Talk:Accent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bilinguals

It may be a little early to ask this, since this article still needs a lot of improvement; but I was wondering if anyone has any information about how people who are "natively bilingual" (i.e., speak two languages with full fluency, with no "foreign accent" on either one, especially when they learned both at about the same time, i.e., when growing up in a bilingual environment) carry their accents when speaking other languages. For example, I heard about a Belgian person who would have a "French accent" when speaking certain languages and a "Dutch accent" when speaking others -- I suspect it was Romance languages in the first case and German in the second, which would kind of seem like natural due to the genetic relationship between those languages, but I wonder what kind of accent that person would have when speaking, say, Mandarin, or Arabic. Thanks in advance. --Cotoco 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My Aunt has lived in France for longer than her home country, Ireland. However, people mistake her for French when she is speaking in French, and she has kept her Irish accent in English. I'd say foreign accents depend on the nationality of the person who teaches you.

One of my parents is Anglophone, one is Francophone. I've always spoken both languages and speak with the relevant regional accent in both. There is no "bleeding" of pronunciation between languages, although vocabulary will sometimes surface between the two. Hope this helps with our question.

The complexity of accents among bilinguals

--> ??: My background (English/French-speaking parents) is the same as yours, but I do not quite agree with giving a universal character to your conclusion (although I agree with you with regard to lexical interference, which gets even more damning the more languages one acquires in life). What/who "teaches you" can not only be a person, but a human environment as well as the choices that you make in life.

My French accents have numbered three different ones: that of the area where I was born and where I went to primary school; that acquired in the area my parents moved to when I was 13; and finally the accent which - for what one might call sociological reasons - I voluntarily cultivated when I became an adult, finalizing the process when I left the area of my youth at age 27. The latter (mainstream French) is still the accent I speak French with, and while I still am able to speak with the accent of my teenage years, I have to force myself in order to do so (almost, albeit with more ease, as when trying to imitate another, totally different accent like, say, a European French speaker imitating Québecois). As for the accent of my childhood, I have only a very vague recollection of what it sounds like (and it doesn't help that it has all but disappeared from the area, thanks, as I understand it, to the influence of mainstream TV).

With regard to English accent(s), without getting into lengthy details, things are even more confusing (to a linguist, that is, I'm fine, thank you), to the point that while native English speakers will always recognize me as a native speaker too, they have difficulty recognizing any all-encompassing pattern that might be attributed to a particular accent. They usually tend to attribute it, by the unconscious elimination of familiar patterns, to some other part of the world than those they think they know and, for that matter, where I've spent any amount of time (even South Africa or New Zealand, where I've never been) · Michel 11:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

--> Cotoco: speakers in Belgium can be divided, roughly, into two categories: those whose background is a Romance speech (concretely, Walloon in its four major varieties, or Picardic, in a limited geographical area of Belgium); and those who originate in and around Brussels. In the latter case, their French, both lexically and phonetically, is strikingly under the influence of the surrounding Flemish-speaking area (I'm not talking here of those speakers such as radio hosts, public servants etc. who for let's call them for now prestige reasons consciously attempt to speak with a French = from France - accent). Moreover, very few native French speakers in Belgium speak Netherlandish (or Flemish), whereas the vast majority of native Flemish speakers have some degree or other of familiarity with spoken French.

For true bilingualism among a specific culture, where the phenomena you describe might examined more attentively, I would rather take a look at those populations of primarily lumberjackers who live in the northern part of the Canadian provinces east of Québec (Montréal resembles rather Brussels, in these terms). You'll often meet perfect bilingualism there - if there is such a thing, but that's another story worth more comments - accompanied by extensive code shifting.

· Michel 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope you like the revamp

If you dont like images replace them but dont remove them, i want the article to be nice. bye bye--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific reasons?

Are there specific reasons in the environment that cause people in certain locations to sound the way they do (as it has happened in the long term with skin pigment) or is it a strictly sociological construct? WHY do Los Angelenos sound different from New Yorkers, and Philadelphians, and Bostonians? Valley2city 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

--> Valley2city: I hope you're not trying to say that skin pigment is a consequence of people living in certain locations? · Michel 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Picking up

When moving from one part of the world to another is it possible to pick up an accent? Why does this happen? Do people subliminally try to mimic the local tongue and end up having the accent themselves? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnny b1212 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, but it depends on age. After about the age of 12, you're stuck with your first accent forever. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 ^Refill/lol 00:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends. As noted above, after about 12 you won't naturally take on the local accent. But it's possible for almost anyone with an ear and some time to practice to "take on" an accent with varying degrees of success - as seen in the "Accents and Acting" section. Almost certainly harder if you're trying to mimic an accent in a non-native language. -- Lonelywurm 13:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. See my comments based on personal experience, under 1.1 above · Michel 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Very difficult to get info

