's down in writing anywhere; Labov was talking about ANAE during a conference and explained the methodology used there. This must have been sometime between 2001 and 2003. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Angr: I do now see that it is also mentioned in the ANAE's Introduction/design section. Wolfdog (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 /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)

And if the question was "do diphthongs count as vowels" then yes, of course they do. Both monophthongs and diphthongs are vowels. Peter238 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

--- Modern American accents tend to have dark L in any position, while in British accents it's the opposite, light L is preferred, see Luciano Canepari and J.C. Wells for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.113.109 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be the case. Australians, however, seem to side with the Americans. I don't know if I use the "light l" ever in my speech, but I think I can imitate the "light l". It seems to be more of a flap. I could be wrong though.

Thegryseone (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree with DBowie, this article is not honoring the paper it is citing. It needs revision. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

ɚ and ɝ

In some cases it is difficult to know what the writer is talking about when the discussion is in the abstract and example words are not provided. How about an example each for /ɚ/ and /ɝ/? I suspect they're reduced to the same vowel in my dialect, which is why I can't figure out the difference. Thanks. 71.101.144.17 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, they're the same sound, but two symbols are used to facilitate comparison with other dialects of English. "Murder" is /ˈmɝdɚ/, and probably every GenAm speaker pronounces both vowels of that word identically, but because (for example) the same word is /ˈmɜːdə/ in RP (with two slightly different vowels), it's convenient to transcribe the American pronunciation as /ˈmɝdɚ/ rather than something more phonetically precise, like /ˈmɹ̩dɹ̩/. (Nevertheless, there are scholars who do transcribe both vowels the same way; the system we use here isn't the only one used.) —Angr 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The new Merriam-Webster Advanced Learner's Dictionary uses /ɚ/ for both vowels. Incidentally, that IPA scheme is really innovative, and somewhat weird at that. For example, each diphthong comes in two versions, depending on whether the following sound is a vowel or not. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Map

Doesn't the "accentless English" this page describes extend far beyond the very limited map? I would think that, to east, the spread should include Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan (except the Yoopers, of course), and to the west far more of the plains states. No one has any preconceived notions of how Michiganders speak, unlike, say, those silly-sounding southerners.

35.8.239.42 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have preconceived notions about how Michiganders speak. It's called the Northern cities vowel shift. Read about it and learn. Thegryseone (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Except Michiganders do NOT talk like that. Our dialect has æ as in cat, caught does not sound the same as cot OR cut, and we do not pronounce /ɛ/ like [ɐ].

71.227.63.1 (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a bogus map. There is no such thing as a region-free accent. Every person has accent. I can hear the accent of the people who fall in that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.142.227 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely right that it is an accent in the same way that a New York City accent is an accent. It's just that for some reason, the accents from that region are not looked down upon as much as an East Coast accent or a Southern accent. That's just how it is in America for whatever reason. The reason those accents are stigmatized probably has something to do with the associations we have with them. However, I'm not sure where those associations came from. I do think that some upper class, highly educated people on the East Coast, for example, might speak with an accent that sounds more like a Midwestern one. Maybe that's just the way I hear it. It's possible that there still are features in their accent that distinguish them from Midwesterners though. It might take a linguist to hear them. Thegryseone (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's more than just not being stigmatized. The map is based on the data from this map, which shows 10 regional features of vowel pronunciation in American English, and includes small black squares to show people who have none of those regional features. The eastern Nebraska/central Iowa/northwest Illinois region shows a concentration of those black dots, meaning the people there don't have any of the 10 regional pronunciations illustrated - rather, for each one of the features mentioned, the people there have the "regionally unmarked"/"rest of the country" pronunciation. —Angr 07:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, but in a way their speech still is marked if you think about it, by not having those features, but other ones instead. They have to have some features in their speech if they are speaking. Thegryseone (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well of course they have some pronunciation! But the point is that their pronunciation is (for these 10 features at least) the one that is not associated with a specific region, but rather the one "everyone else" uses. For example, their GOAT vowel is neither the pure monophthongal, very back [o:] associated with the stereotypical Minnesota/North Dakota accent, nor the fronted [ɵʊ] of Philadelphia and the South Midland, but the "vanilla" [oʊ] that's heard everywhere else in the country. —Angr 09:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm not trying to argue with you or insult your intelligence. The point I'm trying to make is that the "vanilla" pronunciation is still regional, it's just a much larger region outside of Philly/South Midland and Minnesota/North Dakota. Thus people from Minnesota/North Dakota might be able to hear that the "vanilla" pronunciation is different from theirs and possibly identify it as being from another region, albeit a much larger one. That's all I'm saying. Sometimes I just comment on stuff. A response isn't always required :). Thegryseone (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that the map should extend further west, but maybe not northeast, due to the above-mentioned vowel shift. MXVN (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, for example because of the cot–caught merger, which is among the defining features of Western American English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Accent change through time/generations?

I'm very sure that American actors on the silver screen have distinct differences in their accents during the earlier decades of last century. I think this should be detailed in this article too - American accent shifts through time. Lhw1 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pronunciation has shifted (and always will shift) somewhat (the unfortunate death of the New Yorker "boyd"', for example), but what you may be noticing most is the difference between the cultivated Mid-Atlantic English accent used on-screen in those days and the more vernacular-tolerant accents used since. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange Font Rendering!

The chart for words such as Florida (under "Characteristics") is displaying strange nonstandard characters in the IPA for "orange" and "origin" in the "RP" and the "NY/NJ and the Carolinas" columns. Under RP I see the correct "backwards alpha" for the open back rounded vowel except that it's larger and in a gothic (sans serif) font. Under NY/NJ and the Carolinas I have the same problem for the open back unrounded vowel. My CPU can definitely render these symbols correctly because for all other words in the chart they show up correctly! In orange and origin there is a stress indicator before the vowels in question. When I try to replace one of the nonstandard symbols with the correct character in "Edit," it reverts to the strange version right before my eyes as soon as it touches the stress indicator. Does anyone else have this problem? I can't quite guess if it's my computer or Wikipedia's problem. Either way, it's bizarre. Ejoty (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I know what you're talking about. My old computer used to do that. Sometimes my new notebook does it as well. What I do with my new(er) notebook is click on refresh and that fixes it. That might not work for your problem though. Thegryseone (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It all looks right to me, and the transcriptions are all enclosed in {{IPA}} tags, so whatever's going wrong, I'm pretty sure it's going wrong at your end, and not in the Wikipedia page. +Angr 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. Refresh doesn't change anything. It looks like I have to play around with settings a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.6.146.16 (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Article not reader-friendly

"improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia" This article is supposed to be an "easy-to-use" resource.

It is far too technical for even an intelligent, educated reader that is not a specialist in linguistics.

Franklinjefferson (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The use of the IPA symbols make this article useless to the standard reader. 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.93.249.2 (talk)

Then the standard reader has no choice but to familiarise themselves with the IPA symbols (at least those used here). IPA's not exactly rocket surgery; it's just a fancy alphabet. Without IPA, however, it's impossible to describe sounds both precisely and concisely. (No, Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key doesn't cut it, because it's not nearly precise enough, especially for vowels.) The article would be extremely cumbersome and even less readable without IPA. On the other hand, Wikipedia provides all that is necessary (including sound files) to understand IPA. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Which America?

There have been some recent canges to the Lead to remove so-called US-centrism, such as in this diff. This user changed the phrase "Despite its name, the accent is not restricted to the United States; it is quite common in parts of Canada" to "True to it's name, it is quite common in the United States and parts of Canada". The user's edit summary states "AMERICAN does not imply United States. Stop being USA-centric"

However, the first line of the article states "General American (GA) is a major accent of American English." To clraify further, the Lead of the American English article states "American English (variously abbreviated AmE, AE, AmEng, USEng, en-US, also known as United States English, or U.S. English) is a set of dialects of the English language used mostly in the United States." The general context of the articel also makes it clear that the United States, not the continents of the Americas, is the primary scope of the dialect.

In addition, as discussed above, the linguists who use theis term use the name "General American", not "General US-American" or "General United States accent". The abaove discussion also points out that the term is primairly used by British linguists, for whom "American" almost always refers to the USA.

As a solution, I've removed the phrase "Despite its name," from the original sentence, as that phrase seems to be the one causing the over-reactions. I'm also open to other solutions, if someone has a better option. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where in Canada is this accent common? The article does not even mention Canada at all, except to note differences between Canadian English and GA, so I have serious doubts this accent is common anywhere in Canada, or in fact anywhere outside the US (as the native accent of native speakers of English). Therefore, the sentence "The accent is not restricted to the United States" is, even if technically not incorrect in a sense (there are always exceptions, but this kind of remark usually does not refer to expats, but to the native accents of regions), at least seriously misleading. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I took that phrase as a truncated way of indicating that it is one of the standard accents of English and many people outside America try to learn it when studying English. RVJ (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, as for Canada, it is true that many Canadians speak a more "American-sounding" accent, but I'm unsure whether it's appropriate state this in such a way in this article. Other American accents are also present or have had influence (just as some American accents have been influenced by Canadian accents). Perhaps it'd be more appropriate to leave a more generalized statement, and let the American English page primarily handle the notion?

As far as the statements about teaching, the "neutral" accent is certainly the most widespread accent when teaching American English. This article is is dire need of additional citations, and something concerning this second point would be very welcome, but for now I'd suggest changing the beginning of the article to read: "General American (GA), also known as Standard American English (SAE), is a major accent of American English, and a widely taught form of English in non-Anglophone nations." Then continue on with "Within American English..." FritoDan (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

While Canadian English is in many respects similar to the dialects of the US taken as a whole (see North American English), my point was that this specific accent (General American) is apparently not native to any region in Canada and thus the statement that General American is also spoken in Canada is essentially wrong (nevermind US expats in Canada). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement about Canada continues to exist in the opening of this article. Should this be deleted at this point? Wolfdog (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I frankly do not care. It is probably, sadly, true these days with young people speaking stupid artificial dialects based on the worst dialectal options out there to sound like the coolest cat around (or so they think), but I frankly don't give a blast if the phrase is removed from this article. Nobody in their right mind cares about General American and its shenanigans, so go right ahead Wolfdog. Be bold. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In General American, the IPA vowel symbol <ʌ> is improper and misleading

