Talk:New York City English/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Real life examples of pronunciation

Can more real-life examples of proununciation (how certain words actually sound when pronounced in a New York/New Jersey accent), as opposed to scientific descriptions, be added to the "Pronunciation" section? This would make the article much more useful to the general public. For example, "coffee" would sound like "cawfee," etc. Thank you for your consideration of my comment. Badagnani 18:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think another way to think about a NY accent saying a word like "coffee" is to represent it as "coah-fee" 12.0.16.162 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The official policy of Wikipedia (look in the section on contributions) states that pronunciation is to be given in IPA, not in the impressionisticry transcriptions, such as cawfee. So it isn't really up to the contributors. However, what you say does make sense, and I am adding a link to sound file site. mnewmanqc

Well this is a policy that should be changed. IPA is useless at best and misleading at worst for the vast majority of information seekers who come to this site. How does one go about getting such a policy reconsidered.Armandtanzarian 21:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I find IPA useful and informal transcription very misleading. For *readers* (not speakers) of English, informal transcription is the more confusing method. What's more, people pronounce "cawfee" differently depending on where they live.

Anyway, it's possible to add both types of notation à la Richard Feynman. Alternate transcriptions are not totally forbidden. --KJ 02:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a problem certainly that most readers don't know IPA. That is the reason that dictionaries don't use it, although I think they should perhaps along with their traditional representations. The problem with those representations is that they are not clear and consistent. IPA is the most universal scientific form of graphic sound representation. Also, while it's a problem for many readers, when a contributor uses it, it shows that they have some level of preparation (even an intro to linguistics class) to be able write seriously about the topic. Armandtanzarian, if you are really interested in language and pronunciation, you should just learn it. You can start with the International Phonetic Alphabet article. mnewmanqc

I am very interested in linguistics and I have read many articles in Wikipedia on the subject. However, I find the use of IPA and the various bits of linguistic jargon make these articles very unapproachable. I am generally comfortable with technical jargon and use it every day in my work. However, the jargon here makes these articles a chore to read and I learn far less from them than I might otherwise. If there were at least a mixture of the technical jargon and some layman's terms, for example "cawfee", I might actually get something from this. It makes it feel like this is written for a select "club" of linguistic know it alls and not the general public. I would imagine most folks who use the word "fricative" in every day speech don't need to read this article; they have the source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.13.149 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but the problem is that the jargon exists only because it is really impossible to describe linguistic phenomena accurately without it. The same is true with IPA. You can use "cawfee" and then put in the IPA for the sake of precision and conformity to the Wikipedia parameters, and I think that this is done in places in the article. But how do you describe the vowel in car? or the beginning vowel in bye and how it's different from the pronunciation in non-NYC dialect? As for fricative, you would have to give examples of all the sounds so labeled.

I think the problem is basically that people underestimate what is involved in describing a dialect. Take for example the description of an animal, say a zebra, to pick one at random. I am sure that you can come up with a technical zooloogical description with a lot of precise jargon, but you can also create one that is apt for non-specialists, who are ignorant of zoology. On the other hand, imagine a description of a genome, say how a zebra genome differs from a horse one on some parameter. I don't think it would be as easy a task to describe one without using all bunch of technical jargon and abstract concepts. Of course, we would not really expect to be able to do such a lay description because a genome itself is abstract, whereas a zebra is concrete. Unfortunately, a language, although we hear it every day, really more like a genome, and it's hard to make it accessible and at the same time precise.

No linguist I know wants these articles to be inaccessible, and if can find a way to make it more accessible—say by adding pseudophonetic spellings along with the IPA ones or explanations of technical vocabulary like fricative—I won't be one to revert your edits (as long as I think they're not misleading). mnewmanqc (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with spelling coffee as cawfee, is that that simple spelling change doesn't change the pronunciation of that word for around half of the American populace, who have what's called the low back merger. Therefore it doesn't mean what you intended it to mean for around 150 million people. Spellings like cawfee were created by people who already made the distinction that they represent, e.g., New Yorkers, so of course they are going to understand what they mean. But what about everyone else? This is just one example of the problem with using pseudophonetic spellings. Most if not all of the pseudophonetic spellings I've seen are misleading in some way. Thegryseone (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's only one of the problem with pseudophonetic transcription. However, people are used to it however unreliable it is. The solution would be to attach sound files from some good NY Dialect speaker.mnewmanqc (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think the IPA should ever be taken out of the article; not that you were proposing that. Thegryseone (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the jargon complaining person above. I agree that the IPA should remain. Perhaps some in-line IPA and jargon such as "fricative" with the more lay-friendly "cawfee" and its ilk. In biology one often would write like so in an encyclopedia, "Cornus kousa (Chinese dogwood) is a ...". This preserves precision but keeps the layman from going cross-eyed. I understand that "cawfee" wouldn't be universally pronounced as a NY'er would pronounce "coffee" (I'm a former NY'er living in the SE US for 16+ years), but perhaps a couple of examples would help clarify.

How about I take a stab at it and put it here for the more technical folks' perusal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.105.210 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence and Source needed for quote needed for theory that West Indians speak Vernacular English ; Added regions of Manhattan that's had retreating New York dialect

African American New Yorkers often speak African American Vernacular English (AAVE), though with some New York dialect features, as do most children of Black Caribbean immigrants.

This statement above lacks source, evidence and credibility. You're suppose to support facts with sources. Why would the children of Black Caribbean immigrants speak Vernacular English? There's no explanation to why they would. It's almost giving the impression that the only reason why they would is because they're black, which seems bigoted, to say the least. West Indian's are apart of their own ethnicity. They are not African-American. If you were a Jamaican of African origin, such as Colin Powell, you would not be apart of the same socioeconomic nor share the sociocultural aspects of African-American's. Most Caribbean immigrants who came to America were mainstream and economically and educationally speaking, would rank on the higher end of immigrant's. Many come to do skilled work, whether it be technological or nursing.

People really need to be careful with what they post, because people don't realize that opinions have a way of making it onto here. So everyone, please remember that.

Similarly, the children of professional migrants from other parts of the US frequently do not have many New York dialect features, and as these two populations come to dominate the southern half of Manhattan and neighboring parts of Brooklyn, the dialect is retreating from their neighborhoods.

I will be changing this quote to the following:

Similarly, the children of professional migrants from other parts of the US frequently do not have many New York dialect features, and as these two populations come to dominate Midtown, the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, southern half of Manhattan and neighboring parts of Brooklyn, the dialect is retreating from their neighborhoods. TomNyj0127 (talk)

Nevertheless, many New Yorkers, particularly those of Southern and Eastern European descent from the middle- and working-class maintain this dialect.

This would also be a quote that has no source. Beyond that, the vibe from the message is bias towards European-Americans. So southern and Eastern European descendants, who are middle and working class withhold the accent, yet middle and working class Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin American descendants don't? Why would they sound any differently? The New York accent has been around a long time. Generally speaking, the most historical group will have the most influence on the accent. The colonial Dutch and British were those, and of course, that'd become mixed with Jewish, Italian, Puerto Rican and other groups later on. But the earlier you go in time, the infrastructure of the city lingers on. That obviously would have started from a mixture of the colonial Dutch and British.

The person who wrote this first article in this thread made a great point. The truth is, the stereotypical European-American New York accent you may here from, say, Judge Judy, has died away. In many ways, being in New York City, especially Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, is like being in Florida, because you have people from all over the country and world living there. Besides residents from all over, there are many tourists too, and at times if they're not taking a picture of everything, it's hard to tell the difference.

The thing is, there may be like 200 thousand American's from other states who move into New York City every year, and while that may not seem like much in one year, it builds up. I remember reading somewhere that over 200 thousand American's from other states move there, but I lost it. I found it searching through Google, so if anyone is able to find it, I'd appreciate that. It may have been a New York times article. Going back to the statistical demographical impact, although it may not matter much in one year, it builds up. By the time you know it, in an entire decade, 2 million transplants from other states, as well as arguably one million immigrants, who may have not even originally settled in New York City, move to New York.

