Re: Schwas in America

David Peterson wrote:

> Seriously, though, I've noticed something about English schwa.
> Specifically, some-
> times it comes out sounding like a schwa, [@], and sometimes more like
> a [I].  It
> seems like these are close to becoming either lexicalized, or
> allophones in a bizarre
> vowel harmony system.  Anyone who works future English thought about this?
> To make it explicit, here are some examples:
>
> (1) Is "explicit" [EksplIsIt] or [EksplIs@t]?
> (2) Is "America" [VmErIk@] or [VmEr@k@]?
> (3) Is "impossible" [ImpAsIbl=] or [ImpAs@bl=]?
>
> Et cetera.  (Oh, and only the @/I distinction is the one I'm
> interested in--not in any
> other aspect of the transcription.)
Well, at least around here (Melbourne Australia), it seems to be a case
of [I] is used before /k, g, S, Z, tS, dZ, v/ that close syllables and
sometimes before ones that don't (usually not, unless it used to close a
syllable but something was tacked on the end, in which case randomly).
Thus, 'villages' and 'villagers' could be accused of forming a minimal
pair (/vIlIdZ@z/ vs /vIl@dZ@z/) but it doesn't always make it... This
mostly applies regardless of spelling so that 'hammock' is [h&mIk].
('Olive' is an exception to the rule for some people like me (I say
[Ol@v]), but not for others (my sister says [OlIv]).)

--
Tristan.

Reply