In General American, the vowel in STRUT is central. The phoneme is usually realized as open-mid [ɜ] or near-open [ɐ]. By contrast, the symbol <ʌ> is properly for a back vowel, the unrounded equivalent of /ɔ/. While this back symbol <ʌ> is often used for historical reasons, it does not convey the contempory sound, and its use causes confusion. In the following study, although the symbol <ʌ> is used, it stands for the central vowel /ɜ/, which is in between the front vowel /ɛ/ and the back vowel /ɔ/, but more open. Here is a Bark scale chart for the American English vowels. Notice, the vowel in but /ɜ/ (so-called <ʌ>) is central - being clearly in between bet /ɛ/ and pot /ɔ/. [1] (Compare the British English vowels where the <ʌ> symbol stands for central vowel /ɐ/. [2]) Here is the larger context of the comparative vowel studies at the University of Helsinki.[3] Haldrik (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The vowel charts you've provided back up what Roca & Johnson say, which is that the vowel of strut is a [ʌ] that is a little fronted in "American English" (which I assume is equivalent to GA) and central in RP. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Look again. Compare the other two American open-mid vowels: to the front is /ɛ/ bet and to the back is /ɔ/ pot. Properly, an unrounded open-mid back vowel /ʌ/ would be about the same position as /ɔ/ pot - the only difference would be, one would have unrounded lips, and the other rounded lips. But as you can see, the American strut vowel is clearly no where near the back vowel pot. Rather, it is in between bet and pot - in the CENTER. This exactly why linguists describe the American strut vowel as /ɜ/ - a central vowel. (Precisely, this American strut vowel /ɜ/ is mid-rounded, more open, and slightly more back than absolute center, but still more front than the other the American back vowels. Now compare the American strut vowel to near open vowels. Look at the relative positions of the near-open back vowel in American /ɑ/ farther and in British /ɑ/ fast. Now compare the relative positions of each strut <ʌ> symbol. Compared to /ɑ/, the American strut vowel but is as far toward the front as the British butter is, perhaps slightly farther. There is no dispute, the British use the back vowel symbol <ʌ> wrongly to represent the central vowel /ɐ/. But the Americans use this symbol wrongly too. Relative to their respective vowel systems, the American strut vowel is just as central as the British one is. Now regarding the absolute locations per the Bark scale, the American strut vowel is almost exactly between the British /ɐ/ butter and /ɑ/ fast. So again, even in absolute terms, the American strut vowel, like the British one, is more central than the British /ɑ/ fast. It is a central vowel. Haldrik (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the strut vowel is a cardinal open-mid back vowel. We all agree that speakers of only a few dialects articulate it this way and that the others have it more fronted. You're making the case that it's forward enough in GA that using <ʌ> is incorrect, which is a rather subjective case to make. I haven't personally seen any linguist describe the strut vowel as phonetically [ɜ] in GA and I would be very surprised to see one use this character between slashes as you have done. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the strut vowel is 'more fronted'. In other words, it is central. In fact, it is quite far away from the back. The strut vowel is far away from [ʌ] because of the same reason it is far away from [ɔ]. It is NOT a back vowel. It is a central vowel, and most American dialects - especially General American - realize it as [ɜ], albeit midrounded and more open. The continuing use of the <ʌ> symbol refers to archaic linguistics, when it was a back vowel, but the vowel has long since shifted more front in all common British and American dialects. Haldrik (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between "central" and "more fronted." Who says that it's shifted in all American dialects? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

'All dialects'? You seem to have misread what I said. LOL! I did note 'old fashioned' White Americans who live in Piedmont, didnt shift it. Haldrik (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I missed the word "common." Anyway, as you said in your talk page, you don't have ready access to electronic sources. If you find a citation that you think might be helpful, let me know and I'll see if I can't get it for you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Glottal Stop

Why is glottal stop not included in the consonant table? T is usually stopped when it's before an N or at the end of a syllable. As in words like "button" or "night". --65.34.193.54 (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be. Wolfdog (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The glottalization in GA is even talked about on the article page itself. Wolfdog (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The table is of phonemes and the glottal stop is not a phoneme in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What dictionary are using General American?

American heritage dictionary? or Merriam-Webster dictionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.181.97.230 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merriam Webster's Learner's dictionary uses G.A. of Western type (cot-caught & pol-Paul completely merged to /a/): http://www.learnersdictionary.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.90.100 (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

/æ/ before nasal consonants

• Am I wrong in firmly believing that the diaphoneme /æ/ is not actually pronounced as [æ] before a nasal consonant in General American? There seems to be no mention of this pretty unique feature of GA on this article. For example, "pants" in GA is not [pænts], but rather [pɛənts] or [peənts]. Here, you can listen to five pronunciations of the word: http://www.forvo.com/word/pants/#en. Notice how both U.K. speakers say [pænts] and that this does not sound the same as the U.S. and Canadian speakers' pronunciation of the word. Wolfdog (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that about my own speech. I'm not sure about how common the feature is and what variation there is with other dialects (parts of New York lexicalize a similar feature). Diaphoneme even mentions some of the alternations. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The same for me. In conversation, someone speaking entirely standard American but who casually slips in an open-voweled pronunciation of [pænts] would--merely by the difference of that single vowel sound--certainly cause me or other GA native speakers to raise an eyebrow. Also, I realize that in my own personal dialect and I believe widespread GA, /æ/ in the form of [ɛə] is heard before the nasal consonants [n] and [m], but makes an entirely different sound before [ŋ] (thus making an exception to the exception). So for GA speakers, the word bang may either remain pronounced [bæŋ] or else be pronounced something along the lines of [bæɪŋ], [bɛɪŋ], [bɛːŋ]; but not [bɛəŋ]. Wolfdog (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This kind of variation (in the degree of raising of [æ] before, say, n, d or g) is widespread in the U.S., even among people who in most respects are described as speaking "General American". See Phonological history of English short A and its discussion of "Non-phonemic æ-tensing". More on this can be found in chapter 13 of the Atlas of North American English. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanity Check

I am not a linguist, but is sure does seem that the vast majority of modern newscasters speak with a California Accent (as might be expected given where Hollywood is). Perhaps things were different in the Cronkite era but as of now news anchors and reporters sound like they just walked in off off Hollywood Blvd.

Alas, I don't have any citations, so this is WP:OR and thus can't be used in the article. Perhaps some linguist could comment and perhaps provide a link to a source? Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between a California accent and GA? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by GA. If it is defined as the way Walter Cronkite talked, then it has more of a drawl and a slower cadence. If it is defined as the way most newscasters and television actors speak today, no difference that I can detect. Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused here. If there's no difference, what's your point? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the map titled "The area of the United States where the local accent is most similar to General American" contains Lake Michigan and does not contain the Pacific Ocean. If Hollywood is the area of the United States where the local accent is most similar to General American, the map should show Southern California, not the Midwest.

BTW, I asked a coworker who recently arrived from Japan and is learning English, and he also perceives the speech of Southern California to be the same as that of most major newscasts. Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But you just said you don't know the difference between the two. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What a shock. I don't know the difference between two things that are identical (Southern California English and Broadcast English). Your point being? Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have enough training to perceive the difference between California English and the English of the Midwest, how can you be so sure that the media portrays one and not the other? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a direct quote where I said I cannot perceive the difference between California English and Midwestern English. You are saying things that are not true. Please stop doing that. I clearly stated that I cannot perceive the difference between Southern California English and Broadcast English and that I can easily perceive the difference between Southern California / Broadcast English and Midwestern English. Please try to respond to what I actually write instead of setting up a Straw Man. Guy Macon (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you've modified your earlier post to clarify. See WP:REDACT; I've marked the recently included text.

This is the first time you've said you can tell the difference between California English and Midwestern English. Is it something you intuitively sense or are there things, like the cot-caught merger, that you can point to as identifiers? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You have not said that you can tell the difference between Russian and Japanese; If you don't have enough training to perceive the difference between Russian and Japanese, how can you tell whether Southern California English and Broadcast English differ? (See how easy it is to draw conclusions from what someone didn't write instead of what they did write?)

Regarding my request that you "Please provide a direct quote where I said I cannot perceive the difference between California English and Midwestern English" your failure to do so is duly noted. Again I ask that you to please refrain from writing things that are not true. You might also explain exactly what part of "it has more of a drawl and a slower cadence" you are having trouble understanding.

You have yet to even try to dispute my conclusion that the vast majority of modern newscasters speak with a Southern California Accent. Instead you are engaging in cheap debating tricks such as deliberately misunderstanding my words and refusing to answer direct questions. If you have any actual evidence or even a personal opinion that Southern California English and Broadcast English differ or that Midwestern English and Broadcast English are similar, this would be a good time to bring it out. Further pointless grilling on your part will be ignored. Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, dude. Calm down and bring some sources to the table and we'll talk. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree that the accent used by vast majority of modern newscasters (which I will call "Broadcast English" for convenience) is more similar to a Southern California accent than it is similar to a Midwestern accent?

That's not what sources seem to say. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm from Columbia, Missouri and lived 12 years in Los Angeles. There is not much difference between the accents from the Midwest and Southern California. When I first moved to LA (from Missouri) I could not pick out any difference, but some astute LA denziens could hear what they described as "slight" differences in my speech. Later, moving back to Missouri, I figured out that there is some southern pronunciation to some of the vowels here, though since Columbia is ~300 miles south of the area indicated on the map in the article, this kind of makes sense to me now. So, it's by no means scientific, but having lived both places I believe them to be quite similar.71.86.41.122 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC) cmawhinney

Midwestern accent sounds very local, newscasters don't use the nasal Chicago, Cleveland or Detroit accent. Their accent is more similar to the South Californian accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.90.100 (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said they did. See Inland Northern American English and contrast to General American accent we are describing here. Rmhermen (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused now. The map drawn by Angr indicates an area including most of Iowa (excepting the north) and adjacent areas. This area is home to North Midland dialects. This is in direct contradiction to Inland Northern American English, where it is claimed that the accent is originally based on that dialect group. But then, Midland American English claims that North Midland accents approximate General American most closely, consistent with Angr's map. The phrasing seems to indicate that GA was originally based on Inland North but North Midland is now a better fit. (Apparently because of the Northern Cities Shift.) This needs to be made more explicit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of speakers

I added to the article that "Phonetician John C. Wells estimated that, in 1982, two-thirds of the American population spoke with a General American accent." The Wells source is very highly regarded, yet fairly out of date in terms of these kind of statistics. I wanted to give some estimate of how many American English speakers (or what percentage of American English speakers) actually speak with this so-oft-labelled "mainstream" accent, but can we find any more recent estimates? I feel strongly that the number or percentage would have changed since 1982 -- over thirty years ago (to something even higher, I would think, due to easier transportation, globalization, the expanding mass media culture and growing communication methods, etc., but I could be totally wrong!). Does anyone know of any more recent data on this? Wolfdog (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

cot-caught merger vowel

What this article says both in the vowel chart and the text about this vowel (merged to [ɑ]) contradicts what is said in cot-caught merger:

The symbols traditionally used to transcribe the vowels in the words cot and caught as spoken in American English are /ɑ/ and /ɔ/, respectively, although their precise phonetic values may vary, as does the phonetic value of the merged vowel in the regions where the merger occurs, which is largely /ɒ/.

--Espoo (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

• It should be "(...) which is largely [ɒ]", otherwise the sentence makes no sense.
• It is unsourced and frankly, quite dubious. My friend from LA and his wife normally use an unrounded [ɑ], that's also the quality I (think I) am normally hearing from Californian speakers. Ladefoged (1999) in his "American English" (in Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, ISBN 0-521-63751-1) mentions nothing about /ɑ/ being a phonetically incorrect symbol, and he goes quite deeply into explaining phonetic qualities of the vowels. I've removed that part. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 22:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversially?

On IRC someone asked me to remove the word "controversially", since "it's used in the wrong of what the quote meant" - however I have almost no knowledge of this subject, so can someone please look into that? Southparkfan 10:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely not going against what the quote said. Furthermore, General American is not an uncontroversial topic by any means. The dialect is taken by many different people to mean many different things.

