It's often claimed that GA lacks this merger, however from my experience people that I hear that lack the merger either have the NCVS or are from the northeast which has [Q] for the vowel. I've heard someone from Rhode Island and the way they pronounced words like "caught", "coffee", "cost" etc. with that [Q] vowel clearly sounds un-GA to me.
cot-caught distinction and GA
What about this one:
http://www2.zippyshare.com/v/86472443/file.html
(Francis's accent sample)
Supposedly it's cot-caught unmerged, and it lacks the northern cities vowel shift or California vowel shift, and is not east coast. So far, the consensus seems to be that it's from the far North of the Western US.
http://www2.zippyshare.com/v/86472443/file.html
(Francis's accent sample)
Supposedly it's cot-caught unmerged, and it lacks the northern cities vowel shift or California vowel shift, and is not east coast. So far, the consensus seems to be that it's from the far North of the Western US.
Travis wrote:
It seemed very GA-like to me aside from the very northern pronunciation of "sorry". It did have some features more typical of more modern than more conservative GA variants, such as being apparently Mary-merry-marry-merged and wine-whine-merged to me (even though I cannot listen to it at the very moment to confirm the former) and being clearly Lennon-Lenin-merged, and it clearly had Canadian Raising of /aI_^/, which seems to be a common feature of modern GA variants; the primary feature that seemed more conservative for an otherwise western US dialect is that it seemed to lack the cot-caught merger, unlike most modern western US dialects.
With all these in mind, my guess is that the speaker is a relatively conservative speaker from the far north of the western US. A position relatively close to Canada is indicated by the pronunciation of "sorry" and to a lesser degree the presence of Canadian Raising of historical /aI_^/. At the same time, there are no signs at all that the speaker is from anywhere near the Inland North or Upper Midwest, particularly due to the very clear backed realization of historical /A:/. At the same time, Francis is likely not from California or anywhere near it in the southwestern US, not just due to the pronunciation of "sorry" and the presence of Canadian Raising, but also due to the unlowered historical /{/ and the lack of unrounding of historical rounded back vowels. The degree of conservatism is shown by the retention of the distinction between "cot" and "caught", unlike most modern NAE dialects in the western US; this also, though, strongly implies that the individual is not from Canada, which is rather firmly cot-caught-merged (while there are still residual pockets of cot-caught-unmergedness in the western US).
It seemed very GA-like to me aside from the very northern pronunciation of "sorry". It did have some features more typical of more modern than more conservative GA variants, such as being apparently Mary-merry-marry-merged and wine-whine-merged to me (even though I cannot listen to it at the very moment to confirm the former) and being clearly Lennon-Lenin-merged, and it clearly had Canadian Raising of /aI_^/, which seems to be a common feature of modern GA variants; the primary feature that seemed more conservative for an otherwise western US dialect is that it seemed to lack the cot-caught merger, unlike most modern western US dialects.
With all these in mind, my guess is that the speaker is a relatively conservative speaker from the far north of the western US. A position relatively close to Canada is indicated by the pronunciation of "sorry" and to a lesser degree the presence of Canadian Raising of historical /aI_^/. At the same time, there are no signs at all that the speaker is from anywhere near the Inland North or Upper Midwest, particularly due to the very clear backed realization of historical /A:/. At the same time, Francis is likely not from California or anywhere near it in the southwestern US, not just due to the pronunciation of "sorry" and the presence of Canadian Raising, but also due to the unlowered historical /{/ and the lack of unrounding of historical rounded back vowels. The degree of conservatism is shown by the retention of the distinction between "cot" and "caught", unlike most modern NAE dialects in the western US; this also, though, strongly implies that the individual is not from Canada, which is rather firmly cot-caught-merged (while there are still residual pockets of cot-caught-unmergedness in the western US).
Conservative GA and what one could call GA proper lack the cot-caught merger, but I would say that a large portion of modern GA-like varieties in practice do have the cot-caught merger, to the point that I would call it "optionally standard" in modern GA variants today.
<<It's often claimed that GA lacks this merger, however from my experience people that I hear that lack the merger either have the NCVS or are from the northeast which has [Q] for the vowel. I've heard someone from Rhode Island and the way they pronounced words like "caught", "coffee", "cost" etc. with that [Q] vowel clearly sounds un-GA to me.>>
Are you sure that it wasn't [O] that you've heard from northeasterners? [O] or [O@] is often used by Rhode Islanders and New Yorkers, and I think it's this closer vowel in the THOUGHT lexical set that can lend an un-GA sound. I think the opener [Q] for the THOUGHT set is quite compatible with General American.
Are you sure that it wasn't [O] that you've heard from northeasterners? [O] or [O@] is often used by Rhode Islanders and New Yorkers, and I think it's this closer vowel in the THOUGHT lexical set that can lend an un-GA sound. I think the opener [Q] for the THOUGHT set is quite compatible with General American.
>>Are you sure that it wasn't [O] that you've heard from northeasterners? [O] or [O@] is often used by Rhode Islanders and New Yorkers, and I think it's this closer vowel in the THOUGHT lexical set that can lend an un-GA sound. I think the opener [Q] for the THOUGHT set is quite compatible with General American.<<
I have heard of even [ʊɔ] being used for historical /ɔː/ in more traditional New York dialects, which would contrast even more with the [ɒ] found in more modern non-cot-caught-merged GA-like varieties (with very conservative GA still preserving [ɔ(ː)] as such, even though you don't hear it a whole lot in GA-like varieties these days).
