Talk:Accent (sociolinguistics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Theoretical Linguistics  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
 


Unreliable sources?[edit]

I have removed a link to IMDB as an unreliable source, since IMDB consists of user-generated content. I have also tagged About.com and Jamaicans.com as sources requiring verification. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16, About.com appears to be somewhat unreliable, though Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40 suggests that some articles there may be reliable.

Jamaicans.com appears to solicit content from users; it is not clear from the site how they review that content. The specific piece cited here is an opinion piece on Jamaican accents in movies credited to "Christine" no last name. It therefore looks to be unreliable. Cnilep (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Acting and accents[edit]

"For example, in Disney films from the 1990s onward, English accents are generally employed to serve one of two purposes: slapstick comedy or evil genius"

What does this mean? Is it about the British English accents, or diverse American English accents (which ones?) or something else? Is anybody supposed to speak with NO accent???

I found the answer. I have changed the wording. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic articles, and should be written in an unambiguous way. --Jidu Boite (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly see your point, but "British accents" is really no better, is it? I assume that "English accents" meant something like "those accents spoken in and associated with England". This is problematic for two reasons, since the intended accents probably don't include all varieties spoken in England (such as those associated with some British Asians or some regional varieties such as Scouse), and since the phrase is ambiguous and could be taken to mean "all accents of the English language". On the other hand, British accents could be taken to mean all accents spoken in and associated with Great Britain. Cnilep (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added an internal link to British English. Perhaps this makes things clearer? Or perhaps, given the problematic nature of the sources as well as the content, the whole section should be removed or re-written? Cnilep (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Long time I ago I worked on this article i think we decided back then that the section gave help in understanding the topic. It is very hard to use written words to describe accents... Actually how can I write about what an American accent sounds like. And teh relationship between UK and Auzzie land? I suggest we bring it back and fix it up. I have always believed it is better to have info *and fix it* - than throw it out. I would suggest we request comments take all other steps to have a proper discussion on improvement. Because I vote for its inclusion and see merit in its inclusion in the article. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) The information was not actually thrown out. It is still treated at the page Acting and accents, to which there is a link in the See also section. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just compared the two side by side. The page Acting and accents contains everything that the section "Acting and accents" does except for an internal link to Alexander (film) and in-line tags on two unreliable sources. There is also a small amount of additional information (about two sentences) on that page. Cnilep (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The question now is does it merit a 2nd article isolated and somewhat orphaned. We should decide what to do, stub it here with a link, expand it here with full refs-And delete that article. I favor deleting that page. I have always found too many separate pages usually mean articles get less visitors, less edits and hence are usually of very low quality.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

São Paulo dialect and prestige accents[edit]

The section "Prestige" refers to Received Pronunciation as a prestigious accent of English. User:Lguipontes recently expanded the section with reference to Southeastern Brazilian accents of Brazilian Portuguese. I think it is proper to expand the article with a more worldwide view, but the edits somewhat confusingly refer to "the more cultivated paulistano (Greater São Paulo dialect) and carioca (Greater Rio de Janeiro accent)". That is, the prose mixes reference to dialect and to accent.

The source cited appears to treat dialects, particularly lexical and sociocultural differences, rather than accents as such. In relevant part: "Os dialetos existem em enorme quantidade em nosso país, e não estou falando de sotaques" [There exist an enormous quantity of dialects in our country, and I am not talking about accents.] (emphasis added). The blog post goes on to mention lexical difference and to discuss cultural norms in education; there does not appear to be any discussion of accent in the body of the post, thought it is mentioned in the comments.

