Talk:American English

“Currently most influential”

The claim in the lede isn’t supported by the four sources.

In fact, they maintain the prevalence of a British English outright.

The British council writes in the English Effect report that “the globalisation of the language has led to a diverse range of Englishes different from a “standard” English and the European Commission recognised that over the years European institutions have developed a vocabulary that differs from any recognised form of English” they cite as the cause of the prevalence of English the uks “imperial expansion” and political and military power through the 19th and 20th centuries.

According to TEFL there. Are “up to 1.5 billion” English language learners worldwide. 750 million of those are “English as a foreign language speakers” and 375 million “English as second language speakers”. 64% of which are “learning British English from British textbooks”.

In the commmonwealth of Nations “British English is generally preferred” and this statement is supported by Wikipedia’s own article on the topic. In fact, “Commonwealth English” is referred to as British English by Icon group Intenational in 2008, in Disturbances: Webster’s quotations, facts and phrases, p384, as well as Namrata Palta’s “preparing for call centre interviews” pages 80-81 from 2006 explaining how Indians should learn British English.

Therefore, I feel the claim in the lede is unjustified, or needs some disputing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.129.46 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD does not mean that you get to drop a comment on the talk page and then restore a contentious edit without discussion It also does not mean that you get to make the same contentious edit again every time you change IPs. Your removal has been undone at least four times.

Maybe the lead can be improved or even needs changing, but wait for editors to discuss it. Meters (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to the first source, but the second source contends that American influence on global (not just British) English is rising while being clear that American English is not "absorbing" British English. The third source says that American English, like the American dollar, is the current dominant force globally. The fourth source says that Americanisation of the English language... is sweeping the world and influencing English in India as well. I think the sources are pretty clear. Wolfdog (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

These sources are clearly and blatantly disputed. “Influencing English in India” is counteracted by my sources saying British English is widely preferred and taught over American English. British English being the more common English taught and learnt is also clear. How does that make American English more “influential”? We need to add that it is disputed to the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.129.46 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Those things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Influence has more to do with culture, such as music, movies, TV, etc., than what variant is taught in schools. - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

IP, please indent (one colon per level of indent) and sign (use ~~~~ to add a a timestamped signature) your talk page posts.

Please stop restoring your contested version of the lead. Contested changes are discussed on the talk page so that editors can reach consensus.

For convenience, the line under discussion is "Currently, American English is the most influential form of English worldwide.

Possibly the wording of the line might be improved, but I don't think it is far off. Do you have a suggestion? Here's another source discussing the issue in terms such as "The influence of American English has become so widespread that its reach is even felt within the UK." and "In much of Europe, American vocabulary is even more influential than American spelling. That trend holds in the UK, too" The study itself is described here, and can be read here. — Meters (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A quote from the above study: " We find that American English is the dominant form of English outside the UK and that its influence is felt even within the UK borders." Meters (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The above study also comes with a quote to explain as such: Twitter users are younger, more educated and more politically active than the general population, while the authors note that “books are typically written by cultural elites” - of your 3 new sources, 2 of which are about the same data set, which is already admittedly flawed by confession of the report itself. If we are to include american vocabulary in the U.K. as US English influence we surely must also include the reverse, with American children using “bin”, “rubbish”, “mummy” and even using british spellings.

some children even reportedly speak with a British accent.