In addition, we are trying to remove systematic bias from Wikipedia. Tharthan (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This is related to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay case. Nick (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This issue has also been raised through an VRTS ticket # 2015051710007353. This may borderline venue shopping and appears to be the subject of sock puppetry. Giving the benefit of the doubt to this editor, could someone fill us in on a general background of what the issue is with having "controversially" in the article lede? In looking at it outright, it appears contested whether its the de facto standard accent, so it seems like a clearcut case to me. Am I missing something? Mkdw^talk 05:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Southparkfan: It's generally not a good idea to remove content that has a reliable source attached to it unless there is a good reason to do so. Especially if the only reason for doing so is a "request" from another editor. It appears this editor who requested it be removed has no other rationale for its removal other than they don't "like it". Based upon my conversation with them, the issue is not about whether or not it's a truthful and factually based statement, but rather it weights on their mind and negatively affects their career (so they claim). We should never consider removing the truth or inserting a "lie" to appease someone on purely personal preference grounds. The academic consensus should be portrayed in the article using reliable and verifiable sources. Mkdw^talk 07:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

IMO it is clearly better not to remove controversially (or sometimes), as these allow the sentence to cover all points of view. Peter238 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Tharthan (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears this editor has engaged in a mass campaign of sock puppetry, canvassing, venue shopping including OTRS and IRC, among other things. A full report can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/G-Zay/Archive. Mkdw^talk 05:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: can the word 'controversially' in the aforementioned sentence refer to the GA accent itself? I can't see how that's possible. Peter238 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

...? What do you mean? General American is not universally accepted as the standard accent of the United States. It is indeed, as it says in the article, often treated by many people that way, but it isn't actually the bona fide accent of the United States, in truth. Tharthan (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the following: is it possible that one of the meaning of the aforementioned sentence is that the GA accent itself is controversial? Peter238 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean to ask whether or not the existence of the General American dialect is controversial, it isn't. It is well understood that, when the somewhat more East Coast-based Mid-Atlantic accent fell out of favour for whatever reason, General American replaced it. Both the Mid-Atlantic accent and the General American dialect are of manufactured origin, but I suppose that some people who live out in the Midwest felt that General American more accurately represented their way of speaking (what that has to do with why it should be used, I have no clue, as General American is just as partisan as the Mid-Atlantic accent could be claimed to be.)

If you mean to ask whether there are arguments regarding the definition of "General American", then, yes, I suppose that there are. I don't particularly pay attention to them, as I fully admit that I come from circumstances that would make me dislike General American, but I can assure you that there have indeed been discussions on the subject of "what defines General American" many, many times. I'd reckon you could probably find some fairly recent ones as well if you wished.

If you meant neither of the aforeanswered questions, then I'm not sure what your question entailed. Tharthan (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I just passed it on from the e-mails I've received in the last couple of days. Either way, thank you for the answer. Peter238 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Tharthan (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mkdw: I reverted my edit immediately in two minutes (I agree that I shouldn't have edited the article at all, I won't do that again). Apparently I have been mentioned in a related Sockpuppet case, but since I don't regularly look at the English Wikipedia (this is not my homewiki), I've never mentioned this before the case got archived. I'll see if further action is needed from my side. Sorry. Southparkfan 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, someone who said they didn't have an account just contacted me on IRC and said the word "controversially" could be taken to refer to the accent or its prevalence, not to it being referred to as the standard accent. I disagree. Huon (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

My god, some people never give up :P Peter238 (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

this article is negative towards general american speakers and not neutral in my view

I don't know how amny times in this article it goes on to state that this accent is viewed as prestigious and how other accents are unworthy. It does this multiple times and I think when people read this they get a negative view towards those. that speak in this style. It's mentioned numerous times in this article and I think it's bad Zimmyzalman (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above this one. Peter238 (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There waas a girl that posted a video of her and people were being overly negative towards her. Calling her a pertentious sounding colelga kid and were making fun of her. There are many cases in this article that in my view have negativitiy towards GA speakers. I also think it's bad that you along with wolddog only edit this page looking that the history oof editing thisa rticle. Just my view on this. I think the article itself over the past years has become fatr mroe negative with you two contributing to it. Zimmyzalman (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I understand you, you seem to be mistaking me for someone I'm not. Peter238 (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a video of people making fun of her because she's speaks in GA. Downvotes and name calling. And calling GA a crappy Prestigue" accent. I think this wikiepdia article, compared to a yaer ago is more negative towads GA. Numerous times it's mentioned that this is a "prestige" accent and that southerns and others have to supress their accents, despite the fact that TV today probably is as diverse as ever. SOme of those articles are outdated and 10+ years old. Zimmyzalman (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for videos posted on other websites, so in this discussion, it's not a valid argument.

You're probably talking about the section General American in the media. What's not neutral about it? It neutrally reports facts. Please do not vandalize articles simply because you don't like their content. If you're the guy that I talked to last year - you're probably still reading into things that are not there, and Wikipedia is not responsible for that.

If a certain article is outdated (is this one outdated?), you can either point that out on the corresponding talk page or fix the article yourself. Peter238 (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What promoted me is a video by a girl that was doing this accent. People were being negative and downvoting her. it's the first video that comes up if you search "general american accent" in google. She got many downvotes and negative comments. I think going around numerous times and saying so and so accent is better does cause peopel to be bitter. There's no doubt peopel read this wikiepdia if they search GA. And I thinkt he negative reactyion is because of this. I also think the whole GA thing isn't as dominatinga s it once was (compared to say back int he 90s). Many news anchors (espiecally on fox news, popular channel dont speak GA. Jon Stewart is probably the most popular anchor and doesnt speak GA) Many tv shows have regional accents. I think article that are 10+ years old are outdated. Zimmyzalman (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the sentence "The notion that Midwesterners generally speak a -->"more correct and more pleasant"<--- should be taken out, as the article is comparing Michiganders to other fellow midwesterners. I think the acentless part should stay Zimmyzalman (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[26]"

This video? Two negative comments is not "many", and you can't know whether the downvotes (8 is probably also not "many") were purely because of the accent. You really are reading into things that are not there.

I don't understand what you mean by saying "I think articles that are 10 years old are outdated".

I also suggest staying on the original topic of this conversation. We're not talking about the popularity of GA. Peter238 (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

2 comments of out 5 (wit the negatives having 5 upvotes). and Just as many downvotes as up votes. Yes, I think this article goes out of it's way to pit certaina ccents against other NA accents. None of the other NA accent pages do this. And yes, I do feel this could cause peopel to be bitter towards GA. And yes, I think it's bad for just two people too edit the amjority of the content on this page and create the tone and atmosphere for it. Also, I do think theres been more accent diversitry on TV in the past 10 years. I can name a long list of popular tv shows with reginal accents. Zimmyzalman (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The more I talk to you, the more I have an impression of talking to a wall. You're repeating the same things over and over again. Please re-read my messages, as well as the discussion above this one. Have a nice day. Peter238 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that I don't like how this article pits GA against other accents. None of the other NA accent pages do this. This page does it numerous times. I think this causes bitterness todwards GA speakers. That video has gher doing nothing offensive towards anyone. Yet she has 8 upovotes and 8 down. Two negative comments that call her rich and snobby that gets 5 upvotes. I dfislike the whole idea that this page goes on about how GA is prestige and other accents aren't worthy. That may have been a thing in the past, but not int he modern era. And none of the other NA accent pages do anything like that. That is my beef. And yes, considering this wiki page is right before the video, I do think its caused a negative feedback loop. I cant prove it, but I do think when people search for GA and see this page then th e video, it has caused resentment and negativity. Just my opinion. Zimmyzalman (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

article edit

I think the sentence "The notion that Midwesterners generally speak a -->"more correct and more pleasant"<--- should be taken out, as the article is comparing Michiganders to other fellow midwesterners. I think the acentless part should stay, sorry, accidentally stuck that in the middle of this talk for whatever reason. Apologies for making it messy. Zimmyzalman (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It accurately reflects what the source says. Reverted. Peter238 (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GA isn't all the midwest. That specfic point in that article talks about what michangers think To quote: "Michiganders believe they are “blessed” with a high degree of linguistic security; when surveyed, they rate their own speech as more correct and more pleasant than that of even their fellow Mid-westerners.". That's where that part comes from about "more correct and more pleasant" and was entered into the GA page. And the author even states that michiganers don't sound like the accent. There was and image that was on this page for many years that showed where in the US general american was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_American&oldid=648618063#/media/File:Map_General_American.svg Not all midwesterners sound or talk the same. Over the past few omnths that image was edited out of this wiki for whatever reason (after being on this page for many many years,a nd it's a shame it was deleted) and it's been stated since that image was deleted in this very article that General American doesnt have and exactness. The manisntream general american is in that image. I don't know why it was deleted and the article went through much rewording. Uppder midwest even have their own dialect wiki page. Michigan is irreleavent to this page. And it's even mentioned in this general american wiki article that the great lake states have deviated from GA since mid 20th century. It's a contradiction to even what else is stated in this article. Michigan is part of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English. A map of this dialect is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English#/media/File:Inland_North.gif This isn't GA. If you want to add that part, it should be on the inland north page, not GA. Zimmyzalman (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The notion that Midwesterners generally speak a "more correct and more pleasant" or otherwise "accentless variety" of American English is a matter of perception and stereotype rather than truth.[26]" I wanted to edit out the 'correct and more pleasant' part because in the article where that sentence is referenced ( http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/midwest/) it states: "Michiganders believe they are “blessed” with a high degree of linguistic security; when surveyed, they rate their own speech as more correct and more pleasant than that of even their fellow Mid-westerners." The problem I have with that is that Michigan isn't part of general american english. Michigan in inland northern american english. And I feel that shouldn't be on the general american wiki article page. There are different various wikipedia articles on Midwestern accents. Their is not just "one" midwestern accent. I put links to northern inland english in that talk. I feel like what Michiganders opinion of other various accents shouldn't be on the general american wikipedia page (nor do i agree with the replacement of "Michganders" with "Midwesterners" in that sentence for the GA article I;m talking about. ) Michigan is just one state in the Midwest. There are various other Midwestern states, and it was just michigan that felt that way in the orignal quote at the pbs article)". This is the general american english map: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_American&oldid=648618063#/media/File:Map_General_American.svg And this is the Inland Northern English map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English#/media/File:Inland_North.gif both separate dialects/accents. Even on the Inland Northern American English wiki article it states that they are different. Sorry if that was confusing. What I'm trying to get at simplified is that both general american english and Michigan are in the Midwest. But Michigan english is inland north and not general american english. I dont think that text (What Michiganers think) should be on the general american page. 15:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GA and Midwest accents