After I reverted one edit, Lguipontes re-added substantially the same content, but helpfully added the source I refer to above. Rather than engage in an edit war, I have asked Lguipontes to comment here, and would appreciate if other editors could help re-write the section in question, preferably with additional sources that are more on-point. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That is ok, I comprehend you. Actually, I never engage(d) in edit wars because if I can not prove my point, I tend to agree with the other editor at least for a moment. And this issue of my edits being truthful but generally absent of verifiability (I try to put it always where I find important, sometimes I fail) is constant so I think there is no need for major concern. Right now, I'm quite occupated for personal reasons so I can not resume my point in a just few phrases, I will actually be pretty wordy, but I promise you I'll write something useful the sooner I can. Lguipontes (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Immigrants: children's accent as opposed to parents'[edit]

I have tried to introduce a small part reflecting that the non-native features of children born to immigrants is down to hyper-pronunciation - typically affected when striving not to emulate the parents who they know to lack fluency. However, speaking as one who was born to non-English speaking parents, this does not apply to me nor to those in similar situations. My first language was my parents' language and this I continue to speak with all members of our community, suffice it to say that I don't use English when talking to persons with knowledge of a South Slavic language. The downside was that I struggled with English when starting school but by the age of around 8, all traces of the foreign features had gone - no hyper-pronunciation - and I continue to be fluent in the native tongues. Where it was the case that children spoke in English with their parents who spoke Mandarin, Italian, etc. it remains clear that they were born to non-English speakers. Sadly, many of them also lack the fluency in their parents' tongue for precisely that reason in that they didn't practise it as much as they could have done. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved[edit]

I've moved the article partially because there are other linguistic uses of the word 'accent', but also because the interwikis are all mixed up. The articles were about stress, syllable prominence, regional accent, and foreign-language acquisition accents. I'm now going through the other WPs and reducing their iw's to WP-en stress, accent (phonetics), or accent (dialect). Bots will later fill in the rest.

There is still some mix up: some of the iw's are specifically about L2 accents, and some about regional accents. If we want to split the article, that would be fine with me.

I have no particular attachment to the dab I chose for this article, and if any of you have a better idea, I'm not planning on defending it. — kwami (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The article used to be at Accent (sociolinguistics), which I think made perfect sense. In 2010 it was moved to Accent (linguistics), which is problematic since there are at least two very different uses of the word in the broader field. I have no objection to this page being at either (dialect) or (sociolinguistics). Cnilep (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that move. I'm not happy with my choice, but I'm not sure sociolinguistics is correct either. We wouldn't say the difference between French and English is a matter of sociolinguistics, and regional accents are effectively sub-sub-dialects. 'Regional accent' is problematic because there are more differences than regional ones. My dab ignores L1 effects. "Accent" covers both subdialectical (regional) and sociolinguistic accents, as well as traces of L1 in L2. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I think one potential problem with the current dab is that linguists make an important parsing between an accent and a dialect, so it's kind of like having an article titled alligator (crocodile). (sociolinguistics) seems like the best alternative. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A regional accent is basically a sub-sub-dialect, which is why I chose that dab, and has nothing to do with sociolinguistics – at least, not any more than 'dialect' and 'language' do. But there are sociolinguistic accents too. And there there are L2 accents, which have to do with language acquisition. I can't think of any dab that would cover all three senses. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Point of order – regional dialects and accents certainly are a part of sociolinguistics. See, for example, Hudson 1996, Coulmas 2005, or Milroy & Gordon 2008, the first three sociolinguistics textbooks that Google Books suggests, all of which treat regional dialects within the first couple of chapters. Some sociolinguists also deal with foreign accent, and language contact more generally is considered part of the subfield. These issues are not only related to sociolinguistics, depending on how one divides up the disciplinary pie, but they certain are within the wheel house. Cnilep (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
In more colloquial usage, an accent is basically a sub-sub-dialect, but the technical linguistic jargon uses the terms more precisely. I thought maybe (dialectology) would be a good dab, though our article dialectology says that the field is a subset of sociolinguistics. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not all about dialectology. Per Cnilep, perhaps 'sociolinguistics' is best after all. I wouldn't object to moving it. — kwami (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the best option I think. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 04:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Too bad I didn't just move it there. Put in a request to delete the rd so I (or you) can. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)