Sorry about the no ref but it is very difficult to get ref on this topic.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay it looks good, come and eat

Can i get some feedback, please before you start saying bad things, do a quick look at what it looked like before i took on this little project.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Potato and Tomato

These two words potato and tomato are classic examples of how stress produces different sounding words which are both correct. The stress Americans place on O called a "hard O" distinguishes it from the British version. Although not a direct feature of accents the stress or way the words are "sung" are a feature of accents.

the stress or way the words are "sung" are a feature of accents: very much so! Unfortunately, this aspect is too often ignored or underestimated, probably because it requires the untraditional cooperation of the analytical mind of the linguist and the trained ear of the musicologist, a rare combination indeed · Michel 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

the above i am not sure about but i think it can be expanded.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Potato and tomato? I'm not sure what difference you are referring to here. Tomato is pronounced very differently in British and American English, but it is the 'a' that is the difference ('ah' in Britain and 'ay' in America). Both British and American speakers use 'ay' in potato. The only difference I am aware of in that word is the second 't' which becomes a 'd' sound usually in America. The 'o's aren't that different are they? Mralph72 11:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are. The standard British English 'o' in these examples is slightly diphtonguized, sounding like varieties of 'o ^w'. Not the case of Scottish or Irish, though. · Michel 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct well these two words show the different accents and that is why it is being discussed here, the emphasis or stress, so i think this is a good example of accents.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OR tag

This article already has a check by expert tag, we cant keep adding tags to the entire section, the entire socilinguistic section on wikipedia would need this tag, if it doesnt cite refernces that is one thing, but how is it or research? please discuss before cutting information from this article if and when u see fit.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

considering there is no scientific study of accents it is all perception. the acting section comes from the film cites so be balanced and stop for the sake of it making an issue by putting or everysingle place this is unconstructive edits, --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

without a discussion please stop adding OR tags unless u r an expert in this field who can offer some serious contributions. The entire sociling section by this threshold can be called OR as none of it has any sort of references. the two tags are enought, haphazard tagging is not constructive.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can identify OR, not just experts - simply read WP:NOR. The article is incredibly poor as it stands right now and requires extensive cleanup. OR is just one of its problems. I placed the OR tag at the top of the page and then you removed it which is why I readded it along with inline OR tags so that you could see the substantial portions of text to which I was referring. It's unsurprising that once you noticed that you decided to leave the main OR tag at the top of the page which is what I had done to begin with. --Strothra 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

incredibly poor is a POV, contribute to making it better that is what wiki is about. my main issue is by this same standard that you have applied anyone could chuck OR tags on the entire soc ling section, some sections of this site need more tolerance than others because try researching this topic and see, not everything can fit into the strict, ----

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section. espe accents where it is pure perception.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

POV is permitted on an article talk page. Further, there is a great deal of sociolinguistic research concerning accents. That research is what should be the focus of the article, not broad generalizations of perceptions substantiated with the editor's own examples. That is origional research. Rather, that can be avoided by focusing on what has been written by experts - hence why this is an encyclopedia, not "Halaqah's opinions about the world supported by his/her observations." --Strothra 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

then do the good thing and point us in the right direction, there has been a call for sources since i started here no one has helped. this is the problem, i can go to any where and give a POV, but the better thing would be to point people to the correct place if one knows of these places.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

removing OR tag as many refernces have been given for sources, also it might be better to add OR tags to problem areas to help improvement.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing the ridiculous

