orange and cringe don't rhyme according to the usual definition of "rhyme"
The most common definition of "rhyme" used in English takes stress into account. According to this definition, rhyming words have to be identical starting from the stressed vowel and ending with the end of the word.
"Orange" and "cringe" have different stressed vowels, so they cannot rhyme (using this definition).
They could be considered an "imperfect rhyme", which some speakers include in a broader definition of "rhyme"
However, apparently some native speakers (I think a minority) don't have such a strict understanding of "rhyme", and include "imperfect rhymes" that don't match in stress. (See these comments: 1, 2) When dealing with a situation where confusion is possible with a broader definition of "rhyme", the term "perfect rhyme" can be applied to specify criteria like stress-matching and no use of similar but not identical sounds.
Other restrictions for rhyming in English that usually apply in practice, but are arguably not strictly part of the definition:
- a word should not be rhymed with itself.
- furthermore, a word should not be rhymed with any prefixed derivatives of itself.
- A word should not be rhymed with a homophone, and any type of "rich rhyme", where the entire stressed syllable matches, should be avoided. Instead, the rhyming words should have different onsets to the stressed syllable.
Regional variation in the pronunciation of "orange" means that for some people there is no possibility of anything but a very approximate imperfect rhyme
"Orange" is a word that actually has a lot of regional variation in pronunciation that won't be recorded in all dictionaries.
One variable element is the first vowel. In British English, it is indeed /ɒ/, the "LOT" phoneme (which phonetically may be better represented by the IPA symbol [ɔ] in many contemporary England-English accents; see Geoff Lindsey's blog post "The British English vowel system").
American accents generally don't have "LOT" as a distinct phoneme. Instead, it is merged into the "FATHER/SPA/BRA" "broad a" phoneme in most environments. However, most speakers have an exception before /r/. In this environment, it is usually merged into the "NORTH/FORCE" vowel phoneme instead, often transcribed /ɔr/ or occasionally /or/.
And of course, whichever vowel phoneme is used, it will be "rhotic" or r-colored. I'll indicate this with the IPA hook diacritic /˞/.
So the two main American pronunciations start with /ɑ˞/ as in "star", or /o˞/ or /ɔ˞/ as in "bore".
Another variable element is the second, unstressed vowel. In general, the symbol /ᵻ/ is not used to represent a distinct English phoneme. (In fact, "ᵻ" is not officially an IPA letter.) It is shorthand for "variation between /ɪ/ and /ə/". So the transcription "/ˈɒɹᵻnd͡ʒ/" should generally just be interpreted as "/ˈɒɹɪnd͡ʒ/ or /ˈɒɹənd͡ʒ/". This reflects the instability of the distinction between unstressed /ɪ/ and /ə/. Some speakers may use an intermediate phonetic value due to centralization of unstressed /ɪ/, but this will likely vary a lot depending on the speaker. It's certainly not necessary for a learner to try to make a three-way distinction between /ɪ/, /ə/ and /ᵻ/.
I think phonetically, another similar possibility for the nucleus of the second syllable would be a syllabic nasal [n̩]. This is generally not considered to be distinct phonemically from the sequence /ən/.
In American English, another option is outright deletion of the second vowel, resulting in monosyllabic pronunciations like /ɑ˞nd͡ʒ/ or /ɔ˞nd͡ʒ/.
I suppose in such cases the rhotic vowels might be slightly nasalized, due to preceding a nasal consonant, although I don't know enough about phonetics to be sure. (I found a source that mentions that the rhotic vowel ɚ at least is generally nasalized before a nasal consonant, and to a lesser degreee after a nasal consonant: Phonetics for Communication Disorders
by Martin J. Ball, Nicole Muller)
This gives us at least the following possible pronunciations:
British English:
- /ˈɒrɪnd͡ʒ/ (syllabification will vary depending on the theory)
phonetically, maybe realized something like [ˈɔɹɪnd͡ʒ̥]
- possibly /ˈɒrənd͡ʒ/ or /ˈɒrn̩d͡ʒ/ for some speakers
American English:
- /ˈɑrɪnd͡ʒ/
phonetically something like [ˈɑ˞ɹɪnd͡ʒ̥]
- /ˈɔrɪnd͡ʒ/ or /ˈorɪnd͡ʒ/
- /ˈɑrənd͡ʒ/ or /ˈɑrn̩d͡ʒ/
- /ˈɔrənd͡ʒ/, /ˈorənd͡ʒ/, /ˈɔrn̩d͡ʒ/ or /ˈorn̩d͡ʒ/
- /ɑrnd͡ʒ/
phonetically something like [ɑ̃˞nd͡ʒ̥]
- /ɔrnd͡ʒ/ or /ˈornd͡ʒ/
phonetically something like [õ̞˞nd͡ʒ̥]
