Talk:Northern Cities Vowel Shift/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Northern Cities Vowel Shift. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I am sure whoever wrote this article is extremely knowledgeble on this subject. However, I would think the purpose of a wikipedia article is to explain the subject to people who aren't allready familiar with the topic.....just my $.02WacoJacko 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, phoneticians! This article would be a lot more understandable (and useful) to us non-phoneticians if the language were less technical (describing anatomical movements of the voice mechanism in common language) and specifically the sounds were expressed in terms of changes of pronounciation of common words. A fascinating topic, by the way. Thanks,--Pharos 06:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explaining the changes of sounds by common words is totally useless, and this article discusses why: If we say that [æ] is the sound in 'cat', then the people who have had this shift will think we're talking of [iæ], whereas New Zealanders will think we mean [e]. (A different sound shift has occured in the Antipodes, with /I/ 'kit' either centralised (in NZ; to a sound more like the A of 'about') or made tenser (in Au; to a sound more like European i than American i is); consequently, or perhaps to cause it, the vowel of 'ket(tle)' and 'cat' have moved to higher positions, and the vowel of 'cut' is in a more fronted position. The change is more progressed in NZ than Au; I'm an Aussie, and to me, American 'guess' often sounds like my 'gas', and NZ 'gas' sounds like my 'guess'. What complexity!) For all speakers are born under the domination of the moon, which is never steadfast but ever wavering: Waxing one season but waning and decreasing the next. Certainly it is hard to please everyone because of the diversity and change of language. (I have a habit of overusing that quote, albeit modified.) Felix the Cassowary 07:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However, I'm at a loss as to what is meant by '/V/ is backed' in the Article. If /V/ could have been backed, what vowel was it before? [V] is a back vowel to begin with. Felix the Cassowary 07:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the non-existent "default" dialect of Standard English, the vowel of "cut" and so on, though usually identified as /V/, is generally between center and back, not fully back. So if /V/ is backed from its default position, it's moving closer to true cardinal [V]. I think it may pick up a bit of rounding along the way too, though. AJD 08:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the example "ket" supposed to be? That's not an English word. Kesuari's comment seems to indicate that the word was supposed to be kettle? --Barfooz (talk) 17:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course ket is a word. According to the disambig page it's at least three different words, in fact. None of the common, perhaps, but words nonetheless. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, sheesh... --Barfooz (talk) 20:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I clicked on the PBS link in the article and found a few great little explanations, and suddenly it all makes sense. Check this out, "In the Great Lakes region including Michigan, the short a sound of bat and had is often pronounced like the ea of idea; thus, bat sounds like “beeyut” and had like “heeyud.” When Ian [from California] introduced himself, Michiganders thought he said Ann, which they pronounce “ee-yun.” " How about introducing something like this into the article without breaching the copyright of the PBS article? --Eamonnca1 06:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good god almighty, I had the same response as the original poster in this section: I read through the article, and had absolutely no clue what was being said. The above comment from Eamonnca1 clued me in. The entire article could be replaced with a summary of Eamonnca1 =P Dxco 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All righty. I've put a layman's summary into the article right after the first sentence. Hopefully that'll put an end to the mass confusion. --Eamonnca1 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eamonnca1, I removed the Ann/Ian example because it's misleading. That shift isn't distinctive to the NCVS; tensing of /æ/ before /n/ happens in probably most North American dialects. I don't want people to read that and say, well, I have tensed /æ/ in '"Ann; I guess that means I must have the NCVS. AJD 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it may not be exclusive to the NCVS, but it is part of it nonetheless. My latest edit makes that reasonably clear, I think. --Eamonnca1 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there's no particular reason to believe that Californians' pronunciation of Ann is significantly different from the NCVS pronunciation. Pronouncing Ann in such a way that it can be confused with Ian is basically the default for an American English dialects, and so mentioning it specifically under NCVS is uninformative and possibly confusing. AJD 05:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Pronouncing Ann in such a way that it can be confused with Ian is basically the default for an American English dialects..." Err, I don't think that's the case. "Ann" sounding like "Ian" is, in my experience, not a pervasive thing, and generally seems to be localized. I, for example, live on the west coast of the US, and "Ann" sounding like "Ian" is rare (pretty much always someone who has moved here from an area where that form of prononciation is common). Dxco 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to sit here and try to persuade you that you've heard something you think you haven't heard. All I'm saying is, in the opinion of dialectologists who make their living studying the accents of American English, the so-called nasal system (in which /æ/ is tense before nasals and not elsewhere) is the default short-a system and can be found in nearly all regions. So pointing it out as a particular feature of the NCVS is misleading. AJD 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Misleading? Note that *its the example that got us all clued in as to what the heck the topic is about*. Think about it - a number of people like myself roll by, read the entire article, and walk away saying "what the heck is this?!". Only the comment above in this talk page got us clued in - one teeny little example vs. and entire article. I think we'd be wise to take our cue from this.Dxco (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, misleading. If the only thing that got you clued in about what the article was about was the idea that a distinctive feature of the Northern Cities Shift is pronouncing "Ann" similar to "Ian", then it clued you in wrong. No matter how clear it is, if it clearly gives people a false impression it should be removed. AJD (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I just read through the latest version of the article. I now, again, have absolutely no idea what its going on about. This is kind of funny - an entire wikipedia article that conveys no useful information to the layman. I just glanced over the talk page again, and I am struck by how much discussion there is on the very simple topic of: what in gods name is this article about?! Seriously, we need a brief, concise, to the point opener that is focused squarely on the interested lay reader. This opener should leave the reader crystal clear on what exactly this shift is. A quick example or two would be supremely effective in getting the job done.Dxco (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Alas, the article is still quite incomprehensible. I have absolutely no idea what it is about, only that, apparently, there was a change in how people pronounced vowels. This is also a problem in other articles on linguistics (such as [[1]]).

The article on the High German consonant shifts ([[2]] ) is a good example of what I think would be good for this article. It has a pretty good general description section that helped me get the general gist of what the whole thing is about and satisfied my curiosity. On the other hand, it isn't, in my opinion, too "dumbed down". It is detailed to both people who understand linguistics, as in "...three Germanic voiceless stops became fricatives...", and also to people like me who don't understand linguistics: "(English ship maps to German Schiff)" and "(apple: Apfel)". That's easy for me to understand. Though the article has considerable detail later on, people who are just simply curious about the article, like me, can understand what the whole thing is generally about.

PS. I am sure that there are better examples. There are also probably ones that are about English, not German, but this is the best one I found after a few minutes' searching.71.178.238.238 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote from external links "characteristic of cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. Some aspects of it are detectable farther afield, in cities like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and Indianapolis."

