14 Case Studies: L1 English Phonological Variation Among Europeians

GrandfatherClock

GrandfatherClock

Tik tok on the clock or whatever
Citizen
Pronouns
He/him

14 Case Studies:

L1 English Phonological Variation Among Europeians

GrandfatherClock

The Diggers Dirt

March 22, 2022


​

Abstract​

Participants of this study were informed of its goal before agreeing to participate, namely to ascribe a geographic label based on prior phonological studies to their speech, based on the established variety of L11 English that was evaluated to most closely match their speech. Participants were selected from the wide pool of Europeian citizens who engage in voice calls. Furthermore, since the scope of this study was to evaluate L1 English phonological variation, the selection pool of participants was limited to those who speak English as a first language. Participants were given a list of 75 key words to read, from which a phonological description of their idiolect2 could be created. This description was compared to literature values for different geographic varieties of English, from which an association could be made for each of the participants. Key words were selected based on their potential for varying groupings and particular pronunciations among varieties, or simply to provide a baseline. This will be elaborated on further in the methodology section, to give a clear description of why words were chosen and what conclusions can be made from which groupings. Conclusions were individual to each participant, and will not be discussed in a comprehensive conclusion section, but rather in the section for each person.

1First language.
2Variety of speech particular to a specific person.

Acknowledgements​

I would like to thank the 14 participants who agreed to be studied, whose names appear with their number in the heading. In order of their appearance, they are: Istillian, Lloenflys, Lethen, Darkslayer, UPC, Hezekon, Andusre, Xecrio, Calvin Coolidge, Lime, Kazaman, Kharn, Sarah, and Kuramia. I would also like to specifically thank Lethen, whose idea it was to embark on this month-long project, and Istillian, who has graciously allowed me the use of The Diggers Dirt for publishing.
​

Contents​

1. Methodology
2. Case Studies
2.1 Participant #01
2.2 Participant #02
2.3 Participant #03
2.4 Participant #04
2.5 Participant #05
2.6 Participant #06
2.7 Participant #07
2.8 Participant #08
2.9 Participant #09
2.10 Participant #10
2.11 Participant #11
2.12 Participant #12
2.13 Participant #13
2.14 Participant #14

1. Methodology​

Before being given the list of key words to read, participants were asked to describe their own variety of English in geographical terms, so that their personal perception may be compared to the conclusion reached by the end of their case study. They were then given the list of 75 key words to read, which were asked of them by number, to avoid affecting the pronunciation of the participant with the researcher's own. The words were given in all uppercase letters, to avoid confusion typographical confusion between visually similar letterforms of different cases. A list of the 75 keywords can be found below, with an explanation of their linguistic significance. Vowels have many specific realizations and will be discussed pertaining to each speaker individually.
Readings of words by participants were recorded in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), which will be used extensively here to describe phonological particularities. Transcription will vary between narrow and broad3; transcription in slashes will be used for simplicity. Diaphonemes4 are denoted with double slashes. It should be noted that varieties of English, although typically associated with a geographic locality, are neither disjunct—they morph and transition gently into one another, nor are they internally homogeneous—they vary within themselves (Roach, 2009; Wells, 1982). Conclusions reached here are based upon traditional varietal groupings and the phonological characteristics most particular to them, though these also change over time (Wells, 1982).

1. PIT looking for initial diaphoneme //p//, PIT. Usually realized as aspirated /pʰ/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

2. TIN looking for initial diaphoneme //t//, TIN. Usually realized as aspirated /tʰ/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

3. CUT looking for initial diaphoneme //k//, CUT. Usually realized as aspirated /kʰ/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

4. CHEAP looking for initial diaphoneme //tʃ//, CHEAP. Almost invariably realized as /tʃ/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

5. FAT looking for initial diaphoneme //f//, FAT. Almost invariably realized as /f/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

6. THIGH looking for initial diaphoneme //θ//, THIGH. Realized as /θ/ in many modern English dialects, though there are exceptions. In varieties with th-fronting, words with this phoneme are grouped with those of 5. FAT, such as Cockney English, African American Vernacular English (AAVE), some varieties of Yorkshire English, and others—//θ// is realized as /f/. In varieties with th-stopping, words with this phoneme are grouped with 2. TIN, such as Caribbean English and Irish English, among others—//θ// is realized as /t/ (Roach, 2009).

7. SAP looking for initial diaphoneme //s//, SAP. Almost invariably realized as /s/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

8. MESH looking for final diaphoneme //ʃ//, MESH. Almost invariably realized as /ʃ/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

9. LOCH looking for final diaphoneme //x//, LOCH. Most varieties of Modern English group this phoneme with 3. CUT, with the notable exception of Standard Scottish English, which retains the phoneme in most cases under influence from vernacular Scots Varieties. Varieties without this phoneme will use /k/ in its place (Roach, 2009).

10. HIT looking for initial diaphoneme //h//, HIT. Almost invariably realized as /h/ across all modern English varieties, though many varieties of English in England omit this phoneme when appearing word-initially (Roach, 2009).

11. BIT looking for initial diaphoneme //b//, BIT. Almost invariably realized as /b/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

12. DINE looking for initial diaphoneme //d//, DINE. Almost invariably realized as /d/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

13. GUT looking for initial diaphoneme //g//, GUT. Almost invariably realized as /g/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

14. JEEP looking for initial diaphoneme //dʒ//, JEEP. Almost invariably realized as /dʒ/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

15. VAT looking for initial diaphoneme //v//, VAT. Almost invariably realized as /v/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

16. THY looking for initial diaphoneme //ð//, THY. Realized as /ð/ in many modern English dialects, though there are exceptions. In varieties with th-fronting, words with this phoneme are grouped with those of 15. VAT, such as Cockney English, African American Vernacular English (AAVE), some varieties of Yorkshire English, and others—//ð// is realized as /v/. In varieties with th-stopping, words with this phoneme are grouped with 12. DINE, such as Caribbean English and Irish English, among others—//ð// is realized as /d/ (Roach, 2009).

17. ZAP looking for initial diaphoneme //z//, ZAP. Almost invariably realized as /z/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

18. MEASURE looking for medial diaphoneme //ʒ//, MEASURE. Almost invariably realized as /ʒ/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

19. TIM looking for final diaphoneme //m//, TIM. Almost invariably realized as /m/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

20. TIN looking for final diaphoneme //n//, TIN. Almost invariably realized as /m/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

21. THING looking for final diaphoneme //ŋ//, THING. Realized as /ŋ/ in most modern English varieties, though in the English of Northeastern England and Estuary English, this diaphoneme consists of two phonemes /ŋg/. It may therefore be analyzed as a velar allophone of 20. TIN before velar 13. GUT in these varieties. These varieties therefore lack ng-coalescence (Roach, 2009; Rogers, 2000)

22. YOUR looking for initial diaphoneme //j//, YOUR. Almost invariably realized as /j/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

23. WORE looking for initial diaphoneme //w//, WORE. Almost invariably realized as /w/ across all modern English varieties (Rogers, 2000).

