Can anyone tell me why should there be the usage of "accent"? There is a language of English which has no accent which is meant to be neutral accent. I have seen that the americans and canadians fight for the accent of their own. but why is that there is no such speech regardless of accent. Can someone forum on this???
Why? why? and WHY???
It's impossible for any Language to be free of local/regional/national accents. It's bound to be the case....all part of the natural order of things in speech.....all it's native speakers contained in a whole myriad of separated groupings.
Anyway, just think how mega boring it would be if every Language just had one neutral style of vocalisation! It would be sterile and featureless and not worth even considering. Besides, how would you be able to tell where a person comes from as soon as s/he opens his/her gob? How would any locality/area/region/country have it's own linguistic identity?
Just kick the whole notion into touch and think of something more feasible to ponder over.
Anyway, just think how mega boring it would be if every Language just had one neutral style of vocalisation! It would be sterile and featureless and not worth even considering. Besides, how would you be able to tell where a person comes from as soon as s/he opens his/her gob? How would any locality/area/region/country have it's own linguistic identity?
Just kick the whole notion into touch and think of something more feasible to ponder over.
Pravi,
Every person, in every language, has a specific accent. The accent is a group of factors that determine the region where you come from (in terms of spoken language, of course).
When americans say "you don't have an accent" what they really mean is "you don't have a different accent, I can understand you."
Regards
Every person, in every language, has a specific accent. The accent is a group of factors that determine the region where you come from (in terms of spoken language, of course).
When americans say "you don't have an accent" what they really mean is "you don't have a different accent, I can understand you."
Regards
César and Damian are exactly right--everyone has a native accent and dialect that they speak. This is why people might fight over what is "neutral" and what isn't--there actually is no truly "neutral" form of any language.
What people consider as "normal" is not surprisingly their native accent and what they're surrounded by every day. Thus, other Californians don't have noticeable "accents" to me, because their usage more or less conforms with how I and other people speak here. However, a Californian might have a hard time convincing someone from Duluth, Minnesota or Boston that it's really Californians who "don't have accents"--it's just that everyone else does ;) It doesn't work that way, altho many people believe such things.
Some people truly believe they speak "neutrally" and are surprised when others can spot out where they're from. This is especially prevalent in people from the Midwest, who commonly believe that they speak completely "neutral" and "like the people on TV." However, I can generally very easily spot out a Midwestern accent from the first few seconds I hear it. I've met people here who had obvious Midwestern accents and after I asked "so, where in the Midwest are you from?" they've been surprised that their speech gave away their geographic origins, since they'd been led to believe that everyone in the Midwest speaks "neutrally." Of course not everyone thinks this, but it is a pretty common outlook no matter which dialect you're talking about.
What people consider as "normal" is not surprisingly their native accent and what they're surrounded by every day. Thus, other Californians don't have noticeable "accents" to me, because their usage more or less conforms with how I and other people speak here. However, a Californian might have a hard time convincing someone from Duluth, Minnesota or Boston that it's really Californians who "don't have accents"--it's just that everyone else does ;) It doesn't work that way, altho many people believe such things.
Some people truly believe they speak "neutrally" and are surprised when others can spot out where they're from. This is especially prevalent in people from the Midwest, who commonly believe that they speak completely "neutral" and "like the people on TV." However, I can generally very easily spot out a Midwestern accent from the first few seconds I hear it. I've met people here who had obvious Midwestern accents and after I asked "so, where in the Midwest are you from?" they've been surprised that their speech gave away their geographic origins, since they'd been led to believe that everyone in the Midwest speaks "neutrally." Of course not everyone thinks this, but it is a pretty common outlook no matter which dialect you're talking about.
I suppose you could manage to have a language with no accent if you confined its speakers to one small town in the middle of a desert island....but the British liked to keep their colonies as spread out as possible, and they ditched their language all over the world .... so we have distinctive accents.