Europeans are also far more likely to speak “their own version of English, mixed with their native tongue” than speak American, or in fact British English. British English is the official translation used by the European Union, and most taught in schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.129.46 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want a lot, I just want to add, “but this is disputed” with sources I’ve provided. I’m happy otherwise.148.252.129.46 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't add comments such as "This is disputed" based on editors' opinions or WP:SYNTH. Do you have sources that actually say that American English is not the most influential? Your new sources certainly don't support that. And you might want to look at my sources again. All three of them pertain to the same study. I found an article about the study, and then I found links fr the study itself. Meters (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully our readers understand that the British of course colonized all over the world for centuries, including well into the 20th century. Certain Britishisms survived even in formal speaking/writing conventions of the U.S. during much of that century. Perhaps it's the word "Currently" that we can change to end this debate. When I first wrote it, I more or less meant "As of the 21st century" or perhaps "As of the late 20th century". (It's hard to specify exact time-stamps of linguistic influence, of course, because linguistic effects often percolate gradually across decades; this is why I simply wrote "Currently" in the first place.) Wolfdog (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The notion that words like "bin" , "rubbish" and "mummy" are exclusively British and that use of such words by American children is evidence of contemporary British influence is, well, rubbish. I grew up in Detroit in the 1950s and any five year old child back then understood and occasionally used these words. Of course, the most common use of "mummy" had to do with the preserved bodies of ancient Egypt, but it would not have been uncommon for a child to have called their mother that, although I preferred "mom" personally. As for American children imitating British accents for comedic effect, that goes back at least as far as the American Revolution and is evidence of nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Does "Currently, American English is the most influential form of English worldwide" really need six citations? I understand it's a claim that's likely to be disputed, but isn't that rather excessive? 68.110.111.227 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not just likely to be disputed, but has been disputed in this very section! So yes, I'd say multiple sources are needed, and the 6 listed are good ones. BilCat (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am an international editor. When I work for people in the United States, I have to use American English and grammar. When I work outside the United States, I have to use British English and grammar. This article shows where British English is taught: https://moverdb.com/british-vs-american-english/ Clearly more nations and a greater population of the world are taught British English. The articles/books used to support the claim that British English is more influential is based solely on vocabulary and spelling in select countries. If we go by that, we could say French or Latin is more influential than American English because their words fill the English language. Simply borrowing words is NOT the determiner as to whether or not something is influential. As this article says (https://quicksilvertranslate.com/5593/the-differences-between-indian-and-british-english/), although people from India are taught British English in schools and borrow much from American English, they use their own words, pronunciation, and inflections that are unique to India. I can honestly say that not only have I spoken on the phone with people from India who were speaking English and I had difficulty understanding them, but I also have spoken with someone from the United Kingdom and NEITHER of us could understand each other!!! We had to resort to e-mailing in order to communicate about that job. If American English is so influential, as the article claims, the world would be teaching American grammar. Instead, Chicago style and AP style (the style guide for the American Press) have incorporated Australian Harvard style punctuation elements into it (see AP style guide, APA style guide, and Australian Harvard style guides). If American English were so influential, it would not simply be slang words and spelling used by other countries but the entire method of constructing sentences would also be changing around the world, and that is not the case. The truth of the matter is that English, whether it is Australian, Indian, American, British, or from other countries is influenced most by local dialect and secondly by all outside forces. To say that American English is most influential because of vocabulary words used solely by young people in the U.K. or India is to ignore that Americans incorporate British grammar and punctuation rules into their writing and to ignore that British English is the most taught in schools around the world. Never have I had someone tell me to use American English if the article/book was going to be used outside of the United States. Instead, I have employers telling me that they want me to use the conventions of their own countries. Outside of vocabulary (which is vastly different across English speaking nations), that means I use British English outside the U.S. and American English within it. Granted, since Australia wrote the style guide that is used by most of the English speaking world, I suppose you could say Australian English is the most influential, but again, the article would be improved if the claim was simply dropped altogether. 2601:245:C100:5E5C:2D18:2C2F:A606:B0F3 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"Widely taught" does not mean "most influential", and international spelling standards do not reliably indicate language trends. Latin was a lingua franca for long after it die out, and indeed some regional lingua franca dialects exist exclusively for communication between two speakers of different languages and are not otherwise spoken (there are no first language speakers, per se). The fact that British English is used in formal or educational settings means nothing when it comes to colloquial speech or the dominant spoken dialects and vocabularies. What is meant by "most influential" is that these other dialects tend to take their cue from American English, despite being distinct from it. That is, they tend to borrow terminology or syntax or whatever from American English. It doesn't mean these dialects are a carbon copy, or even that American English is taught or understood as being the "correct" English. It simply means that, due to the sometimes overwhelming influence of American media and culture on the rest of the world, American English has the greatest influence on the English language overall. This is certainly evident in English dialects everywhere, including a readily apparent "Americanization" of British English that I personally find horrendous and that I suspect you find too terrible to accept. It may be hard to admit, it may be sad, but the bottom line is that British English is no longer dominant and even in the UK it has begun to lose ground to American English. Regardless of what English teachers teach you in school, and regardless of the spelling standards you are expected to adhere to in non-American settings. The only way to change this is to usurp American dominance, but that is a different discussion entirely. 174.112.34.194 (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing the Official Language Section? Even though IT is marked as only some states the Federal Government of the US does not recognize American English or any type of English so im adding some Italitcs too it to prevent false knowledge from being spread.

