I like watching ''the Nanny''. I will pick her accent. it's very melodic. I love it
American Accent
You can study phonetics to acquire an American accent.
While some callers may be irritated if they know you to be outside the U.S., it is nevertheless also equally true that heavy accents can be very difficult to understand on the telephone, which already has a limited bandwidth and fairly poor sound quality. People who need technical support are generally impatient and not in a good mood by the time they pick up the phone, and having to struggle with someone speaking with a heavy accent will only irritate them further. And an accent that might be tolerable in person can still be very difficult to understand on the telephone.
While some callers may be irritated if they know you to be outside the U.S., it is nevertheless also equally true that heavy accents can be very difficult to understand on the telephone, which already has a limited bandwidth and fairly poor sound quality. People who need technical support are generally impatient and not in a good mood by the time they pick up the phone, and having to struggle with someone speaking with a heavy accent will only irritate them further. And an accent that might be tolerable in person can still be very difficult to understand on the telephone.
There is solution provider software for learning American Accent Online Self Tutor and its also assessses your performance contact 9841374238
Amanda, what I would suggest is, first, find out exactly which sounds or intonation patterns are causing your accent. There are books and net sources that discuss different accents. Maybe you can find one that discusses the kind you have. Also it would be helpful if some Americans who are familiar with language-learning would listen to you and point out the most noticeable aspects of your accent. (It may be hard for you to find somebody like that if you can't afford to pay a professional.)
One thing you can do on your own is keep track of which specific statements you are making when somebody asks you to repeat yourself. This may be hard to do when you're working, but maybe you can at least write down a word to remind you, and then try to recall what you said later. Somewhere in those statements will be something that's hard to understand for American listeners. Of course, bear in mind that occasionally it will be the content of what you say and not the accent that causes the problem. (Also sometimes the listener is just distracted, and it's not even your fault.) Anyway those statements are something that you need to examine.
I assume that you can find models on the net or elsewhere of American speakers. Once you know exactly which sounds or intonation patterns are causing most of your accent, then you just need lots of practice making those sounds on your own and also under the pressure of having to communicate (some persons speak too fast and don't enunciate clearly when they feel pressure -- that's another thing to consider). You seem motivated, and I'm sure that you can make some improvements. Good luck.
One thing you can do on your own is keep track of which specific statements you are making when somebody asks you to repeat yourself. This may be hard to do when you're working, but maybe you can at least write down a word to remind you, and then try to recall what you said later. Somewhere in those statements will be something that's hard to understand for American listeners. Of course, bear in mind that occasionally it will be the content of what you say and not the accent that causes the problem. (Also sometimes the listener is just distracted, and it's not even your fault.) Anyway those statements are something that you need to examine.
I assume that you can find models on the net or elsewhere of American speakers. Once you know exactly which sounds or intonation patterns are causing most of your accent, then you just need lots of practice making those sounds on your own and also under the pressure of having to communicate (some persons speak too fast and don't enunciate clearly when they feel pressure -- that's another thing to consider). You seem motivated, and I'm sure that you can make some improvements. Good luck.
American Accent
which one?
as you should know: there are MANY American accents.
Californian is nothing like that from Boston or New Jersey...
which one?
as you should know: there are MANY American accents.
Californian is nothing like that from Boston or New Jersey...
I think that accents which have the caught-cot merger are much nicer :)
Hot dog [hat dag] is great, hot dog [hat dog] does not make any sense.
Hot dog [hat dag] is great, hot dog [hat dog] does not make any sense.
I can't distinguish between cot and caught, but I'm pretty sure "hat dag" has NEVER come out of my mouth....
In cot-caught unmerged American English, "hot dog" would typically be [hAt dOg] or [hAt dQg]. I think somebody with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift would probably pronounce it as [hat dAg].