<<I suppose you could manage to have a language with no accent if you confined its speakers to one small town in the middle of a desert island>>
Well I think in that case, there would just be one accent.
Well I think in that case, there would just be one accent.
Yeah, if a language is only spoken by a couple hundred people in one village, it's not very likely there'll be different dialects. However, even when you've got two villages speaking a language, the likelihood of there being different dialects increases. And, this doesn't even have to apply to languages spoken by small numbers of people. My German professor said that the native dialect of the village she grew up in Germany is slightly, but still noticeably, different from the dialect in the next village over 4 kilometers away.
That's why you could only have the one village, if you wished to remain "accentless".
True, you could also think of it as being a single accent, but can you really call it an "accent" if it's the only one? ;) To me, "accent" implies that there are other variants, of which yours is one....
True, you could also think of it as being a single accent, but can you really call it an "accent" if it's the only one? ;) To me, "accent" implies that there are other variants, of which yours is one....
Hey all,
I did understand what you all meant. But what I would actually like to know is, as Uriel said, Britians spread out their colonies all over the world. Although the language over the world is spread from the same base, there is a difference in the recieving edge. The australians, Asians, Canadians, americans and all had an impact from the britians who were shrewd enough to spread their language. Here I absolutely do not mean only americans or canadians or the brazilians. I meant the world as a whole. thatz ok...this is a widely acceptable language all over the world with which I am one thinking if there would or could be a change.
and thx for the replies coz this was my first msg here which gave me a positive hope for more discussions.
Wish you all a great weekend.
I did understand what you all meant. But what I would actually like to know is, as Uriel said, Britians spread out their colonies all over the world. Although the language over the world is spread from the same base, there is a difference in the recieving edge. The australians, Asians, Canadians, americans and all had an impact from the britians who were shrewd enough to spread their language. Here I absolutely do not mean only americans or canadians or the brazilians. I meant the world as a whole. thatz ok...this is a widely acceptable language all over the world with which I am one thinking if there would or could be a change.
and thx for the replies coz this was my first msg here which gave me a positive hope for more discussions.
Wish you all a great weekend.
There actually is no way I can see to have a language, let alone English without an accent to it. Languages aren't conjured, they come from the evolution of other languages mixing. English is a prime example of a language that is a mixture of Saxon, Norse, Celtic and Latin principles through old French. Even that statement has it's exceptions, and Friesian influenced parts of the English too! Am I right and saying it's one of the most impure languages, and that makes it the hardest to learn?
That's why more of a percentage of native English speakers are mono-lingual; it takes us so long to master it.
I'm joking BTW...
That's why more of a percentage of native English speakers are mono-lingual; it takes us so long to master it.
I'm joking BTW...
<<Some people truly believe they speak "neutrally" and are surprised when others can spot out where they're from. This is especially prevalent in people from the Midwest, who commonly believe that they speak completely "neutral" and "like the people on TV." However, I can generally very easily spot out a Midwestern accent from the first few seconds I hear it. I've met people here who had obvious Midwestern accents and after I asked "so, where in the Midwest are you from?" they've been surprised that their speech gave away their geographic origins, since they'd been led to believe that everyone in the Midwest speaks "neutrally." Of course not everyone thinks this, but it is a pretty common outlook no matter which dialect you're talking about.>>
Yes, Kirk, the Midwest sounds foreign to me. But what about the "CNN accent" that's so often mentioned right here in River City, as "neutral." For that matter the Connecticut accent, with the exception of the old farmers and New Britain (where people's accents are almost cockney) sounds neutral to most people. But your the linguist, you tell me and anyone else of course who wants to jump in.
Yes, Kirk, the Midwest sounds foreign to me. But what about the "CNN accent" that's so often mentioned right here in River City, as "neutral." For that matter the Connecticut accent, with the exception of the old farmers and New Britain (where people's accents are almost cockney) sounds neutral to most people. But your the linguist, you tell me and anyone else of course who wants to jump in.