I have heard of even [ʊɔ] being used for historical /ɔː/ in more traditional New York dialects, which would contrast even more with the [ɒ] found in more modern non-cot-caught-merged GA-like varieties (with very conservative GA still preserving [ɔ(ː)] as such, even though you don't hear it a whole lot in GA-like varieties these days).
Caught-cot merging is very much a matter of regional varieties within the GA spectrum. I would definitely consider SoCal English to be mostly "GenAm" despite having the merger.
In my own dialect, I've found a voiced-unvoiced split somewhat similar to Canadian vowel raising when it comes to this. I pronounce 'cot' and 'caught' the same or very nearly the same. However, I make definite split with their voiced equivalents 'cod' and 'cawed'--/kAd/ and /kOd/ respectively.
I'm assuming a lot of other American speakers have similar variants that are tricky to pin down.
In my own dialect, I've found a voiced-unvoiced split somewhat similar to Canadian vowel raising when it comes to this. I pronounce 'cot' and 'caught' the same or very nearly the same. However, I make definite split with their voiced equivalents 'cod' and 'cawed'--/kAd/ and /kOd/ respectively.
I'm assuming a lot of other American speakers have similar variants that are tricky to pin down.
>>Caught-cot merging is very much a matter of regional varieties within the GA spectrum. I would definitely consider SoCal English to be mostly "GenAm" despite having the merger.<<
Californian English dialects are relatively GA-ish, all things considered, but they do have some shifts that can be considered to be definitely non-GA, such as the California Vowel Shift (with its lowering of historical /æ/ to [a] and its rounding of historical /ɑː/ to [ɒ]), and the combined fronting and unrounding of historical rounded back vowels other than historical /ɔː/ (which is more extreme than in more GA-like dialects).
Californian English dialects are relatively GA-ish, all things considered, but they do have some shifts that can be considered to be definitely non-GA, such as the California Vowel Shift (with its lowering of historical /æ/ to [a] and its rounding of historical /ɑː/ to [ɒ]), and the combined fronting and unrounding of historical rounded back vowels other than historical /ɔː/ (which is more extreme than in more GA-like dialects).
<<Are you sure that it wasn't [O] that you've heard from northeasterners? [O] or [O@] is often used by Rhode Islanders and New Yorkers, and I think it's this closer vowel in the THOUGHT lexical set that can lend an un-GA sound. I think the opener [Q] for the THOUGHT set is quite compatible with General American.>>
I actually think the distinction is that GenAm pronounces those vowels fronter than in the Northeast. I used to think that [Q] was the GenAm realization of the traditional "caught" set, until I heard a British person pronounced "office" as [QfIs] (part of the "caught" set in GenAm) and realized that GenAm version of this vowel must be a bit higher.
Generally, I'd say that the GenAm uses [A_+] and [O_+] for 'cot' and 'caught', and that this may even extend to [a_"] and [3\] in some variants.
I actually think the distinction is that GenAm pronounces those vowels fronter than in the Northeast. I used to think that [Q] was the GenAm realization of the traditional "caught" set, until I heard a British person pronounced "office" as [QfIs] (part of the "caught" set in GenAm) and realized that GenAm version of this vowel must be a bit higher.
Generally, I'd say that the GenAm uses [A_+] and [O_+] for 'cot' and 'caught', and that this may even extend to [a_"] and [3\] in some variants.
>>I actually think the distinction is that GenAm pronounces those vowels fronter than in the Northeast. I used to think that [Q] was the GenAm realization of the traditional "caught" set, until I heard a British person pronounced "office" as [QfIs] (part of the "caught" set in GenAm) and realized that GenAm version of this vowel must be a bit higher.
Generally, I'd say that the GenAm uses [A_+] and [O_+] for 'cot' and 'caught', and that this may even extend to [a_"] and [3\] in some variants.<<
The centralization of historical /ɑː/ (and the historical /ɒ/ it merged with) is a very common feature of GA-like dialects, but is not found in Canadian English. On the other hand, though, the most noticable difference between historical /ɔː/ in GA-like varieties and RP /ɒ/ is not necessarily the degree of centralization (even though it may be a bit fronter in many NAE dialects) but rather in degree of rounding, with RP and English English dialects in general having stronger rounding of /ɒ/ than most NAE dialects have of historical /ɔː/.
Generally, I'd say that the GenAm uses [A_+] and [O_+] for 'cot' and 'caught', and that this may even extend to [a_"] and [3\] in some variants.<<
The centralization of historical /ɑː/ (and the historical /ɒ/ it merged with) is a very common feature of GA-like dialects, but is not found in Canadian English. On the other hand, though, the most noticable difference between historical /ɔː/ in GA-like varieties and RP /ɒ/ is not necessarily the degree of centralization (even though it may be a bit fronter in many NAE dialects) but rather in degree of rounding, with RP and English English dialects in general having stronger rounding of /ɒ/ than most NAE dialects have of historical /ɔː/.
RP has /ɒ/ in ''long, song, wrong'' which is the unrounded equivalent
of the Western /ɑ/... To my ear, old school GA /ɔ/ in these words sounds a bit strange...And Brooklyn/Bronx pronunciations of these words is even higher.
of the Western /ɑ/... To my ear, old school GA /ɔ/ in these words sounds a bit strange...And Brooklyn/Bronx pronunciations of these words is even higher.