Removing the Official Language Section? Even though IT is marked as only some states the Federal Government of the US does not recognize American English or any type of English so im adding some Italitcs too it to prevent false knowledge from being spread. AntManSC (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Segregation and African-language effects on American English variation

Hi @Compositionist: You claim, citing the Mufwene source, that regional variation in American English reflects these [different immigrant and enslaved] groups' geographic dispersal and settlement and their de jure and then de facto segregation, respectively. I've changed regional variation to racial and sometimes regional variation. Even so, preserving the word "regional" to me is a little suspect. This is certainly a budding focus in American dialectology; the general consensus is that a mixing or koineization event happened in the US, mostly blending different English, Irish, and Scottish dialects. This established American dialect patterns perhaps even more than later groups' dispesal and settlement and... segregation. Still, I admit the evidence seems complex and the basic trends are what's still being studied. Segregation is certainly a factor, but if, how, and to what degree it directly impacted linguistic variation remains somewhat controversial. Also, pace Mufwene, other scholars (John McWhorter, for example), argue that even AAVE really shows more influence from British Isles English than any overwhelming African sources. The Mufwene source you cite is some 20 pages; can you point to a couple specific pages I can look at to get a more in-depth understanding of where your info is coming from? Wolfdog (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wolfdog -- I ref'd this source in particular not because it's the most cutting-edge but because it provides an instructive overview of US dialectology (including acknowledging the influences of "nonstandard" UK pronunciations on AAVE (see page 17 specifically and 29-31 more generally) but also rebalances the account somewhat away from the European settlement-centric view reflected in the prior wording of this article. For example, it was fairly common until recently to read discussions about upper US midwest pronunciations as solely a matter of various Scandinavian influences on Anglo-German settlers, somehow ignoring both urban areas in the upper Midwest and the obvious influence of the Great Migration on speech patterns inside and outside those areas. Compositionist (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, I hear ya. Most of US English has been studied in terms of the majority-white population and majority-white dialects. That said, it is still true that European (and of course, more directly, British) influence is indeed the strongest source on American dialects overall. That's not really a Eurocentric statement in an un-self-aware way so much as the objective reality of American dialects in light of Eurocentric historical happenings. Obviously, we can and should additionally mention that particular non-white dialects (AAVE, various Latino Englishes, etc.) also exist (which we do elsewhere in the article). Perhaps a single sentence in the relevant section on the Great Migration can describe how that event helped diffuse AAVE beyond the South. Wolfdog (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess my point is that segregation can broadly explain AAVE's existence, but it doesn't broadly explain the pattern of variation across American English in general, does it? Wolfdog (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that it doesn't explain variation tout court, and I like your idea very much to make the GM a useful illustrative example of other, largely internal, forces at work on US dialects. FWIW, I meant 'segregation' to connote not just the usual (and justifiable) sense of what was imposed on Black Americans, but also what was imposed on other groups as well (e.g., the fairly coercive encouragement the Scotch-Irish received to leave the mid-Atlantic and move into Appalachia) or occasionally somewhat more self-selected, as in the Plain Folk or the Hasidim. Probably a poor wc on my part. Compositionist (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Consistency of IPA phonemes for American English dialect pages

