Have listened (TO) all five accents in Rom's recordings...
Which North American accent is the most neutral sounding?
Previous page Pages: 1 2
Accent is very important because it gives people preconceived ideas about you before they get to know you. If you have a marked accent (relative to the person to whom you're speaking), the accent will engender some degree of prejudice (good or bad) independent of what you are actually saying, and will also distract attention from what you are saying. Thus, it is generally preferable to speak without an accent, if possible.
This is pretty easy to do in the U.S., where a very large swath of the country speaks with pronunciations so similar that they cannot be distinguished without a deliberate effort to do so (and sometimes not even then). Southern accents are still obvious and a potential problem, though, as are some marked regional accents such as those of some New Yorkers.
In places like England, it's a lot more difficult to be neutral, since every path of houses in the country seems to have its own distinct accent. Add this to the fact that England is more stratified socially and that the English are much more class-conscious, and it's very difficult to be completely neutral.
I don't know the exact situation in places like Ireland, Canada or Australia, but at least among those who don't live in the hills, it seems to be more like that of the U.S. than that of England (i.e., less variation, and neutrality that is easier to approximate or attain).
This is pretty easy to do in the U.S., where a very large swath of the country speaks with pronunciations so similar that they cannot be distinguished without a deliberate effort to do so (and sometimes not even then). Southern accents are still obvious and a potential problem, though, as are some marked regional accents such as those of some New Yorkers.
In places like England, it's a lot more difficult to be neutral, since every path of houses in the country seems to have its own distinct accent. Add this to the fact that England is more stratified socially and that the English are much more class-conscious, and it's very difficult to be completely neutral.
I don't know the exact situation in places like Ireland, Canada or Australia, but at least among those who don't live in the hills, it seems to be more like that of the U.S. than that of England (i.e., less variation, and neutrality that is easier to approximate or attain).
Linguist William Labov has a theory that accents and accent changes in a community are influenced by its dominant leaders. In some cases, just one dominant leader. This person may be either a man or a woman. On one occasion, he located the woman in a New Jersey community he thought was responsible for accent change there. He then interviewed and recorded her.
Perhaps that's partially why there is so much neutral English around in the U.S. today. Not enough local leadership.
Perhaps that's partially why there is so much neutral English around in the U.S. today. Not enough local leadership.
<<I'm not going to say that you're all wet, in fact, I would like to read the book you mentioned.>>
Yes, it's very interesting. I'd recommend checking it out if you can.
<<The main differences I have noticed between the American English of California and the Pacific Northwest are not in accent or pronunciation but just the slang. For example, I've heard transplanted Californians up here use 'lobsterized" for "sunburned" (Who but a Californian would think up something like that?)>>
Certainly not me. I've never heard of it and I've lived in Northern and Southern California and visited all over and I've never heard such a thing.
<<which I think is kind of cute then there's "Yes! Duh, retarded and way cool" which native Washingtonians don't seem to be adopting.>>
Well seeing as those were mid-90s junior highers' words of choice the nation over they're not exactly thriving here either...
<<Take Care!>>
Have a good one and check out that book if you can.
<<Which peculiarities does it mention?>>
I'll look up the details and post them on here later when I have more time :)
Yes, it's very interesting. I'd recommend checking it out if you can.
<<The main differences I have noticed between the American English of California and the Pacific Northwest are not in accent or pronunciation but just the slang. For example, I've heard transplanted Californians up here use 'lobsterized" for "sunburned" (Who but a Californian would think up something like that?)>>
Certainly not me. I've never heard of it and I've lived in Northern and Southern California and visited all over and I've never heard such a thing.
<<which I think is kind of cute then there's "Yes! Duh, retarded and way cool" which native Washingtonians don't seem to be adopting.>>
Well seeing as those were mid-90s junior highers' words of choice the nation over they're not exactly thriving here either...
<<Take Care!>>
Have a good one and check out that book if you can.
