# monophthongal /eɪ/ and /oʊ/ in Canada and California: long?



## Nino83

Hello everybody. 

I've read here that: 



> _Ladefoged's descriptions of these two dialects (1993, 1999) imply (but do not explicitly state) that in Californian English there has been a monophthongisation of two of the diphthongs still found in Midwestern American English, that is /eɪ/ and /oʊ/. Furthermore, during this process, *the diphthong /oʊ/ has merged with the monophthong /ɔ/*. This has resulted, relative to Midwestern American English, in two fewer diphthongs in Californian English but only one additional monophthong_



From this description it seems that these vowels are pronounced short, because the monophthong _*/ɔ/*_ (with /ɔ/ he means "or", i.e the vowel of "warm", because the vowel of "caught" is merged with "cot" in this accent) in General American is short, but later it is said: 



> _Ladefoged (1999) further indicates that the process of monophthongisation in Californian English is not complete as both original diphthongs *are still pronounced with an offglide*. This has been indicated in the phonetic representation of each of these two vowels on the appropriate diagram, above._



He uses transcriptions like [eʲ] and [oʷ], so it seems that these vowel are long and that there is no merger between the vowels of "ch*o*rd" and "c*o*de" (because the first is short, i.e [oɻ], and the second is long, i.e [oʷ]). 

Reading the work of Labov (Atlas of North American English) it is said: 



> Diphthongization of all long vowels, especially in final position, is the general rule in North America. Monophthongal */e:/ and /o:/* do occur, but *only in limited areas.* (page 13)
> The dark red oriented isogloss on Map 13.5 outlines an area similar to that of the GD isogloss: the region of tense, sometimes *monophthongal /ey/*, defined by an *advanced second formant greater than 2200 Hz*. It includes *the Prairie provinces of Canada, along with a large area of the North Central States in U.S.* It does not extend as far west in Canada as Vancouver, or as far east as Ottawa, and it does not include that region of Wisconsin and Minnesota where the merger of /æ/ and /ey/ before /g/ is most concentrated. In many respects, this is one of the most conservative regions of North America: *the front tense /ey/ is matched by /ow/ in a mid back, sometimes monophthongal position.* (page 183)
> However, it will appear below that the area of Inland Canada is marked by tense peripheral long /ey/, which *might well be written in broad phonetic notation as [e:]*. (page 217)
> It [the ANAE] will also appear that in other respects, *the core areas of Canadian English* are quite conservative: the preservation of peripheral, *almost monophthongal /ey/ and /ow/*, and the back position of /aw/, shared with the North of the United States. (page 217)



From that, I understand that: 
1) California is not included in the areas with monophthongal /ey/ and /ow/ by Labov, so it is confirmed what Ladefoged says, i.e that in California these are pronunced with an offglide, [eʲ] and [oʷ] 
2) according to Labov, /ey/ and /ow/ are long vowels in Canada and North Central States in US and /ey/ can be transcribed as [e:] 

What I'd like to know is if the pair _bait/bit_ is distinguished by phonemic length or by centralization. 
In other words, it is said that in the US there is no phonemic length, so the vowel of "beat" and "boot" are short, i.e _ and . 
Is it true also for "bait" and "boat"? 
If it is so, seeing these diagrams about Californian and Canadian vowels, the words "bait" and "bit" were distinguished by centralization (i.e "bait" is fronter, F2 > 2200 Hz, [bet] and "bit" is more centralized, [bɘt] or [bɪ̈t]), like in Scottish English (where these two vowels are both short). 
If the diphghongs /ey/ and /ow/ are longer, "bait" and "bit" are distinguished by phonemic lenght, i.e [beːt] and [bɪt]. 