This is not the perfect place to bring this up, but I can think of no better place either. (Too bad there's no Help:IPA/American English.) Should phonemic transcription using IPA be expected to be different for every American English dialect/accent page (Philadelphia English, New York accent, Southern American English, California English, Maine accent, etc. etc.), or is there a good reason to keep one consistent phonemic system across all of these pages? Sol505000 seems to prefer the former, so that, for example, we now have the LOT phoneme represented as /ɒ/ on Boston accent, /a/ on Inland Northern American English, and /ɑ/ on Western American English and General American. My instinct is to just use /ɑ/ on all four of these pages, mostly for reader-friendliness. Again: I'm just talking phonemic notation here, not phonetic, which can always get into the nitty-gritty. Still, though, I don't have an overwhelming preference. I do, however, think it would be useful for the community to arrive at some larger consensus or basic guideline here to help steer future editing either one way or the other. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Boston accent, Maine accent and a few other articles are in a different league. Those accents are non-rhotic and so they already have a different phonemic system to your average North American one. For instance, the General American vowel corresponding to Boston and Maine /a/ is very rare in the word-final position (I'm assuming no cot-caught merger in GA) which almost makes it a checked vowel (which is historically spot on - LOT is checked in England and Australia) that is just phonetically long. In Boston and Maine, words like /ka/, /ba/ and /sta/ are far more usual due to the palm-start merger.

(I know LOT is /ɒ/ in Boston - I'm talking about GA, where LOT = PALM).

I have no problem with the different symbolization. All of those symbols can be backed by sources and readers should probably be expected to understand what they mean. Some of our articles about the dialects of British English, or Anglo-Welsh English to be exact (such as Scouse, Geordie or Cardiff English) already use their own set of phonemic symbols and so does Australian English phonology, New Zealand English phonology etc. So if the question was Should phonemic transcription using IPA be expected to be different for every English dialect/accent page, the answer would be "it's already inconsistent".

/oʊ/ can also be changed to /əʊ/ whenever appropriate (on Western Pennsylvania English, Philadelphia English etc.) There's no way our readers wouldn't know what the latter means if they can already read the IPA. When /oʊ/ and /eɪ/ are monophthongal, ⟨o e⟩ can be used instead. Sol505000 (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat, Nardog, Artem.G, Megaman en m, Meters, AJD, Erutuon, Blaze Wolf, Aeusoes1, and Austronesier: Any thoughts here (just towards some basic consensus) would be much appreciated — thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are thinking about this diaphonemically, then either using the phonemic inventory symbolization at General American or providing one in this article would help us have a sort of base inventory symbolization that we can apply more broadly, with coverage of specific dialects' phonetic differences being conveyed in brackets. The only reason we would do this is clarity for the reader, but if we think that we can present the information without doing this, it wouldn't be a problem. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but IPA discussions are way over my head! BilCat (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd tentatively say that if a reliable phonological description is available for a given dialect, we should be using the phonemic transcription detailed therein on the page that covers that specific dialect. This should be paired with a decent description of any salient or unusual phoneme regarding the actual pronunciation, as well as any notable phonemic mergers or splits. Using one overarching diaphonemic transcription for each dialect is easy for both the editor and reader, but it also lacks specificity and runs into some frustrating issues. Therefore I somewhat oppose this approach when a reliable phonological source for a given dialect is available.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm with BilCat on this one. I'm afraid I'm illiterate when it comes to phonemic transcriptions. Meters (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the major-accent English diaphonemic system that Wikipedia already uses because I think it misleads lots of people about what phonemic distinctions the major accents actually make and about the actual phonological features that distinguish the vowel phonemes and about the plain meanings of the IPA symbols. If it was done in a similar way, an American-only diaphonemic system that includes notable divergent dialects could be even more confusing because American accents make lots of distinctions that are not made in the major English accents, and some symbols would have to be misleading about the features of a dialectal phoneme (like lot in a strong Chicago accent, low and front, versus lot in a Californian or Canadian accent, low and back). There's the Boston accent that distinguishes father and bother, so the American-only system would have to have separate symbols even though most dialects don't make the distinction. Some dialects have a similar vowel in glory and thought; others in glory and goat; the American-only system would have to choose one dialect in the representation of glory, and mislead readers about which vowel was similar to glory in the other dialect. The major-accent diaphonemic system dispensed with the north and force distinction, but the American-only system would have to distinguish them to represent all American accents.

