Of course.
substandard
>>It's me is substandard.
It is I is standard.<<
Of course, such just goes to show how arbitrary and fundamentally idiotic notions of "substandardness" are, considering that most native speakers of at least North American English would say the former unless they're trying to deliberately be "correct", so to speak, despite that most native NAE-speakers wouldn't normally say the latter to begin with.
It is I is standard.<<
Of course, such just goes to show how arbitrary and fundamentally idiotic notions of "substandardness" are, considering that most native speakers of at least North American English would say the former unless they're trying to deliberately be "correct", so to speak, despite that most native NAE-speakers wouldn't normally say the latter to begin with.
There is precious little variation in American English. Linguists claim otherwise because they spend their waking hours looking for variations, but for the average person, just about all Americans speak alike—much more so than the British, who have noticeably and significantly different accents even when they come from adjacent towns.
<<There is precious little variation in American English. Linguists claim otherwise because they spend their waking hours looking for variations, but for the average person, just about all Americans speak alike>>
Yes, I know you continually claim that, but you've never given me a convincing answer as to why people (who have nothing to do with linguistics) from here can easily tell if someone is from from a region like the Midwest within seconds of hearing them. Don't tell me again that you know someone from Wisconsin or Minnesota, etc. and to you they sound the same as how you speak. We've heard that before.
Please actually address how it could be that absolutely non-linguistically oriented people *here* (so people who are definitely not "spending their waking hours looking for variations") consistently spot out such accents. I've seen it time and time again.
If there were truly "precious little variation" we'd expect no one to be able to tell where people were from when the reality is that's not the case.
Yes, I know you continually claim that, but you've never given me a convincing answer as to why people (who have nothing to do with linguistics) from here can easily tell if someone is from from a region like the Midwest within seconds of hearing them. Don't tell me again that you know someone from Wisconsin or Minnesota, etc. and to you they sound the same as how you speak. We've heard that before.
Please actually address how it could be that absolutely non-linguistically oriented people *here* (so people who are definitely not "spending their waking hours looking for variations") consistently spot out such accents. I've seen it time and time again.
If there were truly "precious little variation" we'd expect no one to be able to tell where people were from when the reality is that's not the case.
May I speak to Mary?
a) It's she.
b) It's her.
Educated speakers seem to prefer the 1st option.
a) It's she.
b) It's her.
Educated speakers seem to prefer the 1st option.
<<Educated speakers seem to prefer the 1st option.>>
I know plenty of well-educated people and almost no one says the 1st option.
I know plenty of well-educated people and almost no one says the 1st option.
Perhaps "here" is a place that people neither visit nor leave. If the local accent is extremely homogenous, the locals might notice someone from another region by their "accent." But in large metropolitan areas with a lot of mobility, this won't be the case.
Nobody has ever guessed what part of the U.S. I'm from, nor have I guessed where someone else is from in the U.S. from accent alone, unless they are from somewhere in the south (in which case I say "south") or some localized area with a distinctive accent, such as New York City or Boston. These days, though, even New Yorkers and Bostonians often don't have any obvious accent, and the same is true for many people living in the south.
Nobody has ever guessed what part of the U.S. I'm from, nor have I guessed where someone else is from in the U.S. from accent alone, unless they are from somewhere in the south (in which case I say "south") or some localized area with a distinctive accent, such as New York City or Boston. These days, though, even New Yorkers and Bostonians often don't have any obvious accent, and the same is true for many people living in the south.
<<Perhaps "here" is a place that people neither visit nor leave. If the local accent is extremely homogenous, the locals might notice someone from another region by their "accent." But in large metropolitan areas with a lot of mobility, this won't be the case. >>
I currently live in San Diego, which has about 3 million people in the metro area (not to mention the other millions if you count the adjoining areas like LA, Orange County, and the Inland Empire, each with several million). I also grew up just outside of the SF Bay Area, which has several million people in it. Both the Bay Area and So-Cal have a high amount of visitors and people originally from other areas.
California tends to be a job magnet and I've known several people who've come out here from the Midwest for (especially tech) jobs. It is the other Californians around me (non-linguists) who comment on the Midwesterners' accents that I'm talking about here. It's readily identifiable to the point that if I'm introducing one of my friends from the Midwest to a friend from here, the Californian is usually pretty likely to comment, "oh, so what part of the Midwest are you from?" I would chalk it up to random fluke-type occurrences except I've seen it happen time and time again.
There is obviously something that is quite noticeable--these speech differences are not minute details that only linguists notice after looking hard for them but are things that normal people (if you will) readily notice.
