What accent do you really hate? and which one you love?

I have a problem with the Northern Cities Shift (NCS), which is also considered the Great Lakes Accent or the Midwest Accent. This accent is really a refusal to accept the cot/caught merger that the majority of the United States uses. We get words like "block" being pronounced as "black", or "bet" sounding like "bat". There's also a dipthongizing of vowels such that "cat" is heard as "keeyat".

People who use the NCS are usually unaware of it and stare at you like a deer in the headlights when the topic of their "accent" is mentioned. Sometimes misunderstandings arise with people from other parts of the country. I have heard the name "Ian" confused with the girl's name "Ann" to Michiganders, who pronounce the name"Ann" as "Eeyan".

It is interesting to note that NCS is thoroughly used in Michigan despite the local belief that they do not have an accent. Michiganders believe that they have a high degree of language correctness and they even go so far as to think that it is more correct and pleasant than other nearby States in the Midwest. Michiganders will also say that the National model of the speech of news broadcasters is modeled after the speech that they use. This is clearly and easily debunked by comparing the National news with the local news.

<<I have a problem with the Northern Cities Shift (NCS), which is also considered the Great Lakes Accent or the Midwest Accent. This accent is really a refusal to accept the cot/caught merger that the majority of the United States uses.>>

A "refusal" to accept it? No one sat down and consciously decided to merge or not merge them. Language change just happens. I'm "cot-caught" merged but the fact that I grew up speaking that way has nothing to do with any choice of mine in the matter but the linguistic environment (a "c-c" merged one) I was exposed to growing up.

Also, the majority of the US is not "cot-caught" merged. Most of English-speaking Canada is, but most figures show about 40-45% of the US is "cot-caught" merged. At most it's half-half, but certainly not a majority for "cot-caught" mergers.

<<It is interesting to note that NCS is thoroughly used in Michigan despite the local belief that they do not have an accent. Michiganders believe that they have a high degree of language correctness and they even go so far as to think that it is more correct and pleasant than other nearby States in the Midwest. Michiganders will also say that the National model of the speech of news broadcasters is modeled after the speech that they use. This is clearly and easily debunked by comparing the National news with the local news.>>

Hehe, yeah. Having met some Michiganders I can say they certainly sound like they have a different accent to me! Being from California I don't come across people from Michigan that often but every person I've met from the Upper Midwest (Chicago area, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.) has had a noticeable Northern Midwest accent to me. It's definitely the vowels that really stick out as different.

However, there's nothing inherently wrong with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. Its speakers may be greatly mistaken in assuming they speak "unaccented" English (and that's faulty anyway since everyone has an accent) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't speak as is natural to them.

Of course, if you just subjectively don't like it then that's fine--it's just your opinion. But there's nothing inherently wrong with the NCVS.

Adam!

Adam!

Where are you?

anyone here?

<<there's nothing inherently wrong with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. Its speakers may be greatly mistaken in assuming they speak "unaccented" English (and that's faulty anyway since everyone has an accent) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't speak as is natural to them.>>

Kirk, you are right and paridoxically so are the NCS Michiganders! It's all of us Cot/Caught Mergers that are unwittingly naive in that we believe, as the NCS users do, that we are true and correct... When, in fact, the opposite is probably more true. Obviously, you are completely aware of this.

My scope was to simply illuminate that the NCS speakers are accented by the majority standard and that they are seemingly unaware of this... Not that there's anything wrong with it! (Apologies to Seinfeld)

I don't like or dislike accents, but I find the NCS particularly interesting for the reasons stated above, especially in that those users are largely oblivious to it. The fact that this entry was read and acknowledged means that others find accents interesting as well.

BTW, I'm in Alaska and have always lived in the Western States.

<<Kirk, you are right and paridoxically so are the NCS Michiganders! It's all of us Cot/Caught Mergers that are unwittingly naive in that we believe, as the NCS users do, that we are true and correct...>>

Yeah, before I started learning about linguistics and different accents I was completely oblivious to the fact that some people didn't pronounce "cot" and "caught" the same. When I first read about the distinction in linguistics I was fascinated because I could not fathom how or why someone would pronounce those words differently.

<<My scope was to simply illuminate that the NCS speakers are accented by the majority standard and that they are seemingly unaware of this... Not that there's anything wrong with it! (Apologies to Seinfeld)

I don't like or dislike accents, but I find the NCS particularly interesting for the reasons stated above, especially in that those users are largely oblivious to it. The fact that this entry was read and acknowledged means that others find accents interesting as well. >>

Yeah I also think it's interesting that people I've met from the Upper Midwest typically believe they have "no accent" and are generally surprised when people then comment on their accent or ask where they're from. I think it's also pretty amazing how an accent so different from what is typically heard on national news broadcasts could be perceived by such people as the same as how they speak.

