# General American / American Pronunciation



## Outsider

The Ask A Linguist Website has this essay about accents in general, and the standard American English accent in particular, which it calls "General American". 
Can anyone point me to a history of this accent, how it developed and when? I'm particularly interested in how it came to be picked for the national newscasters accent.
The more factual sources it references, the better.

Thank you.


----------



## cuchuflete

Greetings Outsider,

I found a nice introduction to the topic here: http://www.answers.com/topic/standard-midwestern

The difficulty I find with this entire topic is the use of the term "midwestern".  The U.S. midwest includes many states with strong, easily identifiable accents.  I can
detect someone from Wisconsin or Minnesota with little trouble.  Such people sound nothing like most natives of Chicago. Strong, identifiable accents are, for my ears at least, also present in Indiana and North Dakota. Here is a map of the midwest:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/statesbw/midwest/midwest.shtml.
I was born in the confines of this huge region.  I have lived on the East Coast for much of my adult life. The distinctions between normal spoken English in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and Columbus, Ohio are as great as those between Baltimore and Boston.

I look forward to hearing from others with ideas about this topic.

Saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Outsider

Thank you very much. However, I have some doubts:

1) Answers.com seems to define "General American" not as an accent, but as a sort of "meta-accent", containing what is common to all American accents, but without being very specific.

2) It says:

_The General American accent or dialect *is not thought of as a standard language* in the sense that Received Pronunciation (RP) is standard in England, but its speakers are perceived as "accentless" by most Americans._

Well, what's the difference?

3) It says General American was derived from a generalized Midwestern accent, because national broadcasters preferred to hire people who spoke that way--but why did they prefer people who spoke that way? Was there some objective set of criteria that they used to make the selection, or was it just a social/subjective preference?

These were the kinds of questions that I was interested in answering, more specifically. I'd be grateful to anyone who could point me to sources that answered them.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello Outsider,
I didn't mean to hijack your thread or topic.  I cannot give you academic references, but I do recall reading an article, some years ago, that described the preference of TV network executives for announcers with a "neutral" accent.  It seems that they were interested in attracting the largest possible audience, and that an identifiable southern drawl or northeastern city accent was thought to carry a risk of sounding 'foreign' to
people in the Mid-west and West.  The motive was thus purely commercial.

Saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to hijack your thread or topic.


I didn't think you had. The links you posted helped me to come up with more specific questions. 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I cannot give you academic references, but I do recall reading an article, some years ago, that described the preference of TV network executives for announcers with a "neutral" accent.  It seems that they were interested in attracting the largest possible audience, and that an identifiable southern drawl or northeastern city accent was thought to carry a risk of sounding 'foreign' to
> people in the Mid-west and West.  The motive was thus purely commercial.


But why should the Midwestern accent (or something similar to it) be the one that sounds neutral? 
Linguists usually say that there's no such thing as a neutral accent. The Ask A Linguist essay I posted above says so. My interpretation of that statement has been that "non-accentedness" is just a matter of perception...


----------



## cuchuflete

> But why should the Midwestern accent (or something similar to it) be the one that sounds neutral?
> Linguists usually say that there's no such thing as a neutral accent. The Ask A Linguist essay I posted above says so. My interpretation of that statement has been that "non-accentedness" is just a matter of perception...



It is just a matter of perception. I think that the broadcast industry was trying, not to promote any accent, rather to avoid the most obvious accents.

While linguists may be correct in saying that there's no such thing as a neutral accent, some accents are very strong and easily associated with a place.  Mid-western accents...yes there are a great many of them...are difficult for many Americans to associate with a particular city or state.
A New Orleans or New York City accent is easily noted.  I believe the TV industry was seeking a form of speech that would not be associated with any one particular place.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> While linguists may be correct in saying that there's no such thing as a neutral accent, some accents are very strong and easily associated with a place.  Mid-western accents...yes there are a great many of them...are difficult for many Americans to associate with a particular city or state.
> A New Orleans or New York City accent is easily noted.  I believe the TV industry was seeking a form of speech that would not be associated with any one particular place.


What are the factors that make an accent stand out and another accent not stand out?


----------



## zebedee

Outsider said:
			
		

> What are the factors that make an accent stand out and another accent not stand out?



I guess an accent stands out when it's a different to the majority or when it's different from what you yourself are accustomed to hearing.

There was a good discussion a few months ago amongst the foreros about whether each person considered they had an accent. You'd be surprised how many people said they didn't have an accent but, of course, that all depends on where they are situated on the planet at the moment of speaking and who's listening to them.

zeb


----------



## Outsider

zebedee said:
			
		

> I guess an accent stands out when it's a different to the majority [...]


That assumes there _is_ a common accent spoken by the majority...



			
				zebedee said:
			
		

> [...] or when it's different from what you yourself are accustomed to hearing.


But then shouldn't every person pick the accent of their own region?



			
				zebedee said:
			
		

> There was a good discussion a few months ago amongst the foreros about whether each person considered they had an accent.


There are a few at the bottom of this page. I will read them. 



			
				zebedee said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised how many people said they didn't have an accent but, of course, that all depends on where they are situated on the planet at the moment of speaking and who's listening to them.


Most people only notice accents in others--which possibly contributes to the idea that there's a unique way of speaking "without any accent".


----------



## zebedee

Outsider said:
			
		

> That assumes there _is_ a common accent spoken by the majority...
> 
> 
> But then shouldn't every person pick the accent of their own region?
> 
> 
> There are a few at the bottom of this page. I will read them.
> 
> 
> Most people only notice accents in others--which possibly contributes to the idea that there's a unique way of speaking "without any accent".



But surely that unique way of speaking "without any accent" is in itself an accent? In Britain, for example, the "accentless" English which used to be popular on the BBC - also called Received Pronunciation or RP - is also considered by many to be "a posh accent". So there you are, it's all relative depending on who's listening and interpreting the accent. What's accentless for some is an accent for others.


----------



## Outsider

zebedee said:
			
		

> But surely that unique way of speaking "without any accent" is in itself an accent? In Britain, for example, the "accentless" English which used to be popular on the BBC - also called Received Pronunciation or RP - is also considered by many to be "a posh accent". So there you are, it's all relative depending on who's listening and interpreting the accent. What's accentless for some is an accent for others.


But Americans, apparently, don't see their standard accent as different from how most of them normally speak...

P.S. I probably should stop asking so many questions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> But Americans, apparently, don't see their standard accent as different from how most of them normally speak...
> 
> P.S. I probably should stop asking so many questions.



Outsider,

The questions are thought provoking and wonderful.

Which Americans were you referring to when you wrote this?  The ones I know do not think that there is such a thing as a standard American accent.
We accept the obvious: there are many regional variations, and no one of them is 'correct' or 'standard'.

Cuchu


----------



## Outsider

I was referring to what Answers.com and Ask A Linguist say about how network American English came about and is perceived by Americans, on one hand, and what zebedee wrote about British RP English. 

If I understand them correctly, when the average British person hears someone speaking with RP, their reaction is 'That's proper English, although I don't speak that way'.

Whereas when an American hears General American, his or her reaction is 'Yes, that's how most of us speak'.

Is this accurate?


----------



## Outsider

Outsider said:
			
		

> Answers.com seems to define "General American" not as an accent, but as a sort of "meta-accent", containing what is common to all American accents, but without being very specific.


The following sites agree, in part!



> The notion of General American is misleading, and it is not used by researchers in North America who study North American dialects.  There is no dialect that constitutes General American; rather, there are many varieties that are accepted as sounding educated and appropriate in any setting.  Speakers from New York City, from Philadelphia, from Chicago, from Charlotte, North Carolina, from Salt Lake City, and from Toronto (to name only a few cities representative of different dialect regions) have profound differences in their phonological systems.  However, native North American listeners are generally deaf to most of these differences.
> 
> http://elex.amu.edu.pl/ifa/plm/2003/abs_ash.htm





> […] it appears that the Western dialects were formed primarily from a Midland base, since both groups are similarly conservative in their phonology--in fact it was certainly Midland and Western dialects which were so often lumped together under the catch-all phrase "General American".
> 
> http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.html





> General Northern (green, yellow, and blue)
> 
> This is sometimes also refered to as General American and is used in almost two-thirds of the country. It breaks down into the dialect regions below.
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1906/dialects.html


This does answer my doubts nrs. 1 and 2.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> I was referring to what Answers.com and Ask A Linguist say about how network American English came about and is perceived by Americans, on one hand, and what zebedee wrote about British RP English.
> 
> If I understand them correctly, when the average British person hears someone speaking with RP, their reaction is 'That's proper English, although I don't speak that way'.
> 
> Whereas when an American hears General American, his or her reaction is 'Yes, that's how most of us speak'.
> 
> Is this accurate?


It's close, but something like 30% to 40% of Americans do not speak General 
American, so it is not a good parallel to RP.  

C.


