How widespread is it outside of London? It only occurs with dark l, so I was wondering if there's any trace of it in Scottish English, with uniformly dark l's? Also, all varieties of English English have clear l before [j], blocking l-vocalisation in words like 'familiar', right?
L-vocalisation
With the spreading of Estuary L-vocalisation is becoming more and more prevalent in other areas, but I think it's mainly a South-East London phenomenon.
<<Also, all varieties of English English have clear l before [j], blocking l-vocalisation in words like 'familiar', right?>>
I reckon so, however I'm not 100 per cent sure.
<<Also, all varieties of English English have clear l before [j], blocking l-vocalisation in words like 'familiar', right?>>
I reckon so, however I'm not 100 per cent sure.
Does clear l before [j] apply across word boundaries? For example, is "full year" [fUl jI@] or [fUo jI@] in Estuary English/Cockney?
There is L-vocalization in North American English dialects, most notably in AAVE (which is probably the most classic case of such in NAE) but in other dialects as well, the most classic case of a non-AAVE NAE dialect having L-vocalization being that of Pittsburgh. However, it has spread into other NAE dialects, apparently from Pittsburgh English, and is, for example, present in the dialect here in Milwaukee, WI.
One important note, though, is that AAVE and non-AAVE L-vocalization in NAE follow different patterns and are likely to have been separately innovated. For instance, AAVE L-vocalization affects only postvocalic position and commonly involves elision of historical /l/ or vocalization to [o] or [u], whereas non-AAVE NAE L-vocalization seems to not involve any elision, may use unrounded back vowels such as [M], and can occur in intervocalic positions (such as in the word "really", where such is very common IMD).
In my own dialect at least, /l/ can vocalize in any position to [M] or [M\], but is most common postvocalically, intervocalically, and in prevocalic clusters; this is probably more extreme, though, than the average L-vocalizing NAE dialect. At the same time, due to my dialect not truly systematizing L-vocalization but leaving alternation with [L\] open in all positions, I have had some cases of reanalysis of words which historically did not have /l/ as having /l/, most notably "thorough", which I've reanalyzed as /"T@r@/ due to /@l/ commonly being realized as a back vowel [M] or, for some, even a lower and rounder back vowel such as [o].
One important note, though, is that AAVE and non-AAVE L-vocalization in NAE follow different patterns and are likely to have been separately innovated. For instance, AAVE L-vocalization affects only postvocalic position and commonly involves elision of historical /l/ or vocalization to [o] or [u], whereas non-AAVE NAE L-vocalization seems to not involve any elision, may use unrounded back vowels such as [M], and can occur in intervocalic positions (such as in the word "really", where such is very common IMD).
In my own dialect at least, /l/ can vocalize in any position to [M] or [M\], but is most common postvocalically, intervocalically, and in prevocalic clusters; this is probably more extreme, though, than the average L-vocalizing NAE dialect. At the same time, due to my dialect not truly systematizing L-vocalization but leaving alternation with [L\] open in all positions, I have had some cases of reanalysis of words which historically did not have /l/ as having /l/, most notably "thorough", which I've reanalyzed as /"T@r@/ due to /@l/ commonly being realized as a back vowel [M] or, for some, even a lower and rounder back vowel such as [o].
<<Does clear l before [j] apply across word boundaries? For example, is "full year" [fUl jI@] or [fUo jI@] in Estuary English/Cockney?>>
As far as I am aware it doesn't.
As far as I am aware it doesn't.
Wow, the dialect in Wisconsin sure picks up the weirdest stuff. I am constantly amazed at how far it is from General American. And to think, some people still think that Midwestern accents are what newscasters use, and that people from the Midwest don't have accents.
I also have a question about l-vocalization in Estuary English.
In Estuary, "battle" would be ["b{to]. So what happens to a word-final syllabic L like that when it's followed by a vowel? In "the battle is", would it be [D@ "b{to lIz], or would it be [D@ "b{t5= Iz], with a syllabic consonant and a lateral release?
In Estuary, "battle" would be ["b{to]. So what happens to a word-final syllabic L like that when it's followed by a vowel? In "the battle is", would it be [D@ "b{to lIz], or would it be [D@ "b{t5= Iz], with a syllabic consonant and a lateral release?
<<In Estuary, "battle" would be ["b{to]. So what happens to a word-final syllabic L like that when it's followed by a vowel? In "the battle is", would it be [D@ "b{to lIz], or would it be [D@ "b{t5= Iz], with a syllabic consonant and a lateral release?>>
As far as I can tell, syllabic l has the same light/dark pattern as usual. "The battle is" would be pronounced with a clear l. (This is just based on observations of my own, no studies or anything).