24. RUMP looking for initial diaphoneme //ɹ//, RUMP. The rhotic consonant has many realizations across English varieties, the most common of which being postalveolar /ɹ/. West Country English and some North-Central American and Inland North American varieties have instead retroflex /ɻ/. Varieties of Scottish English have a tap /ɾ/ under influence from Scots vernacular, and Glasgow Vernacular shows signs of uvular /ʁ/ syllable-finally. Older Northumbrian English may exhibit /ʁ/ in all environments, though this variety is non-rhotic. Non-rhotics lose this diaphoneme syllable-finally, typically lengthening the preceding vowel. Most English varieties of England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and some American varieties like Boston English are non-rhotic (Roach, 2009; Rogers, 2000).

25. LUMP looking for initial diaphoneme //l//, LUMP. May be non-velarized ('clear', 'light') /l/ or velarized ('dark') /ɫ/. Most varieties alternate between both variants depending on surrounding phonemes, while Irish English generally has only non-velarized /l/, while most North American varieties, along with Australian English and New Zealand English may only have /ɫ/ (Roach, 2009).

26. BOTTLE looking for intervocalic alveolar flapping, where //t// 20. TIN and //d// 12. DINE are realized as /ɾ/ between vowels. Occurs in most North American varieties, along with Australian and New Zealand English. Also looking for l-vocalization, where //l// 25. LUMP may be realized as a close, back vowel. Occurs in many varieties of English in England, Australia, and New Zealand. Also looking for intervocalic t-glottalization, where //t// 20. TIN is realized as a glottal stop /ʔ/ between vowels. Occurs most famously in Cockney English, where it co-occurs with l-velarization (Roach, 2009).

27. WHICH looking for initial diaphoneme //ʍ//, WHICH. Largely merged with //w// 23. WORE in modern English varieties, Standard Scottish English still makes this distinction; it lacks the WINE-WHINE merger (Roach, 2009).

28. HUGE looking for initial diaphoneme //ç//, HUGE. Realized as /ç/ in most modern English varieties. This diaphoneme does not exist in some varieties of English, such as New York English and surrounding varieties, where this diaphoneme is replaced by //j// 23. WORE (Roach, 2009; Rogers, 2000).

29. DEW looking for yod-dropping, which occurs in some varieties in England, and many varieties in North America. This may also be a sociolectal phenomenon, where sociolects of the upper classes are less likely to yod-drop. Also looking for yod-coalescence, where the initial cluster /dj/ is assimilated to //dʒ// 14. JEEP (Roach, 2009).

30. HAM looking for medial diaphoneme //æ//, HAM. North American varieties tend to raise //æ// before nasals such as /m/, contrasting with 31. BAD and 32. LAD (Labov et al., 2006).

31. BAD looking for medial diaphoneme //æ//, BAD (Trager & Smith, 1951; Labov et al., 2006).

32. LAD looking for medial diaphoneme //æ//, LAD. Many varieties have a shorter vowel here than in 31. BAD and 30. HAM, such as Australian English and Cockney English (Wells, 1982).

33. PASS looking for medial diaphoneme //æ//, PASS. In varieties with a TRAP-BATH split, this word will be grouped with 34. FATHER and not 32. LAD (Trager & Smith, 1951; Wells, 1982).

34. FATHER looking for medial diaphoneme //ɑː//, FATHER (Wells, 1982).

35. NOT looking for medial diaphoneme //ɒ//, NOT. Grouped with 34. FATHER in varieties with the FATHER-BOTHER merger (Labov et al., 2006; Wells, 1982).

36. OFF looking for initial diaphoneme //ɒ//, OFF. Grouped with 37. LAW in most Irish varieties, otherwise grouped with 35. NOT (Wells, 1982).

37. LAW looking for final diaphoneme //ɔː//, LAW (Trager & Smith, 1951).

38. PAUSE looking for medial diaphoneme //ɔː//, PAUSE. Distinguished from 37. LAW only in Cockney English (Wells, 1982).

39. ABOUT looking for initial diaphoneme //ɔː//, ABOUT (Trager & Smith, 1951).

40. BIT looking for initial diaphoneme //ɪ//, BIT (Trager & Smith, 1951).

41. KIT looking for initial diaphoneme //ɪ//, KIT. Grouped with 42. CITY and not 40. BIT in varieties with the KIT-BIT split (Broad South African English) (Wells, 1982).

42. CITY looking for final diaphoneme //i//, CITY. Grouped with 40. BIT and 41. KIT in conservative Received Pronunciation (RP), and perceived as equivalent to 43. SEE in most varieties except conservative RP and English in Northern England, where it remains a separate phoneme (Wells, 1982).

43. SEE looking for medial diaphoneme //iː//, SEE (Trager & Smith, 1951).

44. DATE looking for medial diaphoneme //eɪ̯//, DATE (Trager & Smith, 1951).

45. DAY looking for final diaphoneme //eɪ̯//, DAY. Distinguished from 44. DATE only in Welsh English, otherwise grouped with 44. DATE (Wells, 1982).

46. BED looking for medial diaphoneme //ɛ//, BED (Trager & Smith, 1951).

47. PEN looking for medial diaphoneme //ɛ//, PEN. Grouped with 40. BIT and 41. KIT in varieties with the PIN-PEN merger (Labov et al., 2006; Wells, 1982).

48. LENGTH looking for medial diaphoneme //ɛ//, LENGTH. Distinguished from 46. BED and 47. PEN only in Cajun English, otherwise merged with both (Wells, 1982).

49. RUN looking for medial diaphoneme //ʌ//, RUN. Grouped with 50. PUT in varieties without the FOOT-STRUT split (Wells, 1982).

50. PUT looking for medial diaphoneme //ʊ//, PUT (Trager & Smith, 1951).

51. HOOD looking for medial diaphoneme //ʊ//, HOOD. Merged with 52. THROUGH in varieties of Welsh English and Irish English (Wells, 1982).

52. THROUGH looking for final diaphoneme //uː//, THROUGH. Merged with 50. PUT and 51. HOOD in Standard Scottish English (Scobbie et al, 2006).

53. THREW looking for final diaphoneme //uː//, THREW. Merged with 54. CUTE in Welsh English, otherwise merged with 52. THROUGH (Wells, 1982).

54. CUTE looking for medial diaphoneme //juː//, CUTE (Trager & Smith, 1951).

55. FLIGHT looking for medial diaphoneme //aɪ̯//, FLIGHT. Distinguished from 56. MY in varieties with Canadian raising (Labov et al., 2006).