It would make sense to have a General American transcription (which would mostly work for Canadian) and use it in tables to show which dialectal phonemes correspond to which General American phonemes. But in other parts of dialect pages it's more helpful to use phonemic symbols that actually illustrate what distinctions the dialect makes, and what vowels in different contexts are perceived as similar (like before r and elsewhere, so the same symbol for glory-thought if those vowels are similar, or the same symbol for glory-goat if those are similar). It would take more adjustment for readers, but it would make the page illustrate the actual phonemes of the dialect even outside of the vowel tables. I like how Australian English phonology and New Zealand English phonology use phoneme symbols specific to their dialects, though it takes me a bit of adjustment to understand what the equivalent phonemes are in my own accent. (For instance in The word data is commonly pronounced /ˈdaːta/, with /ˈdæɪta/ being the second most common, and /ˈdɛta/ being very rare.) It would be neat if the articles on some of the American accents could do a similar thing. — Eru·tuon 23:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the rough consensus emerging is, as Megaman suggests above, if a reliable phonological description is available for a given dialect, we should be using the phonemic transcription detailed therein on the page that covers that specific dialect. I think the emphasis I want to add here is if a reliable phonological description is available. It's easy enough to come up with notations that are logical but not directly citing research. Such instances of logical-but-not-verified could lead to WP editors bickering about specifics continuously, as in the past. I suppose Accents of English (Wells) and A Handbook of Varieties of English (edited by Kortmann and Schneider) are two possible places to start, though even their transcriptions are often varied or purely phonetic. Wolfdog (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Further reading for those who enjoy minutiae...

One example of a potential new controversy that comes to mind is that TRAP in Inland North accents could be represented as /æ/, /ɛə/, /eə/, /ɪə/, or numerous other ways. The research provides no consensus. Wells gives the phoneme as /æ/ but provides the others phonetically. Kortmann and Schneider use /æə/ but also provide all the others phonetically. A more visually striking option like /eə/ could be unfavorable because its phonetic inspiration, [eə], is innovative, predominant in final stressed syllables but not elsewhere (according to Wells), and reversing back towards [æ] in many areas in the 2010s data. Again, this is just one of the many questions over specifics we would now be raising. Wolfdog (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Official language" in Infobox?

I'm not making any changes without discussion, as it appears that "Official language" has been in the infobox for a number of years (with occasional minor adjustments). However, I'm fairly certain that most or (more likely) all of the states and territories that designate an official language simply refer to "English" and not to "American English" or any similar construction. While clearly the government affairs of these states are de facto largely conducted in American English, the infobox strikes me as arguably misleading as this particular dialect or set of dialects is not in fact official (anywhere, I would guess). CAVincent (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Reality vs fantasy

In at least one place in this article (although there are other references in a different but related context), it is claimed that the "New York City" accent is among the most recognizable yet "socially disfavored" accents in the US. That's all well and good and sourced, but I think readers should be made aware that people in NY City and the surrounding metro region are very diverse in accents and so there really is no "default" accent in the area. On p. 69 of your own source it's stated that "the New York City accent" is "fictional".[1] In other words, someone who lives in the middle of the country, and has never been to the NYC area and knows nothing about it, associates the NYC accent with an extreme type of speech caricatured in movies and pop media (which is all he knows), when in reality there is no single accent in the region.

And although I've yet to find an RS addressing this subject, it'd be interesting to hear some theories on why the most "preferred" or "socially favorable" accent in the US is associated with the Midwest. In England it's the London accent with prestige, in France it's the Parisian accent. The US is probably the only developed country in the world that glorifies its hinterlands and downplays its only city that's internationally recognized as a major center of finance, art, cuisine and culture. The fact is, the so-called "General American Accent" is contrived speech used by educated people or people who want to sound educated (especially people in the media), when in reality there is no such thing as an American accent that doesn't have any detectably regional quirks. The natural accent you actually hear in most of the Midwest sounds quite provincial to sophisticated ears, as one would expect. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot to try and comment on here, a lot of odd claims.

people in NY City and the surrounding metro region are very diverse in accents and so there really is no "default" accent in the area

True.

it'd be interesting to hear some theories on why the most "preferred" or "socially favorable" accent in the US is associated with the Midwest.

What? The Midwest is associated with accents that are not at all prestigious in America. There's not really an idea that GA came from there. The prestige American accent used to be the mid-Atlantic accent, which was deemed as such because it was Americans speaking as if they were halfway to Europe, presumably from...the upper-class accents of cities like New York!

