When did American accent become different from British??

superdavid   Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:40 am GMT
In British Colonial era, I bet they spoke English with British accent, didn't they?

1. When the hell did American accent become different from British accent?

2. Which area's accent is the origin of American accent? Can you trace it?

3. Why do Canadians speak more like Americans despite the fact that they are still a member of the British Commonwealth?
Shouldn't they speak British accent?
Guest   Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:57 am GMT
1. Boston bloody Tea Party.
2. I can not.
3. Atlantic ocean.
Milton   Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:38 pm GMT
In British Colonial era, I bet they spoke English with British accent, didn't they?

no, they spoke various British accents, including Scotch and Irish ones, and regional accents of GB and Ireland, at that time, shared many features with today's American English

for example, in Lowland Scots dialect ''wrong, long, song'' are pronounced with an unrounded vowel /A/, like in the Western US...
many British accent had/(and still have) /A/ instead of /O/, for the vowel in ''John, lot, hot...''

so you should not be saying things like: ''Americans used to speak with 2007 RP accent'' but, ''Americans used to speak with various British accents 1500-1700''...most dialectal features of old British accents became obsolete in UK, but survived in USand Canada.


just like Brazilian Portuguese, it's a mix of 16th century European Portuguese with Native American and African influences, but it is very
different from 2007 Lisbon Portuguese...


it's the old homeland that changed pronunciation.
Guest   Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:43 pm GMT
''3. Why do Canadians speak more like Americans despite the fact that they are still a member of the British Commonwealth?
Shouldn't they speak British accent?''

No.
Canadian English developed rhoticity because the neighboring regions of New England were non rhotic, and they didn't want to adopt this ''American'' pronunciation...Canadians don't consider themselves British, the ties are not as strong as the ones between Australia-GB or NZ-GB.
Brennus   Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:27 am GMT
Actually, American English (including Canadian) is the older form of the two Englishes. It has not changed as much from the English of the 17th and 18th centuries century as British English.

People often overlook the Cockney influences on modern British English too like "Cheerio!" for "Hello!," "Righto!" for "Right!," "Cracky!" as an exclamation for surprise, or "jolly" as in "jolly well, jolly good" etc.

However, there are virtually no Cockney influences on American English outside of a few relatively recent British borrowings like "scone," "drag queen" and "bread" in the sense of money. This is because very few Cockneys immigrated to America in colonial times, although many immigrated to Australia a century later.
Skippy   Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:39 am GMT
Ok, I agree with Brennus... But everyone needs to stay calm... Anytime someone expresses this view they get yelled at... lol
James   Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:56 am GMT
The basis of Canadian English is American English, not British, chiefly from the "Loyalists" who settled in large numbers in what is now Canada during and after the Revolutionary War.

See the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_english

"The first large wave of permanent English-speaking settlement in Canada, and linguistically the most important, was the influx of British Loyalists fleeing the American Revolution, chiefly from the Mid-Atlantic States."
Josh Lalonde   Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:02 am GMT
<<No.
Canadian English developed rhoticity because the neighboring regions of New England were non rhotic, and they didn't want to adopt this ''American'' pronunciation...Canadians don't consider themselves British, the ties are not as strong as the ones between Australia-GB or NZ-GB.>>

Definitely not. We didn't develop rhoticity, we preserved it. All forms of English were rhotic until Southern England developed non-rhoticity in the 1600s or so (there was an early wave in the 1300s, but that's not the source of modern non-rhoticism, but rather of words like 'cuss' from 'curse' and 'passel' from 'parsel'). Canada, like most of the US, remained rhotic, while a few parts of the US that had more contact with England adopted non-rhoticism.

<<Actually, American English (including Canadian) is the older form of the two Englishes. It has not changed as much from the English of the 17th and 18th centuries century as British English. >>

To speak of 'two Englishes' is inaccurate: there are dozens, maybe hundreds. Neither 'American' nor 'British' English is older than the other, and each preserves some features that the other doesn't. I think American English as a whole is somewhat more conservative in vocabulary though.
Skippy   Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:24 am GMT
The rhoticity of American and Canadian English shows their development from a similar dialect... I agree with Josh here.
Travis   Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:37 am GMT
>>The rhoticity of American and Canadian English shows their development from a similar dialect... I agree with Josh here.<<

They did not merely "develop from the same dialect" - they are sections of the same primary branch of Late New English, that is, North American English. I say "sections" because they denote merely geographical groupings of English dialects spoken in North America which do not correspond to linguistic realities.