How "bait" is pronounced in Canada and North Central States? Is it short or long? 
For example, quentindevintino (Toronto) pronounces [steːʤ] (stage), with a long vowel, http://it.forvo.com/word/stage/#en and [ɪgzɘst] (exists), with a central vowel http://it.forvo.com/word/exists/ (same pronunciation for Arn_Wendt, Michigan). This is the "standard" pronunciation http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/exist?q=exist+ 
Griffeblanche (Northwest of NY state, near Toronto) pronounces [meːk] or [meʲk] (make), with a long vowel and a very short off-glide, http://it.forvo.com/word/make/#en, and [fɪʃ  ̴ fɘʃ],  http://it.forvo.com/word/fish/, a little central but not so central like that of quentindevintino (compare with "fish" said by zoerelle, Miami, which is something like [e], similar to the British English [feʃ] of bananaman, from London). 

So, it seems to me that Canadians and Americans from North Central States use both phonemic length and centralization in order to differenciate "bait" and "bit", having a long vowel, [eː] or [eʲ] for the first and a more central vowel, [ɘ], for the second. 

Said that, I find very confusing the transcription you find in this vowel chart or in this, where the /ey/ diphthong is written with a short [e], and in the wikipedia page "General American", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American#Vowels where there is the same transcription, i.e with a short [e] (like in Scottish). 

What do you think/hear? Are these monophthongal pronunciation of /ey/ and /ow/ long in American English or do you think they are pronounced short, like in Scottish accents? 

Thank you_


----------



## Sobakus

It's definitely long, as, incidentally, is the Scottish/Geordie sound – I'm not sure why you call it short. What makes it clearly different from the latter one, I think, is the [ʲ] off-glide, as well the as lack of palatalisation of the preceding consonant (which sort of sounds like a [ʲ] on-glide in Scottish). As for the /ɔ/ (as in _cot_) in Gen. Am., it's realised as [ɒ:] – this is as much a defining feature of the American accent as irhotacism is, so the off-glide explanation makes sense. In general, however, long vowels in Gen. Am. are realised shorter than their RP counterparts, this might be the reason for you doubt.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Sobakus. 
I hear these vowel long in AmE. 
What I don't understand is why there are a lot of vowel charts where these diphthongs are transcribed with a short "e" and a short "o". 
American phonologist often lack of precision.


----------



## berndf

It is not sloppiness. In AmE phonology it is customary to distinguish between "phonemic" length, which GA is not supposed to have, and "phonetic" length, which supports distinction of qualitatively very close phonemes, e.g. /ɛ/ (short) and /æ/ (long), without being in itself a phonologically relevant property.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> It is not sloppiness. In AmE phonology it is customary to distinguish between "phonemic" length, which GA is not supposed to have, and "phonetic" length, which supports distinction of qualitatively very close phonemes, e.g. /ɛ/ (short) and /æ/ (long), without being in itself a phonologically relevant property.



http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/SCIHS/abstracts/6_FridayPosters/Holland.pdf

Ok, but also in this work (Cory Holland, University of California), in the chart at the center of the page, it is written: dress = ɛ, face = e, lot = ɑ, goat = o, without specifing length.
If they say that in AmE all vowels are pronounced short and in a second time they write "face = e" and "goat = o" they made people think that "face" and "goat" are pronounced with a short "e" and "o" when it is not so. 
How you can see from that chart, in Californian English the vowels of "bait" and "bit" have a partial overlap in quality, so the difference is in quantity. 
Labov is more precise, and writes [e:], while other phoneticians write simply "e", like it was a Scottish /ey/ or an Australian/New Zealand short "e". 
This is quite confusing. 
In Californian English /ey/ and /i/ partially overlap so length is "phonemic" in this case.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Ok, but also in this work (Cory Holland, University of California), in the chart at the center of the page, it is written: dress = ɛ, face = e, lot = ɑ, goat = o, without specifing length.


That's exactly what I mean. Length is just a supporting characteristic to disambiguate a small number close sounds and that is, supposedly, not worthy of being marked in phoneme-oriented transcription. I am not saying I support that view what that's how many people do see it.


----------



## Nino83

Cory Holland confirmed that these vowels are "long, and more or less diphthongal" in California (and in the rest of the US). 

Edit: 

These charts (female and male) confirm what I've heard on Forvo. 

