My own analysis of my English's vowel system

[Bedelato]

I've done some thinking on this lately, and the conventional analysis of English vowels seems to be a very lousy fit for my idiolect. For instance, what logic is behind transcribing my [əw] as /o:/?

So I've made an attempt at documenting the vowel system of my personal English.

First, the (admittedly abridged) conventional system for General American, for reference:

i u
ɪ ʊ
e: ə o:
ɛ ʌ ɔ
æ ɑ:
Diphthongs: aɪ aʊ ɔɪ ju

Now my analysis:

i u
ɪ ʊ
ɛ ə (ɔ)
æ a ɑ

Diphthongs: aj ej ɔj æw əw ju
Rhotics: ɑɹ iɹ ɛɹ ɔɹ ɹ̩
Lateral: l̩

Some notes:

For starters, I have the caught-cot merger, meaning both are pronounced [kɑt]. So the traditional /ɔ/ is meaningless to me.

As a rule, /u/→/ʉ/, except before /l/, as in "coo" [kʰʉ:] vs. "cool" [kʰuɫ].

I am not kidding with the /æ/:/a/:/ɑ/ thing. I have a contrast between, e.g. "Mack" [mæk], "mach" [mak], and "mock" [mɑk], among other examples; for the most part, /a/ is restricted to onomatopoeia and loanwords.

I have gotten rid of the so-called "full vowels" /e o/ and re-interpreted them as true diphthongs /ej əw/. I also reanalyze traditional /əɹ əl/ as syllabic consonants /ɹ̩ l̩/.

I consider the vowel in "cup" to be an allophone of schwa, rather than them being separate phonemes.

/ɔ/ is debatable; it never occurs in minimal pairs with other simple vowels, but only before a liquid or in /ɔj/.

That's about all I have to say at this point.
Any comments?

[Rory]

For instance, what logic is behind transcribing my [əw] as /o:/?

Good question! Thankfully no-one claims that English has /o:/.

i u
ɪ ʊ
e: ə o:
ɛ ʌ ɔ
æ ɑ:
Diphthongs: aɪ aʊ ɔɪ ju

Okay, usually what you've called "e:" and "o:" are transcribed as /eɪ/ and /oʊ/. Also, /ɑ/ is not long. Also also, standard american doesn't really have a distinction between wedge and schwa. Also also also, do you have any justification for claiming that [ju] is a diphthong and not just a sequence of phonemes? Why is [ju] a diphthong and [jɛ] is not?

Now my analysis:

i u
ɪ ʊ
ɛ ə (ɔ)
æ a ɑ

Diphthongs: aj ej ɔj æw əw ju
Rhotics: ɑɹ iɹ ɛɹ ɔɹ ɹ̩
Lateral: l̩

Okay, so you've mostly changed the transcription. The lateral is not a vowel, it's a syllabic consonant. But while we're there, do you not have syllabic [n] and [m] in words like "button" and "atom"?

I am not kidding with the /æ/:/a/:/ɑ/ thing. I have a contrast between, e.g. "Mack" [mæk], "mach" [mak], and "mock" [mɑk], among other examples; for the most part, /a/ is restricted to onomatopoeia and loanwords.

I am sceptical.

I consider the vowel in "cup" to be an allophone of schwa, rather than them being separate phonemes.

[/quote]
Why do you consider the schwa to be the main phoneme, and not the wedge?

[Soap]

I don't know where Bedelato lives, but I live in New England and can tell you that mack~Mach~mock are distinct for most people in all of northern New England and probably southern New England with the exception of areas that have been influenced by New York.

[äreo]

I'm from Texas and have what you could call a mixed accent, with various influences, mainly American and British, and my father (whose accent is purely American) and I (tho not my mother and sister) do not even have a complete father-bother merger, so mack-Mach-mock are all different for us as well. I think there's a lot more going on in English (especially American English, as far as I can comment) that isn't being adequately addressed in many a linguistic analysis.

[Bedelato]

For instance, what logic is behind transcribing my [əw] as /o:/?