<<Which peculiarities does it mention?>>
I'll look up the details and post them on here later when I have more time :)
<<Perhaps that's partially why there is so much neutral English around in the U.S. today. Not enough local leadership.>>
?....?....?....(!)
?....?....?....(!)
After spending some time in Seattle, a few years back, I eventually managed to nail the accent by listening daily to one of the city's young, dynamic, up-and-coming entrepreneurs.
"Sirr could you sparrre a quarder furr som'in' uh eeed"
"Sirr could you sparrre a quarder furr som'in' uh eeed"
>>"Sirr could you sparrre a quarder furr som'in' uh eeed"<<
I would say:
"Sirr could you sparrre a quorder furr som'in' uh neeed"
if I tried saying it really fast.
I would say:
"Sirr could you sparrre a quorder furr som'in' uh neeed"
if I tried saying it really fast.
Kirk,
I heard some of these words as recently as this Summer from young women in their early twenties. You are right about them being junior-highish words but I am one who agrees with those who say that our society today tends to postpone adolescence up to the age of 30. This was not true, however, in America's frontier days when life was hard and average life expectancy was only about 49. It's still not true today in third world countries except maybe among some children of rich families.
I heard some of these words as recently as this Summer from young women in their early twenties. You are right about them being junior-highish words but I am one who agrees with those who say that our society today tends to postpone adolescence up to the age of 30. This was not true, however, in America's frontier days when life was hard and average life expectancy was only about 49. It's still not true today in third world countries except maybe among some children of rich families.
<<Sirr could you sparrre a quarder furr som'in' uh eeed>>
= Sir, could you spare a quarter for something to eat!
If anyone was unsure what it was supposed to say. The "uh" part isn't so much pronounced as just a non-descript sound between the words.
= Sir, could you spare a quarter for something to eat!
If anyone was unsure what it was supposed to say. The "uh" part isn't so much pronounced as just a non-descript sound between the words.
Ok, so to get back to the person who was wondering about features in the Pacific Northwest, the Pacific Northwest typically keeps its /o/ and /u/ vowel sounds backed and more rounded as compared to other places in the West. Like other Western dialects, "cot-caught" merging is universal, but the realization of the merged vowel has been moving towards [Q], which was documented as common in Vancouver. Vancouver also showed signs of /{/ retraction and lowering, to [a], which happens to be a feature seen in California, but California's is part of a larger chain shift.
I think for me, hearing someone from the Pacific Northwest is most obvious in the backed and rounded /o/ and /u/ as compared to my fronted and unrounded realizations of those vowels. Studies have also shown that Canadian Raising has also relatively recently made inroads there, in the US as well as Canada. My relatives from BC have clear Canadian Raising. Non-Pacific Northwest dialects in the West tend to show no incidendences of Canadian Raising (of course, not all Pac NWers have CR, tho). Also, /{g/ raising as well as /EZ/ raising (both to [e]) may occur in some Pacific Northwest dialects, which is certainly not done here in California.
<<Sirr could you sparrre a quorder furr som'in' uh neeed>>
I wouldn't expect "eat" to have [d] there (which is what your spelling would imply) unless it was followed by a word starting with a vowel (in which case it'd actually be a voiced alveolar tap [4], not [d]..that also applies to words like "quarter"). But seeing the structure of the sentence I doubt anything directly followed it, much less something starting with a vowel. What you may've heard was a long vowel which you associated with [d] (since vowels tend to be longer before voiced stops in English) but I would say almost with 100% that no American would have [d] or [4] in the example you listed.
<< I am one who agrees with those who say that our society today tends to postpone adolescence up to the age of 30.>>
I don't think that (even if it's true) has to do with the coming and going of slang.