In Australian English the difference between "beat" and "bit" is just length, in British English the vowel of "bit" is less fronted than in Australian English but it is not central while in American English (which doesn't have phonemic distinction between "beat" and "bit") short "i" is quite central (in female speech "beat" and "bit" have the same F1, so the only difference is in centralization, in male speech short "i" is very central, F2 = 1500). 

So, "bait" and "bit" in American English differ both in length and in centralization. 
In other words, "bit" is, more or less, a central closed mid vowel (in the US). 

http://dea.brunel.ac.uk/cmsp/home_yan_qin/intro/formant_comparison_across_accent.htm


----------



## berndf

Another issue is that many, if not most, AmE speakers don't perceive /eɪ/ as a diphthong. I.e. they don't perceive that that pronounce anything "wrong" when the pronounce French words like _entrée_ with an off-glide at the end.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> Another issue is that many, if not most, AmE speakers don't perceive /eɪ/ as a diphthong. I.e. they don't perceive that that pronounce anything "wrong" when the pronounce French words like _entrée_ with an off-glide at the end.



True. Like in the American spot of the new Fiat 500, when the woman says "è per m*ay*" instead of "è per m*é*" (it's for me). 
In Italy there is an American economic journalist, Alan Friedman, which pronounces "è" like "eɪ" and other final stressed syllables ("perché" = perkay).


----------



## Sobakus

Dear me, the English orthography stops looking so horrible after you look at the American phonetic notation.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> Another issue is that many, if not most, AmE speakers don't perceive /eɪ/ as a diphthong. I.e. they don't perceive that that pronounce anything "wrong" when the pronounce French words like entrée with an off-glide at the end.


This is true, but BE speakers pronounce these words using the same English phoneme, same goes for /oʊ/ in both varieties. I very much doubt this has to do with their perception of the English sounds, they're simply adapting foreign words to the phonology of their native language. This is the general reason for people having a foreign accent.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> Another issue is that many, if not most, AmE speakers don't perceive /eɪ/ as a diphthong. I.e. they don't perceive that that pronounce anything "wrong" when the pronounce French words like _entrée_ with an off-glide at the end.



Very true.  At school in America, no one learns IPA phonetics, and we are taught about long and short a, long and short i, long and short o etc., distinguishable with Latin diacritical marks, like macrons and breves.  We also learn the way long and short vowels are usually written in the language. So few people acquaint "great" with having a diphthong.  Not so with, for example "boy" though.  We learn it has two vowels.
 /ei/ is definitely a diphthong, even in California.  The only area where it might sound like it has less of a diphthong, and that it might be broken is in the Minnesota, Dakota area.  "Beat" and "Bit" are different in length and in quality.  "Bait" is also noticeably long.

Look how Webster describes the pronunciation of these words.  Americans reading the dictionary would get it.

Bit
Bait
Dress
Goat
Lot
White


----------



## Nino83

American phonologists should write more often the corrispondent sound in IPA.


----------



## sumelic

They are writing it in IPA, it's just that IPA is used for phonemic transcription just as much as, or even more often than, it is for phonetic transcription. If you're attempting to fit the sounds of Californian English into a phonemic inventory, it looks extremely odd to say that the phoneme /ɔ/ or /o̞/ or whatnot only occurs in extremely restricted positions, before /r/ and /l/ in the same syllable. Add to that the fact that /oʊ/ never occurs before an /r/ or /l/ in the same syllable, and you have an argument for unifying the two sounds using the concept of "phoneme". Then the question is, what is the most suitable symbol for this unified phoneme? Using a simple /o/ takes the least amount of special symbols, and also helps to indicate that this "phoneme" has different patterns of allophony than the diphthongs /aʊ/ /aɪ/ and /ɔɪ/. It's not only American phonologists who do this kind of thing; you can find British phonologists who still use the almost archaic RP vowel quantities to transcribe modern-day, non-RP British English, like using /e/ to represent [ɛ].