<<Yeah, if a language is only spoken by a couple hundred people in one village, it's not very likely there'll be different dialects>>
This brings to mind another question I have. It's on islands. I read somewhere that people who live on islands hang onto old accents longer. For instance in the Aran Isles in Ireland, people spoke Gaelic long after the rest of Ireland started speaking English. Also there's an island off the coast of the US, I think Virginia, where as recently as the 1970's or 1980's people spoke with Scottish accents.
Any takers?
This brings to mind another question I have. It's on islands. I read somewhere that people who live on islands hang onto old accents longer. For instance in the Aran Isles in Ireland, people spoke Gaelic long after the rest of Ireland started speaking English. Also there's an island off the coast of the US, I think Virginia, where as recently as the 1970's or 1980's people spoke with Scottish accents.
Any takers?
<<Yes, Kirk, the Midwest sounds foreign to me.>>
Yeah, it definitely sounds very "other" to my ears, and I'm sure the reverse is true for many a Midwesterner listening to many a Californian.
<<But what about the "CNN accent" that's so often mentioned right here in River City, as "neutral." For that matter the Connecticut accent, with the exception of the old farmers and New Britain (where people's accents are almost cockney) sounds neutral to most people. But your the linguist, you tell me and anyone else of course who wants to jump in.>>
Well, there are a few things to say about something like the "CNN accent." One thing to remember for typical newscast speech is that it's a completely different register than the informal speech we all use in most of our daily lives. As I mentioned before about the differences between my "reading voice," newscast speech (even if it's not stuffy or anything) is more formal than everyday speech.
Also, there still are some different regional accents on CNN and if you listen closely you can often hear little clues that might tell you where any given speaker is from. For example, some reporters on national broadcasts like CNN (or NBC/ABC/CBS news or whatever) are "cot-caught" merged and some aren't. Some are "Mary-marry-merry" merged and others aren't. The truth about the speech used in formal broadcasting in the US is that it's more defined by the features that it *doesn't* have (the stigmatized forms that are shied away from) instead of the ones it does. There is a lot of leeway for speakers--if a certain speech feature isn't stigmatized (it's not stigmatized to merge or not merge "cot-caught" for example--most listeners won't notice either way) it won't matter which one the speaker uses. In listening to national broadcasts, even tho speakers are using more formal speech, I can sometimes pinpoint where they're probably from with the little clues that I'm given. Or at least I can say for sure where they're *not* from :)
For instance, to use an example from radio, when I listen to national broadcasts from NPR it's often clear that the speaker on at the moment is not from California--they may be "cot-caught" merged, "marry-merry" unmerged, a couple vowels here and there may be different, etc. Even tho they're speaking in a relatively "standard" way I can certainly tell they're not from here. On the other hand, I can usually tell when the local news broadcasts are on from the local NPR station because the people sound like they're from here (even if they're not talking about things in California--that'd be kind of cheating).
<<This brings to mind another question I have. It's on islands. I read somewhere that people who live on islands hang onto old accents longer.>>
Well, kind of. Islands, by nature, are more isolated from mainland speech communities so they tend to miss out on some of the speech changes going on in the mainland. However, since all human languages are constantly changing, this also means languages or dialects spoken on islands are as well. It's just that the isolation goes both ways--the mainland changes don't spread to the island and the island's changes don't spread to the mainland (or at least there's the potential for this to happen). For example, a common linguistic myth is that Icelandic is an "old" language that "hasn't changed in a millennium." Since all human languages are always changing, this is of course false--languages and dialects don't ossify. Icelandic has gone thru plenty of changes from Old Norse over the past millennium but due to its isolation it naturally did not go thru the same changes as the mainland Scandinavian languages have gone thru. One thing to mention is that it may appear Icelandic hasn't changed much but that's because people are looking at written forms, and as the case with English certainly proves, just because you don't change a word's spelling for centuries and centuries doesn't mean that changes in pronunciation aren't occurring.