Another of the external links specifically uses the Northern Cities Shift to define a linguistic region (i.e. the region is the area where this shift is taking place) called Inland North, and then shows maps which define the boundaries of this region. These boundaries include the cities mentioned in the first paragraph (Syracuse, Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago). They definitely do not include Minneapolis, or St. Louis for that matter.

I propose that Minneapolis and St. Louis be removed from the article, unless proof of their inclusion in the shift is shown.

Minneapolis is definitely included in the vowel shift. Have you ever heard the way they speak there? Maybe St. Louis doesn't belong. I'm not too sure on that one. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether Minneapolis is included or excluded needs to be determined on the basis of published research, not subjective impressions like "Have you ever heard the way they speak there?". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, clearly I understand that, I was joking. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard the way they speak there, which is why I question Minneapolis's inclusion. Neilmsheldon 21:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I live 95 miles east of Minneapolis and 300 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. While I have definitely heard people whose speech quite effectively demonstrates the existence of this phenomenon, not only does it not characterize Minneapolis English, it doesn't characterize Chicago English either. In my experience it's an affectation in some peoples' speech, but certainly not a majority anywhere. I suspect what I hear as condescension in Lord Voldemort's assertion is actually a result of a lack of understanding of what the Northern cities vowel shift addresses. A common feature of upper Midwestern from central Wisconsin westward through the Dakotas is a change from /ɑ/ to /a/ or /ɐ/ in some positions. This, however, is quite different (and much more widespread in the affected area) than the NCVS, which asserts that this single change is part of a much more extensive shift. In case anyone is interested in a bit more on how "they speak there", check out my little manifesto. Tomer^talk 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the "Linguistic Atlas of North American English", St. Louis does belong, as shown on the map. The surrounding area speaks the Midland dialect, but the St. Louis region speaks the Northern dialect. Also, all of Minnesota, except for the Northern area (which speaks North Central American English) portion speak the Northern (NCVS) dialect. The Northern dialect extends as far as eastern North Dakota. To the North and West of the areas shown with the brown line are the following dialects which are quite distinct: the North Central dialect, and the Western US/Canadian dialect which are characterised by the absence of the Northern Cities vowel shift, because this shift is not possible when the vowels in words like "cot" and "caught" are pronounced the same way and perceived to be the same vowel. Instead, the vowels are shifted in the opposite direction: caught/cot -> caught; map -> mop, ket -> cat. This can even lead to misunderstandings for someone travelling from for example, Windsor, ON; to Detroit, MI, and asking for a "map" [map] ("map" [æ] shifts to "mop" [a] w/the Canadian Shift ), since [map] sounds like "mop" to someone from the Northern dialect, but like "map" to someone from Canada, the far West, and the North Central area.

Greetingz 04:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello phoneticians! Another civilian here, who lives in a Northern City, interested in finding out what this Great Northern Shift is all about, and especially what it *sounds* like. The article's "...shifted from IPA [ɛ], [ʌ], [ɔ], [ɑ], [æ] to [ə], [ɔ], [ɑ], [a], [iæ]..." tells me nothing. Zero. Zip. How about some sound clips to actually hear it? Jedwards01 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Minneapolis, Minn.

It says that we pronounce things cornily, specifically that what is spelled X is pronounced Y (X→Y) thus: bed→bud (although with a schwa (/ə/), kind of like b'd, if you can imagine, rather than with a short "uh" (/ʌ/) sound); bud→baud; baud→bod; bod→bad (although not quite like bad which has the much broader /æ/ sound rather than either /ɑ/ or /a/); bad→bee-add (which is just ridiculous...sorry, I can't think of a pair that demonstrates how this difference sounds…just imagine inserting a "long e" (what they teach you in first grade is an "ē", but is really an [i]) in there) It could be that the article is asserting that we say bad→byad, which is equally silly. Tomer^talk 17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a little like and Akron accent, at least from the people I know in Akron. However, I'm from Columbus, and I know I don't here it here.WacoJacko 07:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've heard of the NCVS has [æ]→[ɛʌ], not [æ]→[iæ]. Tomer^talk 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to the Detroit News article bcz it wasn't working. The title apparently said that ppl in the northern US have nasal accents, which I don't think is really "news" to anyone, nor particularly relevant to this article (which doesn't have anything to do with nasalization). If that newspaper article will load at some point in the future, or if someone has the text somewhere and can quote the relevant parts here, please verify that the article is actually relevant before reinserting a link to it.

The PBS article is of rather dubious value since (a) it contains incorrect information and (b) says nothing [correct] that this article doesn't.

The UPenn article[3] is a bit more useful, although it pretty clearly says in the Arizona article that the NCVS is only found in traces in a few other cities outside the "Inland North" (none of which are Minneapolis and certainly not as far north as Brainerd, despite the indication that speakers exhibiting the shift were found in both), which its own map shows ending within suburban Chicago at the western extreme. I continue to highly suspect that the shift is as widespread in the "Inland North" as it's being made out to, and think it instead affects a specific age-group within a specific socio-economic class.

okéi, ái m dan bitxigh äbàut it fär náu. óf tä mor pärdàktïv éríaz... Tomer^talk 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

At least here in Milwaukee, there seems to be a clear set of vowel shifts which seems to be related or analogous to the classical NCVS, but which at the same time is very distinct from such. Such would take the form of: [æ] → [ɛ], [ɛ] → [ɜ], [ɪ] → [ɨ], [o] → [o̠], ([ʌ] → [ɑ]), [ɑ] → [a], and ([a] → [æ]). Note that the arrows only indicate the directions of the individual shifts, and not that the shifts have actually clearly reached the distination positions in any consistent or clear fashion. Also note that the shifts in parentheses are rather marginal, in the case of [ʌ] → [ɑ] only markedly occurring in very unstressed (like in the interjection/filler word um) or extremely informal speech, and the shift [a] → [æ] only occurring in very unstressed/informal speech in the word ja, which is the only word that could be considered to have /a/ rather than /æ/ or /ɑ/ here (except in individuals for which such is learned, such as my mother, which may have /ɑ/ for such), being a German loanword here (but also a North Germanic loanword in other areas of Wisconsin).

What makes this distinct from the classical NCVS is that historical [æ] is not diphthongized at all and is shifted to a lax position, the tense vowel historical [o] is affected, being backed but not lowered, and the lax vowel [ɔ] is completely unaffected. In particular, this shift differs from the classical NCVS in its treatment of the back vowels [ɔ] and historical [o] and in its lack of diphthongization of historical [æ]. One note, though, is that it would not be surprising if the shift [ɑ] → [a] were separate from and likely predating the NCVS, and may very well be at least partially coincidental (even though it may have helped "push" [æ]), since it has occurred in other areas where the NCVS has/had not a very significant influence, as mentioned above, and furthermore could be potentially ascribed to substratum influence, like many other local phonological features such as full word-final devoicing, word-initial interdental "hardening", having purely monopthongal tense vowels in almost all positions, and having very round historical [o] and [u].