"Hot dog" is a good demonstration of the "lot-cloth" split, which is common in North America, but rare in Britain. It involves a class of words including "dog", "long", "off", "cloth", and "gone" moving from the "cot" vowel class up to the "caught" vowel class. Thus, while both General American and RP distinguish between "cot" and "caught", General American uses different vowels in "hot" and "dog", whereas RP uses the same vowel in "hot" and "dog".
Of course, I exhibit neither the lot-cloth split, nor even the cot-caught distinction on which it depends - I've just read about them. :-)
Kirk, have you heard of the lot-cloth split? Where both cot-caught merged, so it's a foreign concept to both of us. But it's an interesting point of difference between mainstream American and British speech.
"Hot dog" is a good demonstration of the "lot-cloth" split, which is common in North America, but rare in Britain. It involves a class of words including "dog", "long", "off", "cloth", and "gone" moving from the "cot" vowel class up to the "caught" vowel class. Thus, while both General American and RP distinguish between "cot" and "caught", General American uses different vowels in "hot" and "dog", whereas RP uses the same vowel in "hot" and "dog".
Of course, I exhibit neither the lot-cloth split, nor even the cot-caught distinction on which it depends - I've just read about them. :-)
Kirk, have you heard of the lot-cloth split? Where both cot-caught merged, so it's a foreign concept to both of us. But it's an interesting point of difference between mainstream American and British speech.
<<Where both cot-caught merged>>
It should be:
<<We're both cot-caught merged>>
It should be:
<<We're both cot-caught merged>>
<<"Hot dog" is a good demonstration of the "lot-cloth" split, which is common in North America, but rare in Britain. It involves a class of words including "dog", "long", "off", "cloth", and "gone" moving from the "cot" vowel class up to the "caught" vowel class. Thus, while both General American and RP distinguish between "cot" and "caught", General American uses different vowels in "hot" and "dog", whereas RP uses the same vowel in "hot" and "dog".
Of course, I exhibit neither the lot-cloth split, nor even the cot-caught distinction on which it depends - I've just read about them. :-)
Kirk, have you heard of the lot-cloth split? Where both cot-caught merged, so it's a foreign concept to both of us. But it's an interesting point of difference between mainstream American and British speech.>>
Yes, I've heard of it before, and actually I've read from several sources that it used to be common in an older form of RP. Apparently very conservative RP still has the "lot-cloth" split but it's not very common there nowadays. There it's perceived as stuffy and old-fashioned (even for RP) to preserve the "lot-cloth" split, while the historical "lot-cloth" split is still present in some American dialects.
I would say that even for "cot-caught" non-merged Americans, there are many who have merged "lot-cloth." It might be 50-50 or something. I can't really say because my perspective from my dialect region may skew things because I'm "cot-caught" and "lot-cloth" merged so those seem perfectly normal to me.
Like you said, we can just read about these things and trust that it's really true :) But, just like I had read long ago that somewhere a few Americans didn't have the "bother-father" merger and eventually learned you did, I guess I can trust my sources on the "lot-cloth" split as well ;)
One thing is for sure--the more I learn about dialects and dialectology the more I realize that what I assume (based on my speech) is universal for American English is actually not. There is a lot of variation in areas which I never would've guessed there would be.
Of course, I exhibit neither the lot-cloth split, nor even the cot-caught distinction on which it depends - I've just read about them. :-)
Kirk, have you heard of the lot-cloth split? Where both cot-caught merged, so it's a foreign concept to both of us. But it's an interesting point of difference between mainstream American and British speech.>>
Yes, I've heard of it before, and actually I've read from several sources that it used to be common in an older form of RP. Apparently very conservative RP still has the "lot-cloth" split but it's not very common there nowadays. There it's perceived as stuffy and old-fashioned (even for RP) to preserve the "lot-cloth" split, while the historical "lot-cloth" split is still present in some American dialects.
I would say that even for "cot-caught" non-merged Americans, there are many who have merged "lot-cloth." It might be 50-50 or something. I can't really say because my perspective from my dialect region may skew things because I'm "cot-caught" and "lot-cloth" merged so those seem perfectly normal to me.
