Since I'm one of the few native English influences in my life now, I've been paying more attention to my own English. I've noticed some things are changing since moving over here, and I'm not exactly sure why; although I assume some part of it is attempting to provide a clearer signal for those who do not speak English as a first language.

Consonants

My consonants are mostly in line with the region I grew up in, in the U.S., however I've had some peculiarities that have stuck with me, and one or two that I've gained elsewhere.

• Rounded R. When /r/ occurs at the beginning of a syllable, it is often rounded: writer [ˈɹʷəɪɾɚ].
• Palatal release on /k/. When /k/ occurs at the end of a syllable, and even before low vowels, its release is palatal: lock [lɔkʲ]. This is due to Norwegian influence, and hearing Norwegian accents in English.
• Wine-whine merger. 90% of the time I do not produce the latter sound (/ʍ/), but I have caught myself doing it when speaking particularly carefully.
• Affricate devoicing. /dʒ/ is more likely to be devoiced than it otherwise would be. I know I already have had light voicing on this sound; but it seems to be getting worse.
• Bolth. Some discussion on a friend's Facebook status update lead me to the possibility that this comes from areas in the U.S. that is heavily populated by Danish immigrants; as supposedly at one point, the word for 'both' in Danish had a similar liquidy sound in it. I don't know a lot of Minnesotans who say both as [bołθ], but I know they exist. I know I also get teased for this one.

Vowels

Before I left, I was already a sort of odd person. The number of influences on my English I've had at varying times seem to have been most obvious in my vowels. I've identified some influences, but some I'm still unsure of. Some of the features of my vowels are:

• Canadian raising

About 5-10 years ago, I think I only had [əɪ] raising in my English, but I now have [ɛʊ] as well. I'm fairly certain I picked this up from a Canadian from Ontario while living in Helsinki, as she and another Canadian were my primary fluent English influence.

In addition however, I seem to have [ɛʊ] in non-Canadian-raising environments. I say tone as [tʰɛʊn].

• Northern Cities Vowel Shift

I was explaining to someone that someone had just left the café the other day, and he heard me say 'laughed' instead. Although I'm fairly certain I don't have a lot of the NCVS currently (nor did I have much of it before I left), it appears to be around. Oddly, a similar vowel shift is occurring in Tromsø Norwegian now. Likely these things are not related, but it's worth pointing out.

I'm somewhat concerned if I'm only picking up some of the NCVS changes, because my low vowels are already somewhat messed up, and one non-low vowel sneaking into low territory could be somewhat disastrous.

Others have pointed out before that my [ɛ] often comes out as a [ə], such as redhead [ɹədhɛd].

One additional thing related to these vowels (but not necessarily a result of this shift) are: can/to be able /kɛn/; been /bɛn/ (worth note; some Canadians say /bin/).

• Caught-cot merger, I has it. Mostly. See below.

• Californian stuff

I seem to have a few characteristics in common with Californians, such as backing of /æ/, and fronting of /u/ to [ʉ] in some environments. It's possible that the lowering of [ɛ] that I mentioned above is related more to this, especially since my /æ/ isn't turning into a diphthong (ex., bad [bɛæd], cat [kʰiæt]) as it would if I had more of the NCVS.

Where would I be picking up this Californian stuff though? Radio?

• Norwegian innovations

Here in Norway, I've noticed that I'm beginning to gain an [ɔ] vowel again, unsure as to whether this will be undoing the caught-cot merger in my speech, since that's a historical process, or if I'm aware of what non-caught-cot-merged speech sounds like enough that I'm being 100% consistent with this, because as far as I can tell now, it isn't.

• New Zealand?

I've been attempting to tweak my English by listening to a lot of Radio New Zealand, but it hasn't been quite effective. I love their vowels, but it may be that my subconscious isn't thoroughly convinced that these Kiwis are valid stylistic icons in my life. Only more time will tell.

Syntactic oddities

I think my syntax is mostly midwestern; I'm completely comfortable with preposition stranding at the end of sentences (which even may just be a feature of General American English). In addition, I'm happy with 'with'. E.g., the following are all fine in my English:

• Do you wanna come with?
• I brought it with.
• I have it with.

I never say 'along' for this.

What gives?

Idiolects are not always so simple to describe. Certainly though, most people who live in one place for a long enough time may be easier to describe, as they often fit completely with what is expected for their region and social identities. Or, better worded: everyone's idiolect can be described just as easily, but figuring out the reasons for various atypical features of someone's idiolect may be a challenge.

Idiolects also present an interesting puzzle that can only be explained with historical migrations, such as with Sarah Palin (PDF): "Clear echoes of salient Upper Midwest features found their way to Alaska via immigration of speakers from Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin in 1935, such recent immigrations that their presence should still be felt today."

In my case, I haven't yet figured out who or what all of my stylistic influences are, although I have identified some. For someone who likes language and has an ear for phonetics, maybe it's possible that I can be allowed a little more flexibility. Or maybe, I'm crazy and will somehow come back from living abroad with a strong Geordie accent.

Posted by:

Ryan