The following discussion was copied here from User talk:LiliCharlie#GA page.
It concerns this edit and it seems that more opinions are required.
Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Their is no misconception about no accent. The midwest has many. And many different kinds. I never got this accentless style of stuff and see no reason why it should be included, considering the page itself links to the numerous accents on that page. And I really don't even see what this has to do with general american at all. General American isn't the midwest at all. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There exists a widespread notion that a Midwest accent is close to or even identical with GA. (See for instance the Urban Dictionary: "General American is also known as the Midwestern Standard..." or dialect blog: "In the narrowest sense, the General American “heartland” is found in a tiny chunk of the midwest.") — Not everybody in the English speaking world knows as much about the American Midwest and its multitude of accents as you do, so it's helpful for lots of users to keep this sourced statement. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the page though? And it was already stated the exactness is not known on the page. I don't get what this has to do with the midwest at all. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people believe that GA and a Midwestern accent are closely related — see my citations above. This sentence debunks the myth. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And wikipedia is the final authority? Chrishayes00003 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is. Wikipedia is more like a collection of scientific views, conflicting or not. But they should all be reliably sourced. You are welcome to add other scientific views if you can cite such sources. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but it just seemed like to me that you wanted to keep that just to counter what some of those ither websites said. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What I wanted was to keep a reliably sourced statement alive. Wikipedia is work, and many Wikipedians work hard to find adequate sources. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And what I want to do is remove elements that have nothing to do with GA. It's needless spam. It's not the midwest. And adding how other midwesterners sound contributes nothing to the page. It's already stated within the article page that it has no traceable origins. That is all that needs to be said. Not any of this other useless stuffChrishayes00003 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Actually, the article says that GA indeed DOES have traceable origins. I certainly don't think we'd be offended if you added in something like "Midwesterns are often associated with [or associate themselves with] 'accentless' English," but removing the whole sourced statement seems amiss; rather than having "nothing to do with GA," perceptions of Midwestern English very much do have longstanding and common associations with GA. We're trying to show a more complete picture of the understood science. Wolfdog (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions (April 2016)

The recently added

Among certain women groups, there's been an out-lash that General American is being used and preferred over other local american accents. The groups claim that many women have to suppress their local accents and speak General American as a job requirement to get hired, at a much higher rate for women than men.

still, AFAICS, has a wrong source, as neither Labov et al. (2006:97) nor Labov et al. (2006:146) back up these statements. On page 97 there's nothing about GA (badly worded - what I meant was "just a map with some text below"), whereas on page 146 we have just

On the whole, Figure 11.7 shows that these vowel measurements are sufficient to separate the major regional dialects identified in the maps of this chapter, although the West, the Midland and Canada are not as clearly distinguished as other regions. If one were to recognize a type of North American English to be called “General American”, it would be the configuration formed by these three dialects in the center of Figure 11.7.

Are these two even remotely related? I don't think so... I don't have time to read Labov et al. now, so maybe someone else could check if any page from it could be used to source that addition. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything clear about women and GA. Mr KEBAB, I'd recommend just going ahead and removing those two sentences. (And I'm not sure what an "out-lash" means in this context, let alone who is doing the "out-lashing".... Is it women or some other group?) Wolfdog (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yacketyyack75: If your reverting of my "22:42, August 1, 2016‎" edit was based on my "05:59, 1 August 2016" edit, as you claim in a now-deleted comment here, firstly, you should have said so right up front because I asked you for specifics about your reasoning and, secondly... that's kind of odd, since LiliCharlie already reverted the info you didn't like. @Yacketyyack75 and LiliCharlie: The reason I removed the information and its "source" in the 05:59 edit is due to the discussion we had in this "Recent additions (April 2016)" section right above here. Mr KEBAB and I determined that it was an irrelevant citation as well as confusing language. After a few days of no further users disagreeing, I went ahead and just removed that info. Wolfdog (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions (May 2016)

Do the recent edits by Chrishayes00003 reflect what the sources say, or are they an instance of ref falsification? Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I know now that "widely debated to be a sound system used by the majority of Americans" is indeed a reference falsification, so I performed a full revert. His edits will need to be checked by another editor before they're reinstated. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You deleted what I added about "accentless" despite proving evidence here: http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/midwest/ This article states that General American being "accentless" or neutral" is BS. Matthew J. Gordon is assistant professor of English at the University of Missouri - Columbia. He has a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Michigan. His research specializes in sociolinguistics and American dialectology. Uhhh, this is most certainly a source. I'm OK in admitting that I'm wrong when I'm wrong, but that doesn't give you the right to delete everything I put in there. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I also added the link to dialectblog here: http://dialectblog.com/2014/10/28/accent-prejudice/ This talks about prejudices and whatnot and not the need to speak middle class. He's obviously talking a bout General American. Look on his "American Accents" page under general american. Even in the comments section of that prejudice article you get comments like these: “I had an anthropology professor while I was an undergrad in New Hampshire who originally hailed from Missouri. He explained to us that after he gained his Ph.D he was forced to suppress his native Southern accent to be accepted fully in Northern academia.”

That seems to be a rather common thing.Two anecdotes spring to mind:

1. Three female members of my grad school cohort were Southerners, and they both worked quite hard at suppressing their native accent and mastering General American. They both felt that “talking like a hick” would hold them back."Chrishayes00003 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)"

All that I quoted there were comments made in that article I linked too. This is the prejudices dilaectblog was talking about. It should be very obviously that he's speaking about General American. That's why I added it to this page. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I was asked to come here but let's make this actually clear to people. The additions were here and were reverted in mass here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, looking at what seems to be left at issue, I'd have to say that most of the sources here are academic sources and I think saying "most linguistics" believe anything based on a single academic's posting (at a PBS site no less) is weak for the claim that most linguists say anything. Mr KEBAB, was that your concern? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • My concern is that "widely debated to be a sound system used by the majority of Americans" is a blatant OR lie, as far as the cited sources are concerned. Neither of them say that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

-William Labov, Professor of Linguistics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL0--f89Qds watch this video at 0.34. Labov doesn't think that General American even exist. He's a prof of Lingustics, but I don't know if youtube videos can be sourced. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

STOP the edit war. That's the first thing. Second, putting fake references ("Labov American English", not defined elsewhere in the article) is disruptive. Also, can you not change the subject every time you answer? The YT video may be a reliable source, I'm not sure. I think text form is somewhat more preferable. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What I'm not getting is if I cite something, then why is it being rejected? I've tried to as nice with this as possible. And I'll i'm getting is my request shot down. I went to the talk page here and even on a couple others talk pages like your's. Only to get shot down or not replied to. I've tried to not be disruptive. But If I source everything I have, then why is it being deleted? This makes absolutely no sense and to me is inexcusable and unprofessional. Especially considering I'm citing PHD Linguistic professors. I might take this to MIRC admins tomorrow. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense - what we're talking about is not an actual citation, because you referred to an inexistent citation called "Labov American English", which is nowhere to be found in the article. That's not a citation. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's on the youtube link I posted above. William Labov doesn't think General American exist. I showed you exactly where on that video he said this. Erik Singer ( eriksinger.com ) is a dialect coach and doesn't think General American exist either. He discusses this in a video but I'm not sure that you can cite videos. I asked for both your help and Calidum only to never get replied to. Ironically after waiting awhile for replies, I try to go back and edit. You both within two minutes revert my edits. If I'm not wording it correctly or my grammar is bad, then I'll let it be re-edited or reworded better.. What I DON'T understand is that my text is being completely deleted. I;m not someone that uses Wikipedia a lot. I don't edit much on here. My confusion comes from citing various articles (the pbs article, dialectblog and the youtube video of Labov) only to have this deleted. Two of these sources are professors with PhD's in Linguistics. Another runs a website and works in Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. Why is this being deleted? Why are my edits being erased completely? I don't understand this. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for messing up the code. Thanks for fixing that Mr KEBAB. Chrishayes00003 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, when you're asked to refrain from editing the article until the issue is resolved on the talk page, I suggest that you do so. Because if you don't, all you're really doing is making yourself wait longer for replies.

You cannot expect a quick answer every time you write a lengthy message here or perform an edit. Learn to be patient.

I've done a reference check, at least to the extent I could. Here are the results:

First, this revision:

• "popularly attributed but widely debated to be a sound system used by the majority of Americans" - the sources do not say that, but I already said that.

• Adding the "Wells 470" reference to "and thus widely perceived to be lacking any regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics" - alright, the source says that GA does not show marked eastern or southern characteristics and that it is sometimes referred to as 'Network English', being the variety most acceptable on television networks covering the whole United States.

• "In reality, linguistic research demonstrates General American as more of a continuum than a unified form of American speech, though the term is often used for an umbrella dialect or accent." - the source doesn't really say that (even though it is true, there's no uniform GA)

• "Many Linguistics reject that General American, or any accent for that matter, is "neutral" or "acentless." Certain dialect specialist consider the preference of General American over other regional american accents to be prejudice." - it's "linguists", not "linguistics", and you can't say "many linguists" if what you cite is one blog entry... written by a non-linguist (an amateur like you and me). The author of that blog entry is not a "dialect specialist", he is, as I said, an amateur like you and me. The article, again, does not mention the term "General American" or "Network English" so, again, you're misrepresenting the source.

• "In fact, certain groups have out-lashed at the practice of censoring one's own accent in favor of General American. They want to have more diversity of American regional accents in jobs, TV and movies." - another misrepresentation of the source, which does not say that

Now this revision (ignoring sentences that don't differ from the ones discussed above):

• "popularly attributed to, although in some cases debated if a General American accent even exist" - the source here is, as I said, not defined elsewhere in the article. You should never expect editors to read your mind and figure out that what you meant is some video you posted on the talk page.

• "Certain Linguistics reject that General American, or any accent for that matter, is "neutral" or "accentless". - again, it's "linguists", without the "ic" ("linguistics" is a different word). The article does not mention the term "General American" or "Network English", so that's another reference falsification. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Name and controversy

@Supwaycool and BilCat: I agree with BilCat that the section should be called "Name and controversy" (or something like that). The section clearly does not just discuss the name. The entire last paragraph in that section discusses its current use despite its history of controversy. Wolfdog (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It already states the controversy of it in the opening of the second paragraph. I wasn't deleting that part. Supwaycool (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

But if we leave it as the name of the section, our reader can also easily then find which section discusses that controversy. Wolfdog (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I still think just using "name" is enough. It mentions all this in that section. Supwaycool (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but, again, the last paragraph in the "Name" section doesn't talk about the name at all. Would you be opposed to "Name and current usage"? Wolfdog (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur that "Name" is not enough. Headings are supposed to be a short summary of a section's content, so Supwaycool's objection doesn't make much sense to me. "Controversy" may be to strong, but it needs something to clarify that the usage is not universally approved. We could go with "Name and disputed usage" or something like that. - BilCat (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts on some other name, Supwaycool? Wolfdog (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Supwaycool has been blocked, along with a slew of new accounts on the same IP address, so we can proceed without him. - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Bill Labov

Why is it important in the lead to say that Bill Labov believes that a GenAm accent doesn't exist? Even if this can be sourced in some way, fuller and more complex discussions of the meaningfulness and disputed definition of GenAm are discussed in other areas of the article already, including with material on Labov's position already mentioned. The sentence seems to be both oversimplifying the issue as well as irrelevant for the scope of the lead. Wolfdog (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Canadian raising of äɪ to ʌɪ