People may think, well than New Yorkers are making an impact on the accents of other places. Honestly though, because many of their parents weren't from New York City, and many of their friends are in the same boat, how are they going to have an accent? The New York accent tends to be more prevalent in Staten Island, parts of Long Island and possibly parts of Queens and the Bronx, that typically aren't attractive to outsiders from all over America. For that reason too, New Jerseyans, who have lesser and more varying accents, are sometimes able to hold it more, because outsider's don't believe the perks of living there outweigh the pollution, property taxes, car insurance, commuting expenses to Manhattan and so on. In contrast, many do believe Manhattan's worth paying the price, but for many, it's usually upper-middle class people, or people with that kind of potential who are able to afford it there.

So because of the lack of source and bias rationale, I took that quote out of that statement. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyj0127 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom, You are absolutely right on the problem of the undersourcing of the article. The problem is that just not that much has been published on NY since Labov's early studies. This problem is being remedied as we speak, but the process of research and publication is slow, and the sources will only appear over the next few years as papers appear. Until then, the issue is what should be in the article?

As for the rest of what you say, it would be best to do a draft and think before posting if you want to be taken seriously. You have at least one glaring contradiction (how can the accent be dying out if it's going strong in LI and the outer boroughs?) and show a lack of understanding of basic sociolinguistics. Your charges of bias are completely off base. Now, if you want to go on another rant, no one can stop you. I won't respond to it so you can have the last word.mnewmanqc (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cincinnati excluded from New York accent

Need I say more? To who ever wrote this, have you been to Cincinatti? As a Sociology major, as well as a New Jerseyan, I can tell you that people from Cincinnati sound very southern. In fact, there's an article on Wikipedia about how it's in the Bluegrass region. Typically, you'd think that'd be irrelevant to the New York accent. Just 10 minutes south of Cincinnatti is a small in Kentucky with the word Ya'll, which if you type ya'll into the search engine of Wikipedia, you'll see the picture of it on that mall in Kentucky. On the other hand, I left Albany, because it's apart of the state of New York, therefore their accent is apart of the state of New York's dialect, which certainly has many. On the other hand though, Cincinnatti's completely irrelevant. With all due respect, I think that may have just been a Cincinattian who moved to New York and doesn't want to feel their accent is out of place. Needless to say though, I took it out, not based on my view, but rather because there's no source and there's no description to lingual descriptions why they'd believe such. TomNyj0127 (talk)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyj0127 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You're not wrong, but take it easy. And it's spelled CINCINNATI. Tvoz/talk 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, relax. I dispute your notion that you believe my information is wrong. The fact is though, if it's disputable, which means there's no credible evidence, it shouldn't be out there. If you could provide some data or a respectable article that would support it though, than it's cool. I'm sure we've all made spelling mistakes on here, so relax there. As long as it's not out on the main article, it's not a big deal. If you're going to tell me that I'm wrong though, make a supporting argument. If you're leaving it so vague, than perhaps you don't believe yourself. Anyway, it's no big deal. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

You're taking my words out of context. The glaring contradiction you're speaking of is not what you've made it seem. If you've misinterpreted what I said, I'll explain myself. I explained that the accent in Long Island are containing their accents, although they are slowly dwindling too.

The reason why is less outsiders move there. In Manhattan's circumstance, lots of outsiders move there all the time. This is why at times in Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, at times, it seems nearly impossible to find people who can trace back several generations there. In Long Island and parts of the other boroughs, it's more common, because less people move there, therefore less people leave. I didn't know that I'd have to explain the implications of natural increase in this issue, but I have no problem doing so.

When you have people from all over moving into one place though, it compromises the accent. That's pretty self explanatory. I'm not going to go into that on here, because it's a long subject and not completely relevant to why I took information off.

My point is, just look above in the paragraphs above. I've expressed to you my view, but I'm not going to post my view, without sourcing on there, unlike the people from the two articles below.

This problem is being remedied as we speak, but the process of research and publication is slow, and the sources will only appear over the next few years as papers appear. Until then, the issue is what should be in the article?

Well, patience is a virtue. So, basically, are you saying it'd be better if people posted their opinions here because of a lack of information.

The goal is or shouldn't be the quantity of this page. By the way, this article is relatively thorough compared to other articles on Wikipedia.

Let me note another thing too. When I say the word Bias, I don't mean that to have a racially bias tone. Typically, that's what American's think when they hear the word bias, because it seems like the media has gotten the best of them. That's not how I used the word bias, if that's how you thought I was using it. When I said personal bias, I mean someone's own personal situation is why they believe is to be a certain way. For example, you'll notice I took away the segment where it says first-generation born West Indians speak Vernacular English. If I were to say there's a personal bias to that, I'd mean that it may be a person of West Indian origin who speaks Vernacular English who wrote that article.

Similarly, when that person wrote that southern and eastern European descendants would be more likely to hold onto the lingual traits of the New York accent, it makes the assumption that European-American's are the only speakers of the New York accent. If you're born and raised in a place, you're going to have the accent of the place you've grown up in, although you may not having the accent as heavy as someone who's had roots there for generations. I never said I was a lingual expert, so there's no need to jump all over me on there.

If you consider my writing a rant, than it's probably best you don't respond anyway. I've edited information on this web-site before, without coming on the discussion bored and have had people complain. So now I come on here, provide a thorough explanation, and there's still complaints. Well, I guess there's no way to please people on Wikipedia. Once again though, please don't take it as if I was claiming anyone was discriminative, because I wasn't. I was simply saying their opinion is influencing their writing to the point that the information can be useless. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias (3) Statistics a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

With all due respect, I think that may have just been a Cincinattian who moved to New York and doesn't want to feel their accent is out of place.

The key word was may. I didn't say if that was definetly the region, but that it'd be possible. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

I'm happy to see there's some source under the Cincinnati and Albany now. Even though the site (source) provided looks like something that could have been created in less than 5 minutes, it cites out where Lavor says this, so thank you for doing such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The source cited is a paper published in the premier American scholarly journal of linguistics; it wasn't created in 5 minutes. AJD (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Info to Intro Of Article

New Jersey is dialectally diverse, with many immigrants and transplants from other states, but there are roughly two regional varieties discernible, each having features in common with the two metropolises of New York City and Philadelphia that each extend into the state.

I'm sure many of you know and have participated in the New York City versus New Jersey accent argument. Obviously, there's similarities, as well as differences. What can be said about New Jersey though is that, like New York City, it's very diverse. It has a high foreign-born population. Likewise to New Jersey, both New York City, along with neighboring parts within New York State, have lots of out-of-state residents, for a variety of reasons. I believe it was appropriately mentioned in the New Jersey article, even though there wasn't a source. Out-of-state residents throughout cities and states in America seems to be common knowledge. For New York City, it definitely is too. If anything, because of the affluence, the impact of out-of-state residents in New York City may be heavier.

Although the variations are not as large with regions in New Jersey, New York City actually is considerably dialectally diverse. I won't mention that there though, because New York City is smaller, and the variations within boroughs of New York City are not as large as New Jersey's. I will mention though that New York City is home to many immigrants and and transplants from other states, who make an impact on the accent. After all, it wouldn't seem right to say out-of-state residents impact New Jersey, yet not New York City. You don't see people from all over America living their chops to move to New Jersey. Sadly and probably unfairly, people are usually repulsed by the idea. Even for people within the New York area though, there always seems to be a more tasteful idea for a New Jerseyan to move to New York. Even Frank Sinatra's lyrics in New York, New York could show that.