<<For instance in the Aran Isles in Ireland, people spoke Gaelic long after the rest of Ireland started speaking English.>>
Yeah, since they were isolated from the mainland, that makes sense.
<<Also there's an island off the coast of the US, I think Virginia, where as recently as the 1970's or 1980's people spoke with Scottish accents.>>
I haven't heard about that one. I wonder if anyone else knows more about that...
Yeah, it definitely sounds very "other" to my ears, and I'm sure the reverse is true for many a Midwesterner listening to many a Californian.
<<But what about the "CNN accent" that's so often mentioned right here in River City, as "neutral." For that matter the Connecticut accent, with the exception of the old farmers and New Britain (where people's accents are almost cockney) sounds neutral to most people. But your the linguist, you tell me and anyone else of course who wants to jump in.>>
Well, there are a few things to say about something like the "CNN accent." One thing to remember for typical newscast speech is that it's a completely different register than the informal speech we all use in most of our daily lives. As I mentioned before about the differences between my "reading voice," newscast speech (even if it's not stuffy or anything) is more formal than everyday speech.
Also, there still are some different regional accents on CNN and if you listen closely you can often hear little clues that might tell you where any given speaker is from. For example, some reporters on national broadcasts like CNN (or NBC/ABC/CBS news or whatever) are "cot-caught" merged and some aren't. Some are "Mary-marry-merry" merged and others aren't. The truth about the speech used in formal broadcasting in the US is that it's more defined by the features that it *doesn't* have (the stigmatized forms that are shied away from) instead of the ones it does. There is a lot of leeway for speakers--if a certain speech feature isn't stigmatized (it's not stigmatized to merge or not merge "cot-caught" for example--most listeners won't notice either way) it won't matter which one the speaker uses. In listening to national broadcasts, even tho speakers are using more formal speech, I can sometimes pinpoint where they're probably from with the little clues that I'm given. Or at least I can say for sure where they're *not* from :)
For instance, to use an example from radio, when I listen to national broadcasts from NPR it's often clear that the speaker on at the moment is not from California--they may be "cot-caught" merged, "marry-merry" unmerged, a couple vowels here and there may be different, etc. Even tho they're speaking in a relatively "standard" way I can certainly tell they're not from here. On the other hand, I can usually tell when the local news broadcasts are on from the local NPR station because the people sound like they're from here (even if they're not talking about things in California--that'd be kind of cheating).
<<This brings to mind another question I have. It's on islands. I read somewhere that people who live on islands hang onto old accents longer.>>
Well, kind of. Islands, by nature, are more isolated from mainland speech communities so they tend to miss out on some of the speech changes going on in the mainland. However, since all human languages are constantly changing, this also means languages or dialects spoken on islands are as well. It's just that the isolation goes both ways--the mainland changes don't spread to the island and the island's changes don't spread to the mainland (or at least there's the potential for this to happen). For example, a common linguistic myth is that Icelandic is an "old" language that "hasn't changed in a millennium." Since all human languages are always changing, this is of course false--languages and dialects don't ossify. Icelandic has gone thru plenty of changes from Old Norse over the past millennium but due to its isolation it naturally did not go thru the same changes as the mainland Scandinavian languages have gone thru. One thing to mention is that it may appear Icelandic hasn't changed much but that's because people are looking at written forms, and as the case with English certainly proves, just because you don't change a word's spelling for centuries and centuries doesn't mean that changes in pronunciation aren't occurring.
<<For instance in the Aran Isles in Ireland, people spoke Gaelic long after the rest of Ireland started speaking English.>>
Yeah, since they were isolated from the mainland, that makes sense.
<<Also there's an island off the coast of the US, I think Virginia, where as recently as the 1970's or 1980's people spoke with Scottish accents.>>
I haven't heard about that one. I wonder if anyone else knows more about that...