I have a doubt whether Canadian raising actually would raise the diphthong [äɪ] to [ʌɪ]. The vowel [ʌ] is pronounced too far back in the mouth. Could anybody verify this claim? I don't need a source, only somebody's word. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's audio recording for [ʌ] sounds right to me, as does the audio recording for [ə], and possibly [ɐ]. [ɜ] sounds a little wrong to me. This is just my own perception of the Wikipedia audio recordings. Wolfdog (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, sir. I am little confused. I fail to see the relevancy of the audios. Could you please elaborate? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The vowels I mentioned all sound right to me as the nucleus for Canadian-raised /äɪ/ in the U.S. Wolfdog (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you lost me for a second there. Thank you, sir.LakeKayak (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: When referring to the audio for [ʌ], which audio are you talking about? I'm a little confused. Do you mean the audio on this page for [ʌ~ɐ] or the audio [ʌ] on IPA vowel chart with audio. I can see the former as the nucleus for the raised [äɪ] more than the latter.LakeKayak (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the page you just shared has audio from a Canadian user uploading sounds. There are numerous linguists that put Canadian English in a different umbrella than any american english. Some of his sounds can still be found on this page for general american pronunciations. This page does say that canadian english "arguably" falls under general american. I'm on the disagreement side of this, personally. Accent coach Claudette Roche has said Canadians and Americans have different vowels. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151861837052908&id=124536002907 Obviously, there are going to be contradictions here and there on any wikipedia page (which is why I never though of removing a couple of that users sound files from this page). I don't agree with the part in the GA article text that says two thirds of americans speak with a general american accent. But since it's sourced, it should stay. That said, I do know a Canadian actor that had to modify his speech to sound more american when he tried to enter the US market. And he had to change the way many of the vowels sound. This, along with the accent coach that has a profession in this, along with numerous linguists (Charles Boberg is an enthusiastic supporter of the uniqueness of Canadian English) I've talked to in regards to this, makes me very weary that Canadian English is the same as any american English. Bisnic95 (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bisnic95: I beg your pardon, sir/ma'am. I don't recall sharing any page. Furthermore, I don't think I even know how to share a page.LakeKayak (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bisnic95: As another note, I would prefer to say on topic. Whether or not Canadian English is a branch of American English is of little to no relevancy to my question. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure of Bisnic95's point either. Anyway, LakeKayak, I was referring to the vowels of the vowel chart. Wolfdog (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Replacing /ʌ/ with /ʌ̈/

The latter symbol is used to describe the result of fronting /ʌ/ in the section "Fronting of short u." Therefore, I think possibly this vowel should be the one used to describe the General American short u. I am going to make the edits. However, I do respect that anybody else has the right to revert them.LakeKayak (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. In the end only three cases of [ʌ] were altered to [ʌ̈]. Over and out.LakeKayak (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

How is this different from [ɜ]? If it's somewhat fronted but not completely centralized, then it feels like it should be [ʌ̟] instead. Nardog (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: It was simply the notation already used on the page, and it didn't seem appropriate at the time to change everything. If you strongly feel otherwise, go ahead. I don't object.LakeKayak (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

[ɜ] is typically the representation of the Southern STRUT vowel. I'd be wary of using that. Listen to it:

That certainly doesn't sound like a General American "uh" to me. Wolfdog (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well according to Relative articulation#Centralized vowels a dieresis doesn't necessarily mean completely centralized, so I'm not implementing a change at the moment. Whatever the case, any transcription on Wikipedia must adhere to what the relevant reliable source describes rather than one's empirical and/or anecdotal evidence. Nardog (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Velarized l

To my knowledge, in American English, the initial "l" still remains un-velarized. Regardless of whether or not this is correct, I am confused either way. Can anybody help me out? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• What it says now seems right to me. If it's unvelarized, it often comes across as sounding foreign or ethnically Latino. Wolfdog (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is still a distinction made between the "l" in "little" and the "l" in "all." The latter sound fainter than the former. If the former is still velarized, then how is pronounced?LakeKayak (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I might know my real issue. The page Dental, alveolar and postalveolar lateral approximants says that the "clear l" appears in New York City English in the word "let", with a citation from Wells provided. I live within the New York metropolitan area, and I may have a slight influence from the accent.LakeKayak (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that might be the case with NYCE, which has been highly influenced by foreign languages like Italian, Yiddish, and, more recently, Spanish. Also, in NYCE, a syllable-final /l/ may even be dropped. In my own American accent and that of most others I hear, little is [ˈɫɪɾɫ̩]. Also, in my particular accent, all is [ɒ(ə)ɫ]. Wolfdog (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Do you happen to have an audio recording of a speaker with the velarized initial "l"? I want to see if I can hear the difference.

Yes I can point you in the right direction and, again, you shouldn't be hearing any major difference. Here is a whole list of English speakers saying "little". All the American (and Canadian) speakers show some degree of velarization in both "l" sounds with perhaps the most velarized initial "l" sounds represented by speakers like ijarritos, Matt3799, rbedsole, and SpanishKyle. For user Wasch, you can in fact hear some difference between the two, but the initial "l" is still not strictly "clear-sounding" and the difference is still nowhere near as extreme as Australian speaker faye2 or UK speaker gcarter. Hope that helps. Wolfdog (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go as far to say all of the speakers have some degree of velarization of the initial "l." SeanMauch seems to show little to no velarization. Either way, I think I can hear the difference. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - you can clearly hear velarization of the initial "l" on his recording. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between the initial and final l in SeanMauch's recording. Perhaps the first l is less velarized, or perhaps the last l is vocalized (i.e., the tip of the tongue is not touching the alveolar ridge). I find when I analyze my own speech, (syllable- or word-) final ls often don't have the tongue touching the alveolar ridge. I like to think of myself as understanding the IPA, but I'm not totally sure how the sound would be transcribed. If it's [ɰ] (a velar approximant) after a vowel, then perhaps it's [ɯ], the vocalic equivalent of that sound, in little. But there may be lip-rounding, and it may be opener. — Eru·tuon 00:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The very initial portion of the initial /l/ to me sounds pretty strongly velarized. Perhaps it gets gradually more 'clear' because of the relative frontness of the vowel it precedes. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I also definitely disagree. The SeanMauch recording is certainly one where both l sounds are noticeably velarized, though the second one perhaps more so. Wolfdog (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It can be noted that I am not the best analyzer. However, I do thank you all for your help.LakeKayak (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mythical California accent

This article attempts to perpetuate the myth of the California accent as the source of the "General American" accent. It is a myth Hollywood enjoys contributing to but it is untrue. Californians have historically had Western accents (Howdy y'all). Hollywood and NYC promoted the central Midwestern accent as a standard accent and this rapidly became the standard in broadcast and film (indeed media outlets deliberately hired a lot of people out of the Iowa, Nebraska, etc. specifically for their accents). Over the years regional accents have been fading around the country, moreso in the South and West and less so in the Northeast. California in particular, because of its rapid immigration during the 20th century has seen more of a dulling of the native accent over the years than some other regions. But you still hear the native accent out in the rural areas (and, yes, people in California still use y'all out in the country and in some of the suburbs, though not as much as in the past).

This myth should not continue to be promoted.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@141.131.2.3: Do you happen to have a source to support your claim? If so, it will be possible to alter the article in order to tell the story with the most accuracy. If not, you only would need to find one. Either way, this seems to be an easy fix.LakeKayak (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've read about this before but I'd have to go hunting to find it. I largely speak from having lived in California and know something about the culture. Either way, though, no sources are provided backing up this myth either.

Thanks. --MC

I completely agree with LakeKayak. If your claim is true, I've never heard of it. I'm aware that rural Californians have more Midland and Southern features, but the claim that across the board "Californians have historically" used "howdy y'all" (which, by the way, is most associated with Southern not Western accents) is new to me. The claim as it stands on the page right now is that Californians inherited Midwestern speech patterns, which also definitely needs verifying. But your idea that Hollywood alone promoted Midwestern speech also requires verification; why was this accent then "chosen" as the media standard over others? Wolfdog (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Vowel charts

I'm about to replace the current vowel charts with [4] and [5]. The problems with the current charts I have are:

• /ɪ/ is somewhat too front;
• /ɛ/ is somewhat too close;
• /ɔ/ is definitely too close for a normal /ɔ/ (even the source says so!);
• /ɑ/ is too back and perhaps too close for an average speaker with the cot-caught distinction;
• The ending point of /oʊ/ may be too back;
• The starting points of /aɪ/ and /aʊ/ are definitely too close, they are more like pre-fortis /aɪ, aʊ/ found in speakers with Canadian raising.

The vowel charts I'd like to use are from Wells's Accents of English. They're not perfect either, but they're way better than the current charts. Revert me if there are any objections, but I think my reasoning is pretty good. Mr KEBAB (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Per a recent discussion on my talk page, I feel a need to further explain the post above. What I wrote about /ɪ/ and /oʊ/ is based on my subjective auditory impressions of the typical phonetic values of these vowels in GA. However, what I wrote about /ɛ, ɔ, ɑ, aɪ, aʊ/ is discussed by Wells and some other sources:

/ɛ/:

• Wells (1982:485) says that GA /ɛ/ is somewhat opener than the corresponding RP vowel. In the previous volumes, he says that the RP vowel is typically mid [e̞], so that must mean that the GA vowel is open-mid [ɛ], otherwise he'd be talking about too small a difference to mention it. This is confirmed by his vowel chart.

/ɔ/:

• Wells (1982:476) says that it is lightly rounded open-mid back [ɔ], which is opener and less rounded than the corresponding RP vowel, which in the previous volumes he describes as mid [ɔ̝]. This is confirmed by his vowel chart and by Gimson's Pronunciation of English (8th ed., page 129).

/ɑ/:

• Wells (1982:476, 483) says that for most Americans /ɑ/ is central or perhaps somewhat backer than that. On the vowel chart, he puts it in the open central position.

/aɪ/:

• Wells (1982:487−488) says that /aɪ/ generally has an open front starting point, but it can be central instead. On the vowel chart, he puts it between the front and the central position.

/aʊ/:

• Wells (1982:488) says that the starting point of /aʊ/ is in practically the same phonetic range as the starting point of /aɪ/ and that [æʊ] is becoming increasingly common. The last statement is confirmed by Kretzschmar, Jr. (2004:266, in A Handbook of Varieties of English).

Last but not least, let's not forget that vowel charts don't have just one purpose, which is to tell you how exactly (well, up to a point) vowels of a certain accent are pronounced. The other purpose is just showing you vowel systems of accents, regardless of whether the positioning of the vowels is phonetically accurate or not.

Considering all that and the fact that General American is in fact an American-Canadian accent (rather than just American), I feel that the closeness of the starting points of /aɪ, aʊ/ is one of the most important reasons for which we should opt for the 1982 charts rather than the 1993 (not 2009, that's not the original year they were made) ones. When people unfamiliar with the IPA come here from Canadian raising and see the starting points of /aɪ, aʊ/ in a place where [ɐ] resides on the official IPA chart, it can surely confuse them. After all, we and sources such as Boberg (2004) say that one type of the raised allophones of /aɪ, aʊ/ are [ɐɪ, ɐʊ]. I'm not saying that speakers that don't use Canadian raising in their speech can't realize /aɪ, aʊ/ as [ɐɪ, ɐʊ]. That may or may not be true, but even if it is true, that's definitely not the only possible realization.

Let's also not forget that you can only show so much on vowel charts. You can't account for all the phonetic and regional variation, but rather just illustrate typical, general phonetic values of vowels.