I probably didn't need to mention all this, but it was probably better I give an explanation for changing the information people see when immediately coming this article. Here's the sentence I'll be inserting:

Many immigrants and transplants from other states throughout the city's history has influenced the New York dialect. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

No source to Jewish-New York phenomenon ; Changing entry sentence from Most to many.

The New York dialect of the English language is spoken by most European Americans, and some non-European Americans, who were raised in New York City and much of its metropolitan area including the lower Hudson Valley, Long Island, and parts of New Jersey bordering the Hudson River.

There's a problem with this quote. In the first sentence, it says most European Americans. That's an open-ended interpretation, that has no source. I don't think anyone would dispute that many do, including non-European-Americans, but to say most, gives the vibe that like eighty percent or so due, which would be false. New York City's a place where people are constantly moving and leaving, and it's been this way for a while, especially since WWII, so besides the accent being somewhat compromised over the years, the speakers of it, particularly European-American's, have changed too. For example, just look at the U.S. Census. Is there another borough where English ancestry is as common and Italian as less? The reason why is people constantly move to this city, from all parts of America and those people don't have this accent.

So instead of The New York dialect of the English language is spoken by most European Americans, , I'll be changing it to this.

The New York dialect of he English language is spoken by many European-Americans.

Also, although I won't alter Long Island in the quote, it's worth mentioning that not all parts of Long Island have the accent. Typically, the older places, closer to NYC, in Nassau County, have it heavier than other places.

Some Jewish-Americans, both Ashkenazic and Sephardic, throughout the United States have some features of a New York accent. This is the case even among some Jewish-Americans who have never lived in New York or New Jersey. This phenomenon is somewhat parallel to the spread of African American Vernacular English to the rest of the United States from its original location in the American South.

There's three problems with this quote. One, there's no citation. Two, it can lead to an incorrect generalization of Jewish-American. Three, it gives the insinuation that New Jersey (it didn't said North or lower-Hudson) as a whole, is similar to the New York dialect, meanwhile most of Central Jersey speaks General American, and south Jersey speaks with more of a Mid-Atlantic accent, similar to Philadelphia, Delaware and Maryland. So I think you can understand where I'm coming from on the 1st and 3rd problem.

I'll explain the second problem though, which is a big one. To start out, the reason why the spread of AAVE really isn't all that much of a phenomenon. The reason why it's not is because most African-American's are descendants of southerners, which can be explained by the great migrations. In the Northeast and Mid-West, it'd be explained mostly by the 1st Great Migration, while in the West, it'd be explained by the 2nd. The south is a much larger place than the New York area. What ever African-American populations that may have existed in New York or Massachusetts, and many non-southern states, were simply out-numbered by the new migrants.

What's more of a phenomenon is how it's existed this long, but in it's most extremes, it can be explained by a lack of education, poverty and a lack of assimilation. The reason why Jewish-Americans who've never lived in New York or New Jersey can't relate to this is because most don't have roots to New York or New Jersey. What may be throwing you off is that around 1/3 of Jewish-Americans live in the New York City area. That has nothing to do with the history of Chicago Jews though. Or Jews in the South. Jewish immigrants directly immigrated to lots of cities all throughout the United States. Another problem you may not be understanding is that you're basing this off of stereotype. AAVE is a noticeable dialect, to most American's. A Jewish American accent, if it would be considered one, is not detectable, because most places in America, excluding some major cities or highly populated areas, have low Jewish populations. Therefore, many would have no clue what this is supposed to sound like. This statement gives a vibe that Jewish equals New York, which undermines Jewish people throughout other places in America.

This quote is largely debatable, therefore it'll need a source (citation), and until than, it shouldn't be on here. So I'll be taking it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the White Flight that reduced their numbers in the city has led to expansion of the dialect in the outlying areas to which they moved. Now, the most secure strongholds of the New York dialect are arguably the suburban areas of Nassau County, western Suffolk County, Westchester County,Rockland County northeastern and southwestern Queens, and Staten Island, although many strong New York dialect speakers remain in urban sections of Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan.

There are several problems with this quote. I'll be careful in describing them though, because I don't want to make anyone upset.

While I know the person who wrote this probably didn't mean it to come out there way it did, to many who read it, it would come out to be favoring New York City.

Let's look at Nassau County for example.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Nassau_County,_New_York#Demographics

Look at there population in 1950, look at the estimate in 2006. It went from 673,000 (rounded) to 1,326,000.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_States_demographics#Population_growth

Look at the United States growth from 1950 to 2000. To add to note that the 300th million born in American came in Mid-October 2006, so the population was at 302.6 million, by mid-2007. So the U.S. population doubled between 1950 and 2007. If Nassau County were to double, they would have been at 1,346,000, but obviously, Nassau County has higher immigration than the average of America. Approximately 18 percent of Nassau County residents (238414) are foreign born (http://www.city-data.com/county/Nassau_County-NY.html), as opposed to 11 percent in America, so the population should actually be arguably up to 1.7 or so, meanwhile, it's a few hundred thousand less. So, it obviously says that Nassau County suburbanized their own county, and stayed within themselves, for the most part. For one, many of the older towns, were relatively close to these expanding suburban towns. Two, although the demography isn't always relevant from a suburban part of Nassau to a semi-urban part, it's much more relevant than what you may see from in a borough of New York City.

To whom ever wrote this quote, what you hadn't realized, judging from that quote, is the dialect that's prevalent within many European-American Nassau County residents has always been there. Historically speaking, they proportionally had much more Jewish, Irish and Italian immigrants, three groups who've had significance in the New York dialect. By implying that Nassau County just couldn't have had this accent, is giving off a vibe, to some, at least, that Nassau County just isn't good enough to have their own accent. The accent within European-Americans in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and of course, Manhattan, is just not that heavy. It never was heavy. Don't let movies fool you. The accent has always been heavier in places like Long Island and Staten Island, because of the immigrants groups who settled this area. These groups are still some of the most significant ethnic groups there, meanwhile boroughs within New York City, excluding Staten Island, tend to be more diverse.

If you're going to mention that white flight has had an effect on suburbs, even if those places you're saying didn't actually grow, than you should also mention that moving into New York City, particularly Manhattan and close parts of Brooklyn, especially of the past few decades, has become a common trend amongst college graduates in the New York City's suburbs. Likewise to your quote though, it has no source, so it wouldn't be appropriate to state.

There's also a contradiction in these two following statements:

The New York dialect is closely confined to the geographically small but densely populated New York City dialect region, which consists of the city's five Boroughs, the western half of Long Island, southern Westchester County, Rockland County and parts of northeast New Jersey.

Key words: Southern Westchester County ... This would actually be true because the closest parts to New York City, like in Nassau County, and in the lower-Hudson in New Jersey, tend to resemble the dialect the most.

Here's the quote it contradicts, if it doesn't have the word southern in it.

Now, the most secure strongholds of the New York dialect are arguably the suburban areas of Nassau County, western Suffolk County, Westchester County,Rockland County northeastern and southwestern Queens, and Staten Island, although many strong New York dialect speakers remain in urban sections of Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan.

Also, if you can notice the contradiction from before, southern Westchester County, like Yonkers, which was the part of the country most regard for the accent, hasn't grown all that much, so it couldn't have been suburbanized. There were plenty of older parts of Westchester county too, not as close to New York City (the Bronx), where the accent wasn't as heavy. Also, likewise to boroughs of New York City, or Hudson County, this part of Westchester County is very diverse. So I'll start out by writing southern Westchester, instead of Westchester. I'll be taking out western Suffolk county, because as I've mentioned, there's no source, and also, there's been no provided explanation for this. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

Albany, New York display influence from the New York City dialect.