Good question! Thankfully no-one claims that English has /o:/.

i u
ɪ ʊ
e: ə o:
ɛ ʌ ɔ
æ ɑ:
Diphthongs: aɪ aʊ ɔɪ ju

Okay, usually what you've called "e:" and "o:" are transcribed as /eɪ/ and /oʊ/. Also, /ɑ/ is not long. Also also, standard american doesn't really have a distinction between wedge and schwa. Also also also, do you have any justification for claiming that [ju] is a diphthong and not just a sequence of phonemes? Why is [ju] a diphthong and [jɛ] is not?

Yeah, my memory was kinda sketchy there. I know about the abscence of a wedge-schwa distinction; that's one of my main points here.

I've seen "long A" and "long O" transcribed both ways actually, with about equal frequency.

I have no idea why I made /ɑ/ long.

About [ju], it is basically [iw] with stress on the second component instead of the first. Another possible transcription could be [ĭu].

Now my analysis:

i u
ɪ ʊ
ɛ ə (ɔ)
æ a ɑ

Diphthongs: aj ej ɔj æw əw ju
Rhotics: ɑɹ iɹ ɛɹ ɔɹ ɹ̩
Lateral: l̩

Okay, so you've mostly changed the transcription. The lateral is not a vowel, it's a syllabic consonant. But while we're there, do you not have syllabic [n] and [m] in words like "button" and "atom"?

Now it seems like you're attacking me or something

Well, they're all syllabic, right? Doesn't that count for something? I do have syllabic /n m/, though.

I am not kidding with the /æ/:/a/:/ɑ/ thing. I have a contrast between, e.g. "Mack" [mæk], "mach" [mak], and "mock" [mɑk], among other examples; for the most part, /a/ is restricted to onomatopoeia and loanwords.

I am sceptical.

I imagined you'd react that way. It's something I only recently found in my own speech (I don't know anyone else who has it), and I'm actually still investigating it.

The distinction between /a/ and /ɑ/ is not that great; they're probably realized as [ɑ̟ ɑ] or something. But I've noticed that I consistently pronounce the vowel in "mach" as slightly more centralized than the one in "mock", and that's my main argument here.

I also, in quick speech, pronounce "I'll" as [ɑɫ], contrasting with "all" [ɒɫ], which I assume are allophones of /a ɑ/ respectively, being backed or rounded before /l/.

I'm using [a] for a central vowel here. (The IPA really needs a separate letter for that one.)

I consider the vowel in "cup" to be an allophone of schwa, rather than them being separate phonemes.

Why do you consider the schwa to be the main phoneme, and not the wedge?

[/quote]

I don't know why I said that Maybe it's because it makes the chart more symmetrical? In any case, the actual vowel is a central one (strictly speaking, wedge represents a back vowel). It's closer to schwa than /ɐ/.

I'm from Texas and have what you could call a mixed accent, with various influences, mainly American and British, and my father (whose accent is purely American) and I (tho not my mother and sister) do not even have a complete father-bother merger, so mack-Mach-mock are all different for us as well. I think there's a lot more going on in English (especially American English, as far as I can comment) that isn't being adequately addressed in many a linguistic analysis.

My accent is entirely American, as far as I know (I've never been outside the US except for a couple short vacations to Canada-only a few days at most, hardly enough time to pick up a dialectal feature).

I've never heard of someone who has caught-cot but no father-bother. I've never even heard of an "incomplete" father-bother merger either.

[äreo]

My accent is entirely American, as far as I know (I've never been outside the US except for a couple short vacations to Canada-only a few days at most, hardly enough time to pick up a dialectal feature).

I've never heard of someone who has caught-cot but no father-bother. I've never even heard of an "incomplete" father-bother merger either.

Having cot-caught without father-bother is pretty common in New England AFAIK. But I have neither merger.

[Bedelato]

I don't know where Bedelato lives, but I live in New England and can tell you that mack~Mach~mock are distinct for most people in all of northern New England and probably southern New England with the exception of areas that have been influenced by New York.

My accent is entirely American, as far as I know (I've never been outside the US except for a couple short vacations to Canada-only a few days at most, hardly enough time to pick up a dialectal feature).

I've never heard of someone who has caught-cot but no father-bother. I've never even heard of an "incomplete" father-bother merger either.

Having cot-caught without father-bother is pretty common in New England AFAIK. But I have neither merger.