For instance, the English dialects spoken from Ontario to British Columbia are generally much closer to General American than many Upper Midwestern dialects today, despite the former being called "Canadian English" and the latter being called "American English". With such kinds of things in mind, it is hard to really speak of an "American English" and a "Canadian English". Rather, one can only truly speak of a single English dialect group encompassing all English dialects spoken between the Rio Grande and the Arctic Ocean, North American English.
superdavid   Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:06 pm GMT
So, American accent has preserved the 16~17th century's features of English while British accent has changed a lot with developing non-rhotic pronunciation. Is that right?

Does anyone know why English people developed non-rhotic accent? How come they didn't pronounce 'r' even though the word obviously has an 'r' in the spelling?

One more, I also found the German language is non-rhotic as well.
They pronounce 'Frankfurt' more like 'Frankfoot'
Are there any connections/relevances between the British non-rhotic and the German non-rhotic?
Jasper   Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:21 pm GMT
I have had the pleasure of hearing English spoken by William Jennings Bryan, King George, and Frank Lloyd Wright.

These gentlemen were born in the 1860s, so their formative language years would have been the '60s and '70s.

There was remarkable resemblance between Wright's speech and King George's speech; King George sounded much more "American" than modern day Englishmen, while Wright's speech sounded more "English". Bryan's English, while still having a few RP influences, sounds more like modern-day American. Apparently the metamorphosis of the language advanced at different rates throughout the country.

If anybody wants to hear Bryan, click here:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354
Josh Lalonde   Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:29 pm GMT
<<So, American accent has preserved the 16~17th century's features of English while British accent has changed a lot with developing non-rhotic pronunciation. Is that right?

Does anyone know why English people developed non-rhotic accent? How come they didn't pronounce 'r' even though the word obviously has an 'r' in the spelling?

One more, I also found the German language is non-rhotic as well.
They pronounce 'Frankfurt' more like 'Frankfoot'
Are there any connections/relevances between the British non-rhotic and the German non-rhotic?>>

General American and RP each preserve different features of their common ancestor (16th century Southern English). GenAm preserves post-vocalic /r/ and the short vowel in BATH, while RP preserves the father-bother distinction (/A:/-/Q/), the short vowel in CLOTH, and the distinctions before /r/ (serious-Sirius, Mary-merry-marry, Tory-torrent, hurry-furry), among other things. American English preserves the subjunctive, which is generally lost in the UK, and keeps 'gotten'. Some other elements of vocabulary survived in the US but not (usually) in the UK: 'Fall' meaning 'Autumn' for example. It's hard to say which one is more conservative.
As for why non-rhoticism developed, it's the same as any language change: no one knows for sure. In this case, non-rhotic pronunciations require less articulatory effort, and it seems that those who started using this pronunciation were prestigious enough to influence others in their community and to spread it throughout England. As for pronouncing the 'r' in spelling, do you pronounce the 'gh' in 'night'? Spelling has a very indirect relation to pronunciation in English, so I don't see the problem.
That's right, some dialects of German pronounce post-vocalic /R/ as a vowel [6]. Danish does this as well, so there seems to be a tendency in Germanic languages to weaken post-vocalic /r/. I've never heard of it in Dutch or Swedish though.
Jasper   Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:42 pm GMT
I forgot to answer the post question.

I believe American and English pronunciation has drifted away from each other with equal rates.
Travis   Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:42 pm GMT
>>That's right, some dialects of German pronounce post-vocalic /R/ as a vowel [6]. Danish does this as well, so there seems to be a tendency in Germanic languages to weaken post-vocalic /r/. I've never heard of it in Dutch or Swedish though.<<

Actually, Standard German today is largely non-rhotic, not just some dialects of German.