I'm really curious whether Geoffreybmx can read cardinal vowel charts or interpret formant values in Labov's paper with any accuracy. I'm weak with formants, so I don't bring them up. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

/ɔː/ in General American

Hi all. Mr KEBAB and I have been discussing /ɔː/, or the THOUGHT vowel, in General American. Wells indeed represents it with the phoneme /ɔ/, though I don't think I've ever heard any American use that as the actual realization, myself a lifelong American. I've heard [ɑ] (for speakers with the cot-caught merger), [ɒ~ɒə] (my own personal realization and common to many speakers who have the merger in perception but not production, or who have no merger at all, like myself), and a definitely diphthongal [ɔə] (as heard by speakers in the Northeast -- New York City, Philly, Connecticut, Rhode Island, etc. by otherwise GA speakers -- and in older US speakers elsewhere). The sound [ɔ] for THOUGHT, though, comes across to me as strictly British-sounding. Obviously, these are all only my impressions (strong ones), so the important question is: Are there any sources to confirm any of these as GA realizations? Wolfdog (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I don't think Open-mid back rounded vowel.ogg is correct, the vowel on it is too rounded and perhaps too high to be a correct audio for the cardinal [ɔ]. Indeed, it's quite close or perhaps even identical to the RP /ɔː/, which is a strongly rounded mid back vowel, auditorily closer to the cardinal [o] than [ɔ]. Wells says that the GA vowel is lower and less rounded than the corresponding RP vowel.

Wells does discuss the [ɒ] realizations, but I don't think they fall under what is described as General American:

Turning to the question of the realization of /ɑ/ and /ɔ/, we can say that where they contrast in the GenAm area /ɑ/ is usually open (retracted) central unrounded (much as RP /ɑː/), while /ɔ/ is a lightly rounded half-open back [ɔ] (and therefore opener and less rounded than the usual RP /ɔː/). In the north-central area, however, /ɑ/ tends to be fronted to [a̠] or even [a]. The THOUGHT vowel, in turn, is often as open as [ɒ], particularly away from the Atlantic coast. (In eastern New England, though, it is [ɒ], with loss of the LOT-THOUGHT opposition.) But in Philadelphia and Baltimore, as also in New York City, it is no opener than [ɔ], and is well rounded.

The quote (slightly changed/shortened) is from AoE, p. 476. The second (Bostonian) [ɒ] is obviously non-GA, but the first one is more controversial. I thought that Wells describes a part of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (because /ɑ/ as [a] is a part of it), but perhaps I was wrong. So what is it?

I don't deny that /ɔ/ as [ɒ] is a part of GA. Most probably, it is. The problem is that the source may not be the best one to determine that. If anyone can interpret formant values, please check Labov and tell us what he says about this issue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether we should preoccupy ourselves with the monophthong-centering diphthong distinction. When you analyze the GOAT vowel as a tense mid monophthong, /ɔ/ can be conveniently analyzed as a lax mid monophthong, and lax monophthongs in GA have centering allophones in some positions (see Wells), not only in GA but also in some speakers in England (see Gimson 2014). IMO it's just a rather predictable phonetic variant. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wells specifically seems to describe the American (unmerged) THOUGHT vowel in a way that could be represented as [ɔ̞]. Your quoted text shows that Wells indeed does mention the [ɒ] variant; do you feel he's only referring to the north-central U.S. region? I'd disagree, since Wells again brings up and is consenting of [ɒ] or [ɒː] as a GenAm variant explicitly in a blog post of his here; he admits to not using that variant in the Longman Dictionary merely due to [ɔː] being a convenient way to represent both AmE and BrE. Wells in the blog further states of the GenAm vowel that "we could decide to write it ɒ", though he fears "that would create confusion" in respect to traditional RP phonemes. He only seems to fear using that symbol in situations of GenAm/RP comparisons; otherwise, however, it's phonetically accurate. Wolfdog (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Woah, let's not conflate what different sources say on this topic. The fact that they were written by the same author is only somewhat relevant, they're still different sources and we must treat them as such.

The problem I have with [ɒ] as described by the AoE is that I have a strong impression that Wells describes features of the NCVS and the Boston accent, nothing more. Look at how it's worded - [a] is a strongly non-GA realization of /ɑ/.

We'd be walking on shaky grounds if we used Wells's blog to source anything here. Someone could come, remove it and we wouldn't really be able to say a word about it since it'd be in a perfect alignment with the sourcing rules of WP. Using it to back up what AoE is saying is also unacceptable. However, if you or someone else could check Sounds Interesting (2014) or Sounds Fascinating (2016), which are books that are basically collections of posts from Wells's blogs, that'd be great. If you find that post in one of those books, that'll solve our problem.

I checked Labov (2006:108), and his map (which doesn't differentiate between cot-caught and non-cot-caught merged speakers) states that the typical height of /ɔ/ in the US has the F1 values between 937 and 674 and so it's most likely in the [ä ~ ɑ ~ ɒ (~ ɔ)] range (rounding can't be reliably determined from formant values alone). The raised THOUGHT, typical of New York, has the F1 value between 674 and 520 and it's most likely in the [ɔ ~ o] range. This may be what we're looking for. I'm pinging @Aeusoes1: to help us, since I suck with formants.

Notice that Wells says in his blogpost that he transcribed the GA vowel with ⟨ɒː⟩ in the first edition of LPD. @Nardog: has it, maybe he could check whether Wells elaborates on his choice in the book. Then again, a quote from the third edition would be much better, as I know of at least one instance of an incomplete/outdated explanation from the first LPD - see this discussion, search for 'There's something wrong with that quote'.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English also uses ⟨ɒː⟩ for the GA vowel. But that's not good enough, the fact that a certain vowel is transcribed with a certain symbol in phonemic transcription gives us only a very rough idea on its phonetic realization. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that two sources were written by the same author is absolutely relevant. What if an author published a text that said "Some information in an older text of mine is now outdated or discredited"? I'm baffled that you can think the author is not relevant to a source, even though I understand that blogs are frowned upon as sources. I don't actually expect us to quote and cite the blog; I'm just showing you that an obvious and respected expert in the field approves of the vowel. If you just wanted better sources, that would be one thing: we'd be on the same page in our search. Instead, though, we seem to continue arguing about the vowel itself. I did look at the AoE wording by the way. Why would he say "particularly away from the Atlantic coast", when the north-central area is already defined as being away from any coast? I believe he's saying that the unmerged vowel everywhere is "often as open as [ɒ]", while along the (North) Atlantic coast, it is higher, starting somewhere in the vicinity of [ɔ]. I know Sounds Interesting or Sounds Fascinating, but they are basically lists of the pronunciation quirks of certain words, not entire lexical sets, so I can't see their helpfulness for our situation (which is about GenAm allophones of /ɔː/ of course). Thanks for involving Aeusoes1, since I too can't really work in numbers. I appreciate your trying to find other sources to get to the bottom of this. In my opinion, [ɒ] is a completely common GenAm option (even if not the most common, though it well could be -- of course I couldn't possibly prove either concept) and so should be included in the possible realizations, whereas [ʊə] or [ɔo] or the British-sounding [ɔː~oː] variants, for example, would mark someone as a non-GA speaker. (By the way, do you also find to be incorrect? To my ears, it sounds the exact way I personally pronounce the THOUGHT vowel. Also, interestingly, the page Open back rounded vowel presents [ɔ̞] as an alternative representation for [ɒ].) Wolfdog (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm watching this thread but I'm not sure what contributions I can make to the conversation. I don't have personal experience with that vowel (I'm from California) and I don't have additional sources to bring to the table. Wells seems like a trustworthy source to rely on, though it wouldn't hurt to find a broad base of phonetics sources. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: I was hoping you could help me decipher Labovian formants. I have no idea whether my interpretation is correct. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: To answer your request, here's what LPD1 says:

There is considerable variability in GenAm vowels in the open back area. LPD follows tradition in distinguishing the vowel of lot lɑːt from that of thought θɒːt. (Note, though, that other books generally use the symbols ɑ, ɔ, or ah, ɔh respectively.) However, some Americans do not distinguish these two vowel sounds, using the same vowel sound in both sets of words; so a secondary AmE pronunciation with ɑː is given for all words having ɒː. LPD also makes provision of a difference between the vowel of thought θɒːt and that of north nɔːrθ (the symbol ɔː, implying a closer quality, like RP ɔː, being shown for AmE only after r); but many speakers do not make an appreciable difference between these qualities. (p. xiv)

I think "appreciable" is the key. In fact a GA back vowel chart on p. xvi shows /ɒː/ (unmerged THOUGHT) exactly halfway between the cardinal [ɒ] and [ɔ], while /ɔː/ (NORTH) is the cardinal [ɔ].

I don't understand how AoE's description of the THOUGHT vowel being [ɒ] could be interpreted NOT as of the NCVS. He says "in turn", so clearly the two sentences are describing the same accent(s) (the map on Northern Cities Vowel Shift covers Connecticut and upstate New York, so "particularly away from the Atlantic coast" is not strange at all).

As for the blog post, I think he, in response to the question, is talking about how the GA THOUGHT is opener than the RP counterpart (which is closer than the cardinal [ɔ]), not in comparison to the cardinal [ɔ] itself.

So it seems to me both [ɔ] and [ɔ̞] are totally acceptable descriptions of the GA THOUGHT, but definitely not [ɒ]. [ɒ̝] is acceptable as well, but THOUGHT is most often transcribed with ⟨ɔ⟩, so [ɔ̞] is more reasonable. Nardog (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm on board with everything you say until you somehow conclude that what's acceptable includes [ɔ̞], but "definitely not [ɒ]." Huh?? According to your own investigation into this, [ɒ] (or more precisely, [ɒː], it seems) is perfectly acceptable... or, at the very least, very much within the "acceptable" range. Once again, for example, you show how Wells is entirely approving of [ɒː] in the LPD. If you prefer the transcription [ɒ̝], I'd be content with using that as one of the presented realizations on the article page. Can this we reach that agreement, at least? If not, I'll yield the argument, since the consensus seems against me. Wolfdog (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

LPD1 uses ⟨ɒː⟩ only in phonemic transcription, and we're deciding what symbol to use to represent the phonetic realization of the GA unmerged THOUGHT vowel. Nardog (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)'

This is exactly the argument I've been making, but about /ɔː/, which is Wells's typical phonemic transcription for THOUGHT in AoE and later LPDs. He at least once openly admits that "In the first edition of LPD I actually represented the AmE THOUGHT vowel as ɒː, differently from BrE ɔː" but "I decided to use the symbol ɔː for both varieties. Apart from anything else, this makes for simpler entries, since the same transcription of words like thought θɔːt and law lɔː will do for both BrE and AmE." As you would agree, his words here are all about phonemic rather than phonetic transcriptions. At the same time, his words about avoiding [ɒ] as a phoneme in themselves suggest, however, that it is certainly one possible phonetic realization. He never says anything about avoiding [ɒ] because it is imprecise or illogical, just that it is a less convenient phonemic representation. Anyway, I'm fine with dropping the conversation on the grounds that we've found no positive/citable phonetic evidence of [ɒ].Wolfdog (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: You're quite wrong in thinking that what I'm arguing about is the vowel. No, that's not it - it's the sources and the kind of sources we can and should use here. Actually, per WP:SPS we can safely cite Wells's blog. Maybe it's a new policy, I'm not sure, but I could've sworn it said something else. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: I'm not sure what to make of your realization. So do you think we can now present [ɒ] and cite the blog as its source? Wolfdog (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Yes. Not only that, we can also pretty safely use blogs of Geoff Lindsey, Jane Setter, Peter Roach, Alex Rotatori and others as sources. This is good news. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: OK, I've added the vowels and blog source. Please make any other changes you feel are appropriate. Wolfdog (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Thanks, but I'm not sure if we want both [ɒ] and [ɔ̞] in the table. I'd go for the latter because the common phonemic symbol is /ɔ/. Soon I'll write a lengthy (or not that lengthy, we'll see :P) joint reply to you and Nardog. For now, I'm just curious what is the reason for including [ɔə] as a GA pronunciation? Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Yes, of course, I forget that [ɒ̝] and [ɔ̞] are really the same. I think the diacritics are important, so long as the audio on Wikipedia remains potentially misleading. As for [ɔə], I thought that was included in the AoE, but I see it really was a regionalism of just Philly/NYC. I'll make adjustments. Wolfdog (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thanks again for the quote. Sorry for not replying earlier, I'm finishing my research and will soon expand upon my answer (which is incomplete). Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Any vowel symbol with no diacritic, when describing the exact phonetic quality of a vowel, is by default taken to be that of the cardinal ones, correct? So just [ɒ] with no diacritic would be too open. This is what I implied the last I replied, and I just assumed Mr KEBAB would make this point so I didn't bother.