I understand this is the capital of the state of New York, but the truth is, possibly excluding New Jersey, if there's any state where there's such a large variation in dialect, it's New York. Although it's a very populated area, the New York dialect tends to serve a small geographical area. It's mostly the 5 boroughs, close parts of New Jersey to Manhattan, and some closer areas on the New York side. Albany is far from New York City. There's little reason to believe why Albany would have it, yet not their area. It's southern suburbs actually kind of touch the northern end of New York City's suburbs, and the New York dialect doesn't exist much there. There's no citation to this quote though, which is why it leaves me skeptical to believe if this is true. What's interesting is that Labov noted that parts of Upstate New York resemble traits similar to the New York dialect. If one of the specific places he gave an explanation to were, than it'd validate this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They definitely don't have the NYC dialect in Albany, but they do have some influence from it—more influence from the NYC dialect than is present in, say, Amsterdam, New York. The citation for that claim was accidentally deleted; I've restored it with proper reference. AJD (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From the turn of the century until about 1930, predominantly Italian and Eastern European Jewish immigrants, but also later Irish and others, arrived and further affected the region's speech. Sociolinguistic research, which is ongoing, suggests some differentiation between these last groups' speech may exist. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

First, please pay attention to WP:NOR and WP:V and make sure you don't change anything sourced or add unsourced claims of your own, as you did here and here(this has since been reverted by others; the source for the content you changed was both mentioned in the text and clearly indicated with a Harvard reference in the end of the section, whereas your suggestions that FDR had a lower-class accent and that non-rhoticity was primarily typical of London fishwives were not supported with any source). Second:

"The accent within European-Americans in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and of course, Manhattan, is just not that heavy. It never was heavy. Don't let movies fool you. The accent has always been heavier in places like Long Island and Staten Island, because of the immigrants groups who settled this area. These groups are still some of the most significant ethnic groups there, meanwhile boroughs within New York City, excluding Staten Island, tend to be more diverse."

What incredible anachronistic nonsense. Accents are not inherently "heavy", "thick", "smelly" or whatever else you like to call them. And God did not create "light", "thin", odorless General American as the pure and correct form of English in the garden of Eden. The New York dialect is precisely what the name suggests, the local dialect of New York, not the Poor Uneducated Italian Immigrants' Dialect. It originated in actual New York ("Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and of course, Manhattan") and of course it was most pronounced (what you would consider "heavy") in actual New York (Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Manhattan), both in the upper class and in the lower class (of course, slight differences eventually developed between upper and lower class versions of the dialect). It was what you'd call "heavy" - except that nobody considered it "heavy", "smelly" or "mob-like" at the time, because there was simply no General American standard to "deviate" from, and the local accent was the normal thing. Indeed, much of what characterizes New York English probably originated in the 19th century as a fashionable, prestigious pronunciation, imitating the "metropolitan" speech of South-Eastern England (this is not my personal conjecture). New York English certainly wasn't being brought into New York by "immigrants groups" as a kind of broken English or as a distortion of the pure and "light" General American of the original locals, as you seem to imagine - on the contrary, it is more conservative than many other American varieties, and General American did not exist and was not spoken in New York. Immigrants learnt the accent from the locals, and they did it precisely in order to sound prestigious - i.e. for precisely the same reason for which modern New Yorkers have done their best to get rid of it. The fact that you associate it with immigrants is due to immigrants being lower-class and preserving more of the dialect for some time after World War 2 when the educated and the middle-class had started to adapt to the new prestige dialect, General American. Of course, the immigrants' original languages have also had some effect on the dialect, historically - but this effect was just as strong in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Manhattan, which were, BTW, full of immigrants.

All in all, I'm sick of reading comments regarding different accents where people come and announce that "we don't talk like that where I live, God forbid", "only some few old retards talk like that where I live", "we don't have any accent at all where I live, we speak correctly" ("no accent" and "correctly" meaning "General American") etc.. The degree of snobbery, narrow-mindedness, conformism and prestige mania surrounding issues of accent is astonishing.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

First, please pay attention to WP:NOR and WP:V and make sure you don't change anything sourced or add unsourced claims of your own, as you did here and here(this has since been reverted by others; the source for the content you changed was both mentioned in the text and clearly indicated with a Harvard reference in the end of the section, whereas your suggestions that FDR had a lower-class accent and that non-rhoticity was primarily typical of London fishwives were not supported with any source).

Please understand that when I write on here it is meant for discussion purposes. Most of us don't quote each and everything we say in open conversation. I am not adding information onto the page. My intentions are usually either to revise it so it is more understood or take out useless information that lacks citation.

Accents are not inherently "heavy", "thick", "smelly" or whatever else you like to call them. And God did not create "light", "thin", odorless General American as the pure and correct form of English in the garden of Eden.

Of course they aren't in their literal sense. However, you must understand accents are a phenomena. It is something that occurs without realizing something. The mixing together of accents or migration flows from other states or countries along with mass communication may make it appear as though the accent has lightened. I am not going to debate with you rhetorical political correctness. No accent in the U.S. is purely General American. It is just a matter of how much you lean towards it. In the case of New York City and the area, it really isn't that class associated. So I don't know what this so-called God created in such a Garden of Eden. I'm speaking to you subjectively on our society.

The New York dialect is precisely what the name suggests, the local dialect of New York, not the Poor Uneducated Italian Immigrants' Dialect.

I'd absolutely agree with you there. As far as I'm concerned, it is very superficial too. Anyone who's heard the Italian languages and knows of it's grave sound would be perplexed if they think Italian immigrants could have had a degree of influence on the verbiage of a tongue that isn't that similar.

It originated in actual New York ("Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and of course, Manhattan") and of course it was most pronounced (what you would consider "heavy") in actual New York (Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Manhattan), both in the upper class and in the lower class (of course, slight differences eventually developed between upper and lower class versions of the dialect).

Unfortunately, our conversations regarding what actually exists in 2009 would be largely confusing. In the case of Manhattan, I think you could count the amount of white people on your toes who trace their immigrant origins at least a century to the borough or even the city as a whole. That even includes the wealthy. Non-whites generally don't have the accent because it is simply a dying accent. The only places they'd acquire it are in predominantly European-American areas that aren't filled with out-of-state residents. You must also take into account that a European-American native New Yorker born to out-of-state parents would likely have a lighter accent in the same manner a second generation Asian-American may.

It was what you'd call "heavy" - except that nobody considered it "heavy", "smelly" or "mob-like" at the time, because there was simply no General American standard to "deviate" from, and the local accent was the normal thing.

When I say heavy I generally mean how words are pronounced (especially vowels are pronounced). This is assumptive that each person I'm comparing is speaking in an equal tone and volume. I know exactly what you're talking about and I agree with you. I actually don't think of that as a New York accent. It is superficial and dysfunctional. It is a shame more people don't realize this.

New York English certainly wasn't being brought into New York by "immigrants groups" as a kind of broken English or as a distortion of the pure and "light" General American of the original locals, as you seem to imagine - on the contrary, it is more conservative than many other American varieties, and General American did not exist and was not spoken in New York.

It wasn't a while ago in virtually all places in the U.S. What means of transportation and technology did they even have to know what other people sounded like? The truth is accents always change. 50 years from now General American will likely sound different. I actually believe the New York accent traces it's most distinctive features from well before massive immigration in the nineteenth century. The immigration patterns in neighboring states like New Jersey were similar. Yet they don't sound alike. Quite frankly too, the pronunciation in accent begins to ironically change significantly the further you move away from the map of where the Dutch had originally colonized. So the mixing together of that and English gave it a start in the seventeenth century and has evolved differently since.

Immigrants learnt the accent from the locals, and they did it precisely in order to sound prestigious - i.e. for precisely the same reason for which modern New Yorkers have done their best to get rid of it.

I'd agree with this too. I wish I could have clarified myself more of this. You make a valid point.

The fact that you associate it with immigrants is due to immigrants being lower-class and preserving more of the dialect for some time after World War 2 when the educated and the middle-class had started to adapt to the new prestige dialect, General American.