----------



## Outsider

So, General American is not really an accent, but a family of accents, which are spoken by the majority of the country's population. Clever!
But, when you have to write phonetic pronunciations in a dictionary, which variety do you choose?


----------



## Benjy

about rp. when i hear someone speak with a cut glass best queen,s english accent it doesn't make me think that he/she speaks properly and that my slight black country accent is somehow inferior, it actually makes me think that the person in question is a posh git who had elecution lessons and deserves a slap for being so pretentious


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> So, General American is not really an accent, but a family of accents, which are spoken by the majority of the country's population. Clever!
> But, when you have to write phonetic pronunciations in a dictionary, which variety do you choose?



Greetings Outsider,

Your first statement is absolutely correct. Someone noticed that if you include a large enough geography and slap a meaningless label on the combination of all the speech patterns within it, you can accurately say, "Most people speak this way." It's convenient, but hardly enlightening or insightful. That is why, as you have pointed out previously, linguists do not use the term 'General American'. 

I don't write phonetic pronunciations, so I suppose you will have to find a serious linguist or lexocographer to answer your question.

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## Outsider

Hello again, Cuchuflete. 

Is it really a meaningless label, though? If native speakers can't tell the accents from that group apart, then maybe that's because they're closer to each other than other accents, in some linguistic sense...


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> Hello again, Cuchuflete.
> 
> Is it really a meaningless label, though? If native speakers can't tell the accents from that group apart, then maybe that's because they're closer to each other than other accents, in some linguistic sense...



Greetings Outsider,

Let me rephrase it.  _For me, _the label is meaningless.  I am not a linguist.
I have never studied regional pronunciation patterns.  Yet I can, with no effort at all, detect major differences among speakers from the region.  People from Milwaukee do not sound like those from Chicago, which is only about an hour away by car.  Neither group sounds like they are from Omaha.  And Nebraskans hear someone from Minneapolis and know instantly that the person is from far away.  

To group all of those sub-regional varieties together under a single label is, to my ear, misleading.  It would be like telling me that Paulistas share an accent with Cariocas.  This may suit someone in the broadcast industry, but it will not fool the average person on the street.  

Saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## JLanguage

The analogy to BRP is not correct. 'General American', as I perceive it, is not a "standard dialect", but rather the lack of any strong particular accent to most American ears. I cannot speak for others, but despite having lived in Georgia for most of my life (Born in upstate NY), I have only small traces of a southern accent, and still hear southern accents as deviating from the norm. 

I live in a suburban area where southern accents are not all that uncommon, but are not the norm. Yet I have a friend from from Baltimore that has a very distinctive northeastern US accent and it is very clear in all of his speech.

There is no 'standard' American accent, rather a neutral accent, which is not pleasant or unpleasant to my ears, just what I perceive as unaccented English. Anything that is not what I perceive as neutral American English is harder for me to understand, varying in degree, from barely noticeable to so strongly accented as to be nearly intelligible.

I myself do not find any of the regional American accents pleasant, but do enjoy the 'Ebonics' accent (AAE/AAVE) spoken by many black people in the US, especially in urban areas. 

As an American, the English accents I find most pleasant are BRP and Jamaican. I find the NYC/New Jersey very abrasive, while Minnesotan and Maryland/Rhode Island are really very humorous.

Also, the Australian accents are not so much pleasant as they are really cool, and South African English is intriguing. Canadian is difficult to judge as I have only been to Canada a few times and know few Canadians.

In my opinion, one of the most annoying accents known to man is the valley girl accents. It is really fast and littered with 'likes; and 'Oh my God.' Listening to it, is like reading English as one giant run-on sentence with little-to-no punctuation.

As for distinctive features, they vary greatly and I suggest you go here:
http://www.ku.edu/~idea/ to listen to them for yourselves. They have examples of many North American/UK accents, as well as examples from many other countries around the world. Here are some Wikipedia articles for various information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_the_English_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_accents_of_English_speakers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-native_pronunciations_of_English

I assume many other languages have different accents. Probably not as many as English though, because the widespread diffusion of the English language is unparalleled by most other languages.

I would think though, that Spanish especially has many accents since it is spoken in so many different countries, but also French, German and Italian and Portuguese also must have many accents.

That's my long opinion, 
- Jonathan.


----------



## Outsider

JLanguage said:
			
		

> The analogy to BRP is not correct. 'General American', as I perceive it, is not a "standard dialect", but rather the lack of any strong particular accent to most American ears. I cannot speak for others, but despite having lived in Georgia for most of my life (Born in upstate NY), I have only small traces of a southern accent, and still hear southern accents as deviating from the norm.
> 
> I live in a suburban area where southern accents are not all that uncommon, but are not the norm. Yet I have a friend from from Baltimore that has a very distinctive northeastern US accent and it is very clear in all of his speech.
> 
> There is no 'standard' American accent, rather a neutral accent, which is not pleasant or unpleasant to my ears, just what I perceive as unaccented English. Anything that is not what I perceive as neutral American English is harder for me to understand, varying in degree, from barely noticeable to so strongly accented as to be nearly intelligible.


The problem I see with that kind of description is that, very often, person A will perceive his own accent as "neutral, unaccented", person B will also perceive her own accent as "neutral, unaccented", but each of them will say the other has a "non-neutral" accent!



			
				JLanguage said:
			
		

> I assume many other languages have different accents.  Probably not as many as English though, because of the widespread diffusion of the English language is unparalleled by most other languages.
> 
> I would think though, that Spanish especially has many accents since it is spoken in so many different countries, but also French, German and Italian and Portuguese also must have many accents.


I can vouch for that in what regards Portuguese. And, contrary to what seems to be your idea, there is no simple correlation between geographic area covered by a language and number of different accents. This may be in part because some languages were allowed to spread unusually fast in colonial times.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> The problem I see with that kind of description is that, very often, person A will perceive his own accent as "neutral, unaccented", person B will also perceive her own accent as "neutral, unaccented", but each of them will say the other has a "non-neutral" accent!



JL- Baltimore is not in the Northeast.  The accent there is Mid-atlantic!!

The rounded "O" is similar to, but not the same as, that heard in Delaware and Philadelphia.

Outsider- You are again correct.  My own accent is neurtral, but only in the sense that it sounds, I have been told by Mid-westerners, "Eastern".  I do not have a pronounced, that is to say, easily identifiable, accent such as those from NJ/NY, or Rhode Island, or Boston, or Down-East Maine, yet I do sound like I'm from somewhere in the Northeast.



To me, Mid-Westerners do not have a single accent, but many.  I also hear lots of different "Southern" accents.

I'm afraid that your quest for a standard or general reference accent for the US is going to end up with either an extremely broad generality, or nothing at all.

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that your quest for a standard or general reference accent for the US is going to end up with either an extremely broad generality, or nothing at all.


That's quite alright. My purpose in starting this thread was just to understand what "General American" meant.

I must confess that the answer is not what I was expecting. Although I can't say I've ever studied this issue, I believe that in Europe standard accents are normally defined simply by picking the accent of a particular region (usually of the nation's capital and its surroundings) or a particular social class (invariably a privileged one), and making that the standard.

The U.S.A., however, seem to have gone about it in a different way. Clever, practical, and, in a sense, democratic--very American!


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> I believe that in Europe standard accents are normally defined simply by picking the accent of a particular region (usually of the nation's capital and its surroundings) or a particular social class (invariably a privileged one), and making that the standard.
> 
> The U.S.A., however, seem to have gone about it in a different way. Clever, practical, and, in a sense, democratic--very American!



Dear Outsider,

You are exceedingly kind and generous, though not necessarily correct in your conclusion. Clever--no; practical--perhaps; democratic--maybe; Accidental-absolutely!!

The roots of the huge variability of accents here most likely derives from two primary factors:  Rapid migration westward from the original colonies, combined with massive immigration from a great many European, African and Asian nations.

cheers,
C.


----------



## JLanguage

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> JL- Baltimore is not in the Northeast. The accent there is Mid-Atlantic!!
> 
> The rounded "O" is similar to, but not the same as, that heard in Delaware and Philadelphia.
> 
> Outsider- You are again correct. My own accent is neutral, but only in the sense that it sounds, I have been told by Mid-westerners, "Eastern". I do not have a pronounced, that is to say, easily identifiable, accent such as those from NJ/NY, or Rhode Island, or Boston, or Down-East Maine, yet I do sound like I'm from somewhere in the Northeast.
> 
> To me, Mid-Westerners do not have a single accent, but many. I also hear lots of different "Southern" accents.
> 
> I'm afraid that your quest for a standard or general reference accent for the US is going to end up with either an extremely broad generality, or nothing at all.
> 
> regards,
> Cuchu


 
Maybe it is Mid-Atlantic, but Baltimore itself is located in the northeastern US. I'll have to go to 'IDEA' and listen to a Baltimore accent vs. a Delaware one.