In England it's the London accent with prestige, in France it's the Parisian accent.

What?? We've just agreed that New York doesn't have a single accent, but we're conflating RP with working-class London accents that are in extremely similar sociopolitical situations to working-class New York accents. The accents are prestigious because they're seen as refined and are disproportionately used in media. Really, they're fairly identical situations: RP isn't actually heavily associated with London, people from all over England speak in some register of RP. I had a girlfriend who was born and grew up for a while in Singapore, and she speaks fairly standard RP, it makes no sense to treat it like it's not that. je ne connais rien aux accents parisiens.

The fact is, the so-called "General American Accent" is contrived speech used by educated people or people who want to sound educated (specially people in the media), when in reality there is no such thing as an American accent that doesn't have any detectably regional quirks

Yes, that's how language always works. Everyone has their own idiolect, and there are registers of different sociological categories and situations. See above for RP. It's somewhat silly to insist abstractions are "fake" if they encapsulate and allow people to reason about and understand those factors you yourself noted. Are conceptual models and analysis themselves dishonest? Remsense诉 23:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

On the General American English article it is claimed the "accent" (which is, again, unnatural) is associated with the "North Midland," which includes states like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa etc -basically cornfields with state lines. Insofar as the London thing goes -yes I'm aware that there's a working class accent in London too, but the difference is, people in the UK actually make note of accent variety, whereas many Americans outside the area naively believe New Yorkers all sound like that, even when they hear ones in media who don't. It's a pattern-seeking cognitive bias where if you're not mindful your brain will process information that seems to fit a pattern (that's not real) while ignoring all the evidence that contradicts.

Anyway, fair points but I still think the article should address accent variety more, especially stereotyped accents like the infamous one in question. This information can be found in the same source currently used in that section. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no natural accents. Language evolution is an inherently social phenomenon. I think your stereotypes of stereotypes unfortunately have very little in the way of actionability. Remsense诉 01:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So, on p. 69 of link 1 it's stated: "Indeed with a socially diverse population of over eight million people, it is clearly a fiction to talk of a New York accent." I think some mention of this should be made. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing to me why we should point out that accents spoken in cities with millions of people should be emphasized as mere "fictions". The lumping of a bunch of linguistic features into a single label is indeed somewhat a fiction in the sense that it is a generalization. But that's true of ALL accents. In fact, accents of English mostly aren't defined UNLESS they're used by millions of people. (I think of the Hoi Toider dialect that possibly has fewer than a million speakers, but it too is a generic label that encompasses a lot of variation and diversity.) Isn't it pretty clear that "New York accent" here means "a generalization for a collection of varying but specific features which tend, on average, to be much more employed in the New York metropolitan area than anywhere else in the U.S."? Why does that nuance need to be clarified here? It feels more like a discussion for the philosophy of linguistics. Wolfdog (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to what's been written here, it is not at all common to talk about "the" accent of a multi-million person city. We don't have any generalized article about a "London accent" (which would also be fictional) -there are articles on Estuary English, RP and Cockney, but no such article on a general "London accent" that zeroes in on one particular lower or working class accent. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is extremely common to talk about "the" accent of a multi-million–person city or region. New York accent, Philadelphia accent, Birmingham accent, Chicago accent—these are all very common terms—let alone Irish accent, Scottish accent, Southern accent, Australian accent, etc. The fact that the term "London accent" is not very common is an exception to the general pattern. AJD (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Does anything in this discussion involve improving the Wikipedia article in question? If so, I've missed it in the noise. CAVincent (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the source cited above, which is already in use in the article, states that "a" New York accent is "clearly a fiction," and I suggested that this is mentioned in the article. But, as you can see, I am outnumbered so I will drop it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Edits to innovative phonology section

@Wolfdog I'm not sure what you felt was "less clear" about my edits; they were made in the interest of accuracy. I'll go through them one-by-one:

Edit 1: Replacing "the Upper Midwest" with "the Great Plains region" in the list of regions where the cot-caught merger is "especially" prevalent. Per the Upper Midwest article, the exact definitions of the region vary, it is usually defined to include Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Per the 2003 Harvard Dialect Survey, the proportion of speakers in each of these states with the cot-caught merger was as follows (see question 28 on each page):

• Iowa: 45.57%
• Michigan: 12.22%
• Minnesota: 49.84%
• Wisconsin: 18.96%

The overall figure for the US as a whole was 39.07%.