I don't really associate to immigrants that much. The groups that would have had most impact on the accent outside of the original Dutch and English would have been those who were English speakers or speakers of other Germanic tongues. That'd obviously include Irish and Ashkenazi Jews (German, Yiddish speakers). I don't associate the modern New York accent as a representation of class. Most who speak it are European-American and most are middle-class. You'll see family members were one person pronounces words differently then others without even realizing it. I myself have detected this in comparison to my brother. Tom173.61.36.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

/u/ after coronals

Kudos to Thegreysone for all the improvements. There are still two issue I noticed. 1) As it reads now, the "goose" vowel is said not to be fronted, and the "dew" vowel is marginally said to be a separate diphthong. I have no problem with that, but what's missing is the general fronting of post coronal /u/. I have plenty of raw data with this (and I'm not the only one), but don't know of anything published on it. I guess it's not in HOVE. BTW, Mouton is abusive in their pricing. That book costs more than $800. 2) the fortition of dental fricatives should be to dental stops but I don't see how to insert the correct subscript in the IPA symbol insert list. mnewmanqc (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Labov, Ash, & Boberg (2006) seem to indicate that the NYC area has one of the least-fronted post-coronal /u:/ in the country—but that may be only the NJ cities near NYC, not NYC itself; the map is a little hard to read. (I'm looking at Map 12.1.) AJD (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to contest my edits. I tried to keep at least some of the original material in there. If there was some well-sourced material that I erased, please put it back in. I agree with you, Mnewmanqc, that Mouton is "abusive in their pricing". I have a little secret for you though: I don't actually own it. What you can do is google something that is written in HOVOE (e.g., "St. Louis corridor dialect"), then click on one of the responses that says "books.google.com". You should get a book preview, with some pages missing. If you want less pages to be missing, click on a different book preview; it might show what the other one doesn't show. I have two different book previews bookmarked, and I can read almost the entire book online now (the first volume at least). You can also go to "http://www.mouton-online.com/varieties.php" and click on "Register for Demo-Version". They give you a pretty long demo-version of it. It's not bad; it gives you examples of speakers of many varieties. You can also read some of ANAE online, and there is a demo-version for that as well. Thegryseone (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to contest, and thanks for the google books trick. I didn't know they varied in the pages shown. I'll actually get a library copy, although I won't ask my library to purchase it. I never noticed the AENE data on less post-coronal /u/ fronting. I have noticed a lot of variation, and there are a lot of back glides after fronted nuclei. Maybe in a year I'll have a few vowel systems ready to publish. mnewmanqc (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

More References

I just read through the article after the recent changes, and I think it's much better now. I also added one reference. One more thing could be added is that the HOVOE reference should be added to those phonological features that come from that source. Since you added that, and know where it is in the book, can I suggest that Thegreysone do it? The reason is that if you follow the history of the discussion or editing, we get periodic episodes of complaints and unsubstantiated changes made to the article. mnewmanqc (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's spelled thegryseone (it's weird, I know, but that's how it's spelled). Alright I'll try to do that. Thegryseone (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Sorry about the spelling, thegryseone. I think the article's in really great shape. At least until some new research comes out, I personally don't see much room for improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnewmanqc (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fronting of /ɒ/ in New York

I hear a fronted /ɒ/ as in lot from New Yorkers all the time. I know it has nothing to do with the NCVS, but it's there. I remember there being a speaker in ANAE with fronted /ɒ/, yet I've never seen anyone remark on it. Anyway, that's all. Thegryseone (talk) 19:58, .30 March 2009 (UTC)

The only ones I've noticed doing it are Latinos. I'll listen though. However, it might make a kind of functional sense given the backing of the (ah) class. mnewmanqc (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Mnewmanqc. I know you actually study this dialect which is cool, so you would probably know if anyone does. I think it might also have a functional sense given the raising of CLOTH, although the raising should be sufficient by itself to distinguish cot and caught. However with the fronting of cot, these would be even more easily distinguished from one another. I can understand Latinos doing it because of the Spanish /ä/, which then transfers to English. Anyway, thanks. Thegryseone (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, if THOUGHT moves upward, then LOT has one good reason to remain in its original configuration--that is, back of center. Remember that vowels tend to maximize their "margins of security" between one another; and if THOUGHT is in the [o] region, then fronting LOT toward [a] wouldn't make much sense--why reduce the distance to TRAP when you've got plenty of room behind you? Come to think of it, only in NYC and the Mid-Atlantic region, where THOUGHT is relatively high, is the phonology relatively stable; elsewhere, where THOUGHT and LOT both started in low position, you have one of the following results:

(1) LOT and THOUGHT have crashed into each other (default configuration);

(2) THOUGHT has become a diphthong (Southern drawl);

(3) the whole phonemic system is fubar (Inland North).

In EngEng, LOT is fully backed (and rounded), and THOUGHT is indeed very high (by U.S. standards). In EngEng, it may be the case that THOUGHT moved upward as a consequence of GOAT moving forward.

Back to the original point, we talked about Joe Pesci's accent some time ago, and the fact that he would systematically use a fronted allophone of LOT in a restricted set of words (on, job and a few others). Anyway, the NYC vowel system is extraordinarily complex, to the point that you may have as many as five phonemes where half of the country has just two. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about thought, the (oh) set, but (ah) in the first vowel in father and water and god. Thus Bob the name (ah) is different than bob the verb (o). The rationale is that if (ah) is following (oh) as the second element in the low back chain shift, then (o) might be fronted, precisely to keep the margin of security. I"m not convinced by that explanation however. Maybe someone who studied vowels with Labov can chime in. I get confused about whether the low vowels like (o) are considered peripheral or not. However, there's another possible reason, associated with something Dennis Preston said at the last NWAV (but not quite the same as what he said). That is that vowel systems like those described in the traditional quadrangle-i.e., with two low vowels--in English are somewhat unnatural and unstable. A more natural one is a triangle, with one apex at the bottom. If (o) appears in that position, it would appear fronted. Maybe it's starting a push chain. If you're right, then we'll have to wait a few generations to find out!!

I don't really work on this accent. I'm doing more with Latino English. I wish someone would do full vowel systems for NYC White vernacular. I got a few nice samples though! Just no time or students willing and ablemnewmanqc (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually was replying to Thegryseone's suggestion. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Labov's current view is that most low vowels aren't defined as either peripheral or nonperipheral; the vowel space isn't wide enough. The upshot of this is that while peripheral vowels tend to rise, and nonperipheral vowels tend to fall, low vowels are relative free to more forward and backward, and you might find [a] becoming [æ] in one place or time and [ɒ] in another—these have moved back and forth with each other several times in the history of English. But if they start moving up they become peripheral and can't come back down, like /æ/ becoming [eə] in the NCS or /ɑ:/ becoming /ɔ:/ in late Old English. But anyway, if /o/ and /ah/ are seriously not merged, Labov's theory wouldn't expect them to be able to directly interact in a chain-shift situation: they belong to different subsystems.

By the way, I wouldn't say that triangular vowel systems are in general more natural for English than quadrangular systems. The point of Preston's talk was that the triangular system is a better analysis of the Northern Cities Shift than a quadrangular system is; but other dialects, such as the Midland, and Canada, seem to be maintaining or even strengthening a quadrangular vowel system. AJD (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by and large, English vowel systems have traditionally been quadrangular--witness the confusion about whether the low central vowel in loanwords should map to TRAP or PALM (khaki, pasta, pajamas, scenario and the like); for example, President Obama says "/æ/fgh/æ/nist/æ/n" and "P/ɑ/kist/ɑ/n," which doesn't make any sense. In the U.S., TRAP used to be the vowel of choice, but now it's PALM; in Britain, it's the other way around; in Canada, it's universally TRAP. In most of England, Ireland, Australia, the vowel space appears to be firmly quadrangular--then again, TRAP and PALM belong to different subsystems there. I wouldn't be so sure about Canada, though. If the Canadian shift goes all the way, TRAP and LOT will ultimately become [ä] and [ɔ], respectively, like in parts of Scotland and in some non-native dialects; it's way too soon to tell, however.

