In most dialects, the rules for determining vowel length were not in their present predictable form, and so /ʌi/ was a long vowel as it had historically been when it was /i:/. In some dialects, however, present vowel-length rules were developing (e.g., short vowels precede voiceless consonants) and so any instance of /ʌi/ that satisfied the requirements for being short became short, and so failed to undergo the final GVS shift: creating a distributional pattern of [ʌi] in short-vowel environments and [aɪ] in long-vowel environments--a distributional pattern still seen today in CR dialects.
If you are convinced that the matter is phonetic, then your evidence consists of showing that the process is universal (short /aɪ/ becomes [ʌi] in all languages where the proper conditions are met), which might be difficult to do since even different dialects of English don't observe the CR rule even though they may make /aɪ/ phonetically shorter in specific environments.
I'm not convinced the phonetic explanation has to be wrong, but I am convinced that there has not yet been any evidence presented in its favor; the GVS explanation, on the other hand, is swimming with evidence to its credit.
But, I feel this is going a little off-topic with the discussion of phonemic vowel length in English. It is enough to point out that the raised diphthongs of CR occur in environments that trigger short-vowels; that they are shorter than their unraised counterparts; and that this distributional pattern is the same for all CR dialects.
The issue is: why does CR always trigger in short-vowel environments? Is it because, as Moreton and Thomas claim, diphthongs are 'dominated by the offglide' when short, or is it because the phenomenon is related to the historic GVS?
If it had an etymological background then you should find similar conditions in Scots. Scots isn't really in my centre of expertise, so I am hesitant to make a statement. But I am not aware that there are any conditions for the realizations [əʊ] or [aʊ]. I think, it is simple dialectal variation.
I have formant values that I can post this weekend.
And we do. Look at the variation in the same phoneme that happens as part of the Scottish Vowel Length Rule. The variation is also reported in other dialects of English (which I can list when I get to my sources).If it had an etymological background then you should find similar conditions in Scots.
As the Wiki article says, the raised versions of both of these vowels occur in short-vowel environments.But I am not aware that there are any conditions for the realizations [əʊ] or [aʊ].
I don't have all the recordings, but I do have numbers. Some of this is stuff I collected as an undergrad and it has been misplaced or is incomplete. I'll see what I can find.Would be interesting. Even more interesting would be the recordings.
Phoneticians analyze their own speech all the time when formulating hypotheses. I am not publishing books with the information; I think for informal analysis self-recordings are fine. I do also have recordings of other speakers that I am eager to check for this when I get a free moment; I also have some length data scratched out on some paper from other recordings I collected a few years back. It's informal, but will do for a forum discussion. The information I've analyzed (from myself and others) conforms to the hypothesis I've laid out in this thread.(I hope not your own voice, that would be a grave methodological error; the speaker should not know what you are trying to analyse, otherwise hyper-corrections are all but inevitable; but you certainly know that -- just making absolutely sure).
I'd have better information on this if my life revolved around linguistics as I'd like it to.
It has been only somewhat investigated and I have read some of those investigations, but I don't remember all the conclusions. It is certainly a possibility that these are connected, but it is by no means a requirement. Once the distributional pattern for CR is established in a group of speakers it can spread into other dialects which are otherwise unrelated to the original one. (Indeed, this is true of all dialectical variations.) If the variation originates from the final stages of GVS it could be impossible to find a single geographical origin (if one ever even existed). This may be especially true given the fact that vowel length rules differ in the various CR dialects and the process of creating a CR distributional pattern from GVS involves two independent steps that could be completed to different degrees in different and unrelated dialects.Do you know if the occurrence of the phenomenon in Canada is connected with immigration from Scotland?
Either way, the link between vowel length and CR is borne out in several examples, such as higher vs. hire, high school vs. highschool; the latter of each set being (potentially) raised.
Non-words? The words are unusual, but by no means 'non'.The idea does make a lot of sense, because that is quite similar to what happened with NG-coalescence in English. I'm just curious about examples that don't need to resort to non-words to provide evidence for that claim.
It's effort all right; but fun and worth the trouble!Thank you. If it is too much effort, then don't. I was just curious.
If you know of a source for these samples, a link would be greatly appreciated.There are enough samples on the net.
It maybe can be, but I don't think it has been.Sure. The question was, if immigration of Scots can be traced as the seed of the phenomenon.
I just browsed in historical dictionaries to find the standard pronunciation (the then equivalent to RP) of these diphthongs around 1800 as a historical reference. Walker's transcription for /aɪ/ is a2e1 and for /aʊ/ o3u3. Translated into IPA this would be /ai/~/ɑi/ (can't be distinguished in his system; note that the second part is /i/ and not /ɪ/) and /ɔʊ/, respectively. There is no indication of variants. About and bound have the same transcription of the diphthong.
Transcriptions can be tough things to trust for such specific distinctions.
Walker explicitly says it is /i/. It is not just sloppy transcription. But that doesn't mean he's right, of course. Walker was the Jones of his days and his dictionary had some normative influence.
Here is one.
As for his renown in the U.S., you might be right. I think his name only came up a couple of times in all my linguistics courses.
Regarding the document in your link, I am not sure how his transcription here can be too helpful. He doesn't seem to give us any indication as to the actual phonetic values of the phonemes he has transcribed. If I were giving a phonemic description (what dictionaries give) of my own CR speech, I would transcribe the /aɪ/ phoneme the same regardless of whether or not it was raised in a particular context.
If we are looking to historical sources for guidance, my alma mater has an old book that discusses the raised value of the diphthong. I don't remember exactly what it says, but I can see if the book is still around and post the relevant portion.
And now to make a list of all the stuff I need to find for this thread...