56. MY looking for final diaphoneme //aɪ̯//, MY (Trager & Smith, 1951).

57. BOY looking for final diaphoneme //ɔɪ̯//, BOY (Trager & Smith, 1951).

58. NO looking for final diaphoneme //oʊ̯//, NO (Trager & Smith, 1951).

59. TOW looking for final diaphoneme //oʊ̯//, TOW. Distinguished from 58. NO in Welsh English (Wells, 1982).

60. SOUL looking for medial diaphoneme //oʊ̯//, SOUL. Distinguished from 58. NO and 59. TOW in varieties with a more front /oʊ̯/, blocked by a velarized /ɫ/ (Wells, 1982).

61. ABOUT looking for medial diaphoneme //aʊ̯//, ABOUT. Distinguished from 62. NOW in varieties with Canadian raising (Labov et al., 2006).

62. NOW looking for medial diaphoneme //aʊ̯//, NOW (Trager & Smith, 1951).

63. ARM looking for initial diaphoneme //ɑːɹ//, ARM. Grouped with 34. FATHER in non-rhotic varieties (Labov et al., 2006).

64. DEER looking for final diaphoneme //ɪə̯ɹ//, DEER. Constitutes a whole separate phoneme in non-rhotic varieties, even though lacking /ɹ/ (Trager & Smith, 1951).

65. MARE looking for final diaphoneme //ɛə̯ɹ//, MARE. Constitutes a whole separate phoneme in non-rhotic varieties, even though lacking /ɹ/ (Trager & Smith, 1951).

66. BURN looking for medial diaphoneme //ɜːɹ//, BURN. Merged with 67. BIRD and 68. EARTH in varieties with the Mary-merry-marry merger (Labov et al., 2006).

67. BIRD looking for medial diaphoneme //ɜːɹ//, BIRD. Merged with 66. BURN and 68. EARTH in varieties with the Mary-merry-marry merger (Labov et al., 2006).

68. EARTH looking for initial diaphoneme //ɜːɹ//, EARTH. Merged with 66. BURN and 67. BIRD in varieties with the Mary-merry-marry merger (Labov et al., 2006).

69. WINNER looking for final diaphoneme //əɹ//4, WINNER (Trager & Smith, 1951).

70. DONOR looking for final diaphoneme //əɹ//, DONOR. Distinguished from 69. WINNER only in Cajun English (Wells, 1982).

71. SORT looking for medial diaphoneme //ɔːɹ//, SORT (Trager & Smith, 1951).

72. TORE looking for final diaphoneme //ɔːɹ//, TORE. Merged with 71. SORT in varieties with the NORTH-FORCE merger (Scobbie et al, 2006).

73. TOUR looking for final diaphoneme /ʊəɹ//, TOUR. Merged with 72. TORE in varieties with the SURE-SHORE merger (Labov et al., 2006).

74. PURE looking for final diaphoneme //jʊəɹ//, PURE. May contrast with 72. TOUR in varieties with an incomplete SURE-SHORE merger (Labov et al., 2006).

75. BAG looking for medial diaphoneme //æ//, BAG. Some varieties without æ-tensing elsewhere exhibit it before velars (Labov et al., 2006).

5This diaphoneme is transcribed //əɹ// for convention and conformity to other rhotic diaphonemes (Trager & Smith, 1951). In English, this diaphoneme is functionally equivalent to //ɜːɹ// (Rogers, 2000).

3Broad transcription is more general, while narrow is more specific. It was not necessary to specify which transcriptions were broad and which were narrow here, so conventions for broad IPA transcription were followed.
4An abstraction of a unitary phonological sound that can be used to compare between different varieties of a language or language cluster (Trager & Smith, 1951).

2. Case Studies​

2.1 Participant #01 (@Istillian)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰat/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæt/
6. /θɑɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /meʃ/
9. /lɔk/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /dɑɪ̯n/
13. /gat/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væt/
16. /ðɑɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /meʒa/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /joː/
23. /woː/
24. /ɹamp/
25. /ɫamp/
26. /bɔtʊ/
27. /wɪtʃ/
28. /çɯ̯ʉdʒ/
29. /dʒɯ̯ʉ/
30. /hæːm/
31. /bæːd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰɑːs/
34. /fɑːða/
35. /nɔt/
36. /ɔf/
37. /ɫɒː/
38. /pʰɒːz/
39. /əbæɔ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪti/
43. /siː/
44. /dæɪ̯t/
45. /dæɪ̯/
46. /bed/
47. /pʰen/
48. /ɫeŋθ/
49. /ɹan/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹɯ̯ʉː/
53. /θɹɯ̯ʉː/
54. /kjɯ̯ʉːt/
55. /fɫɑɪ̯t/
56. /mɑɪ̯/
57. /boɪ̯/
58. /nəʉ̯/
59. /tʰəʉ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbæɔ̯t/
62. /næɔ̯/
63. /aːm/
64. /dɪa̯/
65. /mɛː/
66. /bɜːn/
67. /bɜːd/
68. /ɜːθ/
69. /wɪna/
70. /dəʉ̯na/
71. /soːt/
72. /tʰoː/
73. /tʰʊa̯/
74. /pjʊa̯/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Raised-onset lowered-offset /æɔ̯/ in 61. ABOUT, lowered and fronted /a/ in 50. PUT, fronted and broken /ɯ̯ʉ/ in 52. THROUGH, and centralized-onset fronted-offset /əʉ̯/ in 58. NO are enough to place this participant's variety in Australia or New Zealand (Harrington et al., 1997).
  • The lack of a weak vowel merger between 39. ABOUT and 40. BIT (as would be characteristic of New Zealand English (Gordon & Maclagan, 2004)) is enough to place this participant's variety in Australia itself.
  • Evidence for an incomplete TRAP-BATH split as given by 33. PASS is most likely enough to rule out South Australia, where this split is more advanced than in other areas (Harrington et al., 1997).
  • The diphthongal /ɪa̯/ in 64. DEER is most likely enough to rule out Western Australia, where this would probably be monophthongal /ɪː/ (Harrington et al., 1997).
  • The precise pronunciation of /æɔ̯/ in 61. ABOUT is consistent with a General sociolect of Australian English, as opposed to Broad or Cultivated varieties (Harrington et al., 1997).
Therefore, this participant's speech most closely matches that of the General Eastern Australian variety. This is consistent with their own evaluation of "Australian English".

Other observations:
  • This speaker exhibits a weak vowel merger between /ə/ and /a/ word-finally.
  • This speaker lacks the intervocalic alveolar flapping characteristic of Australian varieties. This could be under influence of Received Pronunciation (RP)-influenced Cultivated varieties of Australian English.