Finnish has always had a rigid, stable quadrangular system--but with far fewer vowels than English. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that Obama says "P/ɑ/kist/ɑ/n", and I thought that was weird too. He must watch a lot of BBC or something. Thegryseone (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC) The interesting thing that you mentioned to me a while ago, Jack, is that some Canadian allophones of /æ/ already are centralized, e.g., last. What's interesting about that is that it sounds like a broad A in those environments, but anyway, this is supposed to be about NYC English, and look how far we've come. Thegryseone (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, now that I think about it I take back that comment about the BBC. On the BBC I think they say "P/æ/kist/ɑː/n" (English people always have to be different :)). Thegryseone (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've heard both "P/æ/kist/ɑː/n" and "P/ɑː/kist/ɑː/n" from British journalists. However, NPR's Philip Reeves says "P/æ/kist/æ/n". Only in isolation may Canadian /æ/ in last sound vaguely broad-A-ish; in context, it's clear that the vowels in last, back, have, and chat are one and the same. The point is, voiceless fricatives /s, f, θ/ have a complex relationship with the TRAP phoneme. Before voiceless frics, the TRAP vowel is always longer than it is before, say, voiceless stops; for some speakers (e.g. Canada, possibly the West), it's (1) more retracted too; for some others, it's (2) higher. To simplify somewhat, when taken to an extreme, (1) yields the broad A and the TRAP-BATH split, whereas (2) yields the tense-lax split that we see in NYC English and so we're back to where we started from. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here we go. If you look at Map 13.1 in ANAE, 3 out of the 6 speakers in the NYC dialect area have a short-o with an F2 greater than 1400 hz; in this map they are represented by the red symbols. Thegryseone (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

At least one of the New York City speakers that I was referring to earlier (Philippa M. [or Pat M.; all the first names are made up anyway], 48) has a mean F2 approaching 1600 hz for her /ɒ/. She makes a distinction between /ɒ/ and /ɑ/ too, by the way, which might help explain why I'm using the symbol I'm using. She also then makes a three-way distinction between the vowels in lot, father and caught, which is extremely impressive for a North American; I really think we should give her a trophy or something. Anyway, some of her tokens of /ɒ/ have an F2 approaching 1700 hz and two of them even have an F2 approaching 1800 hz. F2 values like these for this phoneme would be at home in the Inland North. Anything above 1400 hz would be for that matter. This is consistent with the pronunciations of this phoneme that I've heard from many a New Yorker. Thegryseone (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, I could shed a little light on the subject. I am from Central Jersey, and we do pronounce the typical /ɒ/ as /a̟/ or /ä/. However, I wouldn't call it a fronted /ɒ/. I'll explain.

• First and at most, /ɒ/ is rounded while /a̟/ and /ä/ are both not. So, fronted /ɒ/ might be understood to mean that the vowel is still rounded.
• However, in most forms of American English, /ɒ/ was unrounded, usually to /ɑː/, merging with the /ɑː/ of father, known as the father-bother merger. However, in and around New York, the vowel of father is not also front (due to lack of better term). Only the vowel in bother is front. So, I wouldn't call it a fronted /ɑ/ either.

That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.216.186 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Northwestern Nassau

I'm spending a week in northwestern Nassau County: Port Washtingon, Roslyn, Manhasset, etc. To my untrained ear, every white person I overhear is speaking New York dialect and accent. Where is the boundary in this area? Bellagio99 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In areas of lots of movement, it's hard to draw isoglosses. I'd say however, that around the Port Jeff area there are mostly NY dialect speakers, which is not surprising since the area is dominated demographically by White flighters from the city or their kids. I'd say that anywhere in LI that is mostly populated by white people who came from the city, that will be true. But I don't know any research on it or on the purely demographic question, or why similar areas in NJ seem to preserve the original dialect more. Dissertation anyone?mnewmanqc (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assessment. First, you're not recognizing the fact that many native white Long Islander's have heavier accents than New York City residents. No, and I don't mean as in having parents or grandparents from New York City. Nassau County technically used to be apart of Queens, and resembles much of the lingual traits. While residents from the city did help expand the population of suburban Suffolk county places, Nassau County also had an impact.

Currently, the white people in most of Nassau County have a heavier accent than white's in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn, and the reason why is it's always been this way. The further out you go into Long Island, it varies, but Long Island, much like Staten Island, has much cultural unification in it's modern identity. Suffolk County still still have a decent amount of people prior to the suburbanization era, with moderate to higher immigration to the national average, so it has a mixed identity. In Nassau County, there were less people from the city who moved there, as they didn't grow at the same rate, have less land and a higher population density. Plus, it's more expensive, and always have been, than all the boroughs except for Manhattan. If anything, if white people from the boroughs moved there, it'd probably tone down the Long Island accent in modern Nassau Co.

You're probably right about the fact that Nassau already had an originally similar population to Queens, but I'm bit more skeptical about the rest of your claims. I grew up in western Queens and the accent of white people with city roots was as strong as they come. The fact is that there was always considerable movement around the dialect region. All of us have relatives in different parts of the city, and much of Queens was populated by newcomers from other areas as they built the subways. In any case, if you can come up with published sources on the demographics and origins of the population that will improve the article, why don't you just add them? mnewmanqc (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I currently don't have any sources on specific demographics relating to Long Island. I don't believe anything would be that explicit there though.

In your reference to Queens, that's an open interpretation. Excluding Staten Island, Queens has always maintained more growth than the other boroughs, mostly due to having more land to work with, but it's the most foreign-born borough in New York City and has been for quite a while now. The subway system in New York City was constructed during the early-1900's, before the suburbanization era. I'm sure people moved from neighborhood to neighborhood in the borough, expanding out to more suburban type environments, like Far Rockaway, but the rest of the boroughs couldn't necessarily support that.

At least in modern day, the reason why people have relatives in other neighborhoods and boroughs is because most people don't marry or date people only from where they live. You may meet someone who's from the Bronx and have to choose between your and there place. The same can be said to close by parts of Nassau County. The fact Nassau has actually lost people since 2000, while Queens has grown considerably, probably would push people more in the direction of Queens though. In terms of the accent, people in more urban parts of Queens are really no more likely to have had a heavier accent than those in older parts of Long Island. Like Queens, Long Islanders moved away from old towns and expanded their suburbs about 50 years ago. To claim Queens is the city is merely a technicality, when in compared to nearby Nassau Co., because the historical white populations are identical. In fact, the ethnic groups that are supposed to have had the most impact on the accent, notably Jews and Italians, are higher in population in Nassau Co., than in Queens, and always have been. Honestly, I couldn't really tell the difference between a historical Queens and Nassau Co. accent, but I'd imagine Queens accent is withering at a faster rate, because newer immigrants have exploded into virtually all parts of Queens. There's still a lot of suburban parts of Nassau Co. that are predominantly overwhelmingly white. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

Why do some insinuate that Italian immigrants had a great impact on the NYC accent? Sociolinguistic explanation for why or why not?

I'd at least like some explanation here. I've interpreted people's justification for why an accent is the way it is literally because of who've moved there. This obviously usually isn't the case. The degree of similarity between tongues seems to be most influential. In the case of the impact of Italian immigrants a century ago, I just don't understand how they significantly impacted it. The Italian language is a grave accent. You can even easily detect this when Italophones speak English.