Granted, this survey was over two decades ago and the merger is spreading, but still, the claim that this is a region where the cot-caught merger is "especially" prevalent does not seem very accurate, particularly in the case of Michigan and Wisonsin which are the two larger states of the four mentioned.

The Great Plains region, by contrast, is considered to include the majority of the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Noth Dakota and South Dakota. The 2003 Harvard Dialect Survey gave the proportion of speakers in each of these states with the cot-caught merger was as follows:

• Kansas: 74.14%
• Nebraska: 63.48%
• North Dakota: 80.17%
• South Dakota: 44.71%

It does, therefore seem reasonable to claim that cot-caught merger is especially prevalent in the Great Plains region, which was not encompassed in any of the regions that were previously listed on the article: the West, northern New England, West Virginia, western Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest (the last of which is outright inaccurate as I said). I listed it after the West as it is geograpically next-door to the West, though not usually considered part of it.

Edit 2: Removing "or THOUGHT" from "The STRUT vowel, rather than the one in LOT or THOUGHT (as in Britain), is used in [...] was, of, from, what, everybody, nobody, somebody, anybody, and, for many speakers because and rarely even want, when stressed"

None of the words given are ever pronounced with the THOUGHT vowel in Britain; they are all LOT words in their stressed forms in BrE. As the article notes, because and want are not always {{Sc2|STRUT]] in AmE, and they can be THOUGHT for AmE speakers, but they are always LOT in BrE which the sentence which was explicitly making the comparison to. The rest of the words are always LOT in AmE regardsless, so THOUGHT is not a possibility in any dialect.

Edit 3: Changing the Mary-marry-merry merger from "is already complete everywhere except along some areas of the Atlantic Coast" to "largely complete everywhere except along some areas of the Atlantic Coast and southern Louisiana" (I see now that I missed as "is" before "largely complete", but that's hardly adequate justification for reverting the entire edits rather than just adding the "is" back).

The previously cited 2003 Harvard Dialect Survey does not support the claim that the Mary-marry-merry merger is "already complete" everywhere except parts of the Atlantic Coast. This is most strikingly the case in Lousiana, where only 37.31% had the full three-way merger . Louisiana is not on the Atlantic Coast.

In addition, most other Southern states (even excluding the ones on the Atlantic Coast) where not overwhelmingly three-way merged. The proportion with a three-way merger in non-Atlantic Southern states was as follows (see question 15):

• Lousiana: 37.31%
• Tennessee: 51.45%
• Alabama: 53.75%
• Mississippi: 58.54%
• Kentucky: 62.58%
• Texas: 64.45%

[Here are maps of the full US-wide results.

Even if the merger is more prevalent among younger generations, and accounting for this survey being two decades ago, these numbers do not seem high enough to state that the merger is "already complete" outside the Atlantic Coast without any caveats whatsoever. Louisiana excepted, we can say that it is "largely complete", but in Louisiana the proportion with a full merger seemed low enough to merit mentioning it alongside the Atlantic Coast as a place where the merger was not even "largely complete".

I have reinstated my changes with some further revisions to the wording on the Mary-marry-merry merger, if you still object I will not revert again without further discussion but please give a detailed explanation of what you object to. Offa29 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. Wolfdog (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image caption

Doesn't the caption "Distribution of American English by state in 2000" imply that it is contrasting between American English and other varieties of English, while in reality it is contrasting English and other languages? My first thought on seeing it was that the lighter states have higher portions of people who speak non-American English, not that they have higher amounts of people who speak languages other than English. Spacemarine22 (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It surely indicates areas with higher numbers of people speaking something other than English. In California and the southwest, that surely is primarily Spanish. It's a pretty dumb image, in my opinion, although I suppose it conveys areas with significant non-English speakers. The article would perhaps be better without it. CAVincent (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)