2.2 Participant #02 (@Lloenflys)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæt/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɑːx/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væt/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɑɾɫ̩/
27. /wɪtʃ/
28. /çuːdʒ/
29. /duː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fäːðəɹ/
35. /nät/
36. /ɑf/
37. /ɫɑː/
38. /pʰɑːz/
39. /əbäʊ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹuː/
53. /θɹuː/
54. /kʰjuːt/
55. /fɫʌɪ̯t/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /noʊ̯/
59. /tʰoʊ̯/
60. /soːɫ/
61. /əbäʊ̯t/
62. /näʊ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /doʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰʊə̯ɹ/
74. /pjɜːɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Fronted /äː/ in 34. FATHER is typical of the Midwestern United States (Labov et al., 2006), which allows //ɔː// to drop to /ɑː/.
  • The lack of a COT-CAUGHT merger seen in the contrast between 34. FATHER and 37. LAW is good evidence that this variety is not from northern Minnesota, Western Wisconsin, or the Dakotas (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Raising of /ʌɪ̯/ in 55. FLIGHT but not /äʊ̯/ in 61. ABOUT is potentially identifiable with the Midland American English variety, covering Missouri, southern Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and southern Minnesota (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Given that the fronting of //ɑː// seen in 34. FATHER is uncharacteristic of the Midland American English variety (Labov et al., 2006), it is likely that this speaker's variety represents a transitional variety between this and the variety identifiable to the north, North-Central American English, putting the speaker on the northern edge of the former variety, and the southern edge of the latter.
Therefore, it is likely that this speaker represents a transitional variety: Midland American English – North-Central American English. This is roughly consistent with the participant's self-evaluation of "Minnesotan".

Other observations:
  • This speaker uses the marginal phoneme /x/ in 9. LOCH, likely under learned influence from other varieties naturally containing /x/, or from other languages containing it.

2.3 Participant #03 (@Lethen)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæt/
6. /θʌɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɔə̯k/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /dʌɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væt/
16. /ðʌɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɔə̯ɾɫ̩/
27. /wɪtʃ/
28. /juːdʒ/
29. /duː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fɑːðəɹ/
35. /nɑːt/
36. /ɔə̯f/
37. /ɫɔə̯/
38. /pʰɔə̯z/
39. /əbɛɔ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹuː/
53. /θɹuː/
54. /kʰjuːt/
55. /fɫʌɪ̯t/
56. /mʌɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /nɛʊ̯/
59. /tʰɛʊ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbɛɔ̯t/
62. /nɛɔ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /dɛʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰɔːɹ/
74. /pjɔːɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • /ɔə̯/ with offglide /ə/ as seen in 36. OFF is characteristic enough of the New York and Delaware Valley varieties to place this speaker within them (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Fronted /ɛʊ̯/ in 58. NO and /ɛɔ̯/ in 62. ABOUT are not identifiable with New York varieties of English, but rather the Delaware Valley (Labov et al., 2006).
Therefore, it is likely that this speaker speaks a variety of Mid-Atlantic American English in the Delaware Valley. This is largely consistent with the participant's own evaluation of "Middle East Coast", though the conclusion reached here is more specific.

Other observations:
  • This speaker has a total SURE-SHORE merger, as evidenced by 74. PURE. In incomplete mergers, 74. PURE would remain separate from 73. TOUR, which would have merged into 72. TORE (Labov et al., 2006).

2.4 Participant #04 (@Darkslayer)​

1. /pʰɪʔ/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʊʔ/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæʔ/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɒk/
10. /hɪʔ/
11. /bɪʔ/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʊʔ/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væʔ/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒə/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋg/
22. /jɔː/
23. /wɔː/
24. /ɹʊmp/
25. /ɫʊmp/
26. /bɔtʊ/
27. /wɪtʃ/
28. /çʉːdʒ/
29. /dʉː/
30. /hæm/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fɑːðə/
35. /nɒt/
36. /ɒf/
37. /ɫɔː/
38. /pʰɔːz/
39. /əbaʊ̯ʔ/
40. /bɪʔ/
41. /kɪʔ/
42. /sɪti/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯ʔ/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛnθ/
49. /ɹʊn/
50. /pʰʊʔ/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹʉː/
53. /θɹʉː/
54. /kʰjʉːʔ/
55. /fɫaɪ̯ʔ/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /nɛʊ̯/
59. /tʰɛʊ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbaʊ̯ʔ/
62. /naʊ̯/
63. /ɑːm/
64. /diə̯/
65. /mɛː/
66. /bɜːn/
67. /bɜːd/
68. /ɜːθ/
69. /wɪnə/
70. /dɛʊ̯nə/
71. /sɔːt/
72. /tʰɔː/
73. /tʰɔː/
74. /pʰjɔː/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • The lack of a FOOT-STRUT split as evidenced by 49. RUN and 50. PUT sharing /ʊ/ is enough to place this speaker's variety in the north of England (Wells, 1982).
  • The lack of ng-coalescence in 21. THING is enough to place this variety in the northwest of England. /ŋg/ can be found in Northwest England English, and Estuary English in the south of England (Wells, 1982).
  • 58. NO having front-onset /ɛʊ̯/ is identifiable with Liverpool/Merseyside English (Watson, 2007), whereas other Northern England English varieties generally have a back onset (Wells, 1982).
  • The contrast between 65. MARE /ɛː/ and 66. BURN /ɜː/ is evidence for RP influence on this speaker's variety, indicating a middle or upper-class sociolect (Watson, 2007).
  • The total lack of a distinction between 49. RUN and 50. PUT is evidence to rule out an upper-class variety; many upper-class speakers of Liverpool/Merseyside English may attempt to contrast these under influence from RP, sometimes merging //ʌ// into //ə// (Watson, 2007).
  • Grouping 51. HOOD with 50. PUT instead of 52. THROUGH is evidence that this speaker is younger; older speakers of this variety tend to do the opposite (Watson, 2007).
Therefore, the variety that most closely matches this participant's speech is Young Middle-Class Liverpool/Merseyside English. This is consistent with the participant's evaluation of "Northwestern English", albeit the conclusion reached is more specific.

Other observations:
  • This speaker exhibits final t-glottalization, seen in /pʰɪʔ/ for 1. PIT.
  • This speaker has a complete SURE-SHORE merger, as seen from 72. TORE through 74. PURE.
  • This speaker may lack yod-coalescence common to Northern English varieties and feature yod-dropping, leaving 29. DEW as /d/.