----------



## melanota

Myself having been identified as having a "neutral" accent, I was chosen for studies in my University's linguistics department by a Phonetics Master's student.  I can't find her essay which she had published explaining the cases she studied.  I can tell you what she told me.

This is my case in a nutshell:
I was born in TX.  Everyone in my family (including my Mother & my sibling) have a STRONG Southern accent.  I DO NOT.  I pronounce every word phonetically as the way english phoenetics would be taught in the US.  I grew up from age 7, in Mexico. (at which time my sibling was 11 years older and stayed in TX) I attended a bilingual school and the English education I received outside of my home were from a South African woman, a Phillipino woman, an ESL Mexican woman and an Australian.  All of this happened before puberty.  Mind you the rest of my interactions all happened in Spanish.

I have a standard rhythm to my English that is indistinguishable.  Never has anyone ever been able to pinpoint my origins when listening only to my voice (one dimensional communication).  On a multi-dimensional communication, i.e. both seeing my physical being (clothing, etc), seeing my body language and listening to me speak, I am still ambiguous, although people will guess with more certainty that I am from Chicago, New York or San Fransisco. (Notice that pretty much covers the US span, while avoiding TX or anything southern) I am the phonetical Pat of linguistics (referrencing Saturday Night Live-- loved that skit). 

I don't think that I am answering your question because it is so difficult to answer.  The woman who interviewed me spent a long time discussing why my case in particular opened up alot of questions in her research.  If, I had primarily been educated by accent prone people, how did I come out with a "neutral" accent?  

Still searching for her essay, it is so interesting if you are interested in phonetics and linguistics.  

To add to it, my Spanish is neutral.  Mexico has the most "neutral" spanish.  My Italian isn't so neutral since I learned Fiorentino & I say "hoha hola" instead of 'coca cola" like the Milanese, which I am learning to speak now.


----------



## cuchuflete

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Maybe it is Mid-Atlantic, but *Baltimore itself is located in the northeastern US*. I'll have to go to 'IDEA' and listen to a Baltimore accent vs. a Delaware one.



I disagree.



> Region 3: The Mid-Atlantic Region
> Serving Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,              Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia


 source: http://www.epa.gov/region03/index.htm



> ​
> _     A Resource Guide to  the   American Language as  spoken in the states      of New York,    New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and Maryland_


 source: http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/MidAtlhome.html

If you would like a few hundred more neutral disagreements, try google, or most any American history text.

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## JLanguage

Outsider said:
			
		

> The problem I see with that kind of description is that, very often, person A will perceive his own accent as "neutral, unaccented", person B will also perceive her own accent as "neutral, unaccented", but each of them will say the other has a "non-neutral" accent!


 
I strongly disagree with this theory. Even Americans that have very distinctive and pronounced accents can perceive the 'neutral unaccented' speech that is General American. General American varies, but with all speakers it is invariably marked by a lack of any distinctive or pronounced regional accent.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I can vouch for that in what regards Portuguese. And, contrary to what seems to be your idea, there is no simple correlation between geographic area covered by a language and number of different accents. This may be in part because some languages were allowed to spread unusually fast in colonial times.


 
Perhaps, but geographical area is a large factor, because in the past isolation often led to language divergence, first creating dialects and eventually new languages. However, this was not always the case, and is less of an issue today, because of instant communication possible through the media, Internet and phone.


----------



## Outsider

JLanguage said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree with this theory. Even Americans that have very distinctive and pronounced accents can perceive the 'neutral unaccented' speech that is General American. General American varies, but with all speakers it is invariably marked by a lack of any distinctive or pronounced regional accent.


I thought I'd read a few conversations to that effect in these very forums, but I've tried to find them, and wasn't successful. Perhaps I was misremembering.

I found an interesting page about the origins of General American.  



			
				melanota said:
			
		

> To add to it, my Spanish is neutral.  Mexico has the most "neutral" spanish.


I suspect that Spaniards would disagree with that.


----------



## Phryne

A agree with Outsider and cuchu that there's not such a thing as a "neutral accent", since it only depends on the viewpoint. One may say that it could be the accent mainly used on the news, but that's totally accidental for they could be speaking with an Alabama accent!  For instance, and answering to JLanguage perception of Spanish, I always thought I had the neutral Argentine accent, the same one as reporters speak on TV, until one day I was somewhere outside the area and I mentioned what a cute accent somebody had. To my surprise I was pointed out that the funny accent was actually mine!!! It's all about perspective!

Also, regarding to the neutral Mexican Spanish accent, I'm terribly sorry to say that it's not neutral whatsoever. In my opinion, Mexicans "sing" when they speak and they tend to pronounce some consonants quite peculiarly. 
No accent is neutral, maybe your own and to your own ears, but not mine!


----------



## JLanguage

Phryne said:
			
		

> A agree with Outsider and cuchu that there's not such a thing as a "neutral accent", since it only depends on the viewpoint. One may say that it could be the accent mainly used on the news, but that's totally accidental for they could be speaking with an Alabama accent! For instance, and answering to JLanguage perception of Spanish, I always thought I had the neutral Argentine accent, the same one as reporters speak on TV, until one day I was somewhere outside the area and I mentioned what a cute accent somebody had. To my surprise I was pointed out that the funny accent was actually mine!!! It's all about perspective!
> 
> Also, regarding to the neutral Mexican Spanish accent, I'm terribly sorry to say that it's not neutral whatsoever. In my opinion, Mexicans "sing" when they speak and they tend to pronounce some consonants quite peculiarly.
> No accent is neutral, maybe your own and to your own ears, but not mine!


 
I still hold that there is a general American perception of what is many Americans, all with different accents and backgrounds listen the same voice and state theeir perceptions. I'm going to make a new thread for it.


----------



## Outsider

JLanguage said:
			
		

> I still hold that there is a general American perception of what is many Americans, all with different accents and backgrounds listen the same voice and state theeir perceptions.


I think we agree that some accents are _perceived_ as "neutral". What I believe Phryne is saying is that even people whose speech is not associated by others to a particular region have an accent, in the sense that their speech follows certain sound patterns.


----------



## JLanguage

Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone here disagrees. What we're saying is that there's nothing inherently worse about the accents that are perceived, and
> nothing inherently better about the accents that are imperceptible.


 
That's true. Which English dialect one prefers is opinion, but if this opinion is shared by a large number of people than it can be accepted as the normal view. For example, if everyone in Britain were to agree that a certain accent is the most proper (Not exactly about to happen).


----------



## Outsider

JLanguage said:
			
		

> That's true. Which English dialect one prefers is opinion, but if this opinion is shared by a large number of people than it can be accepted as the normal view. For example, if everyone in Britain were to agree that a certain accent is the most proper (Not exactly about to happen).


I've edited my post--sorry about that.   

My point of view is that which English dialect one prefers, or which dialect in any other language, is indeed opinion, and an opinion is never more than an opinion, no matter how many people share it.


----------



## Outsider

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I see with that kind of description is that, very often, person A will perceive his own accent as "neutral, unaccented", person B will also perceive her own accent as "neutral, unaccented", but each of them will say the other has a "non-neutral" accent!
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with this theory. Even Americans that have very distinctive and pronounced accents can perceive the 'neutral unaccented' speech that is General American. General American varies, but with all speakers it is invariably marked by a lack of any distinctive or pronounced regional accent.
Click to expand...

Here's an example from Spanish. Some Mexicans think Mexican Spanish is the standard Spanish of Latin America, but other Latin Americans say that, on the contrary, they have quite a thick accent.


----------



## tmoore

Isn' t the same , for example in Spain or any other country with the different accents from the regions where they comefrom ?In Spain it varies from Andalucia,Cataluña,Galicia,Aragon. Spanish Castilian is spoken only in the region of Castilla


----------



## swift_precision

Outsider said:
			
		

> Here's an example from Spanish. Some Mexicans think Mexican Spanish is the standard Spanish of Latin America, but other Latin Americans say that, on the contrary, they have quite a thick accent.


 
Which Mexicans say this? The ones that live in the Yucatan? or those that live near Monterrey? How about those who live in Puerto Vallarta?  Accents differ from region to region as has already been addressed.  In the link that you have posted someone mentioned that a source he had read indicated that Peru had the "purest" accent form.  For some reason, however, I am able to detect anyone who is at least from Lima, Peru.  This discussion has been interesting as well as educational.  Good topic outsider.


----------



## nycphotography

This thread just sprung back to life, and I wasnt around to see it the first time.

Basically, as an American who has lived almost everywhere, I would disagree with those who say that a "general american" accent doesn't exist.

It may not exist as a documented standard, but I would say that it can be described as follows:

Take all the speech examples you encounter, and start isolating, then removing, any patterns that are *easily* identifiable as coming from some specific place.  Take all the Ross Perot Texas Cowboy, and eliminate it.  Take all the Brooklyn Cowlfee, and Towlking and elminate it.  Take the Boston Cahs and Pahk em someplace else.   Lose the fruity SoCal peacenik hippiisms, man, and like don't use them.  Take the GeeWhiz hickishness of the corn belt and eliminate it. And then you start to get close.