I also would like to reiterate that Wells' post is simply describing the AmE THOUGHT to be opener than the RP THOUGHT, but not necessarily than the cardinal [ɔ]. And as we know, the RP THOUGHT is closer than the cardinal [ɔ], sometimes rather closer to [o], so I just don't understand how the post could be used as a source to support the transcription [ɔ̞], regardless of whether a blog could be used as an RS or not (if anything, LPD1 p. xvi is such a source we could use to say it's [ɔ̞]). Nardog (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Sorry, I tried to do too much in too short a period of time. Apparently I shouldn't try to multitask and give empty promises. This is going to be a rather long post, but that's what I said I'd write. Anyway:

Thanks for changing the source to AoE. Then again - isn't it at odds with what Wells writes in the third volume and our vowel chart? Just saying...

Any vowel symbol with no diacritic, when describing the exact phonetic quality of a vowel, is by default taken to be that of the cardinal ones, correct? Yes, that or a vowel similar in quality to the respective cardinal vowel. We need to remember that the cardinal vowel system is something that is obviously imperfect and to a certain extent purely subjective (unless we're talking about Luciano Canepari who obviously has a godlike hearing, no? ;))

So just [ɒ] with no diacritic would be too open. See, this is controversial. Acoustically, the cardinal [ɒ] itself is a near-open vowel between [ɑ] and [ɔ]. By that logic [ɒ] is a narrow transcription of GA /ɔ/. But that clashes with the cardinal vowel chart which gives the same space for rounded and unrounded vowels, instead of near-front to back and close to near-open for rounded vowels and front to near-back (front to back in the case of the fully open cardinals [a, ɑ]) and close to open for unrounded vowels. That is defendable because the cardinal vowel chart itself (as we know it today) isn't an accurate representation of where exactly vowels are made in the mouth, just an abstraction. But we should remember that the acoustic difference between the cardinals [ɒ] and [ɔ] is considerably smaller than the difference between the cardinals [ɔ] and [o]. This is partially because [ɒ] uses the same or very similar type of rounding as [ɔ], whereas [o] does not.

Also, there are varieties of English in which /ɒ/ is realized as an unrounded sulcalized vowel akin to RP /ɜː/. In that case, there's hardly any justification to write anything but [ɑ] in narrow transcription. After all, what difference is there between a sulcalized [ɑ] and a truly back [ɑ] you can hear in broad Cockney and some accents of Netherlandic Dutch? None. Exactly. The symbol [ɒ] is probably as useless as [ɶ, ɘ, ɜ, ɞ], you can pretty much always write [ɔ] or [ɑ] instead of [ɒ].

I took a look at 22 vowel charts on Commons which contain a (near-)open back rounded vowel or a (near-)open back vowel with variable rounding (some of the following are actually near-back, I obviously omit that for simplicity). Here's a list of them, along with the symbols they're usually transcribed with:

• Chart 1: File:Abercrave English monophthongs chart.svg, symbols: [ɒ, ɒː], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 2: File:Closing diphthongs of Cockney on a vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɒʊ], type:near-open rounded (a diphthong onset)
• Chart 3: File:Dangme vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɔ], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 4: File:Danish monophthongs chart.svg, symbol: [ʌ], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 5: File:General South African English vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɒ], type:near-open rounded
• Chart 6: File:Geordie monophthongs chart.svg, symbol: [ɒ], type: open rounded ([ɒː], the PALM vowel has a variable rounding, the LOT vowel [ɒ] is consistently rounded)
• Chart 7: File:Hungarian vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɑ], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 8: File:Ibibio monophthongs chart.svg, symbol: [ɔ], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 9: File:Igbo vowel chart.svg, symbol: [o̙], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 10: File:Khmer vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɔ], type: near-open rounded (the chart is unsourced)
• Chart 11: File:Maastrichtian Limburgish monophthong chart.svg, symbol: [ɔː], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 12: File:Orsmaal-Gussenhoven Dutch monophthongs chart.svg, symbols: [ɒ, ɒː], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 13: File:Plautdietsch vowel chart (Canadian Old Colony dialect).svg, symbol: [ɔ], type: near-open rounded (nowadays this often merges with /a/ to [ɐ ~ ɑ])
• Chart 14: File:RP English monophthongs chart.svg, symbol: [ɒ], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 15: File:Scouse monophthongs chart.svg, symbol: [ɒ], type: open rounded
• Chart 16: File:Swedish monophthongs chart.svg, symbol: [ɑː], type: near-open weakly rounded
• Chart 17: File:Thai vowel chart (monophthongs).svg, symbol: [ɔ], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 18: File:Ulster Irish vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɔː], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 19: File:Urban East Norwegian vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɔ], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 20: File:Urban East Norwegian diphthong chart.svg, symbol: [ɔy], type:near-open rounded (a diphthong onset)
• Chart 21: File:Valencian vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɔ], type: near-open rounded
• Chart 22: File:Yoruba vowel chart.svg, symbol: [ɔ], type: near-open rounded

Here are the results:

• The symbol [ɔ] was used 11 times;
• The symbol [ɒ] was used 7 times;
  • It was only once used for a non-English dialect/language (the Orsmaal-Gussenhoven one). The rest 6 cases are all English dialects (Abercrave, Cockney, General South African, Geordie, RP, Scouse).
  • Only in two cases (Geordie, Orsmaal-Gussenhoven) was there a need to use [ɒ] instead of [ɔ]. On the other charts (General South African, RP, Scouse) we have [oː] mistranscribed as [ɔː] (or at least an in-between 'true-mid' vowel that is better transcribed [oː] for simplicity), and in other cases (Abercrave, Cockney) we can simply write [ɔ, ɔː, ɔʊ] without any problems.
• The symbol [ɑ] was used 2 times;
• The symbol [ʌ] was used 1 time;
• The symbol [o̙] was used 1 time.
• The vast majority of these vowels (in fact almost all of them) are near-open, not fully open. Some of them are slightly more on the open side and some others are slightly on the close side, but according to the principles of the IPA the symbols ⟨ɔ⟩ and perhaps ⟨ɑ⟩ should be preferred to ⟨ɒ⟩ because they are simpler.
• Vowels that are transcribed with [ɒ] never contrast with an open-mid vowel but always a mid or a close-mid one (in the case of Geordie and the Orsmaal-Gussenhoven dialect, both mid and close-mid vowels are present). This is a further argument to write [ɔ].

Placing English vowels closer to the cardinal [ɒ] than the cardinal [ɔ] may be not only a result of the cardinal vowel system being subjective but also of an influence of British English accents themselves on phoneticians' judgement. Read this interesting article: [6]. Search for 'The chief disadvantage of impressionistic phonetics' if you don't want to read the whole thing.

Here's a Geoff Lindsey's article on which I based much of what I wrote: [7].

And as we know, the RP THOUGHT is closer than the cardinal [ɔ], sometimes rather closer to [o], so I just don't understand how the post could be used as a source to support the transcription [ɔ̞] To me, that post isn't ambiguous at all. To write [ɔ̞] to mean [ɔ] would be considerably redundant and simply wrong in narrow transcription (which Wells used in that particular case). To me, the post unambiguously states that RP /ɔː/ is above open-mid and more rounded than the corresponding cardinal vowel, whereas GA /ɔ/ is below open-mid and less rounded than the cardinal [ɔ]. Don't forget that he also wrote In the first edition of LPD I actually represented the AmE THOUGHT vowel as ɒː, differently from BrE ɔː, which would have pleased Bao Zhi-kun. Why would that please his reader if the GA vowel were open-mid?

You could bring up now how Danish is usually transcribed in the IPA, but that's a totally different thing and it's controversial whether we should even call it IPA (though it obviously uses IPA symbols, just in a strange and inconsistent manner and even Basbøll himself doesn't give a very good justification for that).

I'll try to respond to your previous message (and the Wolfdog one), but for now this is already long. I hope I'm making some sense... Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently I didn't make complete sense in the message above. I mean this: That is defendable because the cardinal vowel chart itself (as we know it today) isn't an accurate representation of where exactly vowels are made in the mouth, just an abstraction. doesn't make a lot of sense because the cardinal [ɒ] is made exactly where the cardinal [ɑ] is. The fact that it's higher than [ɑ] on formant charts is the direct result of it being rounded. But still - I've proved that the near-open variant is far more common in world's languages and I still think that it would make at least some sense if we placed the cardinal [ɒ] above the cardinal [ɑ]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I also wanted to say that maybe parts of my rant would be better suited for Talk:Open back rounded vowel or Talk:Cardinal vowels. Maybe I posted it here prematurely, I'm not sure. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

IPAc-en template

Why would we not use the IPAc-en template when it is the standard for all of Wikipedia? Wolfdog (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: It's quite a stretch to say that. We use it mainly in non-linguistics-related articles, in which it indeed is standard, but if someone needs the IPAc-en tooltips it's a sign that they won't be able to read this article with any fluency anyway. I'm for being noob-friendly but only when it has no consequences. I'm against using this template because it introduces inconsistencies in phonemic transcription. GA doesn't have phonemic vowel length, but if you use IPAc-en you're forced to write e.g. /iː, uː/ instead of /i, u/. Plus, marking length in phonemic but not phonetic transcription has hardly any justification as far as this accent is concerned. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Weird. Well, OK, whatever you think. Wolfdog (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I'm not sure what's weird in my reasoning, but I won't press the issue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: No, sorry. I meant, it's weird how we use the IPAc-en template. Weird that we have this whole template and then don't use it consistently. But if that's how it's used in your experience, then I'll trust your judgment. Wolfdog (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: My bad then, but I don't see why we should prefer it over the simple IPA template in linguistic articles, if that's what you're saying. Again, users that need the tooltip feature will have other problems with this article anyway, it's possible that they won't even be able to understand a large part of it.