2.5 Participant #05 (@UPC)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæt/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɑːk/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væt/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɑːɾɫ̩/
27. /wɪtʃ/
28. /çuːdʒ/
29. /duː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fɑːðəɹ/
35. /nɑːt/
36. /ɑːf/
37. /ɫɑː/
38. /pʰɑːz/
39. /əbʌʊ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹuː/
53. /θɹuː/
54. /kʰjuːt/
55. /fɫʌɪ̯t/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /noʊ̯/
59. /tʰoʊ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbʌʊ̯t/
62. /naʊ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /doʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰɔːɹ/
74. /pʰjɜːɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • The presence of a full COT-CAUGHT merger to /ɑː/ without /æ/ tensing (except before nasals) places this speaker in New England, except for Massachusetts and Maine (Labov et al., 2006), although this could also be a feature of West Coast American English.
  • Canadian raising of both //aɪ̯// and //aʊ̯// to /ʌɪ̯/ and /ʌʊ̯/ in 55. FLIGHT and 61. ABOUT rule out New York's Hudson Valley, Connecticut, and Rhode Island (Labov et al., 2006).
  • This variety is rhotic, indicating that this speaker of a variety of New England English is of a younger generation (Labov et al., 2006).
  • The presence of a complete COT-CAUGHT merger plus the FATHER-BOTHER merger is indicative of Western New England English (Labov et al., 2006).
  • The relative lack of /æ/ tensing is indicative of an Eastern New England English variety (Labov et al., 2006).
Therefore, it is likely that this speaker represents a transitional variety of Western New England English – Eastern New England English. This is consistent with the participant's own evaluation of "Northeastern US".

Other observations:
  • It is very likely, given certain vowel qualities and the phonotypy as a whole, that this idiolect has been extensively influenced by General American English.
  • This speaker has a partial SURE-SHORE merger, with a reduced vowel in 74. PURE.

2.6 Participant #06 (@Hezekon)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæt/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɔːk/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væt/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɔːɾɫ̩/
27. /ʍɪtʃ/
28. /çuːdʒ/
29. /duː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fɑːðəɹ/
35. /nɑːt/
36. /ɔf/
37. /ɫɔː/
38. /pʰɔːz/
39. /əbaʊ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹuː/
53. /θɹuː/
54. /kʰjuːt/
55. /fɫaɪ̯t/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /noʊ̯/
59. /tʰoʊ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbɛʊ̯t/
62. /nɛʊ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /doʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰʊə̯ɹ/
74. /pʰjʊə̯ɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Lack of COT-CAUGHT merger in 34. FATHER through 38. PAUSE rules out West Coast American English, some Midwestern varieties, and some New England varieties (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Lack of /ɑː/ fronting (and therefore a lack of the Northern Cities vowel shift) in 34. FATHER rules out the Great Lakes region (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Lack of /æ/ breaking in 33. PASS is a good indicator against the American South (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Lack of /ɔː/ breaking in 37. LAW rules out New York and the Delaware Valley (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Fronting of /ɛʊ̯/ in 62. NOW is a strong indicator pointing to the Midland United Sates (Labov et al., 2006), the Midwestern variety of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and southern Indiana and Ohio.
Therefore, the variety that most closely matches that of the speaker is Midland American English of the Great Plains. This is consistent with the participant's evaluation of "General Midwestern", although the particular variety of Midwestern American English was able to be identified.

Other observations:
  • By the participant's own admission, their pronunciation of /ʍ/ in 27. WHICH is unusual, and they probably would not pronounce it like that in most situations. It can be postulated that this speaker's variety does, in fact, have the WINE-WHINE merger.

2.7 Participant #07 (@Andusre)​

1. /pʰëʔ/
2. /tʰën/
3. /kʰɐʔ/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæʔ/
6. /θɐɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɔx/
10. /hëʔ/
11. /bëʔ/
12. /dɐɪ̯n/
13. /gɐʔ/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væʔ/
16. /ðɐɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰëm/
20. /tʰën/
21. /θëŋ/
22. /jʉɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹɐmp/
25. /ɫɐmp/
26. /bɔtɫ̩/
27. /wëtʃ/
28. /çʉːdʒ/
29. /dʒʉː/
30. /hæm/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fäːðəɹ/
35. /nɔt/
36. /ɔf/
37. /ɫɔː/
38. /pʰɔːz/
39. /əbɐʉ̯ʔ/
40. /bëʔ/
41. /këʔ/
42. /sëtï/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯ʔ/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹɐn/
50. /pʰʉʔ/
51. /hʉd/
52. /θɹʉː/
53. /θɹʉː/
54. /kʰjʉːʔ/
55. /fɫɐɪ̯ʔ/
56. /mɐɪ̯/
57. /boɪ̯/
58. /nɔʊ̯/
59. /tʰɔʊ̯/
60. /sɔʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbɐʉ̯ʔ/
62. /nɐʉ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /diə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bʌɹn/
67. /bʌɹd/
68. /ɛːɹθ/
69. /wënəɹ/
70. /dɐʊ̯nə/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰoːɹ/
73. /tʰʉɹ/
74. /pʰjʉɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Central /ë/ in 40. BIT places this speaker in Scotland, and so is a speaker of a register of Standard Scottish English (Scobbie et al., 2006).
  • This variety retains the NORTH-FORCE split as seen in 71. SORT versus 72. TORE, another feature of Standard Scottish English (Scobbie et al., 2006).
  • Lack of distinction in vowel quality between 50. PUT and 52. THROUGH reinforces the placement of this variety within Scotland (Scobbie et al., 2006), along with retaining /x/ as a phoneme in 9. LOCH.
  • The merging of 66. BURN with 67. BIRD but not 68. EARTH is most likely an influence of Glasgow Vernacular (GV), a register somewhere between South West Scots and Standard Scottish English. GV nearly merges these, whereas Standard Scottish English keeps them separate (Scobbie et al., 2006).
  • The lack of a complete merger between //æ// and //ɑː// (though //ɑː// is fronted /äː/) is most likely an influence of Received Pronunciation (Wells, 1982).
Therefore the variety that most closely matches the speech of this participant is somewhere between Standard Scottish English and Glasgow Vernacular, perhaps General Glasgow English. This is entirely consistent with the participant's evaluation of "Glasgow English".

Other observations:
  • This speaker has the postalveolar approximant rhotic /ɹ/, as opposed to the more Scots-influenced tap /ɾ/ or the Glaswegian syllable-final uvular /ʁ/ (Scobbie et al., 2006).
  • Word-final t-glottalization is pervasive, first seen on 1. PIT.