Of course, it's not just NCVSers who believe they have "no accent" but due to the extreme and intriguing vowel changes in the NCVS it just makes their case about being "accentless" more laughable.

<<BTW, I'm in Alaska and have always lived in the Western States.>>

That's interesting. Have you always lived in Alaska? There's not much research out there on Alaskan English simply because it's probably too young. Since so many people in Alaska are really originally from somewhere else I think it can be hard to try and pick out regional speech features there but with it being in the West I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people were indeed "cot-caught" merged there.

>><<My scope was to simply illuminate that the NCS speakers are accented by the majority standard and that they are seemingly unaware of this... Not that there's anything wrong with it! (Apologies to Seinfeld)

I don't like or dislike accents, but I find the NCS particularly interesting for the reasons stated above, especially in that those users are largely oblivious to it. The fact that this entry was read and acknowledged means that others find accents interesting as well. >>

Yeah I also think it's interesting that people I've met from the Upper Midwest typically believe they have "no accent" and are generally surprised when people then comment on their accent or ask where they're from. I think it's also pretty amazing how an accent so different from what is typically heard on national news broadcasts could be perceived by such people as the same as how they speak.

Of course, it's not just NCVSers who believe they have "no accent" but due to the extreme and intriguing vowel changes in the NCVS it just makes their case about being "accentless" more laughable.<<

At least here in Wisconsin, or more like the Milwaukee area, the commonplace idea that speech here is "accentless" seems to not be the case. Rather, there is an overall awareness that people here speak differently from people elsewhere (even from other people in the Upper Midwest), whether with respect to lexicon (such as the use of "bubbler" and "soda" rather than "drinking fountain" and "pop"), usage (such as the use of "by" to mean "at" with verbs such as "live", "work", "stay", "go", "be", etc.), and so on. Part of such is just from observing how people from elsewhere perceive speech here (who generally think we have a rather weird accent, even if they are from as close as Chicago), but another part of such seems to be specifically tied into overall local identity (especially with words like "bubbler"), and is likely strengthened by having stronger substratum features than, say, most dialects in non-Upper Michigan.

Interestingly enough, people here are mostly oblivious to the NCVS, with the part that people seem to be most aware of being not the diphthongization of historical [{] to [E{], [e{], or [I{], interestingly enough, but rather the fronting of historical [A] to [a] as in "Wiscaaahnsin" (a rather classic example of such). Most cases of such seem to be [E{], which in practice is not a very strong diphthong, and consequently is quite likely to be overlooked. Actually, it seems that the cases of such which are most likely to be noticed are not where historical [{] has become [E{] but rather where it has become plain [E] (a split which I have not seen mentioned much in actual literature), such as in the pronunciation of "can" here.

I've just been wondering...Travis, do you pronounce "Wisconsin" with /..."sk.../-->[..."sk...] or with /...s"k.../-->[...s"k_h...]?

I myself pronounce "Wisconsin" as [wI"ska~nsn=].

<<I myself pronounce "Wisconsin" as [wI"ska~nsn=]>>

That's exactly how I've heard people from Wisconsin say it :) My pronunciation of it, [wI"skAnsn=] or [wI"skAnsIn] would probably mark me as someone not from there should I ever find myself in the Badger State.

<<At least here in Wisconsin, or more like the Milwaukee area, the commonplace idea that speech here is "accentless" seems to not be the case. Rather, there is an overall awareness that people here speak differently from people elsewhere (even from other people in the Upper Midwest), whether with respect to lexicon (such as the use of "bubbler" and "soda" rather than "drinking fountain" and "pop"), usage (such as the use of "by" to mean "at" with verbs such as "live", "work", "stay", "go", "be", etc.), and so on. Part of such is just from observing how people from elsewhere perceive speech here (who generally think we have a rather weird accent, even if they are from as close as Chicago), but another part of such seems to be specifically tied into overall local identity (especially with words like "bubbler"), and is likely strengthened by having stronger substratum features than, say, most dialects in non-Upper Michigan.>>

That's interesting. I think perhaps the biggest state I associate with people who believe they don't have an accent is Michigan. Of course I'm generalizing but that's just my impression. I have met people from Minnesota who were actually aware of some of the features of their accent which made them stand apart from others (even the neighboring states). Sounds similar to what you describe in Wisconsin.

