zompist bboard

Historical /oʊ̯/ not before /r/ in North American English is classically described as being [oʊ̯], with some dialects having [oː]*. The latter is the pronunciation I have in everyday speech, and the former is the pronunciation I am familiar with in localized versions of General American in the Upper Midwest. However, from living out the last nine months here in Maryland, it seems that most General American-like variety-speakers out here actually have something more akin to [ɤʊ̯] or [ʌʊ̯], and that is if they actually preserve backness. However, many speakers seem to at least somewhat centralize such, and I have found myself starting to pick up a pronunciation that can probably be best described as [ɜʉ̞̯] or even [ɐʉ̞̯].

Note that this is not the pronunciation [ɵʉ̯] (or even [œy̯]) I have described some younger people in the Milwaukee area as having picked up, which starts out fully rounded rather than unrounded, and which both starts and ends in a more closed fashion. This pronunciation is likely a matter of the dialect borrowing of a pronunciation more akin to [ɜʉ̞̯] (or even [ɛʉ̞̯]) but with clear interference from the fully rounded and closer vowel used both in Milwaukee dialect and in localized General American.

Conversely, people out here in Maryland seem to identify my Canadian Raised-pronunciation of historical /aʊ̯/, [ɑ̟o̯], with historical /oʊ̯/, even if they do still perceive a distinction between that and my pronunciation of historical /oʊ̯/. This further makes me think that the are very much used to pronunciations of historical /oʊ̯/ with a more open and fully unrounded nucleus.

All this makes me wonder, though, whether the description of historical /oʊ̯/ not before /r/ in North American English as being [oʊ̯] can actually be considered to be truly accurate today outside of more conservative General American and localized General American in areas whose own English dialects fully preserve the roundness, backness, and closeness of historical /oʊ̯/. Can we say that much of North American English that has a diphthongal pronunciation for historical /oʊ̯/ does not necessarily have [oʊ̯] for it but rather is likely to have realizations that are centralized, partly or fully, have unrounded onsets, and/or have more open onsets? Conversely, can we say that the supposed distinction between a North American English [oʊ̯] and an English English [əʊ̯] for historical /oʊ̯/ does not hold as true as it once may have?

* I am ignoring the loss of historical phonemic vowel quantity in this post.

I've heard /oʊ/ as [ɜʊ] or even [ɛʊ] in Midland, Southern, and Californian American English speakers. for example, Katy Perry in her new song says "nothin' comes close to the Golden Coast" with what I swear is [ɛʊ] in "close", "golden" and "coast". Given that /ɑʊ/ has become [æʊ] in many speakers I see a "Loud-Load" merger happening soon.

I've always described GA as having [əʊ̯], although I know a few people who have it fronted all the way to [œʏ̯]. It gets interesting, though, because (at least IMD) /o/ is actually [oː] before /l/ ("bowl" [b̥oːɫ]), and some people also have [oː] in "both", although that's definitely not GA and is at least marked enough to be noticeable by people who know nothing about linguistics.

TaylorS wrote:I've heard /oʊ/ as [ɜʊ] or even [ɛʊ] in Midland, Southern, and Californian American English speakers. for example, Katy Perry in her new song says "nothin' comes close to the Golden Coast" with what I swear is [ɛʊ] in "close", "golden" and "coast". Given that /ɑʊ/ has become [æʊ] in many speakers I see a "Loud-Load" merger happening soon.

I know some people with [ɛʊ] for /au/. But they're all from Canada and they live in Bermuda, so...

TaylorS wrote:I've heard /oʊ/ as [ɜʊ] or even [ɛʊ] in Midland, Southern, and Californian American English speakers. for example, Katy Perry in her new song says "nothin' comes close to the Golden Coast" with what I swear is [ɛʊ] in "close", "golden" and "coast". Given that /ɑʊ/ has become [æʊ] in many speakers I see a "Loud-Load" merger happening soon.

I too see that as a likely eventuality within a century or two. This, of course, will result in there being isogloss(es) between load-loud-merged varieties and load-loud-unmerged varieties, which almost certainly would have varieties that have a monophthongal historical /oʊ̯/ also being load-loud-unmerged.

Travis B. wrote:Conversely, can we say that the supposed distinction between a North American English [oʊ̯] and an English English [əʊ̯] for historical /oʊ̯/ does not hold as true as it once may have?

I don't think it ever did. I thought it was well-known that there were parts of the US with a fronted (and unrounded) starting point - it's one of the features marked on this map and the [əʊ̯] realisation is more an RP thing than general "English English".

AnTeallach wrote:

Travis B. wrote:Conversely, can we say that the supposed distinction between a North American English [oʊ̯] and an English English [əʊ̯] for historical /oʊ̯/ does not hold as true as it once may have?

I don't think it ever did. I thought it was well-known that there were parts of the US with a fronted (and unrounded) starting point - it's one of the features marked on this map and the [əʊ̯] realisation is more an RP thing than general "English English".

I must have been primarily thinking of General American-like varieties and non-GA-like varieties still descended from western New England English then, as according to that the South in general has significantly fronted and unrounded, and the West typically has a lesser but still non-negligible degree of fronting and rounding. According to that, for instance, it should not be surprising at all that I come into contact with rather unrounded and fronted onsets for historical /oʊ̯/ here in Maryland.

However, though, most people I work with and interact with on a daily basis here in the greater Washington DC area actually speak General American-like varieties and not varieties like those I have heard in eastern Maryland or Baltimore. For instance, I have a coworker from New York who speaks a General American-like variety, who probably has one of the most conservative realizations of historical /oʊ̯/ that I come into contact with out here, in that it is not noticeably fronted or opened, and yet it is still clearly [ɤʊ̯] and not [oʊ̯]. Conversely, I remember a former coworker of mine from when I had been working previously back in Wisconsin who was from upstate New York comment that the thing that he noticed about the speech in Milwaukee was the realization of historical /oʊ̯/, particularly the rounding and backness; he did not use those exact words, not being linguistically-inclined, but from what he said that is clearly what he meant.

Likewise, in American media content I am very used to hearing realizations of historical /oʊ̯/ with significant fronting, regardless of the degree of unrounding that also typically occurs, and the speech in most of this media content could not be called Southern or Western. Similarly, realizations of historical /oʊ̯/ that I hear in media content typically are noticeably less rounded than those I hear back in Wisconsin, both in Milwaukee dialect and in localized General American. Hence I am inclined to have doubts as to the present-day accuracy of saying that true [oʊ̯] is the "default" realization of historical /oʊ̯/ in North America outside Southern dialects, when everything I have seen seems to indicate that, in reality and at the present, a fully backed, fully rounded, and un-opened realization of historical /oʊ̯/ is actually quite regional in nature even in General American-like varieties.

i'm from south central PA myself, and i say [ʌʊ̯]. about 40 minutes to the southeast near Lancaster i know some [ɜʉ̞̯]-speakers.