There is room for Tomatos and Tomahtos, just not for Potatoes (or other Quaylisms).  There is room in the "general accent" for variations in pronunciation, and different patterns and styles of speech... just not for an excessive of the kind that identify you as being from some particular place.

If you ever heard of Deborah Tannen, she's a psychologist who (among other things) studies gender roles.  One of her concepts is an "unmarked style" of dress.  (Short version, men can adopt one (business suit, white shirt, identical hair cut, clean shaven), women can't (no matter how she dresses, a woman is always speaking with her clothes, even if the message is "I don't care")).

To use her concept, I would say that Americans CAN, should they choose to, adopt (or develop) an UNMARKED STYLE.  One that doesn't stick out, trigger reactions, or stick in memory.  The "General American" accent, while not being a concrete thing, not set in stone, would rather be a general idea of what would be the "most neutral" way of speaking.

Perhaps, in other places (countries), it is not possible.  Perhaps in Portugal, you are always identifiable as being from Lisboa, Porto, the Algarve, or wherever... I don't know... Is there an unmarked style in continental portuguese?  If so, then that would be closest to your version of the "general portugal" accent.


----------



## BasedowLives

> Take the GeeWhiz hickishness of the corn belt and eliminate it. And then you start to get close.



i'd say iowa has a general accent and it practically IS the cornbelt.  nobody that i talk to has that andy griffith "country" accent.  maybe in the rural areas, but i've never been there much aside from driving by.


----------



## JLanguage

nycphotography said:
			
		

> This thread just sprung back to life, and I wasnt around to see it the first time.
> 
> Basically, as an American who has lived almost everywhere, I would disagree with those who say that a "general american" accent doesn't exist.
> 
> It may not exist as a documented standard, but I would say that it can be described as follows:
> 
> Take all the speech examples you encounter, and start isolating, then removing, any patterns that are *easily* identifiable as coming from some specific place. Take all the Ross Perot Texas Cowboy, and eliminate it. Take all the Brooklyn Cowlfee, and Towlking and elminate it. Take the Boston Cahs and Pahk em someplace else. Lose the fruity SoCal peacenik hippiisms, man, and like don't use them. Take the GeeWhiz hickishness of the corn belt and eliminate it. And then you start to get close.
> 
> There is room for Tomatos and Tomahtos, just not for Potatoes (or other Quaylisms). There is room in the "general accent" for variations in pronunciation, and different patterns and styles of speech... just not for an excessive of the kind that identify you as being from some particular place.
> 
> If you ever heard of Deborah Tannen, she's a psychologist who (among other things) studies gender roles. One of her concepts is an "unmarked style" of dress. (Short version, men can adopt one (business suit, white shirt, identical hair cut, clean shaven), women can't (no matter how she dresses, a woman is always speaking with her clothes, even if the message is "I don't care")).
> 
> To use her concept, I would say that Americans CAN, should they choose to, adopt (or develop) an UNMARKED STYLE. One that doesn't stick out, trigger reactions, or stick in memory. The "General American" accent, while not being a concrete thing, not set in stone, would rather be a general idea of what would be the "most neutral" way of speaking.
> 
> Perhaps, in other places (countries), it is not possible. Perhaps in Portugal, you are always identifiable as being from Lisboa, Porto, the Algarve, or wherever... I don't know... Is there an unmarked style in continental portuguese? If so, then that would be closest to your version of the "general portugal" accent.


 
Wholeheartedly agree - I couldn't and didn't state it better myself. The fact stands that you can go all over the country and find people who have grown up in that area and have a relatively neutral accent . 

What I really want to know is whether Americans with strong regional/ethnic accents, perceive 'General American' as the neutral English accent. Can anyone here comment?


----------



## irisheyes0583

Outsider said:
			
		

> What are the factors that make an accent stand out and another accent not stand out?



Pronunciation & vocabulary. 



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> The problem I see with that kind of description is that, very often, person A will perceive his own accent as "neutral, unaccented", person B will also perceive her own accent as "neutral, unaccented", but each of them will say the other has a "non-neutral" accent!



I agree & disagree. While I understand what you're saying and agree in general, it is also possible to consciously choose to speak "without an accent" or in "General American" (whatever the term you use, the meaning is the same). Linguists refer to this as "code-switching" and it is often our unconscious choice to switch to a certain dialect or way of speaking.

A non-neutral accent (at least in the USA) is a very generic, cookie-cutter way of speaking. Unless you come from a strongly-accented area (the South, Boston, NYC, etc.)--in which case you will *know* that you speak with an "accent"--then you could hear "General American" on the street, on TV, etc. and easily assume (unconsciously) that the speaker was from your region/area. Although nothing would mark the speaker as speaking your dialect, nothing would "un-mark" him/her either. I suppose that's the best way to describe it: there is no dialect that is *marked* as "General American", but rather the lack of marking, or an "un-marking" makes a dialect easy to perceive as your own (even though it is not).


----------



## swift_precision

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> Pronunciation & vocabulary.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree & disagree. While I understand what you're saying and agree in general, it is also possible to consciously choose to speak "without an accent" or in "General American" (whatever the term you use, the meaning is the same). Linguists refer to this as "code-switching" and it is often our unconscious choice to switch to a certain dialect or way of speaking.
> 
> A non-neutral accent (at least in the USA) is a very generic, cookie-cutter way of speaking. Unless you come from a strongly-accented area (the South, Boston, NYC, etc.)--in which case you will *know* that you speak with an "accent"--then you could hear "General American" on the street, on TV, etc. and easily assume (unconsciously) that the speaker was from your region/area. Although nothing would mark the speaker as speaking your dialect, nothing would "un-mark" him/her either. I suppose that's the best way to describe it: there is no dialect that is *marked* as "General American", but rather the lack of marking, or an "un-marking" makes a dialect easy to perceive as your own (even though it is not).


 
I basically agree with this point except that in place of vocabulary I would say vernacular since vocabulary is not necessarily associated with region but more with education.


----------



## irisheyes0583

swift_precision said:
			
		

> I basically agree with this point except that in place of vocabulary I would say vernacular since vocabulary is not necessarily associated with region but more with education.



Mmm... I don't really like vernacular either because it often refers to a dialect as a whole, instead of the individual distinguishing words. How about *lexicon, word-stock, *or* terminology*?

Whatever the word, I'm glad you understood my point! (I didn't know if I was speaking gibberish or not! )


----------



## Outsider

nycphotography said:
			
		

> This thread just sprung back to life, and I wasnt around to see it the first time.
> 
> Basically, as an American who has lived almost everywhere, I would disagree with those who say that a "general american" accent doesn't exist.
> 
> It may not exist as a documented standard, but I would say that it can be described as follows:
> 
> Take all the speech examples you encounter, and start isolating, then removing, any patterns that are *easily* identifiable as coming from some specific place.  Take all the Ross Perot Texas Cowboy, and eliminate it.  Take all the Brooklyn Cowlfee, and Towlking and elminate it.  Take the Boston Cahs and Pahk em someplace else.  [...]


Removing everything that "sounds regional"* seems like a good idea, but what are you going to replace it with? In the end, something from _another region._

*To whom, by the way?



			
				nycphotography said:
			
		

> Perhaps, in other places (countries), it is not possible.  Perhaps in Portugal, you are always identifiable as being from Lisboa, Porto, the Algarve, or wherever... I don't know... Is there an unmarked style in continental portuguese?  If so, then that would be closest to your version of the "general portugal" accent.


Although the thread is about General American, a comparison may be interesting.
As far as I know, there never was an attempt to identify an accent of the majority here, and standardize it. It is true that some accents can be perceived as "better sounding" than others, and there is a standard that tends to be imitated, especially by TV newscasters (not always with great success, ). Many Portuguese make an effort to speak like the people of Lisbon, at least in formal contexts (Lisbon has the accent of _fado_, and also the accent of youth pop culture). On the other hand, that can sound pretentious in the wrong context, and I think recently the attitudes towards regional accents have become more positive. More people now see them as exotic, instead of ugly. Finally, the accent of Lisbon has some features that are a bit unique to it. 
There is actually a silly rivalry between Lisbon and Coimbra. Some people claim the accent of Coimbra is the "best" Portuguese, possibly because Coimbra didn't follow Lisbon in a few of its recent phonetic innovations. To me, though, some of the things in the accent of Coimbra sound rather unusual, too.


----------



## Outsider

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> irisheyes0583 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the factors that make an accent stand out and another accent not stand out?
> 
> 
> 
> Pronunciation & vocabulary.
Click to expand...