Actually, I have to modify that, as what occurs to [æ] is actually more complex. It either diphthongizes or just shifts, depending on the overall level of stress which it is subject to, diphthongizing as [ɛæ] or sometimes [eæ] when more stressed and simply shifting to [ɛ] when less stressed. Note that many grammar words such as can and am invariably shift to [ɛ] except when quite markedly stressed, and many most non-grammar words as well as certain grammar words like can't have [ɛæ] in stressed syllables except when unstressed as a whole. This is probably simply a matter of how stressed such words are generally realized, and is consistent with how can is generally less stressed than can't in North American English.

As for why I wrote what I wrote previously, it is simply due to [ɛæ] being hard to perceive as a diphthong due to only having a rather short glide for a diphthong; compare to the only weakly diphthongal [eɪ] and [oʊ] that one many not too infrequently hear in NAE dialects. Travis 22:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

22:51 Consequently, this begs the question of whether other areas of the Upper Midwest have vowel shifts similar to the classical NCVS yet which have significant variations from it beyond merely variations in degree or completeness, especially with respect to how historical [æ] is realized and with respect to which back vowels are involved. This is further begged by that it seems that most research on the NCVS pertains primarily to areas further afield to the east, such as Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, rather than the western Upper Midwest, such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even North Dakota; I myself have heard that the NCVS is definitely present in much of Minnesota today at least amongst younger people, even if it is a more recent development than the presence of the NCVS in other areas of the Upper Midwest. Of course, all of this would require actual scholarly research on the subject for inclusion in the article here, which seems to be rather lacking with respect to the western Upper Midwest. - Travis 11:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph for discussion:

The NCVS can be heard in the speech patterns of a number of popular television actors, including in the idiolect of Joe Flanigan in his rôle as John Sheppard of Stargate Atlantis fame. As a Losangelino, his NCVS speech exemplifies the fact that the name of the phenomenon [i.e. Northern Cities], is a matter of convenient generalization far more than one of authoritative geographical linguistics; since the phenomenon is clearly far more widespread, and the primary importance of its name is found in the "cities" part of its appellation rather than in the "northern" part.

because it smacks of original research, and also I wonder what aspects of Flanigan's speech are considered to show the NCVS. If he pronounces /æ/ as [eə] before nasals (stand = [steənd]), that's part of the California Vowel Shift too. Does he have æ-tensing before oral consonants? Does he front /ɑ/ and back /ɛ/ to the point where they have very close F2s? Those characteristics have to be present too before it can be said he has the NCVS. (And have to be verifiably attested in a citable source before being added here.) Angr/talk 12:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a serious flaw here in including Brainerd. The cited article indicates that one speaker in Brainerd exhibits the shift, without any discussion of why that might be so. The article in question indicates a number of speakers much further afield who do as well, why not mention those as well? Insisting on keeping Brainerd in the article when the cited sources indicate that most people in Brainerd do not exhibit the shift is not only really bad writing, it's bad scholarship. Tomer^talk 17:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Which cited sources indicate most people in Brainerd do not exhibit the shift? Angr/talk 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember where I got it from. According to this map, taken from the Labov et. al article, however, it should be pretty clear that the shift doesn't extend to Brainerd or Bemidji despite the fact that someone observed it there. It's also been observed according, to that map, in Jamestown, ND, yet that's not included in the article, as well as in [I assume] Hartford, CT and St. Louis, MO. My gripe isn't that this is mentioned in the article, but rather that the article seems to imply that the shift is prevalent outside the "inland north", while the Labov material indicates that it's not even complete within the inland north. Tomer^talk 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I've rewritten on the basis of the maps in the ANAE, which are more up-to-date than that map. ANAE considers there to be three basic acoustic parameters that define the NCVS and each has its own isogloss (and its own inscrutable abbreviation):

• The UD isogloss: The F2 of /ʌ/ is less than the F2 of /ɑ/, i.e. /ʌ/ is backer than /ɑ/. This is very widespread, including RI, CT, Scranton PA, upstate NY, Cleveland, Toledo, Lower Peninsula MI, Gary IN, northern IL, all of WI and MN, northern IA, and northwestern SD. It's also found in St. Louis and Springfield IL, but not the cities between Springfield and Chicago, like Peoria.
• The ED isogloss: The F2 of /ɛ/ is less than 375 Hz higher than than the F2 of /ɑ/, i.e. /ɛ/ has been backed. This is more restricted in the east and west, extending eastward only to Syracuse, Binghamton, and Scranton, and westward only to Green Bay, Madison, and Cedar Rapids. Like UD it goes down from Chicago to St. Louis, but includes Peoria as well as Springfield.
• The EQ isogloss: The F1 of /ɛ/ is more than the F1 of (non-pre-nasal) /æ/ and the F2 of /ɛ/ is less than the F2 of /æ/, i.e. /ɛ/ is both lower and backer than /æ/. This is found in western NY (Syracuse, Binghamton, Rochester, Buffalo), Cleveland (but not Toledo), lower peninsula MI, northern IL (but not Gary), southern and eastern WI (Monroe, Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay), and then also Brainerd, the Twin Cities, and St. James. But not central WI (Appleton, Reedsburg, Eau Claire), so in MN it's sort of an island. Also not in the "St. Louis corridor".

The Inland North as labeled at [4] is basically where all three parameters are found together, while cities outside the Inland North like Brainerd/Twin Cities/St. James, St. Louis, and Scranton have only two of the three parameters. Angr/talk 07:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, although "further back" sounds more "English" than "backer" does. ("Backer" means "supporter".) Tomer^talk 15:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Sorry to be such a nag. Tomer^talk 08:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that, while I live in New Berlin, Wisconsin, which appears to be in the "core" of the northern cities vowel shift, I do not, and my entire school, and most likely my entire town, does not exercise any of the vowel shifts as described, minus the /æ/ to /eə/ in some individuals. Does anybody else live in the areas shown in the map while preserving the original vowel sounds? Just wondering. BirdValiant 23:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe thats because a lot of people are moving there from a lot of different regions, or because people with the NCVS (like yourself I'm assuming, unless you moved there from somewhere else) do not notice that they and the people around them have it. Thegryseone