I see that you mainly edit articles on American English, and that may be where your idea that IPAc-en is standard came from. I on the other hand don't really edit anything AmE-related besides this article and American English, simply because I find other varieties of English more interesting. There may be an unofficial consensus among editors to use IPAc-en on AmE-related articles, that's probable. But if it introduces inconsistencies in transcription (like in this article), then it's questionable whether we should use it in other articles as well. Maybe you could check some of them when you have some spare time.

You don't even have to believe me, here are articles in which IPAc-en is used either sparingly or not at all: Received Pronunciation, Australian English phonology, New Zealand English phonology, Cockney and Scottish English. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You generally wouldn't want to use IPAc-en in linguistics articles unless maybe you are talking about English diaphonemes. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: That's how we use it in the articles I mentioned. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I always assumed it was more for comparing dialects or generic English articles in which precise dialect was unimportant, rather than American English-specific articles. There are certainly elements of IPAc-en that make little sense to American English dialects, and I'm sure that's exactly your point. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

General American primarily spread via Midwesterners, via Californians, or via some other means?

I was wondering whether anyone could stir up any sources to help either lend credibility to the following sentence or else unearth the reality of how General American "spread":

The fact that a broad "Midwestern" accent became the basis of what is General American is often attributed to the mass migration of Midwestern farmers to California from where the accent system spread,[citation needed][disputed – discuss] since California speech itself became prevalent in nationally syndicated films and media via the Hollywood film industry.[disputed – discuss]

The sentence has remained without much-needed citations for a while (as other frustrated users have pointed out), and, though its claim seems reasonable to me, it could just as likely be completely inaccurate. Does anyone know of any sources that could verify or counter? Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Take it out. It actually sounds a lot like guesswork to me. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's one option. Do we all agree it's total guesswork and unverifiable/unsourceable? And if it is... Is there some source we can still find to discuss how a General American sound became prevalent? Wolfdog (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Kretzschmar (2008:41–3) cites as potential major sources of the emergence of the standardized American speech suburban housing and advanced mobility in the 20th century and educated speakers' tendency to suppress regionally marked features in formal settings, and says "The typical speech of national news broadcasters is symptomatic – not a cause of the change, as many suppose" (p. 42) and "StAmE can best be characterized as what is left over after speakers suppress the regional and social features that have risen to salience and become noticeable" (p. 43). So the sentence does sound like total guesswork and Kretzschmar is probably a pretty good starting point to revise it. (And it also confirms descriptions like "spread" and "became prevalent" aren't accurate when it comes to General American.) Nardog (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about asking if we were even approaching the history of GenAm appropriately by talking about its "spread", since of course GenAm is a collection of similar dialects rather than a single uniform variety that "swept the country". It seems to be a very fine line. I agree that the idea of education and formality are completely relevant and even necessary in discussing the usage of a (real or perceived) GenAm umbrella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfdog (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've made some changes according to what we've discussed. Nardog, thanks for the source. Does anyone know of any reason why the highly educated of the twentieth century began "choosing" a non-coastal Northeastern rhotic sound as their supra-regional accent? Was it simply random that this location's accent was the accent with the least stigma/markedness? Wolfdog (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Maybe this post will answer that: [8]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: A cool article. Thanks for finding it. But it seems to focus more on Hollywood than on the whole country. In any case, its main relevant claim is "As the 20th century progressed, America’s economic and demographic centre of gravity shifted westward. The heartland was largely white, gentile and rhotic, including many with Scots-Irish origins. They may have played a proportionally modest role in the creation of popular culture, but it was in the democratic nature of that culture to assimilate and reflect their speech. The result was that hypo-rhoticity became increasingly marked, in both lower and higher status speech." The reason given for why the "heartland" accent became GenAm, then, is basically due to the American "democratic nature." Hmm, seems a bit vague.

One other maybe more convincing argument is that TV encouraged that "heartland" sound in the media more than film had done: "The new medium of TV certainly reinforced General American speech. Where Hollywood had been a dream factory, relatively cosmopolitan and international, TV was more national and more reflective of real people’s lives, from news coverage to game shows with ‘ordinary’ contestants." Anyway, I think TV and film are the results of accent-spread more so than they are the causes of accent-spread.

Finally, a central argument for the blog post is that "popular culture as it spread from early 20th century America was to a large extent not rhotic" substantially due to the non-rhotic accents of "two ethnic minorities": African Americans and Jewish Northeasterners. This may be true enough, but it's very unconvincing to then make the leap that the white Hollywood elite developed their non-rhotic accent by trying to imitate black and Jewish accents. And of course, this still doesn't explain my original question of why GenAm was rhotic, except to say that most American had always been rhotic speakers. Wolfdog (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Second-sentence change?

Is there any reason to change the second sentence of the article, "Due to General American accents being widespread throughout the United States, they are sometimes, though controversially, classified as Standard American English" to something more like "Due to the perception of General American being widespread throughout the United States, it is sometimes, though controversially, classified/known as Standard American English"? I italicized the word "perception" to show that this is the major addition here. This seems like a logical edit to me, but I was wondering what others thought first. The change from plural ("General American accents") to singular ("General American") also seems cleaner to me, though honestly I also kind of like the plural, because it reinforces the idea that GenAm is not just "one thing". Wolfdog (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel like we should just take out the first clause. Either way I bet this is such a minute point we can safely apply WP:BRD. Nardog (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Near-rhyming or rhyming?

@Wolfdog:, what are your arguments/proof for this edit? My argument is that /k/ unambiguously belongs to the first syllable as it clips the preceding sequence of sonorants /ɜr/, just as in RP. The source is LPD. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it's variable. The CEPD transcription is /ˈwɜː.kə, ˈwɜ˞ː.kɚ/. But the corresponding RP recording clearly says /ˈwɜːk.ə/ ([ˈwɜkə], with a short vowel). If anything, it's the LPD recording that has a longer vowel, yet it transcribes that word /ˈwɜːk.ə/... Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we use murder or further or something, then? Nardog (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: I think stirrer is the best word. Murder and further have exactly the same problem as worker - the LPD places the syllable break before the schwa, whereas the CEPD places it after the NURSE vowel. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Syllabification of English words is something scholars never seem to agree on, so perhaps we're better off avoiding the word "rhyming" altogether and saying something like "the two vowels in ___ are pronounced with the same quality." Nardog (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Maybe that's a better idea, but IMO stirrer has only one possible syllabification in GA, which is /ˈstɜr.ər/. This is because /ɜ/ doesn't occur outside of /r/ contexts in GA and because it's mandatorily rhotacized in e.g. New York English which preserves the hurry-furry distinction (and even /ˈstʌrər/ would have to be syllabified /ˈstʌr.ər/ because /ʌ/ is a checked vowel). Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry, I didn't realize the heart of the contention here was syllabification. If we want to use a word like "assonance" or just say "the same r-colored vowel" rather the "rhyming" (which depends on the organization of syllables and which, I admit, didn't even occur to me since in my head worker is pronounced "wər-kər" despite being syllabified as "wərk-ər"), that is fine with me. Or if we want to keep the word "rhyming," then I'm happy to use an alternative example word than worker, such as your aforementioned stirrer. "Near-rhyming" was confusing, though, since, it makes it seem as if there is some slight difference with the vowel quality. Wolfdog (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Oh, that's what you meant. I'm fine with either option. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we use [ɹ̩] instead of [ɚ] by the way? It'd be consistent with other sonorants and we'd avoid using the schwa symbol for a stressed vowel (which may be a bit confusing for readers that are accustomed to the way e.g. Wells transcribes GA). Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In narrow transcription, [ɹ̩] might be a good idea. Nardog (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: I meant phonetic transcription in general, broad or narrow. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: You mean even phonemic? If so that would allow a stressed syllabic consonant, which is quite unusual. I thought /ɜr, ər/ were the de facto standard for (morpho)phonological reasons. Nardog (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Phonetic. Phonetic transcriptions can be narrow and broad, phonemic transcriptions are broad by definition. Phonemically, these are undoubtedly /ɜr, ər/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: This is slightly off-topic but I'm curious, who else is using Wells' analysis? The syllabification I've seen in other authors' literature almost universally follows the maximal onset principle like CEPD, though with variation in the treatment of the consonants after checked vowels. If I understand correctly, Wells' analysis is based more on phonetic evidence with emphasis on speakers' production. So just by looking at the phonemic representation /ˈwɝkɚ/ without the knowledge of how the word is actually pronounced, one would not be able to syllabify it with certainty as /ˈwɝk.ɚ/. Which obviously is not to say that such syllabification is wrong, but it is impossible to draw from the (unsyllabified) underlying representation alone or otherwise it would be circular reasoning. And /ɝ/ is not a checked vowel, so I bet the statement "worker is realized with two rhyming syllables" wouldn't be any confusing to most people (and if you're concerned about clipping, we could use murder etc.).

But again, just because Wells is a minority here doesn't mean he's wrong (if anything they're just two different approaches—one from phonetics and the other from phonemics, to put it crudely), so I stand by my previous point that in the article such language is better avoided altogether. But I'd love to know what other scholars think of Wells' approach. Nardog (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General American. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130202223336/http://www.soundcomparisons.com/Eng/Direct/Englishes/SglLgAmericanStandard.htm to http://www.soundcomparisons.com/Eng/Direct/Englishes/SglLgAmericanStandard.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

John Samuel Kenyon

Numerous sources identify John Samuel Kenyon's influence regarding General American. However, I have removed the following paragraph (that I mostly or entirely wrote):

Influential to the "standardization" of General American pronunciation in writing was John Samuel Kenyon, author of American Pronunciation (1924) and pronunciation editor for the second edition of Webster's New International Dictionary (1934), who used as a basis his native Midwestern (specifically, northern Ohio) pronunciation. Ironically, Kenyon's home state of Ohio, far from being an area of "non-regional" English, has emerged now as a crossroads for at least four distinct regional accents, according to late twentieth-century research, and Kenyon himself was vocally opposed to the notion of any supreme standard of American speech.

Does anyone see a better place to put this and/or a better way to abbreviate the information? Or do other editors feel, as I'm beginning to, that maybe this information about him is too much minutiae for the scope of the article and should not be reinstated after all? Wolfdog (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. In the research I've done for this, John Kenyon's General American went out of style back in the middle of the 20th century. No-one in the Inland North region talks like that anymore due to the Northern City Vowel Shift. The thing about adding Bonfiglio's sources is that he seems to think the Inland North accent is still "General American", when others like William Labov, John Wells, Dennis Preston and Van Riper disagree with this. I'm not a source obviously, but I personally agree with those guys over Bonfiglo. I also don't know if General American is "popular" as more to the fact that it's the easiest to understand, which is why it was chosen for newscasters and such. I remember back a few years ago, someone on the Topix forums provided a source that most Americans found Iowans accent to be the easiest to understand and the most clear, which is why it was chosen for General American. I think there was some sort of poll amongst americans for this back in the 1950s, if I recall the article correctly. I'll see if I can find it some time. William Labov said that area was chosen because it does the best job of representing all of General America. Which mean't outside of the really well known and unique accents of Boston area, New York and the South. Usernamebradly (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)