I think for me, hearing someone from the Pacific Northwest is most obvious in the backed and rounded /o/ and /u/ as compared to my fronted and unrounded realizations of those vowels. Studies have also shown that Canadian Raising has also relatively recently made inroads there, in the US as well as Canada. My relatives from BC have clear Canadian Raising. Non-Pacific Northwest dialects in the West tend to show no incidendences of Canadian Raising (of course, not all Pac NWers have CR, tho). Also, /{g/ raising as well as /EZ/ raising (both to [e]) may occur in some Pacific Northwest dialects, which is certainly not done here in California.
<<Sirr could you sparrre a quorder furr som'in' uh neeed>>
I wouldn't expect "eat" to have [d] there (which is what your spelling would imply) unless it was followed by a word starting with a vowel (in which case it'd actually be a voiced alveolar tap [4], not [d]..that also applies to words like "quarter"). But seeing the structure of the sentence I doubt anything directly followed it, much less something starting with a vowel. What you may've heard was a long vowel which you associated with [d] (since vowels tend to be longer before voiced stops in English) but I would say almost with 100% that no American would have [d] or [4] in the example you listed.
<< I am one who agrees with those who say that our society today tends to postpone adolescence up to the age of 30.>>
I don't think that (even if it's true) has to do with the coming and going of slang.
"#3 was actually not Canadian--it was from Caribou, Maine."
Might as well have been. The accent of Northeastern Maine is virtually indistinguishable from neighboring New Brunswick.
Might as well have been. The accent of Northeastern Maine is virtually indistinguishable from neighboring New Brunswick.
It may be that since Americans tend to not aspirate the T in "eat", Rick hears it as being similar to a D, where we would quite clearly think of it as a T.
(I have to admit that while I flap half my T's with total abandon, in my head I'm pronouncing them as "proper" T's, and I have to stop and think about it to realize that that's not what they actually SOUND like when I'm speaking!)
(I have to admit that while I flap half my T's with total abandon, in my head I'm pronouncing them as "proper" T's, and I have to stop and think about it to realize that that's not what they actually SOUND like when I'm speaking!)
>>It may be that since Americans tend to not aspirate the T in "eat", Rick hears it as being similar to a D, where we would quite clearly think of it as a T.
(I have to admit that while I flap half my T's with total abandon, in my head I'm pronouncing them as "proper" T's, and I have to stop and think about it to realize that that's not what they actually SOUND like when I'm speaking!)<<
At least here, said "t" is actually normally realized as a glottal stop, *except* when a word starting with a vowel follows it, where it is realized as an alveolar flap instead.
(I have to admit that while I flap half my T's with total abandon, in my head I'm pronouncing them as "proper" T's, and I have to stop and think about it to realize that that's not what they actually SOUND like when I'm speaking!)<<
At least here, said "t" is actually normally realized as a glottal stop, *except* when a word starting with a vowel follows it, where it is realized as an alveolar flap instead.
<<(I have to admit that while I flap half my T's with total abandon, in my head I'm pronouncing them as "proper" T's, and I have to stop and think about it to realize that that's not what they actually SOUND like when I'm speaking!)>>
That's because as a native speaker you have an intuition about the underlying phonemic value of those words, and that value is /t/. It's likely you'd even be aware of this even if English had no writing system. Interesting phenomenon, no?
That's because as a native speaker you have an intuition about the underlying phonemic value of those words, and that value is /t/. It's likely you'd even be aware of this even if English had no writing system. Interesting phenomenon, no?
<<At least here, said "t" is actually normally realized as a glottal stop, *except* when a word starting with a vowel follows it, where it is realized as an alveolar flap instead.>>
If we're talking about syllable or word-final mine is commonly an unreleased /t/, so [t_}], or a glottal stop, so [?]. If followed by a vowel or a word starting with a vowel then the /t/ is manifested as a voiced alveolar tap/flap, so [4].
If we're talking about syllable or word-final mine is commonly an unreleased /t/, so [t_}], or a glottal stop, so [?]. If followed by a vowel or a word starting with a vowel then the /t/ is manifested as a voiced alveolar tap/flap, so [4].
Previous page Pages: 1 2