<<Interestingly enough, people here are mostly oblivious to the NCVS, with the part that people seem to be most aware of being not the diphthongization of historical [{] to [E{], [e{], or [I{], interestingly enough, but rather the fronting of historical [A] to [a] as in "Wiscaaahnsin" (a rather classic example of such). Most cases of such seem to be [E{], which in practice is not a very strong diphthong, and consequently is quite likely to be overlooked. Actually, it seems that the cases of such which are most likely to be noticed are not where historical [{] has become [E{] but rather where it has become plain [E] (a split which I have not seen mentioned much in actual literature), such as in the pronunciation of "can" here.>>

Yeah people are typically completely unconscious of vowel shifts like that yet of course over time the result is of course accent divergence.

Interestingly, while we're on the subject, I do interact pretty often with someone from Chicago. She's the teacher of the class I do English conversation leading in (I work parttime at an English institute for English learners from around the globe) and she told me that she consciously "tones down" her native Chicagoan tendencies here in California because she knows otherwise she'll sound different (since she said she's sensitive about her accent she apparently doesn't want to stand out as being from somewhere else). She does a pretty good job of resisting /a/ and usually replaces it with a Californian-like /A/ but I'd say at least 20% of the time she still ends up producing a more fronted one than would typically be heard here, sometimes reaching full-on /a/ in her most unguarded moments. Old habits die hard. Also, even while she tries to suppress her natural /a/ in favor of /A/ she still distinguishes "cot" and "caught" (which would both be /A/ here) since her "cot" still usually ends up being a bit fronter than her "caught."

Damn. I thought it was Wis-con-sin.

i love to blokes ive been i a realshionship wiht one for years i met the other one 3 weeks ago should i throw everything away for someone i dont even no yet? oxfordshire

i feel me and my girlfriend are falling apart she is always online and can neve get hold of her she ha a new friend and she will not let me meet her/him sjould i throw a 4 years over asilly thing like this i need your help nick? oxfordshire

> Yeah, before I started learning about linguistics and different accents I was completely oblivious to the fact that some people didn't pronounce "cot" and "caught" the same. When I first read about the distinction in linguistics I was fascinated because I could not fathom how or why someone would pronounce those words differently.

I'm fascinated that some people pronounce these two words the same. For me "caught" and "cot" have very distinct vowel sounds. "Caught" is a homophone of "court" and rhymes with "short". If the words "caught" and "court" did not already exist in the English language and someone asked me how I'd spell them based on English orthography, I'd say "cort" as it is the same sound as in "sort", "short" etc. "Cot" has a shorter vowel sound, hence the lack of an 'r' in the spelling and rhymes with "hot".

Out of interest, how do you pronounce the word "court"? Do "court", "caught" and "cot" all sound the same to you? And what about other words with a short 'o' sound in them? Does, for example, "shot" become a homophone of "short" or does this "caught-cot" merger only apply to some words?

<<I'm fascinated that some people pronounce these two words the same. For me "caught" and "cot" have very distinct vowel sounds. "Caught" is a homophone of "court" and rhymes with "short". If the words "caught" and "court" did not already exist in the English language and someone asked me how I'd spell them based on English orthography, I'd say "cort" as it is the same sound as in "sort", "short" etc. "Cot" has a shorter vowel sound, hence the lack of an 'r' in the spelling and rhymes with "hot".>>

Yeah that makes sense considering your dialect. One thing I should say is that regardless of dialect most North American English dialects have no phonemic length distinction between vowels. The differences are qualitative (so, where the vowel is produced in the mouth). Thus, for instance, "beet" and "bit" are the same length but have different qualities.

<<Out of interest, how do you pronounce the word "court"? Do "court", "caught" and "cot" all sound the same to you?>>

Nope. My "court" sounds very different from my "caught/cot" because I pronounce an /r\/ in "court" while "caught/cot" have no /r\/. In the end both you and I make a two-way distinction amongst the three words. It's just that you merges "caught/court" while your "cot" is different and I merge "caught/cot" while my "court" is different. Of course, for "caught/cot" unmerged Americans they make a three-way distinction (assuming they're rhotic as most are).

<<And what about other words with a short 'o' sound in them? Does, for example, "shot" become a homophone of "short" or does this "caught-cot" merger only apply to some words?>>

Nope. Same as above--"short" has an /r\/ while "shot" doesn't so the two sound very different.

I made a recording of myself saying the following words. You can tell I pronounce "caught-cot" the same yet "court" is very different. I also included some other examples (including "paw" and "pa," which demonstrates my "father-bother" merger and "cot-caught" merger). Here's the file:

http://media.putfile.com/caughtcotpawpoor

And this is what I said:

caught--he caught the ball.
cot--he slept in a cot.
court--he's at the basketball court.

shot--She shot the arrow into the sky.
short--The paper was a bit too short.

paw--The dog got a thorn stuck in her paw.
pa--In some parts of the world people call their fathers "pa."
poor--The family used to be really poor.