Which accent (nowadays) is the closest to General American?
Closest Accent to General American
<<Which accent (nowadays) is the closest to General American?>>
That's a fuzzy topic thru and thru. Since General American itself is hard to define (and people disagree about which features do and don't belong to GA) it's really hard to tell. It's safe to say that every American has certain features agreed upon as General American and certain features agreed upon as not part of General American. However, since there's a lot of debate about a not insignificant number of features and their status as GA or not, it's unclear.
That's a fuzzy topic thru and thru. Since General American itself is hard to define (and people disagree about which features do and don't belong to GA) it's really hard to tell. It's safe to say that every American has certain features agreed upon as General American and certain features agreed upon as not part of General American. However, since there's a lot of debate about a not insignificant number of features and their status as GA or not, it's unclear.
I agree with Kirk, but putting that aspect of accents aside, I'd say General Canadian is the closest.
I'd say that the North Central (especially in North Dakota) accent is the closest. It has conservative [u] and [o] even after coronals. It has neither the Canadian vowel shift, nor the Northern Cities vowel shift. It also sounds completely unaccented.
>>Almost everything in the central and western United States from Delaware and Ohio to California and Washington State is "General American." General American has even been making inroads into Oklahoma and New Mexico since the end of World War II and it seems to be coming into New York City as more Midwesterners migrate there.<<
Umm, no, you're including several different distinct dialect groups in just that range, including many Upper Midwestern dialects (such as my own) and dialects along the West Coast which really cannot be called "General American".
>>There are , of course, slight differences in lexicon and pronunciation even in this regeion but generally speaking, if you are looking for a General American sound, this is these are the places to hear it.<<
Things like the Northern Cities Vowel Shift and the California Vowel Shift, both of which fall in the area you identified, cannot be called "slight" differences in pronunciation. If anything, besides the commonplace usage of the term "General American" as an effective catch-all, such as a whole really only covers a relatively limited set of dialects if one is to not apply the term loosely.
Umm, no, you're including several different distinct dialect groups in just that range, including many Upper Midwestern dialects (such as my own) and dialects along the West Coast which really cannot be called "General American".
>>There are , of course, slight differences in lexicon and pronunciation even in this regeion but generally speaking, if you are looking for a General American sound, this is these are the places to hear it.<<
Things like the Northern Cities Vowel Shift and the California Vowel Shift, both of which fall in the area you identified, cannot be called "slight" differences in pronunciation. If anything, besides the commonplace usage of the term "General American" as an effective catch-all, such as a whole really only covers a relatively limited set of dialects if one is to not apply the term loosely.
What about New York accent? New York City is called a global "melting pot", and the biggest city in terms of commerce and population in America.
In political point of view, all elements in a society is determined by economic power. At this point, New York may exert a tremendous impact upon speakers' preference for General American, consciously or subconsciously.
In political point of view, all elements in a society is determined by economic power. At this point, New York may exert a tremendous impact upon speakers' preference for General American, consciously or subconsciously.
>>What about New York accent? New York City is called a global "melting pot", and the biggest city in terms of commerce and population in America.<<
No. General American has been traditionally Midwestern, besides older outside substratum influences in the Upper Midwest, and newer changes like the Northern Cities Vowel Shift and the southward expansion of Canadian Raising, and has little at all to do with New York City.
Actually, the traditional dialects spoken in the NYC area are generally identified as being specifically outside of General American, but many people who live in NYC today do not speak such due to them having come there from other parts of the US or due to having little contact with any traditional dialects there.
>>In political point of view, all elements in a society is determined by economic power. At this point, New York may exert a tremendous impact upon speakers' preference for General American, consciously or subconsciously.<<
We are talking about cultural impact here, not pure economics or politics unto themselves. Despite the large amount of economic activity that occurs there, New York City is effectively outside of any discussion of what is thought of as "standard" in the US since WW2. Furthermore, while it might itself have a large population, it has little actual relevance in and of itself to the general population of the US as a whole, and lacks the cultural impact that, say, California has to some extent.
No. General American has been traditionally Midwestern, besides older outside substratum influences in the Upper Midwest, and newer changes like the Northern Cities Vowel Shift and the southward expansion of Canadian Raising, and has little at all to do with New York City.
Actually, the traditional dialects spoken in the NYC area are generally identified as being specifically outside of General American, but many people who live in NYC today do not speak such due to them having come there from other parts of the US or due to having little contact with any traditional dialects there.
>>In political point of view, all elements in a society is determined by economic power. At this point, New York may exert a tremendous impact upon speakers' preference for General American, consciously or subconsciously.<<
We are talking about cultural impact here, not pure economics or politics unto themselves. Despite the large amount of economic activity that occurs there, New York City is effectively outside of any discussion of what is thought of as "standard" in the US since WW2. Furthermore, while it might itself have a large population, it has little actual relevance in and of itself to the general population of the US as a whole, and lacks the cultural impact that, say, California has to some extent.
>I agree with Kirk, but putting that aspect of accents aside, I'd say General Canadian is the closest.<
Spot on, Sho, although it seems the General Americans are looking inwardly, as usual. To the rest of us there is no question that a Canadian sounds very much like a Yank.
Spot on, Sho, although it seems the General Americans are looking inwardly, as usual. To the rest of us there is no question that a Canadian sounds very much like a Yank.
