How do I put on a pompous, upper-class snobby sort of American accent without ending up with a British accent? I want to sound American, but still sound upper class and snobby.
Pompous American accent
Use a bunch of ten-dollar words, throw in some choice French phrases, and call everybody "darling."
Accento,
why do you want to sound posh, uppity, snobbish etc.? It's not an in-thing these days I reckon. Being pompous doesn't make you too popular, either.
Brennus,
I'm quite surprised at your statement about "duke". I'm not American, so I might get the whole thing downright wrong, but: I've always thought (and I've read) that the yod ("j"-sound) is optionally dropped in several American dialects (including General American), and therefore these yodless forms are totally valid (i.e. not at all stigmatised) and considered as "educated" as the forms in which the yod is retained.
As far as British English is concerned, your statement is true: "dook" is regarded as "substandard". I know linguists have a peculiar aversion towards this word. I don't like it either (since I also study linguistics), because it's a right misnomer from a linguistical point of view. But if you consider the common, ordinary viewpoint, it has a great significance in everyday life. I mean, job interviewers are not conversant with linguistics (usually, unfortunately - always exceptions) at all, and therefore see the question of accent stigma and prestige from a different angle.
why do you want to sound posh, uppity, snobbish etc.? It's not an in-thing these days I reckon. Being pompous doesn't make you too popular, either.
Brennus,
I'm quite surprised at your statement about "duke". I'm not American, so I might get the whole thing downright wrong, but: I've always thought (and I've read) that the yod ("j"-sound) is optionally dropped in several American dialects (including General American), and therefore these yodless forms are totally valid (i.e. not at all stigmatised) and considered as "educated" as the forms in which the yod is retained.
As far as British English is concerned, your statement is true: "dook" is regarded as "substandard". I know linguists have a peculiar aversion towards this word. I don't like it either (since I also study linguistics), because it's a right misnomer from a linguistical point of view. But if you consider the common, ordinary viewpoint, it has a great significance in everyday life. I mean, job interviewers are not conversant with linguistics (usually, unfortunately - always exceptions) at all, and therefore see the question of accent stigma and prestige from a different angle.
<<I'm quite surprised at your statement about "duke". I'm not American, so I might get the whole thing downright wrong, but: I've always thought (and I've read) that the yod ("j"-sound) is optionally dropped in several American dialects (including General American), and therefore these yodless forms are totally valid (i.e. not at all stigmatised) and considered as "educated" as the forms in which the yod is retained.>>
It's not that yod-dropping is perceived as "uneducated" while yod-preservation is perceived as "educated", it's that yod-dropping is perceived as "normal" or "default", while yod-preservation tends to be perceived as "snobby" or "old-fashined". Yod-dropping is so incredibly common in modern US English that it has no stigma attached to it.
It's not that yod-dropping is perceived as "uneducated" while yod-preservation is perceived as "educated", it's that yod-dropping is perceived as "normal" or "default", while yod-preservation tends to be perceived as "snobby" or "old-fashined". Yod-dropping is so incredibly common in modern US English that it has no stigma attached to it.
<<Yod-dropping is so incredibly common in modern US English that it has no stigma attached to it.>>
Exactly. That's what I wanted to say.
Exactly. That's what I wanted to say.
Californian ''new'' sounds closer to [nyu] than to [nu] because of the fronting of [u], the same is common in Canada.
cool is [kyul] sometimes as well
cool is [kyul] sometimes as well
Professor Labov says that DEW and DOO are not pronounced the same even though DEW is normally pronounced without the jod [y] (IPA [j]).
Professor Labov says that DEW and DO are not pronounced the same even though DEW is normally pronounced without the jod [y] (IPA [j]).
Mr. LABOV: DEW vs DO:
The dew word used to have a little glide, dew; and that's largely disappeared. But the difference in the vowel remained
The dew word used to have a little glide, dew; and that's largely disappeared. But the difference in the vowel remained
<<Professor Labov says that DEW and DO are not pronounced the same even though DEW is normally pronounced without the jod [y] (IPA [j]).>>
I listened to this NPR interview ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5220090 ) online, and he did talk about that; but he just vaguely says that people "used to" retain a distinction after they lost the glide, and he gives an anecdote about how some people in New York pronounced those words when he was working there - which ,if you read here http://www.answers.com/William%20Labov (I use answers.com because the Wikipedia article on him appears to be unavailable at the moment), appears to have been in the 1960s. He didn't say that this applied for all dialects, or that it still applies today. Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yod-dropping#Yod-dropping ) notes that some modern Southern dialects are distinctive in preserving the do-dew contrast, and it says that in these dialects, the historical rising [ju] has evolved into a falling [IU]. The fact that the preservation of a [u]-[IU] contrast (evolved from an earlier [u]-[ju] contrast) is distinctive to these Southern dialects, tends to disprove what you are saying. I, for my part, maintain no distinction between "dew" and stressed "do" (or "tune" and "toon"), and from what I've read, neither do the vast majority of Americans.
I listened to this NPR interview ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5220090 ) online, and he did talk about that; but he just vaguely says that people "used to" retain a distinction after they lost the glide, and he gives an anecdote about how some people in New York pronounced those words when he was working there - which ,if you read here http://www.answers.com/William%20Labov (I use answers.com because the Wikipedia article on him appears to be unavailable at the moment), appears to have been in the 1960s. He didn't say that this applied for all dialects, or that it still applies today. Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yod-dropping#Yod-dropping ) notes that some modern Southern dialects are distinctive in preserving the do-dew contrast, and it says that in these dialects, the historical rising [ju] has evolved into a falling [IU]. The fact that the preservation of a [u]-[IU] contrast (evolved from an earlier [u]-[ju] contrast) is distinctive to these Southern dialects, tends to disprove what you are saying. I, for my part, maintain no distinction between "dew" and stressed "do" (or "tune" and "toon"), and from what I've read, neither do the vast majority of Americans.
>> because of the fronting of [u], the same is common in Canada. <<
Only in Ontario.
Only in Ontario.
Watch something like the film "Trading Places" (1983) and listen to how the company directors speak. That's a fairly good characterization of a snobbish American accent.