Like you said, we can just read about these things and trust that it's really true :) But, just like I had read long ago that somewhere a few Americans didn't have the "bother-father" merger and eventually learned you did, I guess I can trust my sources on the "lot-cloth" split as well ;)
One thing is for sure--the more I learn about dialects and dialectology the more I realize that what I assume (based on my speech) is universal for American English is actually not. There is a lot of variation in areas which I never would've guessed there would be.
<<Apparently very conservative RP still has the "lot-cloth" split but it's not very common there nowadays. There it's perceived as stuffy and old-fashioned (even for RP) to preserve the "lot-cloth" split, while the historical "lot-cloth" split is still present in some American dialects.>>
Yeah, I've read similar things. It's one of those older RP features, like using [E] for [{], that has pretty much died out except in the most conservative speakers.
The lot-cloth split seems to have occurred before velar consonants (as in "dog" and "long"), before fricatives (as in "off" or "cloth") and in some otherwise inexplicable function words (as in "gone" and sometimes "on").
I should add, another good example of the lot-cloth split is the oft-parodied New York "kawphee" pronunciation (a la Mike Myers). :-)
<<I would say that even for "cot-caught" non-merged Americans, there are many who have merged "lot-cloth." It might be 50-50 or something. I can't really say because my perspective from my dialect region may skew things because I'm "cot-caught" and "lot-cloth" merged so those seem perfectly normal to me.>>
Yeah, sometimes I wish they could do a massive Gallup poll to determine what percentage of people make all the distinctions and mergers that I read about. :-)
<<One thing is for sure--the more I learn about dialects and dialectology the more I realize that what I assume (based on my speech) is universal for American English is actually not. There is a lot of variation in areas which I never would've guessed there would be.>>
That's definitely true. It seems that as children, we just assume that everybody makes all the same mergers and distinctions that we do. When I was young, I knew that I didn't drop my R's like urban Worcesterites and Bostonians, so I just assumed that I spoke General American. Later, of course, I found out that I actually speak in a distinctive dialect that differs from GA in significant ways.
Yeah, I've read similar things. It's one of those older RP features, like using [E] for [{], that has pretty much died out except in the most conservative speakers.
The lot-cloth split seems to have occurred before velar consonants (as in "dog" and "long"), before fricatives (as in "off" or "cloth") and in some otherwise inexplicable function words (as in "gone" and sometimes "on").
I should add, another good example of the lot-cloth split is the oft-parodied New York "kawphee" pronunciation (a la Mike Myers). :-)
<<I would say that even for "cot-caught" non-merged Americans, there are many who have merged "lot-cloth." It might be 50-50 or something. I can't really say because my perspective from my dialect region may skew things because I'm "cot-caught" and "lot-cloth" merged so those seem perfectly normal to me.>>
Yeah, sometimes I wish they could do a massive Gallup poll to determine what percentage of people make all the distinctions and mergers that I read about. :-)
<<One thing is for sure--the more I learn about dialects and dialectology the more I realize that what I assume (based on my speech) is universal for American English is actually not. There is a lot of variation in areas which I never would've guessed there would be.>>
That's definitely true. It seems that as children, we just assume that everybody makes all the same mergers and distinctions that we do. When I was young, I knew that I didn't drop my R's like urban Worcesterites and Bostonians, so I just assumed that I spoke General American. Later, of course, I found out that I actually speak in a distinctive dialect that differs from GA in significant ways.
<<I should add, another good example of the lot-cloth split is the oft-parodied New York "kawphee" pronunciation (a la Mike Myers). :-) >>
Cwawfee twawk! ;)
<<Yeah, sometimes I wish they could do a massive Gallup poll to determine what percentage of people make all the distinctions and mergers that I read about. :-)>>
Too bed self-reporting is so inaccurate in many cases!