I have l-vocalisation as well, but I don't think it's a regular feature Canadian English; it seems to be just a peculiarity of my idiolect. For me though, it only occurs post-vocalically ([j] counts as a consonant for me thoug). Dark l is one of Engish's most complex phones, and it seems likely that children would pick it up later or not at all, just like [r\]. I've also read about l-vocalisation as symplifying syllable structure to produce more CVCV sequences.
As far as I can tell, syllabic l has the same light/dark pattern as usual. "The battle is" would be pronounced with a clear l. (This is just based on observations of my own, no studies or anything).
I have l-vocalisation as well, but I don't think it's a regular feature Canadian English; it seems to be just a peculiarity of my idiolect. For me though, it only occurs post-vocalically ([j] counts as a consonant for me thoug). Dark l is one of Engish's most complex phones, and it seems likely that children would pick it up later or not at all, just like [r\]. I've also read about l-vocalisation as symplifying syllable structure to produce more CVCV sequences.
Lazar,
I think most Estuary speakers pronounce it like that :[D@ "b{t5= Iz].
The alternative pronunciation [D@ "b{to lIz] is more of Cockney than Estuary.
I think most Estuary speakers pronounce it like that :[D@ "b{t5= Iz].
The alternative pronunciation [D@ "b{to lIz] is more of Cockney than Estuary.
>>Wow, the dialect in Wisconsin sure picks up the weirdest stuff. I am constantly amazed at how far it is from General American. And to think, some people still think that Midwestern accents are what newscasters use, and that people from the Midwest don't have accents.<<
The thing is that Upper Midwesterners really don't speak General American, due to things such as the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, Canadian Raising, and in many dialects, things such as substratum features, which can include things like interdental hardening, final devoicing, rather rounded and tense back vowels, and various grammatical features (such as the use of "with" as a particle with various verbs). If anything, I would say that western dialects are *much* closer to General American, aside from being cot-caught merged, and I'm not sure why people still associate GA with the Midwest.
At the same time, there is stuff about my own dialect, which I myself tend to find rather weird, such as prevocalic L-vocalization and the use of a uvular approximant rhotic; the former really stands out to me when it occurs for /l/ which is not in a cluster (it even sounds to me as if people are replacing /l/ with /w/ there), and while the latter does not *sound* strange to me, it is clearly very different articulation-wise from what most rhotics in English are transcribed as.
Other things are likely me being more aware of the details of the dialect here as actually spoken (that is, spending too much time listening too closely to others around me), as many features like postvocalic L-vocalization, palatalization and or affrication of /t/ before /u/, /U/, /w/, and /@r/, and certain elisions such as intervocalic [4] elision in words like "already" seem to show up in informal speech not too infrequently in NAE dialects overall. Furthermore, some things might just be the transcription conventions that I use, which are probably more narrow than most individuals' here, and also mark vowel length where most individuals transcribing NAE dialects simply omit it.
The thing is that Upper Midwesterners really don't speak General American, due to things such as the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, Canadian Raising, and in many dialects, things such as substratum features, which can include things like interdental hardening, final devoicing, rather rounded and tense back vowels, and various grammatical features (such as the use of "with" as a particle with various verbs). If anything, I would say that western dialects are *much* closer to General American, aside from being cot-caught merged, and I'm not sure why people still associate GA with the Midwest.
At the same time, there is stuff about my own dialect, which I myself tend to find rather weird, such as prevocalic L-vocalization and the use of a uvular approximant rhotic; the former really stands out to me when it occurs for /l/ which is not in a cluster (it even sounds to me as if people are replacing /l/ with /w/ there), and while the latter does not *sound* strange to me, it is clearly very different articulation-wise from what most rhotics in English are transcribed as.
Other things are likely me being more aware of the details of the dialect here as actually spoken (that is, spending too much time listening too closely to others around me), as many features like postvocalic L-vocalization, palatalization and or affrication of /t/ before /u/, /U/, /w/, and /@r/, and certain elisions such as intervocalic [4] elision in words like "already" seem to show up in informal speech not too infrequently in NAE dialects overall. Furthermore, some things might just be the transcription conventions that I use, which are probably more narrow than most individuals' here, and also mark vowel length where most individuals transcribing NAE dialects simply omit it.