People stereotypically like to believe the mafia movie accent has Italian origin. I am simply asking how? I don't quite get the logic. If Italian immigrants had such a degree of impact on the English language, wouldn't you hear even a mildly grave tone in the accent? Wouldn't it sound more similar to Hispanophones or those who are native to Latin tongues? How do you get that out of that? As far as I'm concerned, I think that some of the second generation just took from that of the locals and tried perpetuating some tough extreme version of it.

I particularly don't care for that how stereotypical garbage though. It is hard to take people who try sounding like that seriously anyway. In terms of a guy like Frank Sinatra (from Hoboken, but a similar accent), who I believe was the child of Sicilian immigrants, I just don't have how their accent impacted him. Maybe there is a some sort of sociolinguistic explanation for this. I'd appreciate mature responses. Perhaps I'm naive here. That is why I am asking. Tom173.61.36.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Arnold Stang

I put in a cite for Arnold Stang's NY accent. All I did was search on "Arnold Stang" and "accent" and many popped up, some more authoritative than others. I grew up listening to Stang on The Goldbergs, a show clearly set in the Bronx, and we all knew/loved his NYism. I know this is WP:OR, but the cites aren't. Bellagio99 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced your cite with one that actually states he had a NY accent. MrBlondNYC (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

lexicon

re: recent changes to lexicon: I've heard "single" used for a one-dollar bill, but I'm not sure it is unique to NYC. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnewmanqc (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

Thanks User:Mnewmanqc for the greatlye xpanded bibliography. If I had a barn handy and could climb it, I'd award you a barnstar. Will remedy it soon. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• • There was a recent addition of references to Schneider and Kortmann (2005). The addition of the references is really welcome because it strengthens the article, but as it stands it is not quite correctly done. I have the 2004 volume with Edgar Schneider as sole editor, which consists of articles, and Matt Gordon did the one on NY (along with Philly), and that is cited in places. The new ref given is to the multimedia version that came out a year later, and this book has a number of editors (too many to put here), but Matt Gordon remains the actual author of the article with data on NY. The correct bib format is to have him as the author; credit where credit is due. I think the contents of the two volumes must be identical, but before I go in and change everything myself, I thought the anonymous editor might like to do it. Also, I'm a bit confused as to how to do the pagination and even the references since I'm not certain the volumes are exactly the same. Also, it will require double references in each case Gordon, M. (2004/2005).mnewmanqc (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Kara Becker's dissertation

Many dissertations are now available online. Can you provide a link either @ NYU or UMI (formerly University Microfilm)? Bellagio99 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It will be or has just been deposited in the NYU library, but I have no special access to that. I think it's too early to be available through UMI. I can ask Kara if she plans to get a website set up at her new job and will make it available. It's probably in her interest to do so, but it her decision. At this point the only way to get it is to ask her or interlibrary loan through NYU, if they've catalogued it yet.mnewmanqc (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some other examples of distinct New York sounds that were left out

I'm no expert on linguistics (though the subject interests me greatly in a casual manner), but I grew up on Long Island and was fascinated from childhood with the difference between the way I pronounced things and the way my cousins from other parts of the country pronounced them. As such I felt there were a few striking examples of New York pronunciations that were left out. The first is that in other parts of the country the words "log", "fog", "bog", and "dog" all rhyme (as it appears they should!) but in New York, the vowel in "dog" is completely different, as it has a broad A vowel sound (yet "log", "fog", "bog", and other words ending in -og don't have this vowel change). And if anyone knows why we say dog differently from other -og words, that would be cool to know.

The other thing that was left out which I felt was very important was the sound "ch" (like in chair or choose; I don't know the official lingistics symbols) appears in some words starting with "thr", as in "three" sounding the same as (homophones) "tree", "throat" sounding like "chroat", "throw" sounding like "chrow". Though I think this would be listed under a "stigmatized" sound, because I've only heard older folks using it, it seems to be disappearing from the younger generation (while the word "dog" having the broad A vowel sound is still in full force).

Also, I don't know if this is New York only, but the words "pitcher" and "picture" are pronounced the same (like "pitcher").

And you might have mentioned the adding of r to the ends of words where it doesn't belong (pillow is pronounced "pillar", tuna is pronounced "tuner" by some people).

Lastly, I don't know what category this would belong in, but "mirror" is said "mirra" and "drawer" is pronounced "draw" (making the word "drawer", as in a dresser drawer, indistinguishable from the word "draw", as in to draw a picture.)

The reason I thought of these was because my cousins always used to make fun of me by saying "Do you want to draw a pitcher, or put a pitcher in the kitchen draw?" ("Do you want to draw a picture, or put a pitcher in the kitchen drawer?")

Any comments of the more professionally educated people on these thoughts is welcomed and appreciated, thank you.

Not that you did it, but I want to state here that I'm gonna revert the elimination of European American from the article. The reason is that there are basic sources for the position that what is considered New York Dialect, the dialect discussed by Labov (1966) and earlier dialectologists such as Hubbell, is primarily a White variety. For example, Labov eliminates AAE speakers and Puerto Ricans from his analysis in many places. That said, if the article was titled, New York City English or English in New York City it would be a different story. There are certainly, NY ways of speaking that are associated with non-White groups. Kara Becker's recent dissertation and some work by Amy Wong, Cara Shusterman, Elizabeth Coggshall, and me show that non-Whites participate extensively in NY-specific phonology. However, the word dialect implies a degree of systematicity. And what Labov and the dialectologists describe is of White origin and remains in the White ethnic community (although mostly now outside Manhattan).

As for the points you make here, the issue involves 1) which phonemes exist in a given system, and 2) which words use which phonemes (the technical term here is word classes, which words belong to which classes). The phonemes need to be listed because they constitute the system, but an exhaustive list of words, as opposed to an illustration, sorted into word classes would probably put any but the most obsessed reader to sleep. However, feel free to do so if you find a source. On the other hand, I think that there is a good degree of variation in this matter even within a dialect. See for example, "chocolate." mnewmanqc (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice answer Mnewmanqc, except for "systematicity". Ain't no NY English usage. LOL.Bellagio99 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, by complete coincidence, I found that Kara Becker's dissertation has a list of words with /ɑː/ vs. /ɔ/ based on a survey, including words with mixed usage. Anyone interested would have to get it from the NYU library or buy it from that DAI service. I'm certainly not copying that list here it goes on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnewmanqc (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"In New York, the vowel in "dog" is completely different, as it has a broad A vowel sound (yet "log", "fog", "bog", and other words ending in -og don't have this vowel change)." In my experience, it's the exact opposite: "Dog" alone does NOT change. The others have the "broad A vowel sound" (as in "father"). Kostaki mou (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of problem following what you mean by broad and "Not change." Usually, the term broad A refers to the Boston or southern hemisphere or southern English renditions of the vowel in PALM , i.e., IPA [ɑ:]. In NYC, 'dog' has the vowel in THOUGHT, whereas 'log' and 'fog' vary along with the first vowel in 'chocolate' between THOUGHT and LOT. I haven't noticed any of them following PALM, but obviously, if you say they do for you or someone else, I won't deny the evidence. I'm not sure about 'bog'. For me, it has the THOUGHT vowel, but I tend to maximize that into 'log', 'fog', and 'chocolate' too. Of course, for some NYCE speakers PALM and LOT have the same vowel, as they have for most Americans. However, many NYers maintain the difference, and I have the vowel charts to prove it. These will be published in a book called 'New York City English' probably in late fall or winter.