For the sake of my own privacy, I won't narrow it down that much, but I will say that AFAIK, my accent has no uniquely New England features (I've never lived in New England).

I do know that the "mock" vowel (also in "hot" etc.) is definitely [ɑ]. (as opposed to [ɒ], which would be characteristic of not merging father-bother). I also merge father-bother, etc. and haven't found any exceptions in my speech yet.

I guess you could say my accent is sorta Western-ish or something, with some mixture here and there. (caught-cot, but no pin-pen, for example)

[Rory]

About [ju], it is basically [iw] with stress on the second component instead of the first. Another possible transcription could be [ĭu].

I don't see how your explanation is better than just assuming that [ju] is two segments. In fact, your explanation seems more complicated. You'd need to explain "stress" and how it shifts around in different diphthongs to justify this.

Now it seems like you're attacking me or something

Sorry. I spend a good part of my day reading and criticising academic papers, so I can come off as a little insensitive sometimes. I hope you're still enthusiastic about phonological analysis!

Well, they're all syllabic, right? Doesn't that count for something? I do have syllabic /n m/, though.

Yes, they're all syllabic, so they can all act as syllable nuclei. My I suppose I was just wondering why you included some syllabic consonants but not all.

I am sceptical.

I imagined you'd react that way. It's something I only recently found in my own speech (I don't know anyone else who has it), and I'm actually still investigating it.

I'm willing to defer to the other board members who agree with you. This is intriguing and not something I've heard about before.

[Bedelato]

About [ju], it is basically [iw] with stress on the second component instead of the first. Another possible transcription could be [ĭu].

I don't see how your explanation is better than just assuming that [ju] is two segments. In fact, your explanation seems more complicated. You'd need to explain "stress" and how it shifts around in different diphthongs to justify this.

Okay, you win

[Rory]

About [ju], it is basically [iw] with stress on the second component instead of the first. Another possible transcription could be [ĭu].

I don't see how your explanation is better than just assuming that [ju] is two segments. In fact, your explanation seems more complicated. You'd need to explain "stress" and how it shifts around in different diphthongs to justify this.

Okay, you win

Yay! A confession: I made exactly the same assertion as you did, many years ago, on this very board. I claimed that [ju] was a vowel like all the others. Linguoboy rightly pointed out to me that if it was really a vowel, we would expect to see "an" before it, instead of "a" -- "an apple", "an eagle", *"an youth".

[Travis B.]

About [ju], it is basically [iw] with stress on the second component instead of the first. Another possible transcription could be [ĭu].

I don't see how your explanation is better than just assuming that [ju] is two segments. In fact, your explanation seems more complicated. You'd need to explain "stress" and how it shifts around in different diphthongs to justify this.

Okay, you win

Yay! A confession: I made exactly the same assertion as you did, many years ago, on this very board. I claimed that [ju] was a vowel like all the others. Linguoboy rightly pointed out to me that if it was really a vowel, we would expect to see "an" before it, instead of "a" -- "an apple", "an eagle", *"an youth".

There are Anglic dialects that do have a true diphthong phoneme /i̯u/ or /iu̯/ from Middle English /iu̯/ and /ɛu̯/ and Old Norman, Old French, and Middle French /y/, before which they actually do use an (to the best of my knowledge). Mind you that in these dialects, there are still words with /juː/, such as youth, and these words still would not take an.

[Travis B.]

For instance, what logic is behind transcribing my [əw] as /o:/?

Good question! Thankfully no-one claims that English has /o:/.

i u
ɪ ʊ
e: ə o:
ɛ ʌ ɔ
æ ɑ:
Diphthongs: aɪ aʊ ɔɪ ju

Okay, usually what you've called "e:" and "o:" are transcribed as /eɪ/ and /oʊ/. Also, /ɑ/ is not long.

One should remember that quite a few English varieties do normally have monophthongs for historical /eɪ̯/ and/or /oʊ̯/, which consequently are often marked as simply /e/ and /o/ respectively. Also, at least in General American (aside from more progressive varieties thereof that have lost historical vowel length) and Received Pronunciation, /ɑː/ is indeed long and not short.

[faiuwle]

About [ju], it is basically [iw] with stress on the second component instead of the first. Another possible transcription could be [ĭu].