But all accents have pronunciation and vocabulary. 



			
				irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> While I understand what you're saying and agree in general, it is also possible to consciously choose to speak "without an accent" or in "General American" (whatever the term you use, the meaning is the same). Linguists refer to this as "code-switching" and it is often our unconscious choice to switch to a certain dialect or way of speaking.
> 
> A non-neutral accent (at least in the USA) is a very generic, cookie-cutter way of speaking. Unless you come from a strongly-accented area (the South, Boston, NYC, etc.)--in which case you will know that you speak with an "accent"--then you could hear "General American" on the street, on TV, etc. and easily assume (unconsciously) that the speaker was from your region/area. Although nothing would mark the speaker as speaking your dialect, nothing would "un-mark" him/her either. I suppose that's the best way to describe it: there is no dialect that is marked as "General American", but rather the lack of marking, or an "un-marking" makes a dialect easy to perceive as your own (even though it is not).


I guess my position is that what makes an accent "strongly accented", or "more accented" than another, is always subjective. 
Now, at the same time, it's possible that in some countries the majority of the population can be more or less _in agreement_ over the features that they find "less marked". I suppose that's where the idea for General American came from.


----------



## chrisgunn

Following along nycphotography, I think it is possible to argue for a "neutral" General American. This is not a statement for superiority of any dialect over another or that any American in particular _actually _speaks General American. 

First off, General American is not just a set of phonemes, or sounds though that is incorporated into it. People have been arguing about the kind of 'O' or the dropping of Rs, but it is much more than that. General American also includes a lexicon, a grammar, a stress, and intonation. When people here state that they can easily identify a speaker’s origin they may be picking up on differences in any of these 5 qualities. 

Here is how I think it is possible to talk about a ‘neutral’ general American that nobody actually speaks. Examining each quality in turn:

Phoneme Set: 

Every dialect has a set of phonemes that is available to it. In Received Pronunciation, the vowels in cot and caught are distinguishable phonemes as they are in Deep South dialects, but in many American dialects ‘cot-caught’ have been merged (known not surprisingly as the cot-caught merger). I would argue that the ‘cot-caught’ merger _is_ an aspect of General American because most, but not every, American dialects maintain it. 

General American is also Rhotic, meaning R’s are pronounced after vowels. Received pronunciation is non-rhotic meaning R’s are not pronounced after a vowel. Dialects of the Deep South largely drop the R. 

These are two examples of phonemic qualities that can be analyzed from dialect to dialect. If your dialect merges cot and caught and your dialect is rhotic then it is tending towards General American. _Most_ American Dialects are rhotic and merge cot and caught. There are dozens of phonemic characteristics to consider. You can find an average (i.e. what occurs in most dialects) for each characteristic and assign that average value (i.e. rhotic or cot-caught merged) to General American. _Neutral accents are accents that diverge from this average the least._ So although nobody actually speaks General American some dialects come close to it. And the more your dialect diverges from this average the more it will seem accented. Southern American accents do diverge on a characteristic-by-characteristic comparison more than many other dialects and so they seem accented. Not only are they cot-caught distinct and non-rhotic, but they also tend to have a lot of ‘extra’ diphthongs. Studies have shown that certain dialects do feel unaccented to a majority of the people, including people who don’t speak that accent. (And this is screaming for a reference, or possibly, a refutation).

Grammar:
General American tends to be ‘grammatically correct’ especially in formal situations (in quotations because everything is relative and grammatically correct merely means the grammar of school teachers). Again as a contrast, Southern American accents tend to drop the ‘have’ in the Present Perfect: _I seen it three times _as opposed to _I’ve seen it three times_. As with phonemes, every dialect has it’s own differences, but there is an average. But unlike phonemes, there is also a written accepted standard as to what is grammatically correct for all dialects and hence many dialects tend to converge to that standard, making it the _de facto_ standard. Hence I say American English tends to be grammatically correct. The more your dialect uses it’s own grammatical conventions, the more it will sound accented. 

And the argument is similar for the other aspects of lexicon, intonation, and stress. 

This is not to say that the more your dialect tends to General American, the better. ALL dialects are equally valid. BUT there are consequences for speaking one dialect instead of another. Most people don’t analyze your language on the conscious level of a linguist. They will form perceptions of you by the way you speak. It may cost you a job interview or it may make people suspicious of you or think you are uneducated and ignorant. So as an ESL teacher, I try to get my students away from speaking like Gangsta Rappers (which they so want to do) and speaking General American.


----------



## Etcetera

Hi all.
I know that British pronunciation (the one recorded in most dictionaries) is based on RP. But what is meant by American pronunciation? That's what Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary says:


> The American pronunciations chosen are also as far as possible the most general (not associated with any particular region).


It isn't too clear, is it?


----------



## Etcetera

Oh, Outsider, thank you very much! No wonder I wasn't able to find this topic: I searched the CD forum for "American pronunciation", and it gave nothing.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider and I have locked horns over this issue in the past.
The so-called "general American" pronunciation is quite distinct from that spoken by a very large portion of the US population. It does exist—Outsider's links have persuaded me of that—but if you travel to the East Coast, Southwest or South, you won't hear it other than on television and radio.

It is not a standard of "correct" speech, rather it is one of many accents, and has been adopted by some lexicographers because they felt the need to pick something widely used.  I suppose it's as good as any of the many American accents for that purpose.  

Within the realm of 'general American' there is also great variation.  People from Kansas, Minnesota and Ohio all speak the language with distinct accents.  It's very hard to confuse a Chicago accent with one from Omaha.


----------



## Outsider

What I understood was that what is called "General American" is really a family of dialects/accents. Their pronunciation is not entirely identical, but they are so similar to each other that most native speakers cannot tell them apart. That creates the illusion that they're speaking in exactly the same way, and that there's a wide "flat" dialectal area in the United States. Since this group of very similar dialects, indistinguishable for many, comprises most of the country, it's easy to claim that it is _the_ neutral dialect.

Cuchuflete says it's not a standard or correct speech, but the fact remains that the American media aim for that kind of pronunciation, do they not?


----------



## emma42

As a Limey, I had always thought that American RP was an accent quite similar to English RP, but with such elements as the rhotic "r".  Am I completely mad?


----------



## mplsray

emma42 said:


> As a Limey, I had always thought that American RP was an accent quite similar to English RP, but with such elements as the rhotic "r". Am I completely mad?


 
Standard American English is a standard dialect without a standard accent: There is no equivalent to RP.

_General American_ is a term I haven't used in years, although at one time I identified my accent as such. According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the term is "no longer in technical use."


----------



## cuchuflete

General American is usually described as deriving from, or being a subset of, what is called "Standard Midwestern".  The Midwest does not "comprise most of the country" in geographic area, and is certainly not the home of a majority of residents. (As of the 2000 census, the broadest definition of the Midwest...which may extend well beyond the General American speech area...included only 23% of the population of the country.)

If you ask speakers of Standard Midwestern if people in all other Midwestern states have the same accent, I suspect you will be greeted with a look of astonishment.

I am not debating the existence of a group of accents which, lumped together, form general American.  I do dispute the notion that it is representative of a majority of American speech, or that the variations within it are not substantial.
Most native speakers from outside the catchment area for GA may not be able to identify the residence of a GA speaker, but those within the GA area can certainly tell that other GA speakers are from "away".




Outsider said:


> What I understood was that what is called "General American" is really a family of dialects/accents. Their pronunciation is not entirely identical, but they are so similar to each other that most native speakers cannot tell them apart. That creates the illusion that they're speaking in exactly the same way, and that there's a wide "flat" dialectal area in the United States. Since this group of very similar dialects, indistinguishable for many, comprises most of the country, it's easy to claim that it is _the_ neutral dialect.
> 
> Cuchuflete says it's not a standard or correct speech, but the fact remains that the American media aim for that kind of pronunciation, do they not?


----------



## papillon

Could someone enlighten me as to what RP is?
Thanks.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:


> I am not debating the existence of a group of accents which, lumped together, form general American.  I do dispute the notion that it is representative of a majority of American speech, or that the variations within it are not substantial.


Isn't that in the eye of the beholder, or rather in his ear?



cuchuflete said:


> Most native speakers from outside the catchment area for GA may not be able to identify the residence of a GA speaker, but those within the GA area can certainly tell that other GA speakers are from "away".


The million-dollar question, though, is: When each of those GA speakers listens to TV newscasters or actors, can he tell if they are from away?


----------



## maxiogee

papillon said:


> Could someone enlighten me as to what RP is?
> Thanks.



Received Pronunciation.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> Isn't that in the eye of the beholder, or rather in his ear?
> 
> The million-dollar question, though, is: When each of those GA speakers listens to TV newscasters or actors, can he tell if they are from away?



The Midwest...home of General American, had, as of the last national census, 22.9% of the US population, and it was losing share to other parts of the country.  TV has a declining share of the news business, so the preferred newscaster/news reader accent will continue to decline in importance.

That said, it's probably useful for a non-native student of AE to learn GA.  They won't sound like four fifths of the population, but will be easily understood.

To the second question, just ask someone from any of these states if those from any of the other states speak the same way.

Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin


----------



## Outsider

Cuchuflete, I'm not sure I'm making myself clear. When you write the following, I agree with you.



cuchuflete said:


> If you ask speakers of Standard Midwestern if people in all other Midwestern states have the same accent, I suspect you will be greeted with a look of astonishment.
> 
> I am not debating the existence of a group of accents which, lumped together, form general American.  I do dispute the notion that it is representative of a majority of American speech, or that the variations within it are not substantial.
> Most native speakers from outside the catchment area for GA may not be able to identify the residence of a GA speaker, but those within the GA area can certainly tell that other GA speakers are from "away".


However, in spite of those logical objections, many Americans still have the perception that GA is a "neutral" accent. You just have to go back to the first pages of this thread, to realise it. 
So what do you think makes GA sound neutral, when it's different from the vast majority of American accents, if not from all of them?


----------



## cuchuflete

I think your question is well answered by most of the sites that a search engine will take you to for "general American".  The range of accents found in the GA geography are difficult for most outsiders (no pun intended) to associate with a particular region.  They are not so easily identifiable as, say, the Boston, New Jersey, New Orleans, or Texas accents.  All of those are pretty easily associated with a specific place, as are the accents of northern, and especially eastern New England.

I'm originally from Wisconsin, and I hear strong distinctions in the accents of the other GA states, and even when I don't know whether a person is from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or northern Wisconsin, I can identify the accent as Midwestern.  Most native people in Maine might just hear such speech and know only that it is from somewhere—unidentified —other than New England.  The neutrality of GA is the difficulty most non-GA speakers have in associating it with a particular place.


----------



## MarcB

I will use GA since it is the most used in this thread I agree with those who have identified it as a group of accents which have only minor differences and are less likely to be identified as coming from a specific place. Even in areas where the accent is obvious some speakers have a GA accent. If we make an effort we can notice those differences however, most of the time we don’t. Our modern experiences with language are no longer restricted to one area , we meet people from around the world we have all forms of media so not only are there less differences from say, 100 years ago ,our tolerance for them has increased.


----------



## Etcetera

Thanks Cuchuflete and Outsider, I've read your posts with great interest.


----------



## djchak

Outsider said:


> So, General American is not really an accent, but a family of accents, which are spoken by the majority of the country's population. Clever!
> But, when you have to write phonetic pronunciations in a dictionary, which variety do you choose?



Yes!!!!   (at least I agree, but i'm no expert in these things)


----------



## mplsray

djchak said:


> Originally Posted by *Outsider*
> So, General American is not really an accent, but a family of accents, which are spoken by the majority of the country's population. Clever!
> But, when you have to write phonetic pronunciations in a dictionary, which variety do you choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!!!  (at least I agree, but i'm no expert in these things)
Click to expand...

 
In college-sized or unabridged dictionaries, a wide range of pronunciations can be given, and no dictionary that I am familiar with has ever identified a given pronunciation as _General American_--regional labels, when they are used, are much more specific than that. It is only in very small dictionaries that a limited set of pronunciations needs to be given, and in that case I expect American lexicographers simply choose the pronunciation which is most widely used, as a result of the evidence available to them. For example, _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, _11th ed., says on page 33a that its pronunciations "are informed chiefly by the Merriam-Webster pronunciation file" which "contains citations that are transcriptions of words used by native speakers of English in the course of utterances heard in speeches, interviews, and conversations." As a result, we need not assume that there is actually any particular accent which includes all of the pronunciations given.


----------



## roxcyn

http://accent.gmu.edu/

The above website is wonderful to listen to various people from around the world.   Maybe that can help you "generalize" what it sounds like in different parts.


----------



## tvdxer

Outsider said:


> The Ask A Linguist Website has this essay about accents in general, and the standard American English accent in particular, which it calls "General American".
> Can anyone point me to a history of this accent, how it developed and when? I'm particularly interested in how it came to be picked for the national newscasters accent.
> The more factual sources it references, the better.
> 
> Thank you.



That's a very interesting question, which I can't answer directly.

However, I guestimate that the area of the country whose accent seems to resemble GAE the most is probably around Iowa, Illinois (except Chicago, which has something of its own accent), Indiana, Michigan (except the U.P., which has an accent similar to or the same as Northern MN) etc.

Indeed, as Cuchuflete mentioned, Minnesota (especially small towns in northern Minnesota) and Wisconsin (at least northern Wisconsin) have a very distinguishable accent (long, monophthongal "o" and "u", Canadian raising, and pronouncing the "th" sounds as "d" and "f" seem to be the biggest telltale characteristics) which probably reflects a lot of Scandinavian influence.


----------



## mplsray

tvdxer said:


> That's a very interesting question, which I can't answer directly.
> 
> However, I guestimate that the area of the country whose accent seems to resemble GAE the most is probably around Iowa, Illinois (except Chicago, which has something of its own accent), Indiana, Michigan (except the U.P., which has an accent similar to or the same as Northern MN) etc.
> 
> Indeed, as Cuchuflete mentioned, Minnesota (especially small towns in northern Minnesota) and Wisconsin (at least northern Wisconsin) have a very distinguishable accent (long, monophthongal "o" and "u", Canadian raising, and pronouncing the "th" sounds as "d" and "f" seem to be the biggest telltale characteristics) which probably reflects a lot of Scandinavian influence.


 
I would count southern Illinois as being another Illinois accent which is not neutral, but sounds like a Southern US accent, due to its having been settled by pioneers from Southern states such as Kentucky. The writer H. Allen Smith, for example, was born in that part of the state (nicknamed "Egypt" by its inhabitants) and sounds southern to me. Smith pointed out that the singer and actor Burl Ives sounds as if he comes from Egypt, but I researched the matter and Ives actually comes from a town a bit north of Egypt. And I myself, who was raised in Central Illinois a bit north from where Ives was raised, have been told by people in the East and here in the Upper Midwest (Minneapolis) that my speech sounds southern to them, although I was completely unaware of this until I started to attend college in Washington, DC. (In the past, when I did use the term _General American,_ I considered my speech to belong to that "accent.")


----------



## tvdxer

mplsray said:


> I would count southern Illinois as being another Illinois accent which is not neutral, but sounds like a Southern US accent, due to its having been settled by pioneers from Southern states such as Kentucky. The writer H. Allen Smith, for example, was born in that part of the state (nicknamed "Egypt" by its inhabitants) and sounds southern to me. Smith pointed out that the singer and actor Burl Ives sounds as if he comes from Egypt, but I researched the matter and Ives actually comes from a town a bit north of Egypt. And I myself, who was raised in Central Illinois a bit north from where Ives was raised, have been told by people in the East and here in the Upper Midwest (Minneapolis) that my speech sounds southern to them, although I was completely unaware of this until I started to attend college in Washington, DC. (In the past, when I did use the term _General American,_ I considered my speech to belong to that "accent.")



I forgot to mention that about IL.  Indeed, those who I have heard from southern IL sound like they have a southern accent.  Even those from the STL area seem to have one.


----------



## Outsider

Speaking of American accents, here's a fun quiz. (Apparently, I've got a Boston accent! )


----------



## Thomsen

Fascinating discussion. And thanks for the link, Outsider. Apparently I am the mythic Standard American English-speaker.



> You have a Midland accent" is just another way of saying "you don't have an accent." You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio.


 
I would argue that there is a standard American accent which basically has a few elements. *1. Geographic location* "Mid-Atlantic, Ohio, and West Coast." This basically represents a historical migration of people from the East Coast > Midwest > West Coast along this route. Most people recognize diverging dialects in the South (writ large), New England, and Great Lakes region to name a few. *2. White/Anglo-Saxon*. Obviously much more disputible, but basically rules out most newer immigrants and minorities who often have different speech patterns for sociocultural reasons. 3*. Age.* Surprised no one mentioned this. Younger people tend to have more converging speech patterns due to TV radio etc *4. Upper/middle class*. As a result of somewhat standardized education. I think regional accents are generally perceived to be "less-educated" because for some reason upper/middle class people are much more likely to follow General American pronunciation.

I am from southern New Jersey and my parents are from (southern) Ohio and Long Island, New York respectively and I can pick out speakers with all three accents. Furthermore, I can pick out Southern Accents ( Southeast vs Deep South vs. Appalachian vs. Cajun), Boston accent vs New York City accents vs northern New England accents, Pittsburgh vs. Philadephia, Minnesota vs. Wisconsin, Plains states vs. Midwestern, etc.

But I would argue that there is a general flat midwestern English that we understand as the baseline almost for comparison of other accents due mostly to being used in TV, radio, movies. Generally speaking, unless there is a strong geographic component to a movie, Hollywood uses standard American English.


----------



## mplsray

Outsider said:


> Speaking of American accents, here's a fun quiz. (Apparently, I've got a Boston accent! )


 
It identifies my accent as being from the West, so whatever it is in my speech that makes Easterners and Upper-Midwesterners think I sound like I'm from the South is not measured by that quiz. 