New Berlin wasn't one of the cities investigated in the research this article is based on. It's possible New Berlin is an "island" in the area and that its accent is significantly different from the accent of Milwaukee, Madison, Monroe, and Kenosha (all of which were included in the research, and all of which do show these vowel shifts). But it's also possible that most people who grew up in your town (i.e. not people who moved there) dohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_cities_vowel_shift&action=edit&section=7# have these vowel changes, but because you're so accustomed to everyone speaking that way, you don't notice. Angr (t • c) 06:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't understand exactly what is supposed to happen in this... in the Speech Accent Archive, there is a woman from Milwaukee [5]speaking much like how I do, but maybe less nasaly. In the word Stella, instead of /stɛlʌ/ as is shown (I would actually have the final ʌ be more of a schwa), shouldn't it be /stəlɔ/? And brother would be pronounced /bɹɔðɚ/? BirdValiant 22:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

One must remember that the classical example for the NCVS path given may not be necessarily be followed. For example, here in the Milwaukee area the shifting of [ʌ] to [ɔ] does not occur, but rather it bypasses [ɔ] and is shifted towards [ɑ] instead. I myself have never heard shifting such to [ɔ] here, much the less word-finally, but I heard shifting such to [ɑ] word-finally here at times. Similarly, even if it is shifted fully, [ɛ] does not shift to [ə] here but instead seems to shift towards [ɜ] here. Consequently, one would instead get [ˈstɜːɰɑː] here, assuming a full shift, which is only unlikely as actual word-final [ɑ] for [ʌ] seems to only show up sporadically here), and taking other aspects of the phonology here into account. Travis 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

NCVS doesn't necessarily mean the vowels are shifted all the way to the new positions, just that they're moving in that direction. So Stella might not be [stʌlə] yet, but the vowel is definitely back enough that it's about as far back as the vowel of collar. Angr (t • c) 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's the fact that I'm still in school and around the educated sort that pronounce things in the General American way that I speak the way that I do... and having parents in marketing probably helps as well... Anyway, I refuse to say brought like brat(wurst) and cat like with more than one vowel. Or milk like melk (regional?) or pen like pin or Lennon like Lenin (not like there's much difference there). However I do not I do notice that my immediate family talks differently from my family down in the Peoria area and (to a lesser degree) to the north of me, as well as my grandparents. BirdValiant 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, unless a feature is stigmatised, no one adjusts their speech to sound more "General American". For example, educated speakers from Canada or anywhere west of eastern North Dakota, do not suddenly eliminate their vowel shift (e.g. the Canadian vowel shift, which affects speakers in Canada, and the northern portion of the West; and the California vowel shift, which affects Californians, and speakers from adjacent states.), nor do they start eliminate the cot-caught merger and start making a difference in the vowels in words like "cot" and "caught"; "odd" or "ought" or "on" and "gone". The Northern Cities Vowel shift is also definitely not a stigmatised feature. In the area of a chain vowel shift, most people who live in the area do not seem to notice that they have any sort of accent, and tend not to be able to hear the fact that they have an accent. Chain vowel shifts do not mean that you just completely swap one vowel for another vowel immediately, but rather one vowel gradually moves closer to another. So, it doesn't necessarly mean that you pronounce "cat" to what would sound to you like two vowels. From the perspective of people who are not from the Northern US, practically every single speaker from the North seems to have an accent (and a strong one at that), and cat will sound like "kay-uht". I've met many people from the Northern US, and I've never heard a single speaker who did not have some of the NCVS. Also, every single one of them insisted that they had no accent, and were astounded that I could tell which region they were from, because they believed that they spoke "General American" with no accent of any sort. The most noticeble features of the Northern accent from the perspective of people from West of eastern North Dakota; Canada, and North Central speakers:

-cat sounds like "cay-uht" (*even* if is pronounced with for example /eæ/.)

-For people who have not shifted "caught" to "cot": caught sounds very odd, almost like "coh-at" (although, in reality it is definitely not 2 vowels, that's just what it sounds like to cot-caught mergered people)

-When the person does not shift this vowel: cot sounds very odd (described by many people as nasal, although it has nothing to do with nasalization): it sounds like "caaht". Same thing with "dollar": sounds like "daaahler". When the speaker does shift, it sounds like "cat", instead of "cot". Example: a taxi driver from the North: "Here's your cappy of the receipt." or in a hotel: "You can bring a cat [cot] in the room".

-Even if they don't have a trace of the Northern Cities vowel shift (although unlikely), they still have æ-tensing before "n". So, ban sounds like "bay-un"; man like "may-un". Many speakers in this region also tense before /g/, so "bag" sounds like "beg" to Southerwesterners. (Southwesterners pronounce "bag" as [bæg] or with the California vowel shift as (General American) "bog".)

$ Or milk like melk $

This one seems pretty common all around. It doesn't seem to be peculiar to any region: milk is either "milk" or "melk". Check out Pacific Northwest English and Canadian English. I've also heard Californians do this.

$ pen like pin $

That's a Southern feature, although it also appears in a few speakers in the Southwest as well. So it's not too surprising that you don't merge these two.

$ It is interesting that, while I live in New Berlin, Wisconsin, which appears to be in the "core" of the northern cities vowel shift, I do not, and my entire school, and most likely my entire town, does not exercise any of the vowel shifts as described $

You probably just don't realize it, like he was saying before: whenever you tell someone from your region that they have an accent, they can't believe it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegryseone (talk • contribs).

There's a reason its called the Northern *cities* vowel shift, it affects the major cities in the area the strongest.

Greetingz 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. BirdValiant 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the lines of pharos' request - is this page talking about what's commonly referred to as a "chicago accent"?? If so, i think that should be noted...Because there's certainly a such thing as a chicago accent and it's recognized throughout the country. this would be interesting to note, and add a reference point for those unversed in IPA jargon. Ashwinr 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same as a Chicago accent. As you can see from the map, it affects a much greater area than just Chicago. Also, the Chicago accent involves some things that are not part of the NCVS. But it is true that the NCVS is an important aspect of the Chicago accent. User:Angr 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest someone make a sub-section describing the Chicago accent, or perhaps its own article - I'm surprised it doesn't exist, as it's a prominent American accent.

No, the "Chicago Accent" is part of the NCVS (Northern Cities Vowel Shift). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegryseone (talk • contribs).

I have to say I'm with the person at the top of the page who found themselves completely baffled by this article. Of course it's difficult to describe accents in a print medium--but I think we need to try harder than this. For me and for most readers, the IPA symbols might as well be Chinese characters--when you go to the IPA decoding page, the table gives you examples of words where those words are found, so how is the use of IPA more helpful (to non-specialists) than using common words to illustrate the vowel shift?

I realize that this is kind of like trying to describe color to a blind man--but this article strikes me as being like telling the blind man, "Forget it--if you don't know what colors look like already, you're never going to know." Surely Wikipedia can do better than that.