I don't see how your explanation is better than just assuming that [ju] is two segments. In fact, your explanation seems more complicated. You'd need to explain "stress" and how it shifts around in different diphthongs to justify this.

Well, the case I'd make for /ju/ as a phoneme is that it shows up in words like butte (vs. boot) and mute (vs. moot) and cute (vs. coot), which can be anywhere between something like [bjut] and something like [biwt], and aside from examples with /ju/ there doesn't seem to be any allowed sequences of CjV unless there is a syllable break between the C and the j (for <onion> I have /VN.j@n/ or thereabouts). There is no <y> in the orthography, which seems to treat it as a long vowel, and before actually becoming interested in linguistics I just thought of the vowels in butte/mute/cute as a variation of "long u" rather than something involving a consonant that just wasn't written out.

[AnTeallach]

About [ju], it is basically [iw] with stress on the second component instead of the first. Another possible transcription could be [ĭu].

I don't see how your explanation is better than just assuming that [ju] is two segments. In fact, your explanation seems more complicated. You'd need to explain "stress" and how it shifts around in different diphthongs to justify this.

Well, the case I'd make for /ju/ as a phoneme is that it shows up in words like butte (vs. boot) and mute (vs. moot) and cute (vs. coot), which can be anywhere between something like [bjut] and something like [biwt], and aside from examples with /ju/ there doesn't seem to be any allowed sequences of CjV unless there is a syllable break between the C and the j (for <onion> I have /VN.j@n/ or thereabouts). There is no <y> in the orthography, which seems to treat it as a long vowel, and before actually becoming interested in linguistics I just thought of the vowels in butte/mute/cute as a variation of "long u" rather than something involving a consonant that just wasn't written out.

It's certainly the case that the orthography generally treats it as a unit, and it's also the case that there's this odd restriction on the vowels that can come after /Cj/ clusters (something the Burmese junta don't seem to have realised...) but both those points can be explained diachronically (by the fact that [ju] derives from a diphthongal vowel phoneme in earlier English). I think that in most dialects of modern English the synchronic evidence does point towards the two segment analysis; one point is the way /j/ interacts with the previous consonant, but the "an"/"a" thing mentioned by Rory is the clincher for me.

[finlay]

Rory's said anything that I would... I'd add, though, just explicitly that your analysis is closer to what I'd normally see about GA anyway, apart from that I've never seen the three-low-vowel thing either. (are you sure one of them's not rounded, for instance, even if it's not "fully" rounded?) Also, when talking about phonemes, "lousy fit" doesn't really matter: they're arbitrary symbols. It does depend to some extent on the purpose of the transcription, to be fair, but the point of, say, the phonemes given on wikipedia is to somehow accomodate all the dialects of English.

Also, careful with brackets:
"As a rule, /u/→/ʉ/, except before /l/, as in "coo" [kʰʉ:] vs. "cool" [kʰuɫ]."
/u/-›[ʉ], it should be. Weirdly, you then get it right a second later. As an aside, I don't think I know any English speakers with as the default realisation of /u/ (although there's a lot of variation with this, and I think it happens more in America than Britain), and it's a good example of how arbitrary the symbols can be.

One should remember that quite a few English varieties do normally have monophthongs for historical /eɪ̯/ and/or /oʊ̯/, which consequently are often marked as simply /e/ and /o/ respectively.

.... including Rory's accent...

Also, you don't have to say "historical" to prefix any phonemic transcription. 1) it's annoying and 2) it's actually inaccurate here as the monophthongs came before the diphthongs.

[Rory]

One should remember that quite a few English varieties do normally have monophthongs for historical /eɪ̯/ and/or /oʊ̯/, which consequently are often marked as simply /e/ and /o/ respectively. Also, at least in General American (aside from more progressive varieties thereof that have lost historical vowel length) and Received Pronunciation, /ɑː/ is indeed long and not short.

A finlay points out, this is how I talk. fate and boat are roughly [fet], [bot]. This doesn't change the fact that for General American, these vowels are transcribed as /eɪ/ and /oʊ/. In RP, /ɑː/ represents a different lexical set than General American /ɑ/ (BATH vs COT). I'm aware that different people speak in different ways. The OP was contrasting the conventional GA analysis with his own. I was correcting aspects of the GA analysis that he missed or got wrong.