2.8 Participant #08 (@Xecrio)​

1. /pʰɪʔ/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʊʔ/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæʔ/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɒk/
10. /hɪʔ/
11. /bɪʔ/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʊʔ/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væʔ/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒə/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋg/
22. /jɔː/
23. /wɔː/
24. /ɹʊmp/
25. /ɫʊmp/
26. /bɔtɫ̩/
27. /wɪtʃ/
28. /çʉːdʒ/
29. /dʒʉː/
30. /hæm/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fɑːðə/
35. /nɔt/
36. /ɔf/
37. /ɫɔː/
38. /pʰɔːz/
39. /əbæʊ̯ʔ/
40. /bɪʔ/
41. /kɪʔ/
42. /sɪti/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯ʔ/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛnθ/
49. /ɹʊn/
50. /pʰʊʔ/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹɪ̯ʉː/
53. /θɹɪ̯ʉː/
54. /kʰjʉːʔ/
55. /fɫaɪ̯ʔ/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /nɔʊ̯/
59. /tʰɔʊ̯/
60. /sɔʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbæʊ̯ʔ/
62. /næʊ̯/
63. /aːm/
64. /dɪː/
65. /mɛː/
66. /bɜːn/
67. /bɜːd/
68. /ɜːθ/
69. /wɪnə/
70. /dɔʊ̯nə/
71. /sɔːt/
72. /tʰɔː/
73. /tʰɔː/
74. /pʰjɔː/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • The lack of a FOOT-STRUT split as evidenced by 49. RUN and 50. PUT sharing /ʊ/ is enough to place this speaker's variety in the north of England (Wells, 1982).
  • The lack of ng-coalescence in 21. THING is enough to place this variety in the northwest of England. /ŋg/ can be found in Northwest England English, and Estuary English in the south of England (Wells, 1982).
  • 58. NO having lower back onset /ɔʊ̯/ is more representative of the Manchester area than anywhere else in this already-narrow region (Wells, 1982).
  • The unique breaking and fronting of /ɪ̯ʉː/ in 52. THROUGH is perhaps between defined featural areas. Mancunian shows front /ʏ:/, while Lancastrian shows back but broken /ʊ̯uː/ (Wells, 1982).
Therefore, it is probable that the variety that most closely matches that of the speaker is not that of Manchester itself, nor that of Lancashire proper, but more something in between both, such as South Lancastrian – North Cheshire English. This is consistent with the participant's evaluation of "Northern British English", albeit this conclusion is more specific.

Other observations:
  • This speaker exhibits final t-glottalization, seen in /pʰɪʔ/ for 1. PIT.
  • This speaker has a complete SURE-SHORE merger, as seen from 72. TORE through 74. PURE.

2.9 Participant #09 (@Calvin Coolidge)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæt/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɑːk/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væt/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɑːɾɫ̩/
27. /wɪtʃ/
28. /çʉu̯ːdʒ/
29. /dʉu̯ː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fɑːðəɹ/
35. /nɑːt/
36. /ɑːf/
37. /ɫɑː/
38. /pʰɑːz/
39. /əbaʊ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊ̈t/
51. /hʊ̈d/
52. /θɹʉu̯/
53. /θɹʉu̯/
54. /kʰjʉu̯t/
55. /fɫaɪ̯t/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /noʊ̯/
59. /tʰoʊ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbaʊ̯t/
62. /naʊ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /doʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰɔːɹ/
74. /pʰjɜːɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • The presence of a full COT-CAUGHT merger to /ɑː/ without /æ/ tensing (except before nasals) places this speaker on the west coast of North America (Labov et al., 2006), although this could also be a feature of some New England English varieties.
  • Fronted /ʊ̈/ for //ʊ// 50. PUT and /ʉu̯/ for //uː// 52. THROUGH is known as California fronting (Labov et al., 2006), placing this variety in California and not the Pacific Northwest.
Therefore, the variety that most closely matches the speech of this speaker is California English, which is largely consistent with the participant's own evaluation of "West Coast".

Other observations:
  • This speaker has a partial SURE-SHORE merger, with a reduced vowel in 74. PURE.

2.10 Participant #10 (@Lime)​

1. /pʰɪʔ/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰɐʔ/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæʔ/
6. /θɐɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɔk/
10. /hɪʔ/
11. /bɪʔ/
12. /dɐɪ̯n/
13. /gɐʔ/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væʔ/
16. /ðɐɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹɐmp/
25. /ɫɐmp/
26. /bɔtʊ/
27. /ʍɪtʃ/
28. /çʉːdʒ/
29. /dʒʉː/
30. /häm/
31. /bäd/
32. /läd/
33. /pʰäs/
34. /fäðəɹ/
35. /nɔt/
36. /ɔf/
37. /ɫɔː/
38. /pʰɔːz/
39. /əbɜʉ̯ʔ/
40. /bɪʔ/
41. /kɪʔ/
42. /sɪti/
43. /siː/
44. /deːʔ/
45. /deː/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛnθ/
49. /ɹɐn/
50. /pʰʉʔ/
51. /hʉd/
52. /θɹʉː/
53. /θɹʉː/
54. /kʰjʉːʔ/
55. /fɫɐɪ̯ʔ/
56. /mɐɪ̯/
57. /boɪ̯/
58. /nɐʊ̯/
59. /tʰɐʊ̯/
60. /sɐʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbɜʉ̯ʔ/
62. /nɜʉ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /diə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /dɐʊ̯nə/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰoːɹ/
73. /tʰʊə̯ɹ/
74. /pʰjʊə̯ɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • This variety retains the NORTH-FORCE split as seen in 71. SORT versus 72. TORE, a feature of Standard Scottish English (Scobbie et al., 2006).
  • Lack of distinction in vowel quality between 50. PUT and 52. THROUGH reinforces the placement of this variety within Scotland (Scobbie et al., 2006), but this speaker does not retain /x/ as a phoneme in 9. LOCH, presumably under Received Pronunciation (RP) influence.
  • This speaker lacks central /ë/ in 40. BIT, a feature of Standard Scottish English (Scobbie et al., 2006), employing /ɪ/, closer to RP.
  • The merging of 66. BURN, 67. BIRD, and 68. EARTH is most likely another influence of RP, or a feature of younger generations. Standard Scottish English keeps these separate (Scobbie et al., 2006).
Therefore, it is likely that the variety of English most closely matching that of the speaker is an RP-influenced register of Standard Scottish English, potentially termed Cultivated Standard Scottish English. This is mostly in agreement with the speaker's own designation of "Scottish".

Other observations:
  • This speaker has the postalveolar approximant rhotic /ɹ/, as opposed to the more Scots-influenced tap /ɾ/ or the Glaswegian syllable-final uvular /ʁ/ (Scobbie et al., 2006).
  • Word-final t-glottalization is pervasive, first seen on 1. PIT.
  • This speaker is potentially making a conscious separation between their speaking Scottish English and the Scots vernacular. This would account for more RP influences in the prestige register.

