I'm a native English speaker from the United States. I grew up primarily in Maryland but spent five years living in England from the ages of 9-14. While there I developed a perfect Yorkshire accent, so much so that people couldn't believe I was American. Not wanting to lose it, when I moved back to the US and got my Maryland accent back (it didn't take too long) I made sure to hold on to my Yorkshire accent by constant listening and speaking practice (thankfully my mother made sure to get some Last of the Summer Wine videos before we left England). I can flip into either dialect on command, which comes in handy; I love fooling Americans into thinking I'm British and then flipping to an American accent mid-conversation; they get so confused and it's hilarious! I now speak two stigmatized dialects of English; according to some people the only "real" forms of English are General American (a stupid and useless term designed to be elitist and snobby) as well as Received Pronunciation (which to my ears sounds elitist and snobby.) I don't mean to be elitist and snobby myself, but they started it first by stigmatizing me! Why do people have to hate on certain dialects so much?
I speak two stigmatized dialects of English
Joe, concerning General American, the dialectitians had to pick some sort of standard to which all speech students could aspire. I'm not sure why General American was chosen; before WW2, the Mid-Atlantic dialect was used for this purpose.
I share your distaste for General American to some extent; to my Southern/Western ears, it sounds terribly cloying (I like the Californian variety, though, because its vowel-lowering makes it sound more pleasant). But let's be honest with each other--many regional dialects sound equally unpleasant. I wish they could have just sticked with Mid-Atlantic.
But this is just one man's opinion. A decision had to be made by somebody, and General American is the one they chose. I wouldn't dwell on it too much...
I share your distaste for General American to some extent; to my Southern/Western ears, it sounds terribly cloying (I like the Californian variety, though, because its vowel-lowering makes it sound more pleasant). But let's be honest with each other--many regional dialects sound equally unpleasant. I wish they could have just sticked with Mid-Atlantic.
But this is just one man's opinion. A decision had to be made by somebody, and General American is the one they chose. I wouldn't dwell on it too much...
Last of the Summer Wine - still being shown on BBC1 TV early on Sunday evenings. All the episodes were filmed in and around Holmfirth, to the south west of Leeds, so definitely a Yorkshire setting - West Yorkshire to be precise. It's humour is so clever - all so quietly gentle and subtle - a situation comedy involving characters well advanced in age with the males continually getting into scrapes. All the actors are very well known to British audiences through various other programs but the common feature throughout LOTSW is the Yorkshire accent of course, but as very few, if any, of the performers are from Yorkshire I supposed they all adopted the accent especially for the program.
Yorkshire as a whole is a very large county (now split into four smaller units - North, West, East and South Yorkshires (formerly called Ridings many years ago - Riding being an Old English word for a "Third" as there never was a South Riding in actuality, even though there is a book by the name of South Riding. Local Government reorganisation saw the introduction of South Yorkshire however, based on Sheffield, home city to the Arctic Monkeys). Being so large in area there are a range of accents in Yorkshire, some being quite different from others.
When I went to Leeds uni in 2000 I had a wee bit of trouble, initially, understanding the Leeds/West Yorkshire accent - rather unfairly I thought it made the people sound a wee bit stupid - like they were a sarnie short of a picnic or something but I pretty soon learned different!! They're all as sound as a pound believe you me! Funnily enough they never seemed to have any [problems understanding my Edinburgh accent. If I'd come from Glasgow it may well have been a different kettle of fish altogether.
Stigmatizing accents is so easy to do sometimes - all based on preconceived impressions and, of course, blind prejudice and the images they conjure up for a variety of reasons. It's wrong - but it happens, that's the way things are.
I'm a Scot temporarily exiled in London and I have to admit the London Estuary type accent, full of glottal stops and weird expressions is beginning to grate on me now. I think I'll stigmatize it big time - "yer kna-oo wo' oi mean, mite?"
"Reading in the head" accent - not that I've ever thought about it much but thinking about it now - probably much the same as the one I use to speak, I reckon. To me the reading voice in my head sounds the same as that coming out of my mouth - Edinburgh. And proud of it! :-)
I've always stigmatized the Glasgow accent, but who doesn't who doesn't come from there!
Yorkshire as a whole is a very large county (now split into four smaller units - North, West, East and South Yorkshires (formerly called Ridings many years ago - Riding being an Old English word for a "Third" as there never was a South Riding in actuality, even though there is a book by the name of South Riding. Local Government reorganisation saw the introduction of South Yorkshire however, based on Sheffield, home city to the Arctic Monkeys). Being so large in area there are a range of accents in Yorkshire, some being quite different from others.