If you really wanted all true phonetic vowel length differences to be transcribed, we'd need to mark multiple levels of length, not just short and long, to take into account the shortening of all vowels before voiceless consonants.


----------



## Nino83

In order not to create confusion, they could specify that those vowels are long. 
I don't agree. In British English they write /ɔ:/ with length markers but we know that vowel is higher. 
Length markers and phonemic transcription are compatible.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> In order not to create confusion, they could specify that those vowels are long.
> I don't agree. In British English they write /ɔ:/ with length markers but we know that vowel is higher.
> Length markers and phonemic transcription are compatible.


You can understand, and people often do, this also as meaning that BrE has (at least some) length phonemicity. And that is what this notation is conveying.


Nino83 said:


> but we know that vowel is higher.


We know many speakers pronounce it higher. Mid-open realization is still acceptable and does occur.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> You can understand, and people often do, this also as meaning that BrE has (at least some) length phonemicity. And that is what this notation is conveying.



Are you saying that if I go to California and start pronouncing [bet] (with a short closed "e") people thin I'm saing "bait", or do they think I'm saying "bet" with an higher "e"? 
I'm not so sure that length is completely useless in American English, if we're speaking about /ey/ and /ow/.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Are you saying that if I go to California and start pronouncing [bet] (with a short closed "e") people thin I'm saing "bait", or do they think I'm saying "bet" with an higher "e"?
> I'm not so sure that length is completely useless in American English, if we're speaking about /ey/ and /ow/.


What I am saying is that there is reason to systamatize AE and BE differently:
Phonemic vowel length: Italian - No, German - Yes, Spanish - No, Swedish - Yes, BrE - Yes, AmE - No, ...
This explains the difference in notation. I am not voicing an opinion on this. I am merely stating that it is often seen that way.


----------



## Nino83

If they are long and "more or less" diphthongal, the symbols /e/ and /o/ are the worst possible transcription.


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> Are you saying that if I go to California and start pronouncing [bet] (with a short closed "e") people thin I'm saing "bait", or do they think I'm saying "bet" with an higher "e"?
> I'm not so sure that length is completely useless in American English, if we're speaking about /ey/ and /ow/.



If you say /bet/, short with no diphthong in California, they would understand "bait" but not "bet" since /bɛt/ with an open vowel is expected and needed here. Context is also paramount so it's possible sometimes they wouldn't even notice. They would probably conclude you were Hispanic and had a strong accent.  Since there are many Spanish-speakers there (in some areas the majority) and they do not make distinctions in vowel length they are used to hearing /xa-ba-nais-dé/ with syllables of equal length and all diphthongs undone.



> If they are long and "more or less" diphthongal, the symbols /e/ and /o/ are the worst possible transcription.


 Not for natives, the aspect long versus short is what is important. The diphthong is overlooked.


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> If you say /bet/, short with no diphthong in California, they would understand "bait" but not "bet" since /bɛt/ with an open vowel is expected and needed here.



Poor Australians (and lucky Sottish) in California!  

Anyway, I prefer Labov's transcriptions. For foreigners length markers are important.


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> Poor Australians (and lucky Sottish) in California!
> 
> Anyway, I prefer Labov's transcriptions. For foreigners length markers are important.



I think they are pretty consistently marked, just the diphthong is absent.  In general people should become more aware that there are diphthongs.  I think people confuse long and diphthong, and they have become an indissociable phenomenon.  
Italians should mark diphthongs better too: in words paúra and Páola.  It's not obvious to know if it's present or not.

The first time I saw IPA in my life was when I first studied French.  English and Spanish had different notations.  The weird symbols for "sh", "ch", "sh", "y" are probably what keeps IPA from being more widely used.


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> Italians should mark diphthongs better too: in words paúra and Páola.  It's not obvious to know if it's present or not.



This is due to the general fact that we don't mark tonic accent (unless in oxytones). 
It's obvious that if the stress is on the "i" or on the "u", there is a hiatus. But you're talking about orthography, I'm talking about transcriptions.


----------