By the way, I'm using Wells Lexical Sets to describe these sounds . These are a series of keywords that stand for the vowel sounds of English dialects. Using Wells's keywords allows you to talk about vowel phonemes without learning IPA. In other words, by referring to THOUGHT, PALM, and LOT (and the other key words), you can say which words share the same vowel in a standard way. Wells chose his keywords because they are maximally consistent members of their respective classes. So when I say, for me 'log' follows THOUGHT but for another NYC speaker, it follows 'LOT' everyone should know what I mean. However, to really talk about the actual physical sounds, you will still need IPA. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from commenting, but these are technical matters, and there is consequently a technical system for describing them. So, taking the time needed to refer to it makes matters clearer. mnewmanqc (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'dog' has the THOUGHT vowel. For me, all the other '-og' words have the LOT vowel (same as the PALM vowel, in my case). I believe this is fairly typical. Kostaki mou (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be easy to set up an on-line survey, as long as your NOT affiliated with a university and don't have to bother with an IRB. mnewmanqc (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over Yiddishisms

Seems like we have an incipient edit war over Yiddishisms in the "Ethnic Factors" section. I haven't intervened because although I'm sure Yiddishisms are certainly more common in NYC English than other English varieties, the specific claim involving "most New Yorkers of all ethnic backgrounds" is not supported by a reference to published research. To the anonymous contributor(s): If you want the claim to be present, could you please find some published support for it? I suspect that any such claim will not include the problematic "most" which would be hard to calculate. Maybe though I can get some students to do a poll some day. mnewmanqc (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

dew is always [dɪu] and never [duː].

This is just not true, even if it is published. (I pronounce both words [duː], as do other New Yorkers I know.) Kostaki mou (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have some evidence from Labov that says it actually varies from speaker to speaker (supporting your side, sir/ma'am). I'll change it now.LakeKayak (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.LakeKayak (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-rhoticity now happens sometimes in New Yorkers with otherwise rhotic speech if Rs are located in unaccented syllables particularly in pre-vocalic position.

Surely this should be "pre-consonantal." (Even most non-rhotic speakers would pronounce Rs in pre-vocalic position.) Kostaki mou (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that makes no sense. Also, I also have /du/ not /dju/ for 'dew'. mnewmanqc (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Change to NY Accent

This is too radical a change to have been made without having a discussion on the talk page here. It was also made without any reference to any sources to support it. In fact, it would be impossible to find any reliable ones. Assuming as most sociolinguists do that accent refers to the phonological level of a dialect, the change makes no sense. Other levels also have some specific features, in particular lexicon and pragmatics. There are a few prepositional uses too such as the famous "wait on line." The use of youse as a 2pp form is concentrated in NYC. So there is no grounds for this change. Finally, Labov, Ash and Boberg 2006 refer to the NY Dialect region

That said, the term of art in the field is typically New York City English. My suggestion, which I made before actually, would be to change it to that. Let's have some comments first, and then either revert or shift to NYCE. mnewmanqc (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't my area, but AFAICT a "dialect" is a more distinct division than this. An "accent" isn't just pronunciation, but basically a sub-sub-dialect. Just because I say kitty-corner and you say caterwompous doesn't mean we speak different dialects. But NYCE would seem to be fine too.

BTW, whatever works here might should be applied to Baltimore & Boston accent/dialect too. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea for editors to rely on their intuitive definitions of terms used in titles. I provided an example from the research literature. I could provide many more, and I will if I have to, but the semester's beginning, and I have a lot going on, and I'd rather not take that on at the moment. Also, I'm pretty sure that the result will be a certain degree of inconsistency in terms of how the terms "accent" and "dialect" are defined. That said, the term NYC English is used in just about every recent published article and dissertation on the topic including my own. Here are just a few:

Becker, Kara. 2010 Regional Dialect Features on the Lower East Side of New YOrk City: Sociophonetics, Ethnicity, and Identity. Doctoral Diss, NYU Olivo, Ann Marie. 2013. The Strong Island Sound: Sociolinguistic Evidence for Emerging American Identities. Disseration, Rice U. Wong, Amy. 2010. New York City English and second generation Chinese Americans English Today, 26: 3-11

Full Disclosure: My own book probably to appear next year published by Mouton will be called New York City English, but it is called that because of this consensus in the research. mnewmanqc (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

New York accent → New York City English –

• Recognizability – The term NYC English is easily recognizable.
• Naturalness – All possible terms, NYC accent, NY dialect, and NYC English are natural.
• Precision – The recent change from New York Dialect to New York accent was based on an imprecise and faulty distinction between accent and dialect. In sociolinguistics and dialectology, the term accent has very little currency. Its lay usage is imprecise, referring simultaneously to foreign inflected speech and phonology of a dialect. In sociolinguistics, to the extent it is used, it often means just the phonology of a dialect. In other words, any change in accent from one speech pattern to another is ipso facto a change in dialect. However, it is not clear that there is ONE NYC Dialect. There is a great deal of variation, mainly along racial and class lines. The term NYC English is capable of covering all these areas. This is why it is the primary term used in all the recent research on the topic.
• Conciseness – TThe terms in contention are equally concise.
• Consistency – This is problematic because the editor who moved the page also recently moved Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston, creating an artificial consistency. In general, dialect terms in other articles are not consistent, see Lancashire dialect and accent, However, Multicultural London English, Inland North American English use the same pattern suggested here. -- Mnewmanqc (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support There is New York dialect, and it has a distinct lexicon, and there's a New York accent, and it has a distinct sound. "New York English" can signify either or both. This will allow expansion with the lexical section. New York English isn't the only English type found in New York City area though, there's also Brooklyn English, etc. -- 65.92.182.123 (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. You can have a much more full-featured article at this title with a broader scope. Red Slash 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SUPPORT FOR THE MOVE: The term "New York City English" is more coherent and relevant than the term "New York City Accent," for a number of reasons. First, "accent" is an ill-defined term, not used by professional linguists (precisely because of its imprecision). Second, when used by the lay person, the term "accent" seems to refer to phonetic/phonological/intonational features (i.e., the way people "pronounce" things like vowels and consonants, or how quickly or slowly a person speaks, or what kinds of intonation (rising or falling) a person uses in different sentence-types). Rarely does the lay person use "accent" to refer to other aspects of language, such as: (i) the lexicon (i.e., vocabulary); for example, use of the word "soda" instead of "pop" is not about "accent," yet such differences in vocabulary are important to understanding differences in "dialects," or "linguistic varieties." Or (ii) syntactic (i.e., grammatical) features; for example, "negative concord"* and "paradigm levelling"** are not about "accent," yet (again) such features of particular grammars (such as the English of NYC) are important to understanding differences in "dialects/varieties". Even a lay person wouldn't use the term "accent" to refer to such widely studied features of the grammar of New York City English. Furthermore, New York City represents a very large geographic area with a lot of different "Englishes" (or, sub-dialects); note that the term "New York City Accent" does not capture the idea that there is widespread variation in English within the City of New York (while the term "New York City English" does not preclude that there are differences across the different NYC neighborhoods). [*Negative concord is the use of two or more negations in a sentence to indicate a single propositional negation, as in "They don't know nobody" meaning "They don't know anybody"; **Paradigm levelling is when all verbs in a verb paradigm are the same no matter what the subject; for example I was / you was / she was / we was / they was); paradigm levelling in the presence of -n't is also a feature of NYC English (e.g., "Mary DOES like pizza" vs. "Mary don't like pizza," where "does" is used in the affirmative for 3rd singular subjects, but in the negative with -n't the form "don't" is used (as opposed to "doesn't").)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springlessdystopia (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISION. Suttle Address 17 (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. See this ngram. This subject used to be called "Brooklynese", although there are no patterns of speech that can be linked to any particular borough. SpeedDreamer (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC) sock
• Response to Opposition The relative popularity of a form cannot override the other criteria. As mentioned before, the term accent is fatally flawed by imprecision and disuse in professional contexts. Even the opposing comment tacitly admits this by mentioning problems with Brooklynese. This term is the second most popular in the same source. See this ngram. I added Brooklynese the preceding n-gram's search terms, and it comes out as the second most popular term. Yet were it the first, it would still be inappropriate.mnewmanqc (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4