The most helpful part of this article is actually the editor on the talk page who tried to explain to the person who didn't think they had the vowel shift that they actually did. Nareek 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that, this article is completely meaningless to many people, myself included. Here's a suggestion. Most people here will be familiar with a southern English accent, (not Cockney mind you, just regular what they used to call 'BBC English'). How about giving some pronunciation smaples using BBC English as a baseline? --Eamonnca1 07:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help. :/ BirdValiant 03:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article would be easier to understand if you wrote it in Chinese, audio file comparisons would help though. This article would be useful if it was written so lay men could understand it. Iliketofrolic666 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is written in Chinese? That's probably why I didn't understand it. Damn.

I am sure whoever wrote this article is extremely knowledgeble on this subject. However, I would think the purpose of a wikipedia article is to explain the subject to people who aren't allready familiar with the topic.....just my $.02WacoJacko 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would put it more bluntly. As a technical description of the vowel shift, this article my be just dandy -I don't know, its gobledegook to me. But as an encyclopedia article its crap. An encyclopedia is a general reference work. If a person of reasonable intelligence and education can't read an article written in their native language and make some sense of it, then the article is badly written for its intended audience. I have lived in upstate new york -Syracyse & the capitol region- my entire life and still had no idea what the article was getting at until I read some of the comments. This article needs a major revision. Sound files or examples from various well-recognized accents might help. As it stands, it is currently just this side of useless.

There are a few other things going on in the Inland North besides just the NCVS. Not many other things, but a FEW other things. Look at the article to see what I mean. Also the Inland North isn't the ONLY place where the NCVS is going on. It has crept down into St. Louis, which is in the central Midwest (depending on your definition of the Midwest, of course). I think the Inland North article is important, because it gives a list of people that speak this way. It also gives audio links of Inland North speech. 208.104.45.20 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are other things going on in the Inland North, true. But it remains true that the NCVS is what defines the Inland North—that is, the Inland North is definitionally the region where the NCVS is the predominant pattern in the speech of [middle- and working-class urban] speakers. It's true that that leaves out St. Louis, which the NCVS is merely in the process of spreading irregularly to; but if St. Louis ever ends up taking part fully in the NCVS, that'll be grounds to say that St. Louis has become part of the Inland North. AJD 19:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the dialects of the United States. The NCVS is the predominant speech pattern of White people in that area period, not necessarily middle and working class people (because the Blacks in the area don't speak that way). I imagine it is the same case with other minority groups. Also, it isn't necessarily just people in the big cities. I met a woman from Janesville, Wisconsin who spoke with the NCVS. My aunt lives in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, and she has the NCVS. If the NCVS is what "defines" the Inland North, then how come the map in that article differs from the map in this article? Any time you want to discuss dialects, I'm here. Thanks 208.104.45.20 20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; you're right. I should have said "white [middle- and working-class urban]" people. You're right that it isn't necessarily just people in the big cities; however, it's nearly only in the big cities that the research has been carried out, and the Inland North is therefore defined (by Labov) in terms of the big cities. The maps don't actually differ; the blue area on the map in the Inland Northern American English article is the same as the area enclosed by all three isoglosses on the map in this article. AJD 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's true. I noticed that too about the maps. I guess I was just testing you. But don't you think the NCVS will eventually be predominant in the brown areas as well? I hope I don't seem contentious. That is not my intention. I just think discussing things like this with someone else will benefit both parties. This will help us both learn by exchanging ideas. I'm sure you're right about the research, but I have visited the smaller cities in the area, and trust me, it is going on in those places too. I have an ear for it (not to brag). I think that a lot of people that are from areas outside of the Inland North "have an ear" for this shift as well. Most people from the Inland North think they speak like newscasters. I'm sure you would be able to hear the different sounds there also if you visited the area, since you are from Massachusetts (although I could be wrong). It's annoying when people form the Inland North come on Wikipedia, and say that they think this information is incorrect, and that no one they know speaks this way. They don't realize they speak with the NCVS. Thanks 208.104.45.20 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Just, from the point of view of Wikipedia, in most cases going so far as stating definitely that the small communities in the Inland North are subject to the NCS would be Original Research. Anyhow, with respect to the brown areas: I have no idea if the NCVS will eventually be predominant in those areas. In fact, Labov and a bunch of people in his lab are about to undertake a multi-year research project to investigate what's going on at the boundaries of the Inland North and whether the NCVS is expanding its territory; my own (just barely begun) dissertation research is looking at its eastern boundary, in central New York. AJD 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sure" is right. I really was just testing you. The map doesn't just have the big cities highlighted, it has a large area highlighted. To me that means everything in that area is subject to the NCVS. If not, then the map should be changed. I'm just discussing. Anyway on a different note, do you speak with a New England sort of accent? 208.104.45.20 04:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The source cited for that map is Labov et al (2006), which explicitly only contains data on large cities, but draws lines around broad regions based on the cities they contain. And I have some telltale Boston phonological features, but not the most noticeable ones. AJD 05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So I am assuming you are a rhotic speaker. How do you know you have telltale Boston phonological features? My neighbors are from Boston, and I love listening to them speak. 208.104.45.20 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Father/bother distinction (that's the key one); caught/cot merger as [ɒə], marry/merry/Mary distinction.... AJD 15:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but if you are aware that you do these things, how can you still do them? That's strange to have a father/bother distinction, because even in the Inland North, where they distinguish cot and caught, father and bother are still pronounced the same. I'm not saying those distinctions are a bad thing. I actually think they are an interesting thing. I'm from the orange/yellow region on the map in the General American article, and we don't make many distinctions. However, you can figure out what somebody is talking about by the context. If someone says, "I caught the ball", you know they are not talking about the thing that you sleep on. If someone says, "We put the cot down" , you know they are talking about the thing that you sleep on. If someone says, "I caught the cot", you know the first one is the verb and the second one is the noun. Even if there is confusion, you just ask the speaker what he meant, and everything is clear. So it really isn't a big deal to have the distinctions. I am aware of the distinctions (The ones they ask you about on the internet dialect quizzes), and can make them if I choose, but in informal speech, it probably doesn't happen. It's hard to be sure on all of them, but I know marry/merry/Mary, Don/dawn, and cot/caught are never distinguished, even in self-conscious speech. If I want to distinguish the last three groups I mentioned, I don't know how to do it exactly. I don't know which vowel sounds to use, especially with the marry/merry/Mary distinction. 208.104.45.20 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And with the cot/caught and Don/dawn distinction, because I have been saying all those exactly the same my entire life, it's hard for me to know which words should be distinguished and in what way. 208.104.45.20 19:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, if I'm aware that I do these things, how can I still do them? Presumably you're aware that you pronounce pen and pin differently, and you still do that.... AJD 19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that I always do pronounce "pen" and "pin" differently. I guess I was just saying that a lot of people with Boston accents change them. Maybe that is just famous people on TV and in movies. I'm not saying any accent is better than any other accent. I'm just saying that the Boston accent is often stigmatized. 208.104.45.20 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying the name "Ann" is pronounced "eyun" is misleading because there is no "y" sound in that diphthong. Saying it is pronounced identical to the way the name "Ian" is pronounced in other regions is deceptive, because in my experience, most people pronounce "Ian" as [iɪn] (ee-in) rather than [ɪən] (approximately i-uhn). Try writing it as "i-uhn" for laymen (not that I'm a professional). 208.104.45.20 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The following helpful paragraph has been removed. I move that it be put back into the article -

Put simply, in the NCVS region, the "short 'a'" sound of bat and had rhymes with the ea of idea, producing sounds similar to "beeyut" and "heeyud." A number of other vowels change their sounds as well, moving to fill the hole created by the shift of short "a". One of the effects of these shifts is that a Californian saying the boy's name "Ian" will sound identical to someone from the NCVS region saying the girl's name "Anne," which they pronounce "ee-yun."