2.11 Participant #11 (@Kazaman)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæt/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɒːk/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væt/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɒːɾɫ̩/
27. /wɪtʃ/
28. /çuːdʒ/
29. /duː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fɒːðəɹ/
35. /nɒt/
36. /ɒf/
37. /ɫɒː/
38. /pʰɒːz/
39. /əbʌʊ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹuː/
53. /θɹuː/
54. /kʰjuːt/
55. /fɫʌɪ̯t/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /noː/
59. /tʰoː/
60. /soːɫ/
61. /əbʌʊ̯t/
62. /naʊ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /doʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰɜːɹ/
74. /pʰjɜːɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • The presence of a full COT-CAUGHT merger to /ɒː/ without /æ/ tensing (except before nasals) is a feature of Standard Canadian English (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Full Canadian raising on 55. FLIGHT and 61. ABOUT is an indicator that this variety is from Canada (Labov et al., 2006).
  • More monophthongal /oː/ for //oʊ̯// in 58. NO through 60. SOUL is a feature of the northern Minnesotan, Dakotan, and prairie Canadian English varieties.
Therefore, the variety that most closely matches this participant's speech is Western Canadian English. This is consistent with, but more specific than, the participant's evaluation of "Canadian".

Other observations:
  • This speaker has an atypically reduced vowel /ɜːɹ/ in 74. TOUR.

2.12 Participant #12 (@Kharn)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæə̯t/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæə̯p/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɑːk/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væə̯t/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæə̯p/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɑːɾɫ̩/
27. /ʍɪtʃ/
28. /çuːdʒ/
29. /djuː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæə̯d/
32. /læə̯d/
33. /pʰæə̯s/
34. /fäːðəɹ/
35. /näːt/
36. /ɑf/
37. /ɫɑː/
38. /pʰɑːz/
39. /əbaʊ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹuː/
53. /θɹuː/
54. /kʰjuːt/
55. /fɫʌɪ̯t/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /noʊ̯/
59. /tʰoʊ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbaʊ̯t/
62. /naʊ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /doʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰʊə̯ɹ/
74. /pʰjɜːɹ/
75. /bæə̯g/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Slight evidence of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. //æ// tensing is pervasive, though slight, and still stronger before nasals. //ɑː// fronts to /äː/, leaving //ɔː// to drop to /ɑː/ (Labov et al., 2006). This means that this variety lacks the COT-CAUGHT merger.
  • Canadian raising of only //aɪ̯// in 55. FLIGHT to /ʌɪ̯/ may be an incidental feature of some Midwestern varieties (Labov et al., 2006).
Therefore, the variety that most closely matches that of this participant is Inland North American English, spoken around the Great Lakes. This is more specific than the participant's evaluation of "General American", though the influence of General American on their speech might be the cause for only slight //æ// tensing.

Other observations:
  • This participant does not have the SURE-SHORE merger, keeping 72. TORE and 73. TOUR separate, but uses a reduced vowel /ɜːɹ/ in 74. PURE.
  • This participant lacks yod-dropping common to many modern North American English varieties (Labov et al., 2006), as seen in 29. DEW.

2.13 Participant #13 (@Sarah)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæə̯t/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæə̯p/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɑːk/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væə̯t/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæə̯p/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɑːɾɫ̩/
27. /ʍɪtʃ/
28. /çuːdʒ/
29. /djuː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæə̯d/
32. /læə̯d/
33. /pʰæə̯s/
34. /fäːðəɹ/
35. /näːt/
36. /ɑf/
37. /ɫɑː/
38. /pʰɑːz/
39. /əbaʊ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɛn/
48. /ɫɛŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹuː/
53. /θɹuː/
54. /kʰjuːt/
55. /fɫʌɪ̯t/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /noʊ̯/
59. /tʰoʊ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbaʊ̯t/
62. /naʊ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /doʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰɔːɹ/
74. /pʰjɔːɹ/
75. /bæə̯g/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Slight evidence of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. //æ// tensing is pervasive, though slight, and still stronger before nasals. //ɑː// fronts to /äː/, leaving //ɔː// to drop to /ɑː/ (Labov et al., 2006). This means that this variety lacks the COT-CAUGHT merger.
  • Canadian raising of only //aɪ̯// in 55. FLIGHT to /ʌɪ̯/ may be an incidental feature of some Midwestern varieties (Labov et al., 2006).
Therefore, the variety that most closely matches that of this participant is Inland North American English. This is more specific than the participant's evaluation of "Midwestern", though the conclusion does fit the catch-all term of Midwestern English.

Other observations:
  • This participant exhibits the SURE-SHORE merger, grouping 72. TORE, 73. TOUR, and 74. PURE together.

2.14 Participant #14 (@Kuramia)​

1. /pʰɪt/
2. /tʰɪn/
3. /kʰʌt/
4. /tʃiːp/
5. /fæt/
6. /θaɪ̯/
7. /sæp/
8. /mɛʃ/
9. /lɔːk/
10. /hɪt/
11. /bɪt/
12. /daɪ̯n/
13. /gʌt/
14. /dʒiːp/
15. /væt/
16. /ðaɪ̯/
17. /zæp/
18. /mɛʒəɹ/
19. /tʰɪm/
20. /tʰɪn/
21. /θɪŋ/
22. /jɔːɹ/
23. /wɔːɹ/
24. /ɹʌmp/
25. /ɫʌmp/
26. /bɔːɾɫ̩/
27. /ʍɪtʃ/
28. /çuːdʒ/
29. /duː/
30. /hɛə̯m/
31. /bæd/
32. /læd/
33. /pʰæs/
34. /fɑːðəɹ/
35. /nɑt/
36. /ɔf/
37. /ɫɔː/
38. /pʰɔːz/
39. /əbaʊ̯t/
40. /bɪt/
41. /kɪt/
42. /sɪɾi/
43. /siː/
44. /deɪ̯t/
45. /deɪ̯/
46. /bɛd/
47. /pʰɪn/
48. /ɫɪŋθ/
49. /ɹʌn/
50. /pʰʊt/
51. /hʊd/
52. /θɹʉu̯/
53. /θɹʉu̯/
54. /kʰjʉu̯t/
55. /fɫʌɪ̯t/
56. /maɪ̯/
57. /bɔɪ̯/
58. /noʊ̯/
59. /tʰoʊ̯/
60. /soʊ̯ɫ/
61. /əbaʊ̯t/
62. /naʊ̯/
63. /ɑːɹm/
64. /dɪə̯ɹ/
65. /mɛə̯ɹ/
66. /bɜːɹn/
67. /bɜːɹd/
68. /ɜːɹθ/
69. /wɪnəɹ/
70. /doʊ̯nəɹ/
71. /sɔːɹt/
72. /tʰɔːɹ/
73. /tʰɔːɹ/
74. /pʰjɜːɹ/
75. /bæg/