There are Anglic dialects that do have a true diphthong phoneme /i̯u/ or /iu̯/ from Middle English /iu̯/ and /ɛu̯/ and Old Norman, Old French, and Middle French /y/, before which they actually do use an (to the best of my knowledge). Mind you that in these dialects, there are still words with /juː/, such as youth, and these words still would not take an.

What are these dialects? What is the phonetic difference between a "true diphthong" and a sequence of glide+vowel? How can we prove that these dialects have a phonological distinction between /i̯u/ and /juː/? I want to believe you, but you have to bring evidence to support your claims.

[AnTeallach]

There are Anglic dialects that do have a true diphthong phoneme /i̯u/ or /iu̯/ from Middle English /iu̯/ and /ɛu̯/ and Old Norman, Old French, and Middle French /y/, before which they actually do use an (to the best of my knowledge). Mind you that in these dialects, there are still words with /juː/, such as youth, and these words still would not take an.

What are these dialects? What is the phonetic difference between a "true diphthong" and a sequence of glide+vowel? How can we prove that these dialects have a phonological distinction between /i̯u/ and /juː/? I want to believe you, but you have to bring evidence to support your claims.

The dialects I've seen something like this described for are in Wales, e.g. Rhondda (PDF; the relevant section is 3.14). Note though that he says that words with RP initial /ju:/ have an initial [j], so maybe phonologically they start /jIU/ and would be expected to take "a".

[Travis B.]

There are Anglic dialects that do have a true diphthong phoneme /i̯u/ or /iu̯/ from Middle English /iu̯/ and /ɛu̯/ and Old Norman, Old French, and Middle French /y/, before which they actually do use an (to the best of my knowledge). Mind you that in these dialects, there are still words with /juː/, such as youth, and these words still would not take an.

What are these dialects? What is the phonetic difference between a "true diphthong" and a sequence of glide+vowel? How can we prove that these dialects have a phonological distinction between /i̯u/ and /juː/? I want to believe you, but you have to bring evidence to support your claims.

The dialects I've seen something like this described for are in Wales, e.g. Rhondda (PDF; the relevant section is 3.14). Note though that he says that words with RP initial /ju:/ have an initial [j], so maybe phonologically they start /jIU/ and would be expected to take "a".

I have heard of such dialects even existing in the (American) South, even though honestly I would not be able to find a reference therefor offhand.

[Nortaneous]

What are some words that would have initial /iu/? Google "an <word with initial /iu/>" and see where the results are from.

[Travis B.]

One should remember that quite a few English varieties do normally have monophthongs for historical /eɪ̯/ and/or /oʊ̯/, which consequently are often marked as simply /e/ and /o/ respectively.

.... including Rory's accent...

As I presumed.

Also, you don't have to say "historical" to prefix any phonemic transcription.

I prefer to do so, to disclaim that I am not talking about any synchronic phonemic analyses of any English varieties but rather am speaking about phonemes in historical English varieties from which present-day English varieties are descended. There is a difference between the two, as much as you like to refer to both as merely "phonemes".

1) it's annoying

So? A lot of things annoy you.

and 2) it's actually inaccurate here as the monophthongs came before the diphthongs.

It is not this simple. GA and RP /eɪ̯/ and /oʊ̯/ result from the merger of /eː/ with /ɛi̯/ and /oː/ with /ɔu̯/, phonemic mergers that were only complete at a (relatively) late date, particularly in the latter case, and which still have not occurred completely in all Anglic varieties.

[Travis B.]

One should remember that quite a few English varieties do normally have monophthongs for historical /eɪ̯/ and/or /oʊ̯/, which consequently are often marked as simply /e/ and /o/ respectively. Also, at least in General American (aside from more progressive varieties thereof that have lost historical vowel length) and Received Pronunciation, /ɑː/ is indeed long and not short.

A finlay points out, this is how I talk. fate and boat are roughly [fet], [bot]. This doesn't change the fact that for General American, these vowels are transcribed as /eɪ/ and /oʊ/.

In North American English contexts, I still see these not infrequently referred to as /e/ and /o/ rather than /eɪ̯/ and /oʊ̯/, even though I would say that the latter pair are more correct for speaking about NAE as a whole.

