~ (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Paul Johnston]

Tom,
That;'s because all the local Standards are 95% similar (I'd put it a
little less, but not much) on a phonemic basis. Most of the
differences are on the sub-phonemic level.  The consonant systems,
phonemically, are nearly identical all over the US, for instance.
The vowel systems do differ phonemically, but not much with this kind
of variety--your "awe-dropping", rhoticity vs. non-rhoticity (only a
few non-rhotic or, more likely, variably rhotic newscasters, but
those that are, Walters, King etc. are known for it) .  Some lexical
incidence differences appear in individual words, though this is the
stuff that the pronunciation guides concentrate on.  I'll give you
actual stats when I'm finished if you want to see them.  You'll be
surprised.

Paul Johnston
On Feb 21, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Tom Zurinskas wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: ~ (UNCLASSIFIED)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> However, if you actually listen to>broadcasters given a national
> platform by the networks, there's very>little commonality to their
> speech, except insofar as they speak a>relatively educated variety
> of North American English.
>
> I'd like to see some proof of this.  I'd wager most broadcaster are
> at least 95% similar in speech on a phoneme by phoneme basis.
>
> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
> see truespel.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:46:55 -0500
>> From: medievalist at W-STS.COM
>> Subject: Re: ~ (UNCLASSIFIED)
>> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender: American Dialect Society
>> Poster: Amy West
>> Subject: Re: ~ (UNCLASSIFIED)
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>>
>> I'd like to thank Alice Faber and Paul Johnston for clearing up my
>> understanding of standard American pronunciation (dictionary prons,
>> broadcasting pron. guides) with their excellent explanations. I now
>> understand it to *not* be a particular regional pronunciation, but
>> rather a collection of the most common features among the various
>> regional standard dialects.
>>
>> Just to clarify, I think you're both saying that yes, this standard
>> American pronunciation is a construct, an artifice -- which was
>> already how I understood it -- but I was incorrect in thinking that
>> it was a regional dialect elevated to the standard. Also, I think
>> you're both saying that this standard American pronunciation is an
>> ideal found in those dictionary prons. and broadcasting guides that
>> is never actually fully realized.
>>
>> ---Amy West
>>
>> (PS Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me and further
>> clear up my understanding)
>>
>>> Well, the thing is that a lot of Americans--at least those who think
>>> about these things at all--*believe* that there's a midwestern,
>>> broadcasting standard accent. However, if you actually listen to
>>> broadcasters given a national platform by the networks, there's very
>>> little commonality to their speech, except insofar as they speak a
>>> relatively educated variety of North American English.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®
> more than just e-mail.
> http://windowslive.com/howitworks?
> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_022009
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org