<<That's definitely true. It seems that as children, we just assume that everybody makes all the same mergers and distinctions that we do. When I was young, I knew that I didn't drop my R's like urban Worcesterites and Bostonians, so I just assumed that I spoke General American. Later, of course, I found out that I actually speak in a distinctive dialect that differs from GA in significant ways.>>
Yeah, and as vague as GenAm can be, I've also realized there are some interesting and sometimes significant ways which I differ from GenAm as well.
Cwawfee twawk! ;)
<<Yeah, sometimes I wish they could do a massive Gallup poll to determine what percentage of people make all the distinctions and mergers that I read about. :-)>>
Too bed self-reporting is so inaccurate in many cases!
<<That's definitely true. It seems that as children, we just assume that everybody makes all the same mergers and distinctions that we do. When I was young, I knew that I didn't drop my R's like urban Worcesterites and Bostonians, so I just assumed that I spoke General American. Later, of course, I found out that I actually speak in a distinctive dialect that differs from GA in significant ways.>>
Yeah, and as vague as GenAm can be, I've also realized there are some interesting and sometimes significant ways which I differ from GenAm as well.
>>Yes, I've heard of it before, and actually I've read from several sources that it used to be common in an older form of RP. Apparently very conservative RP still has the "lot-cloth" split but it's not very common there nowadays. There it's perceived as stuffy and old-fashioned (even for RP) to preserve the "lot-cloth" split, while the historical "lot-cloth" split is still present in some American dialects.<<
At least here in Wisconsin, not only is the "cot"-"cought" merger unambiguously not present, but the "lot"-"cloth" split is also specifically present. Actually, I have never heard any North American English dialect which lacks the "lot"-"cloth" split and does not also have the "cot"-"caught" merger.
>><<One thing is for sure--the more I learn about dialects and dialectology the more I realize that what I assume (based on my speech) is universal for American English is actually not. There is a lot of variation in areas which I never would've guessed there would be.>>
That's definitely true. It seems that as children, we just assume that everybody makes all the same mergers and distinctions that we do. When I was young, I knew that I didn't drop my R's like urban Worcesterites and Bostonians, so I just assumed that I spoke General American. Later, of course, I found out that I actually speak in a distinctive dialect that differs from GA in significant ways.<<
I was pretty much just the same way, and had the underlying assumption that formal speech here was "standard", with no idea that even it, informal speech aside, had notable differences in some regards from that generally considered as "General American". Of course, I was also unaware of many of the differences between the informal speech here and that in much of the rest of the US, formal speech aside, even if many of these now seem significantly different from many of the other American NAE dialects.
At least here in Wisconsin, not only is the "cot"-"cought" merger unambiguously not present, but the "lot"-"cloth" split is also specifically present. Actually, I have never heard any North American English dialect which lacks the "lot"-"cloth" split and does not also have the "cot"-"caught" merger.
>><<One thing is for sure--the more I learn about dialects and dialectology the more I realize that what I assume (based on my speech) is universal for American English is actually not. There is a lot of variation in areas which I never would've guessed there would be.>>
That's definitely true. It seems that as children, we just assume that everybody makes all the same mergers and distinctions that we do. When I was young, I knew that I didn't drop my R's like urban Worcesterites and Bostonians, so I just assumed that I spoke General American. Later, of course, I found out that I actually speak in a distinctive dialect that differs from GA in significant ways.<<
I was pretty much just the same way, and had the underlying assumption that formal speech here was "standard", with no idea that even it, informal speech aside, had notable differences in some regards from that generally considered as "General American". Of course, I was also unaware of many of the differences between the informal speech here and that in much of the rest of the US, formal speech aside, even if many of these now seem significantly different from many of the other American NAE dialects.
<<Actually, I have never heard any North American English dialect which lacks the "lot"-"cloth" split and does not also have the "cot"-"caught" merger.>>
The same goes for me. From what I've read, I get the impression that among cot-caught unmerged Americans, the lot-cloth split is near-universal.
The same goes for me. From what I've read, I get the impression that among cot-caught unmerged Americans, the lot-cloth split is near-universal.