Please state your opinion here if you think it should be added -

Agree - The article is meaningless without it. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Half-agree. The bit about Anne and Ian is misleading and not clearly accurate; the rest should be restored. AJD (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Also, Eamonnca1, the article is not meaningless without it, and you make people less likely to take you seriously when you say unreasonably grandiose things like "make the article meaningful again". AJD (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

'Take me seriously?' Well if you're going to start a personalised flame war, how do you explain all those people up the page saying that they haven't a clue what this article is about and the person saying that my explanation should be added? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a personalized flame war. AJD (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm no linguist; however, I think that the entire paragraph is misleading. Don't get me wrong, I like your idea of trying to make it easy for the average person to understand this article. But I also want them to have the right idea of what this dialect sounds like. I don't see why they can't just learn the IPA. Wikipedia even has sound files so one can listen to the vowel sounds. "Heeyud" is more like Southern American English, but not really even that. Having only IPA pronunciations encourages people to learn the IPA. We should add links to the IPA articles on Wikipedia to help people learn it. What's wrong with that? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with 'just' learning IPA is the magic 'just,' i.e. it's not a simple task. I don't think that anyone reading an article should have to learn a whole new alphabet just to get the gist of what is being said. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I know it is pretty hard to learn the ENTIRE alphabet. I don't know the entire IPA. I'm just saying that all one has to do to understand the Northern Cities Vowel Shift is learn a few vowels. Most of the vowels probably exist in one's own dialect. But if you must spell out the pronunciations, then try to make them as accurate as possible. This is quite a difficult task, considering that most likely not everyone who reads this article will speak the same dialect. I think it's easier just to learn a few IPA vowel sounds. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why northwestern Indiana is only colored brown on the map to the right side of this article. I met a man just the other night from Michigan City, and he diphthongized /æ/ to [eə] or something similar in his speech. I think northwestern Indiana should at least be surrounded by the red line; maybe even all three lines. I don't grasp how the Indiana border signifies the terminus of the "core" of the NCVS, yet the Wisconsin border with Illinois does not. This area is mostly part of Chicagoland, so I don't see why the people there would speak a different dialect (excluding the speakers of African American Vernacular English, who make up a majority of the population in Gary among other places in the region) than those in the Illinois and Wisconsin part of that region. Also, one with a keen eye will notice that northwestern Indiana is included as part of the "core" in the Inland North article (it is highlighted in blue); however, it is not enclosed by all three lines on the map in this article. This needs to be fixed. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Cat" - the beginning of the article says that people participating in the shift say it "ɪə", but even after having been in these areas a fairly long time that sounds very unusual to me - I can picture it as a comical stress "I'm going to kill that cat..." but in ordinary conversation? The article on æ-shifting talks more about a shift to "eə", which is also mentioned parenthetically later in the text. I didn't find the source of the claim.

• The mention of African-American Vernacular English is ambiguous. Because of social stigmatization black Americans usually speak in a more generalized dialect in many public environments, so it isn't clear whether the article is saying that they are not prone to participate in the vowel shift at any time, or only when speaking with AAVE values.

• "50 miles west of Albany" - I don't see anything special about that point on the map. Even reading some of the sources I'm still rather confused about whether this shift continues east of the Hudson.

• Are there any explanations for the shift, and why it has such a long east-west boundary? That isn't my preconception of American migration patterns though I may be wrong. Based on a hunch I was able to find a source that said it might have been due to the building of the Erie Canal[6], but since I started with that search term this may not be representative. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, [ɪə] for /æ/ is the most extreme form of the Northern Cities Shift. Using [eə] is less extreme, but it's still just as much an example of the NCS. It's not so much a shift to a particular value on the IPA chart that defines the NCS, but general tensing, fronting, raising, and diphthongization.

There's no indication that African-Americans participate in the NCS under any circumstances. This is so distinctively the case that Van Herk (2007, 2008) has (controversially) hypothesized that the NCS might constitute a kind of "white flight" by white speakers away from the vowels used by black speakers.

Dinkin & Labov (2007) found that the NCS was present in Gloversville, New York but not in Amsterdam, New York, and so theorized that the eastern limit of the NCS must be between Gloversville and Amsterdam, and this is about 50 miles west of Albany. However, further work by Dinkin (2008) puts Gloversville into a wide "transitional area" between the NCS and Western New England, which reaches as far east as Glens Falls, New York, so saying the NCS starts 50 miles west of Albany probably isn't really accurate.