I currently live in San Diego, which has about 3 million people in the metro area (not to mention the other millions if you count the adjoining areas like LA, Orange County, and the Inland Empire, each with several million). I also grew up just outside of the SF Bay Area, which has several million people in it. Both the Bay Area and So-Cal have a high amount of visitors and people originally from other areas.
California tends to be a job magnet and I've known several people who've come out here from the Midwest for (especially tech) jobs. It is the other Californians around me (non-linguists) who comment on the Midwesterners' accents that I'm talking about here. It's readily identifiable to the point that if I'm introducing one of my friends from the Midwest to a friend from here, the Californian is usually pretty likely to comment, "oh, so what part of the Midwest are you from?" I would chalk it up to random fluke-type occurrences except I've seen it happen time and time again.
There is obviously something that is quite noticeable--these speech differences are not minute details that only linguists notice after looking hard for them but are things that normal people (if you will) readily notice.
<<There are lots of clues that can give someone away as an outsider.>>
That's your only response? You're not winning in the convincing department. Anyway, I just had lunch with a friend (who's also from California) who said that last week she met two girls from Michigan and according to her they had "the funniest accents" and proceeded to imitate them. Also, I'll note that I did not bring up the subject but she was talking about what she'd done over her winter break (so there was no prompting on my part). My friend is non-linguistics oriented (she's an econ major) yet she could easily tell the two girls she met were not from here. Yes, you're right that other clues can give outsiders away but I highly doubt such things were at issue here (besides the fact that there's hardly a "typical Californian" in terms of appearance)--my friend didn't know they weren't from here till they opened their mouths and it was the accent she commented on.
You can keep on denying the existence of noteworthy regional dialects in the US (even amongst areas like Michigan and California which some might assume speak "General American") but this is yet another example that such things can be noticed easily by people who aren't even looking for differences.
That's your only response? You're not winning in the convincing department. Anyway, I just had lunch with a friend (who's also from California) who said that last week she met two girls from Michigan and according to her they had "the funniest accents" and proceeded to imitate them. Also, I'll note that I did not bring up the subject but she was talking about what she'd done over her winter break (so there was no prompting on my part). My friend is non-linguistics oriented (she's an econ major) yet she could easily tell the two girls she met were not from here. Yes, you're right that other clues can give outsiders away but I highly doubt such things were at issue here (besides the fact that there's hardly a "typical Californian" in terms of appearance)--my friend didn't know they weren't from here till they opened their mouths and it was the accent she commented on.
You can keep on denying the existence of noteworthy regional dialects in the US (even amongst areas like Michigan and California which some might assume speak "General American") but this is yet another example that such things can be noticed easily by people who aren't even looking for differences.
Some people have accents; some don't. Most people speak a very homogenous version of American English that doesn't clearly come from anywhere. Of course, there may be people from Michigan who have picked up more distinctive accents there, but there are zillions of people from Michigan who lack any distinctive accent.
I know a few people from Milwaukee who have a slight accent characteristic of that city, but I also know other people from Milwaukee who have no discernable accent. It depends on what company they keep, how much they move around, and other factors. In a society that is ever more mobile with ever faster communication, the tendency is for accents to disappear. And that's exactly what is happening.
I know a few people from Milwaukee who have a slight accent characteristic of that city, but I also know other people from Milwaukee who have no discernable accent. It depends on what company they keep, how much they move around, and other factors. In a society that is ever more mobile with ever faster communication, the tendency is for accents to disappear. And that's exactly what is happening.
<<Some people have accents; some don't. Most people speak a very homogenous version of American English that doesn't clearly come from anywhere. Of course, there may be people from Michigan who have picked up more distinctive accents there, but there are zillions of people from Michigan who lack any distinctive accent.>>
While we're talking about Michigan, I have never met someone from the Northern Midwest who didn't have an immediately noticeable accent to my ears.
<<I know a few people from Milwaukee who have a slight accent characteristic of that city, but I also know other people from Milwaukee who have no discernable accent. It depends on what company they keep, how much they move around, and other factors. In a society that is ever more mobile with ever faster communication, the tendency is for accents to disappear. And that's exactly what is happening.>>
Not according to all the research that has been done in this area. Overall, accents are diverging rather than becoming more alike.
While we're talking about Michigan, I have never met someone from the Northern Midwest who didn't have an immediately noticeable accent to my ears.
<<I know a few people from Milwaukee who have a slight accent characteristic of that city, but I also know other people from Milwaukee who have no discernable accent. It depends on what company they keep, how much they move around, and other factors. In a society that is ever more mobile with ever faster communication, the tendency is for accents to disappear. And that's exactly what is happening.>>
Not according to all the research that has been done in this area. Overall, accents are diverging rather than becoming more alike.