What it has to say about this accent from "the West" is relevant to the main subject of discussion in this thread: 



> Your accent is the lowest common denominator of American speech. Unless you're a SoCal surfer, no one thinks you have an accent.


----------



## cuchuflete

According to the 'fun quiz', my accent is "as Philadelphian as a cheese steak".   Northeast showed up as the next strongest association, almost tied by Midlands in third place.  

I did live in Philly, for less than two years, decades ago.  I do not pronounce most vowels as Philadelphians do, nor do I share their intonation.  Still, the quiz points most strongly to the Mid-atlantic and Northeast, where I have lived most of my life, and to the Mid-west, where I am originally from.  I haven't checked the census data, but I'd guess that the quiz associates my accent pretty strongly with about half the population of the country.  It is far from General American.


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> According to the 'fun quiz', my accent is "as Philadelphian as a cheese steak". Northeast showed up as the next strongest association, almost tied by Midlands in third place.


I got the same result, and no one has ever guessed that I came from that area. However, by switching a couple answers that were questionable, suddenly I landed much closer to the midwest.

I suspect that the test is much too crude. Think, for instance, of "caught". You have two choices in the test. Either you say it like "cot", or you don't.

But there are degrees in between each set of sounds.

There were also no questions about "thinkin'" vs. "thinking".

I think the quiz is a very interesting idea, but I wonder if many more questions and finer distinctions would result in accurate (or more accurate) results.

I would trust other people in this group far more than the test. I'll bet there are some people who could nail down our origins in seconds, or make a very good educated guess.

Wouldn't it be fun to hear other members speak, then guess where they might be from or what area they seem to sound most like (meaning people in an area)?

A related topic might be: What accents can you identify? For instance, the last three times I guessed the origin of actors from Chicago by their accents before checking where they were born, I nailed it. Yet I have never been near Chicago.

Gaer


----------



## roxcyn

Outsider said:


> Speaking of American accents, here's a fun quiz. (Apparently, I've got a Boston accent! )



Hahaha, obrigado amigo .  

Here are my results:

*What American accent do you have?*Your Result: *The Midland*


"You have a Midland accent" is just another way of saying "you don't have an accent." You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I have an accent from the Inland North apparently, wherever that is.


----------



## gaer

roxcyn said:


> Hahaha, obrigado amigo .
> 
> Here are my results:
> 
> *What American accent do you have?*Your Result: *The Midland*
> 
> 
> "You have a Midland accent" is just another way of saying "you don't have an accent." You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio.


I retook the test, but this time I picked the "in between" answers when there was a choice for "not quite sure" or "in between".

Suddenly I feel into the same category you did.

And example would be "caught" and "cot". The first time I checked "different". I did not even SEE the third choice: "Same, no wait I mean different, well I don't know…"

That's the key, I think. If you aren't quite sure, and if other people who know you well are not quite sure of what you say, I think that puts you in the "Midland" grouping. 

Gaer


----------



## maxiogee

> Your Result: The Northeast
> 
> Judging by how you talk you are probably from north Jersey, New York City, Connecticut or Rhode Island. Chances are, if you are from New York City (and not those other places) people would probably be able to tell if they actually heard you speak.​


----------



## kurumin

The traditional definition of General American (GA) is

-all accents (dialects according to prof. Labov) except:
a) those from East Coast
b) South*

[*Florida is included in the GA area, except for the northern part of this state]

CAUGHT/COT merger is normally a Western feature, that means,
most speakers of GA have this merger (being completed or still in developing) 

Shifts like
a) Northern cities shift
b) Californian shift

can make many speakers that live in traditional GA area
sound nonGA 

[Still, LA people sound more GA than Detroit people since
Californian shift in Canada is not as strong as Northern cities shift in Detroit] 

Wikipedia has a nice article on General American,
with Omaha being chosen as the most accentless part of the USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American


----------



## kurumin

roxcyn said:


> . You have a good voice for TV and radio.


 
I found Nova Scotian / PEI the best Northernamerican accent for TV and radio:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZqofcN41zU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK8FB7USprM


----------



## roxcyn

Gaer, I say Don and dawn the same

I say cot and caught the same

Many of the words I say the same


----------



## gaer

roxcyn said:


> Gaer, I say Don and dawn the same
> 
> I say cot and caught the same
> 
> Many of the words I say the same


I wish we could compare our answers one by one in this little test, but there are so many words that I would like to see analyzed:

Just, just, jist
toward, board
are, our, hour
wash, "warsh"
idea, "idear"
ant, Aunt

As I listen to various announcers, it seems to me that such variations are not eliminated but "toned down". Anderson Cooper, for instance, does not "stick out" when I listen to him, yet he is clearly from NYC. Has he made an effort to "standardize" his pronunciation?

Questions and more question!

Gaer


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

kurumin said:


> I found Nova Scotian / PEI the best Northernamerican accent for TV and radio:
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZqofcN41zU
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK8FB7USprM




That's the CBC, though - it's a national organization, and employees from all over the country work all over the country.  The weather woman had a slightly flattened voice, and was probably a Maritimer.

The newscaster, however, sounded more like an Ontario speaker.

Regionalism just isn't an issue for many Canadian media stations, not just the CBC.  An example:  when I was involved in radio, an Ontario friend went to a New Brunswick job; a Nova Scotia friend took a job in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories; and a friend from British Columbia took a job in Ottawa.  It's dangerous to assume that any broadcaster is speaking with a regional accent.


----------



## roxcyn

Just, just, jist - I say jist differently from just.
toward, board - these words rhyme
are, our, hour - hour and our sound very similar to me.  Are sounds different from our and hour.
wash, "warsh" - I can say "warsh", but I usually say wa-sh
idea, "idear" - I can say idear, but usally say i-de-a
ant, Aunt - I pronounce them the same.


----------



## gaer

roxcyn said:


> Just, just, jist - I say jist differently from just.
> toward, board - these words rhyme
> are, our, hour - hour and our sound very similar to me. Are sounds different from our and hour.
> wash, "warsh" - I can say "warsh", but I usually say wa-sh
> idea, "idear" - I can say idear, but usally say i-de-a
> ant, Aunt - I pronounce them the same.


I say jest, jest, jist. The last is different. "I jest got home"
I say "are house" (our house). I have to make myself pronounce "our" like "hour".
I say "wash" but "warshing machine". I don't know where I got that from!
I say "idea". My uncle, from Massachusetts, always said "idear", and my older cousin, who has lived in South Florida is whole life, picked that up from his father.
I pronounce "ant" and "Aunt" the same. But my uncle used the other pronunciation, which I've heard in New England and in the South.


----------



## kurumin

gaer said:


> I say jest, jest, jist. The last is different. "I jest got home"
> I say "are house" (our house). I have to make myself pronounce "our" like "hour".
> I say "wash" but "warshing machine". I don't know where I got that from!
> I say "idea". My uncle, from Massachusetts, always said "idear", and my older cousin, who has lived in South Florida is whole life, picked that up from his father.
> I pronounce "ant" and "Aunt" the same. But my uncle used the other pronunciation, which I've heard in New England and in the South.


 
how do you pronounce Dawn / Don or  Boston?
[dOn]; [bOst@n] (O=open O) or
[dAn]; [bAst@n]  (back A)


----------



## gaer

kurumin said:


> how do you pronounce Dawn / Don or Boston?
> [dOn]; [bOst@n] (O=open O) or
> [dAn]; [bAst@n] (back A)


That's the problem.

You are assuming and "A or B" answer.

If you think of the two possibilities you have mentioned, I think I am in between somewhere.

In other words, if I say "Don" and "Boston", some people might hear an obvious difference, while others might not hear one at all.

Try this, as an experiment.

Say "Boston" while smiling as wide as possible. Think of this as one extreme. Slowly change the shape of your mouth until the smile until your lips form an "OH-sound".

But while you are doing this, say Boston over and over and over. Listen to how the vowel changes. If you do this, you will become aware of an infinity of gradations that most people do not even know exist. 

Gaer


----------



## jabogitlu

Jest, just, jist - I pronounce the first two alike (as jest), and jist like missed.
toward, board - Too-ward and Bored.
are, our, hour - like "R", like flower, and like arrow.
wash, "warsh" - I say warsh, but I'm from Appalachia.
idea, "idear" - idea.
ant, Aunt - I pronounce them both like "ain't," but make a point of not doing this when I'm outside of my hometown as it's a sure sign of "mal education!"

For some reason I say Boston like a Boston native.   I make a distinction between the "aw" and "o" of Dawn and Don.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Just, jest, jist - All three differently
toward, board - too-ward, bored
are, our, hour - our like hour
wash- I say wash 
idea - Idea
ant, Aunt - I pronounce these the same way.