Conclusions
  • Tensed /ɛə̯/ in 30. HAM, general rhotacism in 63. ARM through 74. PURE, and intervocalic flapping of alveolars in 26. BOTTLE are enough to place this speaker's variety in North America (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Lack of COT-CAUGHT merger in 34. FATHER through 38. PAUSE rules out West Coast American English, some Midwestern varieties, and some New England varieties (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Lack of /ɑː/ fronting (and therefore a lack of the Northern Cities vowel shift) in 34. FATHER rules out the Great Lakes region (Labov et al., 2006).
  • Front //uː// in 52. THROUGH /ʉu̯/ could indicate California English or verging towards the American South (Labov et al., 2006). The former can be ruled out due to a lack of COT-CAUGHT merger.
  • Complete PEN-PIN merger to /ɪ/ on 47. PEN and 48. LENGTH (merging to 40. BIT) is an indicator of the Southern United States (Labov et al., 2006).
  • This speaker does not exhibit any of the vowel breaking patterns of Southern American English.
  • The flattening of //aɪ̯// in Appalachian English (Labov et al., 2006) may be compared to the speaker's raising of the same to /ʌɪ̯/.
  • Canadian raising of only //aɪ̯// in 55. FLIGHT to /ʌɪ̯/ may be an incidental feature of some Midwestern varieties (Labov et al., 2006).
Therefore, it is likely that the variety that most closely matches the speech of this participant is a transitional one: Midland American English – Appalachian English. This is largely consistent with the speaker's self-evaluation of "Northern US", when the different localities of the varieties are taken into account. It is possible to have a transitional variety such as this one in southern Ohio, northern Kentucky, and throughout West Virginia.

Other observations:
  • This participant exhibits the SURE-SHORE merger, grouping 72. TORE and 73. TOUR together, but using a reduced vowel /ɜːɹ/ in 74. PURE.

References​

Harrington, J., Cox, F., & Evans, Z. (1997). An acoustic phonetic study of broad, general, and cultivated Australian English vowels*. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 17(2), 155–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609708599550

Labov, W., Ash, S., & Boberg, C. (2006). The atlas of North American English. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110167467

Roach, P. (2009). English phonetics and phonology: a practical course. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Rogers, H. (2000). The Sounds of Language : An Introduction to Phonetics. Taylor & Francis Group.

Scobbie, J.M., Gordeeva, O.B., & Matthews, B.J. (2006). Acquisition of Scottish English Phonology: an overview.

Trager, G. L. & Smith, H. L. (1951). An outline of English structure. Language, 31(2), 312. https://doi.org/10.2307/411055

Watson, K. (2007). Liverpool English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 37(3), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025100307003180

Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge University Press.
 
Last edited:
gc - this is AMAZING work, I actually believe it is grad student level in depth of focus. I do have a question for you! Did you develop the word list yourself or were you able to find one that matched your goals? Just curious!
 
Lloenflys said:
gc - this is AMAZING work, I actually believe it is grad student level in depth of focus. I do have a question for you! Did you develop the word list yourself or were you able to find one that matched your goals? Just curious!
Click to expand...
The word list is mostly of my own design, though heavily borrowed from Wells (1982) at various points.
 
Sarah said:
This is very well researched! And amazing. And mostly over my head. But I appreciate the effort!
Click to expand...
Yeah I feel that. It would have been a much, much longer article had I built from the ground up in terms of phonetics. I did list an introduction to phonetics in the references if you want resources, and there is always Wikipedia!
 
I don't think I can truly explain just how impressed and at the same time fascinated I am by this entire project. You have truly outdone yourself in every way GC, and I cannot thank you enough for having me be a part of this. I would expect to see this, as Lloen has mentioned, as a graduate student level piece. I've already been reaching out to others and generally chatting to people about variations in accents too, just because of how it intrigues me.

My personal favourite insight though is this note about @Hezekon: "It can be postulated that this speaker's variety does, in fact, have the WINE-WHINE merge" because I giggled and thought of Hez whining and drinking wine.
 
Istillian said:
I don't think I can truly explain just how impressed and at the same time fascinated I am by this entire project. You have truly outdone yourself in every way GC, and I cannot thank you enough for having me be a part of this. I would expect to see this, as Lloen has mentioned, as a graduate student level piece. I've already been reaching out to others and generally chatting to people about variations in accents too, just because of how it intrigues me.

My personal favourite insight though is this note about @Hezekon: "It can be postulated that this speaker's variety does, in fact, have the WINE-WHINE merge" because I giggled and thought of Hez whining and drinking wine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, after having said "which" in the poshest way possible, I did go back and say "yeah, I don't know why I said it that way, I never do," so to see it end up here was just icing on the cake and I love that GC kept it in, showing off the existence of such a merger in the first place.
 
Hezekon said:
Istillian said:
I don't think I can truly explain just how impressed and at the same time fascinated I am by this entire project. You have truly outdone yourself in every way GC, and I cannot thank you enough for having me be a part of this. I would expect to see this, as Lloen has mentioned, as a graduate student level piece. I've already been reaching out to others and generally chatting to people about variations in accents too, just because of how it intrigues me.

My personal favourite insight though is this note about @Hezekon: "It can be postulated that this speaker's variety does, in fact, have the WINE-WHINE merge" because I giggled and thought of Hez whining and drinking wine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, after having said "which" in the poshest way possible, I did go back and say "yeah, I don't know why I said it that way, I never do," so to see it end up here was just icing on the cake and I love that GC kept it in, showing off the existence of such a merger in the first place.
Click to expand...

I got the "gc slap" for pronouncing loch like a fake Scotsman ...
 
Hezekon said:
Lloenflys said:
I got the "gc slap" for pronouncing loch like a fake Scotsman ...
Click to expand...
I nearly pronounced it like that, and decided not to :p
Click to expand...

The thing is I actually do pronounce it like that! lol and gc's conclusion that that is a learned behavior is definitely correct, that is not how anyone else here pronounces it.
 
Hezekon said:
Yeah, after having said "which" in the poshest way possible, I did go back and say "yeah, I don't know why I said it that way, I never do," so to see it end up here was just icing on the cake and I love that GC kept it in, showing off the existence of such a merger in the first place.
Click to expand...
The lack of a WINE-WHINE merger is most typical today of Scottish English (and Older Southern American English), but it was of note so I kept it in! Trying to make the results conform to the expected values somehow seems... unethical?
Lloenflys said:
I got the "gc slap" for pronouncing loch like a fake Scotsman ...
Click to expand...
There was no slapping! I just said that it's likely not a natural feature of the variety, but rather one learned from the influence of other varieties/languages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top