"America is a melting pot for accents and cultures from around the world" is a classic American sentiment on Americanism and has nothing to do with this article. The same is true of scores of existing countries and hundreds of historical ones. Furthermore the picture has absolutely nothing to do with accents. The comment that "lot's of people think Jamaican accents are cool", is an absolutely subjective, irrelevant, and downright stupid comment. I've removed these, please do not revert them without commenting. Grendel's Mother 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove work because of your bias, the proper thing to do is discuss first and then make major changes. I could say the whole thing is silly and chop it all. America is the new world, like london it is a melting point for accents, i think that is valid. subjective is valid with accents. There is no secret that Jamaican accents and french accents have associations. British accents to AMericans may be Posh. It is all valid in how accents are perceived globally. I think in a debate about accents it is valid. And i think the comments like "stupid" are violating civil conduct.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Halaqah's concern about process for bulk deletions, but I have to say that I also agree with Grendel's Mother on the content dispute. This article is a mess, unrefrence, unencyclopedic, and could probably use a thorough pruning. The problem is, comments on talk pages that things should be deleted often go unanswered unless the article is updated also. I vote delete --Selket 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it strange that i dont see anyone making any contributions. I am trying to expand it from the rubbish bin it was. Please look at the article and see how many refernce were added in the last week alone. I dont say many people saying anything on the talk page. to chop something about accents because it is subjective isnt valid. Accents by there very nature are subjective, people dont have accents until they meet someone with a different accent. So how can you delete subjective content?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I work on many more articles and this one has far more refernces than most, especially in the ling dept. so join improving not chopping--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My complaint wasn't that content isn't cited; my complaint was that content was unencyclpedic. You may be able to find a source for the statement "Chinese people like oranges," but that does not mean it should go in Oranges. "Many people think Jamaican accents are cool," is just such a statement. -Selket 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S., but you are to be commended for your work on the article. You have been putting in a lot of effort, and I think we all recognize that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Selket (talk • contribs) 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

i am happy u guys see that, i even designed that little soco ling side bar. cute eh? Do you realize that the main article socioling doesnt have one single refernce?????? So that is why i get itchy because how can you be strick here and no one says anything about that needing an expert etc? or how about some sources?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is of pretty poor quality, it reads like a high school essay. Dan Carkner 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's quite a bit of room for (more) improvement. The tone, style, and content are not encyclopedic enough. To call the Jamaican accent "unique" is meaningless. Chinese, Norwegian, Kenyan, and <insert accent here> accents are all unique. Not only does the statement add no value, but having the photograph is distracting, and unnecessarily adds to the size of the page. The photo of the Hollywood sign and the steelworker are entirely superfluous. I certainly vote for deleting the photos; they don't make it "nice," they make it distracting and amateurish. I'll come back when I have more time to discuss some improvements to the text. Petershank 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grendel's Mother that this statement and the picture which it accompanies must go: "America is a melting pot for accents and cultures from around the world." America is not a melting pot. We have strict and well defined communities. Consider Little China, Little Italy, and many more. 74.226.143.139 15:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt

Accents are not fixed; they change over time. Usually this happens naturally, and often unconsciously. Accents can be expected to change until we are in our early twenties

And even much later · Michel 15:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm doubting this statement. I have a school counselor who moved from Vietnam to Los Angeles at twelve, and he still has a heavy Vietnamese accent while speaking English. I also know a Vietnamese real estate woman who moved to Los Angeles from Vietnam at fourteen, she has a heavy Vietnamese accent while speaking English too. Plus my neighbor moved from Burma to Ohio at ten and he still has a heavy Burmese accent, you notice it when he speaks English. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 ^Refill/lol 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your examples only prove that certain individuals retain their accents, for example due to personal abilities (for the same reason that not everyone is "born with" a musical ear), or because, as might well be the case for the individuals you describe, their active social life is revolving around other members of their communities of origin (as happens in the case of countless emigrant communities around the world, not least in the Chinatowns of North America). Or some altogether different explanation. See my comments under 1.1 above. What it boils down to, when dealing with losing/acquiring accents or, generally speaking, the ability to acquire languages, is that you must always keep in mind that while generalisations are useful as tools, their use will always be reduced by the presence of countless individual exceptions. An anthropologist might be well served by the notion that German culture is a culture of orderliness, but countless Germans will demonstrate to him/her that they can be quite disordely indeed! · Michel 15:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

International encyclopedia?

History

"As human beings spread out into isolated communities, stresses and peculiarities develop. Over time these can develop into identifiable accents. In America, the interaction of people from many ethnic backgrounds contributed to the formation of the American accent. It is difficult to measure or predict how long it takes an accent to formulate. Accents in both America and Australia are derived from the British parent accent, yet the American accent remains more distant, either as a result of time or of external or "foreign" linguistic interaction, such as the Italian accent.[1] It could also be argued that the American accent is more fairly consistent with the manner in which English was pronounced by people from Britain - most especially people from Western parts of England - during the 1600s and early 1700s which presumably may not yet have been fully non-rhotic. Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (particularly among whites of British settler descent) are more fairly recent transplants to their destinations so their accents are more-or-less in sync with the way English is spoken in Britain.

In many cases, the accents of non-English settlers from Britain affected the accents of the different colonies quite differently. Scottish and Irish immigrants had accents which greatly affected the vowel pronunciations of certain areas in Australia and Canada.[1]"

God, this is not USApedia, is this the point of view people want to have in the "history of accents in the world"-section? 194.144.5.171 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (User Introgressive, who can't sign in)