Labov (as well as Dinkin) argues that settlement history is very deeply implicated in the location of the North-Midland boundary. The NCS region is the area whose original white settlement was by people migrating west from New England and New York; while the Midland was settled largely from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and perhaps the Appalachians. The Atlas of North American English alludes to this, as does Labov's paper "Transmission and Diffusion" and his MLA lecture "Yankee Cultural Imperialism". This explains the location of the boundary, but not the reason for the shift happening at all. Labov's theory is that the unusual sociolinguistic situation brought about by the Erie Canal caused rapid linguistic change. I'm not that convinced by that, myself, because some of the communities in Dinkin (2008)'s transitional area show NCS features, but are not located on the Erie Canal and were settled before the canal was built. AJD (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently watched a Nova video called Forgotten Genius. It was about the legendary black chemist Percy Julian. In the video, they interviewed Julian's son, Percy Lavon Julian, Jr. He was raised in Oak Park, a (predominantly white) suburb of Chicago, and he had the Northern Cities Vowel Shift in his speech. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, he certainly does have the NCS, and not a trace of ordinary African-American vowel systems. That's not entirely surprising, him being the son of an upper-middle-class scientist growing up in a suburb, presumably with predominantly white friends. I also read, however, that Oak Park is famous for being diverse and integrated. Very interesting! AJD (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's not surprising given his situation, yet at the same time it is because he is black. I realize I contradict myself quite a bit on Wikipedia. That's only because I learn new things all the time. Earlier I said (actually I wrote) that blacks don't have the shift. That's what I had gathered from reading various things. However, I'm sure you could see how someone like Julian's son would pick up the NCS (or NCVS, however you want to write it).208.104.45.20 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that in the Inland North, [ɑ] often becomes [a] before [ɻ], making far sound different than in many other North American dialects. However, in this (click on Corrine McCarthy after you get to the Web page) interview with a linguistics instructor, far is said to be moving towards how it sounds in General American [fɑɻ]. This doesn't make sense to me, because I thought the NCVS was supposed to be categorical. If [ɑ] shifts to [a] in all environments, then why does it sometimes stay around [ɑ] when it precedes [ɻ]? Does [ɔ] shift to [ɑ] even before [ɻ], making cord sound like card, or is cord pronounced the same as in General American? I think it is pronounced pretty much the same as in GA, but that doesn't make sense either. Since [ɛ] precedes [ɻ] in words like there for many people in the United States, then why doesn't that [ɛ] shift to [ə] in those words? I am quite sure that it doesn't, but once again, it should.208.104.45.20 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is basically that /ɻ/, if that's the symbol you want to use for it, isn't a consonant in American English phonology; it's a (semi-)vowel, like /w/ and /j/. That means that vowels that precede /ɻ/ are essentially not the same phonemes as vowels that precede consonants; rather, their part of diphthongs. So, consider the diphthong /ɑw/: Famously, as /ɑ/ fronts to /a/ or farther in the NCS, /ɑw/ does not front along with it but remains a back vowel—that's because the [ɑ] in /ɑw/ isn't the same phoneme as /ɑ/ itself, but is merely the first half of a diphthongal phoneme whose second half glides up and back to [w]. Likewise, the [ɑ] in [ɑɻ] isn't the same phoneme as the /ɑ/ that fronts to /a/, but merely the first half of a diphthong. AJD (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

208.104.45.20, I just reverted your edit because the NCVS is in fact found to some extent along the St. Lawrence River, in Ogdensburg at least. The reason this isn't mentioned in the article is because it's OR; I haven't published it yet. AJD (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you a linguist AJD? I trust you, but I'm sure you can understand why I thought that. I was looking at this map (Map 11.15 on p.30), which shows that area as a residual region (well, actually it shows that area as part of the Canadian region, but presumably that's a mistake, seeing as how it also shows a small area of northeastern Mexico as part of the South and part of northwestern Mexico is included in the West, so we can assume it was meant to be a residual region). I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I thought OR wasn't allowed. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a linguist; in fact my current research is on the dialectology of upstate New York. OR isn't allowed in Wikipedia, which is why I haven't yet added to the article that NCS can be found in Ogdensburg—I'll add it in once I've published that finding, or at least presented it at a conference. But I don't think the sentence you removed was itself OR, which is why I put it back in. It's a fine point, though. Also, note that ANAE doesn't really say anything about the linguistic status of cities that aren't in its sample. Labov et al. aren't claiming that NY towns on the St. Lawrence are in a "residual region", or that they're in the Canadian region, or anything else; they're just not making any claim about them. AJD (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; I understand. As much as I respect Labov et al., my personal experience disagrees with some of their findings. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I know two people from the part of New York that is supposedly subject to the NCVS, and neither one of them seems to have the shift. It is strange. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, not everyone from anyplace has all the marked features of the local dialect. AJD (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but I thought the NCVS was more advanced among young people and females. Both of them are adolescents; one is a girl (She's from Rome, New York, by the way). The reason I am quite sure the girl doesn't have the NCVS is that one time I recall her imitating the way New Yorkers (NYC, of course) say Italian, and I specifically remember her using an exaggerated tense and raised ash in that word. A speaker with the NCVS would already have a tense and raised ash in that environment (and all environments), and thus he or she wouldn't see anything unusual about that pronunciation. Whether or not New Yorkers actually have a tense ash in Italian is not the point (Keep in mind that most people don't know the complex rules of phonemic æ-tensing in the Mid-Atlantic region, even those who live in that region). 208.104.45.20 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is one of the worst examples of incomprehensibility to a general audience I have seen on Wikipedia. 99% of people won't know IPA or the meaning of terms such as "mid-centralized," "backing" and "dipthongization." Remember: Write for ordinary people, like your bus driver, not for fellow specialists in your field.

Unlike areas such as string theory that are hard to explain to a general audience, this topic should be fairly easy to explain. Use examples, explain (don't just wikilink) terms and don't rely exclusively on IPA -- also use the terms Americans learn in schools, such as "short" and "long" vowels, even if linguists avoid them in professional communication. This is an encyclopedia, like your World Book, not a scientific journal read exclusively by professionals. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've come up with a proposed new version of the page. It's at User:Mwalcoff/Northern cities vowel shift. Comments (here) are appreciated. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Much more readable and more understandable than the current mess. I move that this be the basis of a new page. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's much better organized and more detailed. However, to me it in many respects reads as too obviously dumbed-down—for instance, sentences like "This change is also called diphthongization because linguists refer to double vowels as diphthongs." "Double vowels" is a made-up term that isn't very clear itself; better to just write something that uses the word "diphthong" in a way that its meaning is clear. Likewise, I'd be careful of saying things like that a front vowel is "pronounced... with the tongue in the front of the mouth rather than the back": as far as articulatory phoneticians can tell, this kind of thing isn't really very accurate. Finally, this rewrite inaccurately puts everything in terms of completed change: "Northerners changed [ɛ] to [ə], the mid central or "schwa" vowel": things like that give the impression that the NCVS is a series of discrete changes replacing one vowel with another one in another part of the vowel space, which is obviously untrue. So, good organization and layout, but a lot of the text needs to be rethought. AJD (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree with AJD. It is indeed "too obviously dumbed-down". "Double vowels" does sound like it was just made up. Also, as AJD said, keep in mind that not all the changes are completed everywhere in the speech of everyone. [ɛ] may not change all the way to [ə], but it is going in that direction in the speech of some people in the Inland North. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps one of you can take a stab at rewording some of the sentences on the proposed new page to make it accurate? I'm limited by my lack of background in the subject matter. I do think that "diphthong" has to be explained properly (and spelled right) in the article, since it's not a term most people are used to. IMO, there's no such thing as "too dumbed down" for an article on a general-interest topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it is a "general-interest topic". I have never heard anyone talk about the NCVS, except on one TV show, and a few radio programs. However, I do respect your contribution. I'm glad that you've shown interest in improving articles on Wikipedia. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it isn't Mars or water, you're right. But it was discussed on PBS and NPR, so it's not Th-debuccalization either. Anyway, I'm not going to raise a fuss about "diphthong." I think we all agree the original article has some problems, and I hope that the new page I drew up, while limited because of my lack of knowledge of linguistics, can serve as the starting point for an improvement of the article. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PBS and NPR were obviously what I was referring to when I said "one TV show, and a few radio programs". 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, just to let you know this morning I tried to make a few amendments to Mwalcoff's draft. Revert if you don't like it--but please don't confuse slashes /used to indicate phonemes/, e.g. the "aw" vowel, the "short o," the vowel of cat, etc.--with brackets [used to indicate actual pronunciation] e.g. tongue position, lip rounding, etc. So for example we say that the "short o," conventionally transcribed /ɑ/, is realized as [a]--that is, with the tongue as far forward as possible and the lips spread, etc. Jack^(Lumber) 22:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I think most of your changes are positive. I do have a few minor concerns about your edit:

1. Saying "short a" is "generally raised, tensed, and diphthongized" won't mean much to many readers. I think we have to describe that change in a simpler manner.
2. I don't think we should mention "short o" or the word "cot" when discussing fronting of /ɑ/, since, to some readers, "short o" is a different vowel (/o/).
3. We may want to keep the Boston "car" reference so readers have some idea what /ɑ/ sounds like. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I put the Boston reference back in. However, the "short o" does need to be mentioned, because Inland Northern (IN) speakers have the father-bother merger, just like pretty much everybody else in North America (except for, well, Boston and Eastern New England, as well as a few New Yorkers--but the NYC vowel system is way too complicated).

As for the short a (also called flat a or ash), I know, it's not easy to explain it in plain English. Anyway, more emphasis should be placed on "raising," "tensing," and "fronting" rather than "diphthongizing," lest people assume that every INer always pronounces /æ/ as [ɪə]. Some time ago, some of us were arguing about Katie Holmes's accent, and a user said that "Katie does indeed dipthongize /æ/ to [ɪə]"--well, not really, at least not in the interview with David Letterman. She does have a form of the NCS, and she generally raises and tenses her ash, but not that much. Generally speaking, IN short-a may come out as [ɪə], [e:ə], [eə], [ɛə], [ɛ̞ə], [ɛ̞:], etc.--the exact phonetic value varying not only from speaker to speaker, but also from word to word.

Another (minor) issue is the trajectory of the DRESS vowel (short e), whose movement is not just retraction as the article states, but retraction and lowering. Jack^(Lumber) 14:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have to mention "short o." Almost everyone says "father" with /ɑ/, so that's all the explanation we need. Throwing "cot" in there just complicates things, IMO. Do you think there's a way to explain raising and tensing in an easy-to-understand way for the æ-tensing section? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just gave it another shot. As for the short-o/broad-a issue, I'm waiting for someone else to chime in... Jack^(Lumber) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC):::

I think "short o" is essential, because it's the name for that phoneme which is most familiar to most Americans. Also, of the two phonemes which merge in the father-bother merger, "short o" is by far the more important one: "ah" appears in comparatively few words. AJD (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Father, calm, palm, drama, bra, loanwords like pasta and spa, some interjections, and some proper nouns like Chicago and Barack Obama. Jack^(Lumber) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Short o" is is then. I think we're making good progress with the page. I think we should put "(raising)" in parentheses after the word "higher" in the "Raising and tensing of /æ/" section, so people understand what "raising" is. But what about tensing? That word is still hanging out there undefined. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up about Katie Holmes, Jack. I like to hear about all of the specifics. I have noticed that the ash of the NCVS doesn't always "stick out" as much as I expect it to. It is much more noticeable in the speech of some speakers, like this woman. I didn't mean to make a big deal out of the whole Katie Holmes thing. Now I understand that the first stage of the NCVS is more about general tensing and raising than it is about a shift to a precise phonetic value. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and also, I was going to mention something about palm and calm. I don't know if this pronunciation would be considered incorrect, but I believe a significant number (maybe even a majority) of Americans pronounce the l in those words. I know I do, and I always have. It wasn't until recently that I realized that some people have an "ah" in those words. I have always kept the l out of walk and talk though. The point I'm trying to make is that "ah" is even less important than you guys think for many Americans. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Exayactly. (as in "exayact same wadding bayands.") The ones who pronounce the L in palm are usually unaware that a lot of people don't. Balm too may or may not have the ghost /l/; and there's also almond, whose first syllable can be any of the following: /ɑ/, /ɑl/, /æ/, /æl/. The L-ful pronunciation of palm is generally frowned upon by purists, which is probably why the American Heritage Dictionary and Webster's New World (unlike the more descriptive Merriam-Webster) have one pronunciation for it--/pɑm/. Note that the Oxford English Dictionary (third edition, in progress) has

Brit. /pɑ:m/, U.S. /pɑ(l)m/

The concept of vowel "tenseness" is a subtle one. For starters, you can't say that a vowel if "tense" unless you compare it to a "lax" one; a typical example is the FLEECE vowel (tense) vs. the KIT vowel (lax). New Yorkers may have a "tense" vowel in the word last but a "lax" vowel in, well, lax. In both of these examples, the "tense" vowels are higher than the "lax" ones. The reason why we say "tense" and "lax" is not really intuitive--that's why I need a bonafide linguist such as AJD to help me out... Jack^(Lumber) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC) <vanity> Hey, that was my 5000th edit. </vanity> Jack^(Lumber) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean, the concept of vowel "height" or "frontness" is a subtle one too. You can say that [a] is produced with the tongue "closer to the front of the mouth" than [ɑ], but that kind of thing isn't really true empirically—it just feels like it impressionisitically. The real difference between "higher" and "lower" or "fronter" and "backer" vowels isn't an exact function of tongue position but rather the acoustic properties of the vowel's formants. AJD (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As a student who recently took a linguistics class involving the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, I found the diagrams demonstrating "regular" and "shifted" vowel placement extremely helpful in my comprehension of the NCVS. Before enrolling in my class I had read the Wikipedia article on the NCVS and barely understood a word. I believe the inclusion of such diagrams will be vastly beneficial. Also, I think it should be noted that this is a weighty concept which may be unavoidably difficult to comprehend for some people. Lastly, I believe that linking to the article on "diphthongs" should provide sufficient explanation for those who do not undersand the term. brenlo 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) ���Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenlo (talk • contribs)

I just gave the test article a read (I commented above a few times on the opaqueness of the existing article), and really enjoyed it. Great job! I'd love to see it used as the basis of a replacement for the current article. There's of course nothing wrong with including a wealth of very technical information on the topic, and do think such info should be present. However, as the test article indicates, a lay reader overview of the topic, kept moderately distinct from the more serious info - or at least laid out in such a way that the technical stuff is distinguishable and "skippable" for us lay readers - leads to great wins. Awesome job on that test article, and perhaps we could use it as a basis for a new version of the main article that combines easy to understand information, as well as more meaty stuff for the specialist. Dxco (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)