In RP, /ɑː/ represents a different lexical set than General American /ɑ/ (BATH vs COT). I'm aware that different people speak in different ways. The OP was contrasting the conventional GA analysis with his own. I was correcting aspects of the GA analysis that he missed or got wrong.

Okay, cases of RP /ɑː/ generally cannot be said to be uniformly belong to the same lexical set as GA /ɑː/, except in words like father, palm, and start. The GA vowel is still historically long rather than short, though.

There are Anglic dialects that do have a true diphthong phoneme /i̯u/ or /iu̯/ from Middle English /iu̯/ and /ɛu̯/ and Old Norman, Old French, and Middle French /y/, before which they actually do use an (to the best of my knowledge). Mind you that in these dialects, there are still words with /juː/, such as youth, and these words still would not take an.

What are these dialects? What is the phonetic difference between a "true diphthong" and a sequence of glide+vowel? How can we prove that these dialects have a phonological distinction between /i̯u/ and /juː/? I want to believe you, but you have to bring evidence to support your claims.

Now that I think of it, I cannot say that such a contrast exists offhand, that is that initial /i̯u/~/iu̯/ is not treated differently from medial /i̯u/~/iu̯/ and do not have anything like /j/ inserted before them. I could dig for information here, but really cannot do so at the very moment. However, there are cases of /juː/ which clearly are not cases of /i̯u/~/iu̯/ diachronically, youth being one of them.

[finlay]

One should remember that quite a few English varieties do normally have monophthongs for historical /eɪ̯/ and/or /oʊ̯/, which consequently are often marked as simply /e/ and /o/ respectively. Also, at least in General American (aside from more progressive varieties thereof that have lost historical vowel length) and Received Pronunciation, /ɑː/ is indeed long and not short.

A finlay points out, this is how I talk. fate and boat are roughly [fet], [bot]. This doesn't change the fact that for General American, these vowels are transcribed as /eɪ/ and /oʊ/. In RP, /ɑː/ represents a different lexical set than General American /ɑ/ (BATH vs COT). I'm aware that different people speak in different ways. The OP was contrasting the conventional GA analysis with his own. I was correcting aspects of the GA analysis that he missed or got wrong.

There are Anglic dialects that do have a true diphthong phoneme /i̯u/ or /iu̯/ from Middle English /iu̯/ and /ɛu̯/ and Old Norman, Old French, and Middle French /y/, before which they actually do use an (to the best of my knowledge). Mind you that in these dialects, there are still words with /juː/, such as youth, and these words still would not take an.

What are these dialects? What is the phonetic difference between a "true diphthong" and a sequence of glide+vowel? How can we prove that these dialects have a phonological distinction between /i̯u/ and /juː/? I want to believe you, but you have to bring evidence to support your claims.

haha, you should see some of the arguments i've had on here with travis. I always come off as petty, though...

[Soap]

Ewe/yew/you sounds like it would be a good way to test if any dialects have a true contrast between /ju/ and /iu/. Does any such dialect exist?

[Travis B.]

Ewe/yew/you sounds like it would be a good way to test if any dialects have a true contrast between /ju/ and /iu/. Does any such dialect exist?

That is a very good question that I would be interesting in seeing the answer to myself.

[alice]

One should remember that quite a few English varieties do normally have monophthongs for historical /eɪ̯/ and/or /oʊ̯/, which consequently are often marked as simply /e/ and /o/ respectively. Also, at least in General American (aside from more progressive varieties thereof that have lost historical vowel length) and Received Pronunciation, /ɑː/ is indeed long and not short.

A finlay points out, this is how I talk. fate and boat are roughly [fet], [bot]. This doesn't change the fact that for General American, these vowels are transcribed as /eɪ/ and /oʊ/.

In North American English contexts, I still see these not infrequently referred to as /e/ and /o/ rather than /eɪ̯/ and /oʊ̯/, even though I would say that the latter pair are more correct for speaking about NAE as a whole.

I prefer to use /e/ and /o/, mainly for notational convenience; for me they vary between pure vowels and diphthongs, and not always predictably. I would find it strange to refer to weather [veinz], but the blood vessels can be either [venz] or [veinz]. There are historical reasons for this, but I have no idea why they should have affected my own idiolect.