When I went to Leeds uni in 2000 I had a wee bit of trouble, initially, understanding the Leeds/West Yorkshire accent - rather unfairly I thought it made the people sound a wee bit stupid - like they were a sarnie short of a picnic or something but I pretty soon learned different!! They're all as sound as a pound believe you me! Funnily enough they never seemed to have any [problems understanding my Edinburgh accent. If I'd come from Glasgow it may well have been a different kettle of fish altogether.
Stigmatizing accents is so easy to do sometimes - all based on preconceived impressions and, of course, blind prejudice and the images they conjure up for a variety of reasons. It's wrong - but it happens, that's the way things are.
I'm a Scot temporarily exiled in London and I have to admit the London Estuary type accent, full of glottal stops and weird expressions is beginning to grate on me now. I think I'll stigmatize it big time - "yer kna-oo wo' oi mean, mite?"
"Reading in the head" accent - not that I've ever thought about it much but thinking about it now - probably much the same as the one I use to speak, I reckon. To me the reading voice in my head sounds the same as that coming out of my mouth - Edinburgh. And proud of it! :-)
I've always stigmatized the Glasgow accent, but who doesn't who doesn't come from there!
Jasper: “the dialectitians had to pick some sort of standard to which all speech students could aspire.”
And just why is that?
Where is it written that a large and diverse Republic like the US should have only one dialect to which “all speech students could aspire”? That smacks of cultural imperialism and cultural Marxism to me!
I can trace my white ancestors back at least 6 generations to the State I live in now (the red ones go back 10,000 years). Why in the heck should I “aspire” to sound like I was born and raised in Iowa?
Josh: “the centre of culture in the US was in the Northeast’
Huh? Say what?
You really mean that the Northeast is or was the centre of political, industrial and economic power don’t you? That ain’t the same as culture in my book. Though it may mean that the region has had the power to try and impose what passes for their “culture” on every other region in the US.
Much of what is original and authentic about American culture had its origins in Southern Culture including Jazz, Gospel, Blues, Rock-n-Roll, Bluegrass and Country music and much of what is called “American literature” is really Southern literature, including Poe, Twain and Faulkner.
And just why is that?
Where is it written that a large and diverse Republic like the US should have only one dialect to which “all speech students could aspire”? That smacks of cultural imperialism and cultural Marxism to me!
I can trace my white ancestors back at least 6 generations to the State I live in now (the red ones go back 10,000 years). Why in the heck should I “aspire” to sound like I was born and raised in Iowa?
Josh: “the centre of culture in the US was in the Northeast’
Huh? Say what?
You really mean that the Northeast is or was the centre of political, industrial and economic power don’t you? That ain’t the same as culture in my book. Though it may mean that the region has had the power to try and impose what passes for their “culture” on every other region in the US.
Much of what is original and authentic about American culture had its origins in Southern Culture including Jazz, Gospel, Blues, Rock-n-Roll, Bluegrass and Country music and much of what is called “American literature” is really Southern literature, including Poe, Twain and Faulkner.
O'Bruadair:
I don't know, O'Bruadair, but from what limited information I could find (including a contemporary speech textbook), the change occurred in the 1950s; prior to that, the mid-Atlantic dialect was used. I believe it had to do with the proliferation of the mass media--TV, movies, and radio. A General American dialect was the one chosen for that speech textbook I mentioned.
O'Brudair, please keep in mind that I don't personally like GenAm much, in most of its incarnations. But others made the decision, not me.
I don't know, O'Bruadair, but from what limited information I could find (including a contemporary speech textbook), the change occurred in the 1950s; prior to that, the mid-Atlantic dialect was used. I believe it had to do with the proliferation of the mass media--TV, movies, and radio. A General American dialect was the one chosen for that speech textbook I mentioned.
O'Brudair, please keep in mind that I don't personally like GenAm much, in most of its incarnations. But others made the decision, not me.
<I can flip into either dialect on command, which comes in handy; >
Are you talking about dialect, or only accent?
Are you talking about dialect, or only accent?
>><I can flip into either dialect on command, which comes in handy; >
Are you talking about dialect, or only accent?<<
What's the difference, aside from that the term dialect is used from an objective standpoint while the term accent is used from a subjective standpoint? (I know you are using the term "accent" to refer to dialects' phonology, but the thing is that dialects may very well differ with respect to phonology alone, and such does not make them separate dialects any less.)