I think (thankfully) Americans have stopped pronouncing Iran like I-RAN and Iraq - I-RAQ because I rarely hear them on TV nowadays, but many still insist on pronouncing Qatar - Cutter though, I always laugh at that


----------



## JamesM

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Just, jest, jist - All three differently
> toward, board - too-ward, bored
> are, our, hour - our like hour
> wash- I say wash
> idea - Idea
> ant, Aunt - I pronounce these the same way.
> 
> I think (thankfully) Americans have stopped pronouncing Iran like I-RAN and Iraq - I-RAQ because I rarely hear them on TV nowadays, but many still insist on pronouncing Qatar - Cutter though, I always laugh at that


 
I'm afraid there are still those who call it "I-raq", but they're usually the same ones who say "I-talian".   I've never understood that tendency to make the first syllable a long "I", but it's there.


----------



## cuchuflete

Before this turns into a collection of personal pronunciation records, would anyone care to return to the thread topic?


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> Before this turns into a collection of personal pronunciation records, would anyone care to return to the thread topic?


I think that all we can do at this point is to agree (or disagree) that some kind of standard does exist. 

But the standard is very "fuzzy". I did some checking. Many of the men and women who are prominent on stations such as CNN—or at least some—were not born in the location described as that of "General American".

It seems to me that those who are successful simply "grind off the edges" of the their pronunciation and approach some sort of mystical "speech-bull's-eye". 

I'm sorry for dragging the discussion off-topic, but I was trying to point out that pronunciation guides often show extremes and give no indication that there is a "continuity" between those two extremes.

If this idea makes any sense to anyone else, I'd like to discuss it as part of the thread. If not, I'm open to suggestions. 

Gaer


----------



## jennijenni

There's a very important point that should be clarified: The midwestern/neutral American accent hasn't been chosen by the broadcasting industry because it represents the majority of Americans. Rather, it's because it is the easiest to understand. 

Specifically, people who speak with a midwestern dialect (regardless of where they live) do the following:

* Do not drop consonants. For example, rather than saying "nothin'" they would say "nothing." (in Boston, dropping the "r" in car, etc.)
* Pronounce each letter or blend according to our accepted phonetical structure. (to be explained more below)
* Speak more slowly. Use a slight pause between words.
* Do not blur/blend letters from one word to another. (speaking as staccato in music; blending might be "gotta" instead of "got to" or "haveta" instead of "have to" or "whatcha" instead of "what are you")
* Do not speak "nasaly" but rather farther back in their throat with more resonance. (this is probably one of the biggest factors that differentiates professional broadcasters from someone with a strong regional dialect like a Chicagoan)
* Use commonly accepted English words versus regionally specific words. ("Fogettaboudit", "ain't", "y'all", "eh?", "yooos guys", "youins", "fixin' to")
* Do not overextend or mispronounce their vowels (in the South, "yooooo" for "you" and "git" for "get" and "a-ee-ce" for "ice.")
* Use a steady volume and pitch that goes up at the end of a phrase and down at the end of a sentence (except questions; granted, this is a bit oversimplified). (Minnesota has an up-down, sing-sing sound to the rest of us!)
* Use proper grammar. (avoiding "me and ____" and similar atrocities! hee, hee)

I grew up in Nashville and had a pronounced Southern accent. Due to the nature of my job at the time, I needed to have a more midwestern accent. By modifying the points I've listed above, I've almost completely lost my Southern accent--for the good or bad!

As a further aside, I've known plenty of midwestern people (I used to live there) who do not truly have a midwestern dialect. The incidence rate is higher than in other parts of the country; however, there is a regional dialect (not midwestern) in every midwestern state.


----------



## gaer

jennijenni said:


> There's a very important point that should be clarified: The midwestern/neutral American accent hasn't been chosen by the broadcasting industry because it represents the majority of Americans. Rather, it's because it is the easiest to understand.


I no longer believe that. I believe that people are chosen to work in the broadcasting industry because they are easy to understand and pleasant to listen to. Period.

I think the points you mention have more to do with training than with a midwestern or neutral accent.

People in broadcasting are taught to speak more slowly and more clearly than the average person. Although the way actors are trained to speak on stage is not precisely the same, there are many things in common. For instance, you spoke of resonance. This is also related to projection.

If James Earl Jones had decided to become an announcer rather than an actor, I can't believe that he would have had any trouble getting a job. His accent is not midwestern. Not even close. However, his words are very carefully pronounced (he stuttered terribly as a teen), and he has wonderful resonance and projection.

There is also the matter of having a "pleasing" voice, and that is all but impossible to define.

Modulation of pitch is yet another very important part of training. Although a few people with exceptional talent may do all these things well without training, I think it is rare.

As for using correct grammar, what does that have to do with accent? That is much more related to education, I would think.


> I grew up in Nashville and had a pronounced Southern accent. Due to the nature of my job at the time, I needed to have a more midwestern accent. By modifying the points I've listed above, I've almost completely lost my Southern accent--for the good or bad!


I don't for a moment disbelieve that you have modified your accent and far more than that. You have probably been very successful.

However, I still believe that many actors and actresses who speak in an extremely pleasing manner could have landed jobs in broadcasting even though their accents are clearly not midwestern. Having a voice that is distinctive, having a strong "regional flavor", does not make someone difficult to understand. There are too many other factors.

Gaer


----------



## jennijenni

gaer said:


> Having a voice that is distinctive, having a strong "regional flavor", does not make someone difficult to understand. There are too many other factors.


 
So what are those factors (for the benefit of those in the forum not from the US)?


----------



## gaer

jennijenni said:


> So what are those factors (for the benefit of those in the forum not from the US)?


This is the wrong thread for such a discussion, I'm afraid. In addition, if we talk about what accents are most understandable to people not from the US, do we focus on BE or AE? Even that is a simplification!

We could also ask people who are learning AE which people they find easiest to understand, but I belive that has already been disccussed.

Since this thread seems to center around broadcasting, the English used in it, what would happen if we picked the "stars" in this area? Or people who are well-known, successful as broadcasters?

Even now we have a problem of "now" vs. "in the past". Do we choose people who are well known on channels such as CNN? Or people such as Walter Chronkite, who would probably support your theories, born in Missouri?

Dan Rather, on the other hand, was born in Texas, I think.

The problem is that we don't know how all these people were trained. I'm assuming that most have at least some training. Anderson Cooper, for instance, was born in NYC, but I don't recognize his accent as coming from there. Did he lose some or most of it, on purpose?

I also checked the birthplaces of many actors and actresses, since I think there is a relationship, since they too are trained.

What links all these people together? What makes them easy to understand?

Againk, I think it comes down to training—pitch, resonance, many of the things you mentioned. Pacing. It seems to me that when two pronunciations are given for the same word, and the pronunciations are very different, many people who are trained to speak "well" end up almost anywhere in between.

This is what I think of as "having the edges of your accent 'rounded off' ".

I don't know if this makes any sense. But it may even explain why some famous people who are "BE" are easier for me to understand than many people in my own country.

I understand Anthony Hopkins, Patrick Stewart and Sean Connery more easily than most people from the midwest, and these people have been chosen to do advertisements. Surely such people would not be picked if they were not easy to understand here.

That's why I think training sort of "trumps" everything else. Just an idea. I'm not trying to prove anything, just thinking out loud!

Gaer


----------



## cuchuflete

More on the selection of General American as the preferred
style for broadcasting--
Once upon a time, not too many decades back, most people with identifiable eastern US accents were effectively blacklisted from radio broadcast booths and the then young television industry. The same was true for southerners.  The folks who ran RCA, Columbia Broadcasting and the upstart ABC believed that they would be offensive to a mass of listeners and viewers in "the heartland".  It was all about ratings and advertising dollars and prejudice, real or perceived.  The same was true for many Madison Avenue ad agencies.  Sad but true.  There were a few exceptions, such as Daniel Schorr, but they stood out.

This weird world view still hangs on by an ever shrinking thread in the newsrooms, but the 'understandability' theory has been proved to be nonsense in many broadcast markets.
Listen to morning radio.  Howard Stern sounds very much a New Yorker, and was nationally, and very successfully syndicated.  Many sports broadcasters with large national audiences have both southern and northeastern accents.  The listeners don't seem to have a problem understanding their rantings.


----------



## caballoschica

The only thing I think that goes with broadcasting and English is that they enunciate probably better than most.  And that goes back to training.  So they will be understood, no matter how thick/thin their accent is.  

Having everyone sound the same on the news would make it boring.  And it would also cause some monotones when they're trying to articulate different than they normally would. It wouldn't sound as natural either. 

I think that maybe why Midwestern is considered, 'neutral' is probably because people with a true Midwest accent pronounce letters pretty much equally, nor do we drop or add them.  By pronouncing them equally, I mean they don't add or subtract emphasis on certain letters.  But of course, as with any accent, it has its dialects.  There's the Southern influenced, the North East influenced, the more Western influence. The more rural areas have different dialects from the cities.  The urban accent of the Midwest is what people think of when they think of Midwestern accent.  Rural is quite different.


----------