I can't think of any reason why accents would diverge when all the pressure is towards homogenization. It sounds like wishful thinking on the part of linguists, especially those preparing grant proposals.
We don't know what happened a hundred years ago, because we have no audio recordings. We don't really know what happened at any time in history except very recently, for the same reason. We have circumstantial evidence, but it's only moderately reliable, and only in certain contexts.
I like to hear what sort of mechanism can not only counteract the pressure of improving communication and mobility but override it entirely to produce a conflicting tendency in pronunciation. Why would anyone who moves around regularly and is constantly exposed to a very wide cross-section of near-standard pronunciations magically develop a _stronger_ regional accent? That seems completely illogical, but I'm listening for the explanation.
We don't know what happened a hundred years ago, because we have no audio recordings. We don't really know what happened at any time in history except very recently, for the same reason. We have circumstantial evidence, but it's only moderately reliable, and only in certain contexts.
I like to hear what sort of mechanism can not only counteract the pressure of improving communication and mobility but override it entirely to produce a conflicting tendency in pronunciation. Why would anyone who moves around regularly and is constantly exposed to a very wide cross-section of near-standard pronunciations magically develop a _stronger_ regional accent? That seems completely illogical, but I'm listening for the explanation.
<<I can't think of any reason why accents would diverge when all the pressure is towards homogenization. It sounds like wishful thinking on the part of linguists, especially those preparing grant proposals.
We don't know what happened a hundred years ago, because we have no audio recordings. We don't really know what happened at any time in history except very recently, for the same reason. We have circumstantial evidence, but it's only moderately reliable, and only in certain contexts.>>
But there were people even then who were trained in IPA (which has been around since 1888) and who are recognized early experts in phonetic transcription. The famous American phonetician John Samuel Kenyon (1874-1959) described turn-of-the-century varieties of American English and his own dialect (from NE Ohio) that have features now not associated with those areas. It is clear that at that time such things as the Northern Cities Vowel Shift did not exist, things such as the "cot-caught" or "Mary-marry-merry" mergers were not as widespread, etc.
<<I like to hear what sort of mechanism can not only counteract the pressure of improving communication and mobility but override it entirely to produce a conflicting tendency in pronunciation. Why would anyone who moves around regularly and is constantly exposed to a very wide cross-section of near-standard pronunciations magically develop a _stronger_ regional accent? That seems completely illogical, but I'm listening for the explanation.>>
The thing is, changes in language require direct and consistent speaker-to-speaker contact to spread. Even with increased mobility (which is of course a factor in forming or preventing dialects/accents from emerging) we're seeing the emergence of different regional patterns precisely because, while the population is more mobile as a whole, there is still not enough consistent daily speaker-to-speaker contact between the vast majority of people living, in, say Portland, Oregon and Kansas City or Orlando and Chicago, or between Dallas and Boston, etc.
The assumption that "all the pressue is towards homogenization" is one not backed up by the evidence, whether it be academic research or folkish/anecdotal accounts of different dialects/accents (such as the one my friend gave about the girls from Michigan who she thought had "strong" and "weird" accents).
We don't know what happened a hundred years ago, because we have no audio recordings. We don't really know what happened at any time in history except very recently, for the same reason. We have circumstantial evidence, but it's only moderately reliable, and only in certain contexts.>>
But there were people even then who were trained in IPA (which has been around since 1888) and who are recognized early experts in phonetic transcription. The famous American phonetician John Samuel Kenyon (1874-1959) described turn-of-the-century varieties of American English and his own dialect (from NE Ohio) that have features now not associated with those areas. It is clear that at that time such things as the Northern Cities Vowel Shift did not exist, things such as the "cot-caught" or "Mary-marry-merry" mergers were not as widespread, etc.
<<I like to hear what sort of mechanism can not only counteract the pressure of improving communication and mobility but override it entirely to produce a conflicting tendency in pronunciation. Why would anyone who moves around regularly and is constantly exposed to a very wide cross-section of near-standard pronunciations magically develop a _stronger_ regional accent? That seems completely illogical, but I'm listening for the explanation.>>
The thing is, changes in language require direct and consistent speaker-to-speaker contact to spread. Even with increased mobility (which is of course a factor in forming or preventing dialects/accents from emerging) we're seeing the emergence of different regional patterns precisely because, while the population is more mobile as a whole, there is still not enough consistent daily speaker-to-speaker contact between the vast majority of people living, in, say Portland, Oregon and Kansas City or Orlando and Chicago, or between Dallas and Boston, etc.
The assumption that "all the pressue is towards homogenization" is one not backed up by the evidence, whether it be academic research or folkish/anecdotal accounts of different dialects/accents (such as the one my friend gave about the girls from Michigan who she thought had "strong" and "weird" accents).