Are you talking about dialect, or only accent?<<
What's the difference, aside from that the term dialect is used from an objective standpoint while the term accent is used from a subjective standpoint? (I know you are using the term "accent" to refer to dialects' phonology, but the thing is that dialects may very well differ with respect to phonology alone, and such does not make them separate dialects any less.)
<What's the difference, >
You don't know the difference between what is accent and what is dialect?
You don't know the difference between what is accent and what is dialect?
Yes - a dialect is a speech variety associated with a location which someone speaks, and an accent is how someone perceives someone else's speech. Accents are purely subjective; one person can say that they are "accentless" while another person can say that the first person is heavily accented. On the other hand, what dialect someone speaks is not affected by other individuals' perception.
"Blathered up" is Yorkshire dialect for "dirty, covered in muck" and is normally spoken with a Yorkshire accent. "Dirty" is not specifically Yorkshire dialect, but can also be pronounced with a Yorshire accent.
<<Yes - a dialect is a speech variety associated with a location which someone speaks, >>
How can someone speak a location?
How can someone speak a location?
You misparsed my sentence there; "which" in "which someone speaks" refers to "a speech variety associated with a location" not just "a location".
<You misparsed my sentence there; "which" in "which someone speaks" refers to "a speech variety associated with a location" not just "a location". >
I didn't misparse, Trav. You need to edit that sentence.
I didn't misparse, Trav. You need to edit that sentence.
It should have been quite obvious from context, and consequently I do not see this as any different from people who needlessly point out spelling mistakes which should cause no trouble with respect to actual understanding.
On a diffferent note, one should note that relative pronouns (or interrogative pronouns being used in a relative fashion) in English need not lie directly adjacent to particular nouns (as opposed to entire noun phrases) that they refer to. There is no reason why "which" must refer to "a location" rather than the greater noun phrase "a speech variety associated with a location".
As for rewording, I could reword that as "Yes, a dialect is a speech variety, which someone speaks, which is associated with a location". This may make the sentence easier to understand for some pedants who are unable to actually find the referent of a relative or interrogative pronoun by context and who do not understand what noun phrases are. However, though, it completely changes the tone of the sentence by shifting emphasis from "associated with a location" to "which someone speaks", while "associated with a location" is a key part of the intended meaning of the sentence while "which somone speaks" is accessory.
On a diffferent note, one should note that relative pronouns (or interrogative pronouns being used in a relative fashion) in English need not lie directly adjacent to particular nouns (as opposed to entire noun phrases) that they refer to. There is no reason why "which" must refer to "a location" rather than the greater noun phrase "a speech variety associated with a location".
As for rewording, I could reword that as "Yes, a dialect is a speech variety, which someone speaks, which is associated with a location". This may make the sentence easier to understand for some pedants who are unable to actually find the referent of a relative or interrogative pronoun by context and who do not understand what noun phrases are. However, though, it completely changes the tone of the sentence by shifting emphasis from "associated with a location" to "which someone speaks", while "associated with a location" is a key part of the intended meaning of the sentence while "which somone speaks" is accessory.
<It should have been quite obvious from context, and consequently I do not see this as any different from people who needlessly point out spelling mistakes which should cause no trouble with respect to actual understanding. >
If you think it's/it fine as it is...
Why not post it as a thread question?
<As for rewording, I could reword that as "Yes, a dialect is a speech variety, which someone speaks, which is associated with a location". >
Why do you need the "which someone speaks"? Isn't it clear that a speech variety would be spoken?
<This may make the sentence easier to understand for some pedants who are unable to actually find the referent of a relative or interrogative pronoun by context and who do not understand what noun phrases are>
Yes, yes, all fine words. Why not put it to the test? Post that sentence as a thread.
If you think it's/it fine as it is...
Why not post it as a thread question?
<As for rewording, I could reword that as "Yes, a dialect is a speech variety, which someone speaks, which is associated with a location". >
Why do you need the "which someone speaks"? Isn't it clear that a speech variety would be spoken?
<This may make the sentence easier to understand for some pedants who are unable to actually find the referent of a relative or interrogative pronoun by context and who do not understand what noun phrases are>
Yes, yes, all fine words. Why not put it to the test? Post that sentence as a thread.