>> Differences in accent and pronunciation do not necessarily mean a difference in "dialect." "Variation" would probably be a better term to use. <<
The "Linguistic Atlas of North American English" defines the variation in pronunciation in the regions of North American English to be "dialects"
>> A Wisconsin accent is not distinct to most people in the Northern and Western United States the way say, a Southern accent is ... now there's distinct accent! However I would have a harder time distinguishing between a speaker from Madison and Seattle. <<
I would say that Northerners have one of the most distinct accents. Most of them seem to have the Northern Cities vowel shift, and do not have the low back vowel merger. Most Westerners on the other hand are cot-caught merged, and have no shift. The Canadian shift (which seems like the opposite of the NCVS) also affects many speakers in the West. The California shift affects many speakers in California as well as Arizona.
>> It is problematical whether Wisconsin is part of the "Midwest". Some geographers and demographers prefer to put it in a 'Great Lakes' region that includes Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and maybe even Kentucky and upstate New York. <<
Irrelevant. The "Midwest" is not really a dialect region. Inside the Midwest there is: the Inland North dialect (has the strongest NCVS), the Northern dialect, and the North Central dialect (North Dakota, parts of Minnesota, maybe parts of Northern Wisconsin, the U.P. of Michigan) , which is very unlike the Inland North, because it is cot-caught merged, and unlike the West and Canada because [u] is not fronted after coronals, and generally lacks the Canadian vowel shift. Depending on your definition of Midwest, there is also the Midland dialect, which is transitionally cot-caught merged, and very different from the Northern dialect.
>> According to this scheme, Wisconsin is part of the Inland Norhtern accent region which stetches from Eastern Washington State all the way to upstate New York. <<
There is no such thing as the "Inland Norhtern" region. Washington state is part of the Western dialect. Eastern Washington does not have a unique dialect from Western Washington, by the way. Except for possibly the pin-pen merger. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest_English
For the North Central accent see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Central_American_English
>> Closely alligned with it ["Inland Northern"] is Canadian English spoken on the other side of the border. <<
No, Canadian English is practically the opposite. If you're from the Inland North, and you go to Canada and you want to clean up a spill, don't ask for a "mop" in Canada. Instead ask for a "mawp", or you'll end up with a map. Also, don't ask if you can bring a "cot" into a hotel room, or the manager will probably tell you that no animals are allowed.
The "Linguistic Atlas of North American English" defines the variation in pronunciation in the regions of North American English to be "dialects"
>> A Wisconsin accent is not distinct to most people in the Northern and Western United States the way say, a Southern accent is ... now there's distinct accent! However I would have a harder time distinguishing between a speaker from Madison and Seattle. <<
I would say that Northerners have one of the most distinct accents. Most of them seem to have the Northern Cities vowel shift, and do not have the low back vowel merger. Most Westerners on the other hand are cot-caught merged, and have no shift. The Canadian shift (which seems like the opposite of the NCVS) also affects many speakers in the West. The California shift affects many speakers in California as well as Arizona.
>> It is problematical whether Wisconsin is part of the "Midwest". Some geographers and demographers prefer to put it in a 'Great Lakes' region that includes Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and maybe even Kentucky and upstate New York. <<
Irrelevant. The "Midwest" is not really a dialect region. Inside the Midwest there is: the Inland North dialect (has the strongest NCVS), the Northern dialect, and the North Central dialect (North Dakota, parts of Minnesota, maybe parts of Northern Wisconsin, the U.P. of Michigan) , which is very unlike the Inland North, because it is cot-caught merged, and unlike the West and Canada because [u] is not fronted after coronals, and generally lacks the Canadian vowel shift. Depending on your definition of Midwest, there is also the Midland dialect, which is transitionally cot-caught merged, and very different from the Northern dialect.
>> According to this scheme, Wisconsin is part of the Inland Norhtern accent region which stetches from Eastern Washington State all the way to upstate New York. <<
There is no such thing as the "Inland Norhtern" region. Washington state is part of the Western dialect. Eastern Washington does not have a unique dialect from Western Washington, by the way. Except for possibly the pin-pen merger. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest_English
For the North Central accent see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Central_American_English
>> Closely alligned with it ["Inland Northern"] is Canadian English spoken on the other side of the border. <<
No, Canadian English is practically the opposite. If you're from the Inland North, and you go to Canada and you want to clean up a spill, don't ask for a "mop" in Canada. Instead ask for a "mawp", or you'll end up with a map. Also, don't ask if you can bring a "cot" into a hotel room, or the manager will probably tell you that no animals are allowed.
>> I'd say General Canadian is the closest. <<
Well, I'd say that Western U.S. English is a bit closer, because in general it does not have Canadian raising, or the Canadian shift, and the California shift is not as widespread. Although I would say that Canadian English is probably closer to GA than the Northern accent.
Well, I'd say that Western U.S. English is a bit closer, because in general it does not have Canadian raising, or the Canadian shift, and the California shift is not as widespread. Although I would say that Canadian English is probably closer to GA than the Northern accent.
Isn't English West Country supposed to be very close to general American? I would nominate that as the closest (outside of Canadian, which is so close that it's hard to really separate it from its neighboring dialect -- let's just call 'em both "North American English").
And after West Country, I'd probably say Irish is the next closest cousin. Although I'm not terribly familiar with the full range of British accents, so there may be others I'm missing.