Talk:General American English

[ɚ] versus [əɹ]

Perhaps Nardog or another editor will know --- I skimmed the Archives but couldn't quickly find such a discussion --- is there any reason why in our vowel chart (and thus other transcriptions on the page) we give NURSE/LETTER as [ɚ] but then for, say, NEAR as [iəɹ] and SQUARE as [ɛəɹ], rather than [iɚ] and [ɛɚ]? Can't remember if we've already talked through this choice. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

⟨ɚ⟩ essentially means [ɹ̩] or [ɻ̍] (see e.g. Handbook of the IPA, p. 25), which means [ɚ̯] and [ɹ] or [ɻ] are equivalent. [əɹ] represents a sequence of two sounds. Which is how NEAR and SQUARE manifest in GA in pausa (before a consonant or pause). Nardog (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, interesting. I was recently reading "Amount of rhoticity in schwar and in vowel+/r/ in American English" (Kuecker et al 2015) that measuring the durations of tokens of NURSE, LETTER, and other vowels+R (START e.g.), concludes (tentatively) that can all be reasonably analyzed as a vowel followed by a separate /r/, though the more precise findings were that "Overall means for all participants show rhoticity of 58% for all vowel+/r/ tokens [START], of 76% for unstressed schwar [LETTER], and 94% for stressed schwar [NURSE]". Intriguing results. Wolfdog (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[ɨ] and [ə]

@Nardog: Flemming & Johnson say it's commonly noted "that some accents of American English have two contrasting reduced vowels" [ɨ] and [ə], but also "it remains unclear whether the distinction between barred-i and schwa is a basic phonemic distinction in the relevant accents of English, or whether it is limited to a restricted environment exemplified by pairs like roses–Rosa’s". I don't believe they end up making any definitive claim about the phonemic status of [ɨ]. Therefore, shouldn't we be cautious about definitively considering [ɨ] an allophone of the phoneme /ə/? (I'm trying to look into more scholarly lit about the weak vowel merger in AmE.) Wolfdog (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do.

So the minimal contrast between barred-i and schwa in pairs like roses–Rosa's can only arise because of the difference in morphological structure between the two words: in roses the stem boundary precedes the reduced vowel, [[ɹoʊz]əz], while in Rosa's it follows it, [[ɹoʊzə]z]. This contrast does not arise in other contexts, such as within monomorphemic words. (p.94)

Wells (1982: 167f.) argues that RP and other English dialects distinguish unstressed [ɪ] and [ə] in pairs such as Lenin [lɛnɪn] vs. Lennon [lɛnən], and rabbit [ɹæbɪt] vs. abbot [æbət] (Wells's transcriptions). This distinction is not made in the American accents that we are familiar with, so Lenin and Lennon are homophonous, for example. (p. 95)

Your quote is from the introduction section, where the authors are simply laying out the very questions into which they're about to discuss the results of their investigation. Nardog (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and your F&J quote is good evidence for the possibility of it being a single phoneme, but still not something they explicitly assert. I'm just trying to be careful. I feel that the weak vowel merger indeed exists (per Wells) but I wonder if there's also a re-phonemicization involving schwa and KIT. (Is minus taking on the KIT vowel, e.g., rhyming with miss?) Of course reduced-vowel environments inherently make this difficult to easily know, and I don't have any scholarly source. Again, my concern just came from a sense of caution. Wolfdog (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What if, in the Trager note, we simply say the choice to use the symbol ⟨ɨ⟩ dates back to a tradition starting in the 1950s from linguist George L. Trager and others? Wolfdog (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that at least does not suggest it is a separate phoneme (which I found "a reduced vowel that is..." did). Nardog (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"General American English" is more than accents

Shall we include the written from, grammar, usage, etc. of General American English? --西城東路 (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be wrong about that—presumably the article you'd want is American English. Remsense 🌈 论 02:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not wrong. We mean the written from, grammar, usage, etc. that is common or regulated thoughout the United States and Canada. --西城東路 (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before we develop this discourse ion further, would you mind citing your sources that demonstrate this description of GA as having non-phonetic features, presumably specifically those considered separate from those of the AmE varieties at-large? Remsense 🌈 论 02:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See /Archive 7#Requested move 2 August 2019 and the move review for how we ended up with this article name despite what you've identified. If disambiguation is the problem we should at least move it to General American accent. Nardog (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_American