This is... a very weird article title to me? As a British person, we have possibly the most diverse number of distinct and (sometimes unintelligible) accents per region than compared to the...
This is... a very weird article title to me?
As a British person, we have possibly the most diverse number of distinct and (sometimes unintelligible) accents per region than compared to the continent. So there really isn't one-single-accent, imo. Not to mention that a large number of Americans come from continental settlers (Germany, France, etc.)
So, to me it's weird to ask the question of "How Americans lost their British accents", given that there's a strong likelihood that not only did they not have 'British accents' in the first place, but there's a fair chance that they never spoke English in the first place, either!
There is definitely a family of British accents and a family of American accents, with each family sharing similarities within the family. The most notable difference between the families is the...
There is definitely a family of British accents and a family of American accents, with each family sharing similarities within the family. The most notable difference between the families is the one described in this blog: how the letter 'r' is pronounced. Surely you recognise that the majority/standard American accent has a harder 'r' than the majority/standard British accent? There are exceptions on both sides of the pond, but most English speakers in the USA bear down on their 'r's stronger than most English speakers in the UK.
And, when we're talking about comparing accents, we're talking about the majority American language - which is English, not German or French. The accent of non-English speakers seems like a strange point to focus on in a discussion about how English is spoken.
That said, it is a misleading title, given that the answer is that American English is the version which retained the hard 'r' while British English is the version which changed. Americans didn't lose their British accents - the British did!
Why is that? Consider that the immigrants would have eventually learned English, but that does not mean they would have dropped their accents! Indeed, my parents and I carry rather weird accents...
The accent of non-English speakers seems like a strange point to focus on in a discussion about how English is spoken.
Why is that? Consider that the immigrants would have eventually learned English, but that does not mean they would have dropped their accents! Indeed, my parents and I carry rather weird accents (compared to the usual Welsh locale), simply because on one side my grandmother is a recent immigrant (from Germany), and on the other side my family are something like fifth generation immigrants. Literally any local will point out how we do not conform to the local accent, so from my experience it is obvious fact that accents can mix, and will persist for at least a couple of generations.
I don't see why you seem to be focused on compartmentalizing something that very obviously would have had an effect, however small.
I think in this case it's incorrect given that quite a few accents in Britain are unintelligible to people who have no experience with the accent, which isn't really something that you have in...
I think in this case it's incorrect given that quite a few accents in Britain are unintelligible to people who have no experience with the accent, which isn't really something that you have in America, as I understand it? (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScELaXMCVis)
While I firmly agree that the article title is ridiculous, the article itself does mention historical linguistic changes in the UK that helped diverge some of that variety of English from that in...
While I firmly agree that the article title is ridiculous, the article itself does mention historical linguistic changes in the UK that helped diverge some of that variety of English from that in the Americas. Namely that non-rhotic speech wasn't particularly popular in the UK until the early 19th century.
From the article
Around the turn of the 18th 19th century, not long after the revolution, non-rhotic speech took off in southern England, especially among the upper and upper-middle classes. It was a signifier of class and status.
... noting that most sources concur in dating the very start of the loss of rhoticity to perhaps the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, probably in London, but that the main spread of full non-rhoticity is not well advanced until the early nineteenth century
While the accents of the various immigrant people had an affect on different regional varieties of American English, e.g. Scots-Irish in Appalachia, West African slaves in the South, Dutch in New England, etc., the non-rhoticity of some UK Englishes mostly wasn't really a thing until after the Americans generally wanted to distance themselves from the "Mother Country". Rightly or wrongly, that is deemed the defining feature of British English in the U.S., even if it's relatively recent and there are quite a few more differences than just that.
I remember reading that the Boston accent is the closest to the English accent. Which actually makes some sense to my ears. When I try to pronounce "Harvard" in Bostonian and English accents they...
I remember reading that the Boston accent is the closest to the English accent. Which actually makes some sense to my ears. When I try to pronounce "Harvard" in Bostonian and English accents they are pretty close: Hahvahd. In my attempts the only difference is how the "a" is pronounced. In Bostonian it's almost an "eh" sound vs. the English "ah."
Boston English shares many phonological developments of British English because it was settled by people from Eastern England, whereas most of the rest of the U.S. was settled by people from Western England and Ireland. New England was partially settled by Eastern Englanders though, so in areas settled by them they drop final rs.
In the 18th century, Western England and Ireland were fully rhotic (meaning pronounced coda rs) whereas Eastern England dropped syllable and coda final rs.
Today the most of the U.S., Canada, and Ireland along with some parts of Scotland are rhotic, while most of the UK, and all of South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia are non-rhotic.
This is... a very weird article title to me?
As a British person, we have possibly the most diverse number of distinct and (sometimes unintelligible) accents per region than compared to the continent. So there really isn't one-single-accent, imo. Not to mention that a large number of Americans come from continental settlers (Germany, France, etc.)
So, to me it's weird to ask the question of "How Americans lost their British accents", given that there's a strong likelihood that not only did they not have 'British accents' in the first place, but there's a fair chance that they never spoke English in the first place, either!
There is definitely a family of British accents and a family of American accents, with each family sharing similarities within the family. The most notable difference between the families is the one described in this blog: how the letter 'r' is pronounced. Surely you recognise that the majority/standard American accent has a harder 'r' than the majority/standard British accent? There are exceptions on both sides of the pond, but most English speakers in the USA bear down on their 'r's stronger than most English speakers in the UK.
And, when we're talking about comparing accents, we're talking about the majority American language - which is English, not German or French. The accent of non-English speakers seems like a strange point to focus on in a discussion about how English is spoken.
That said, it is a misleading title, given that the answer is that American English is the version which retained the hard 'r' while British English is the version which changed. Americans didn't lose their British accents - the British did!
Why is that? Consider that the immigrants would have eventually learned English, but that does not mean they would have dropped their accents! Indeed, my parents and I carry rather weird accents (compared to the usual Welsh locale), simply because on one side my grandmother is a recent immigrant (from Germany), and on the other side my family are something like fifth generation immigrants. Literally any local will point out how we do not conform to the local accent, so from my experience it is obvious fact that accents can mix, and will persist for at least a couple of generations.
I don't see why you seem to be focused on compartmentalizing something that very obviously would have had an effect, however small.
Hey dere! Watch yerself. Us MinnesOHtans don't have accents.
I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your policework there, Lou.
Yaaah! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqAVuE524Gk
I think in this case it's incorrect given that quite a few accents in Britain are unintelligible to people who have no experience with the accent, which isn't really something that you have in America, as I understand it? (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScELaXMCVis)
While I firmly agree that the article title is ridiculous, the article itself does mention historical linguistic changes in the UK that helped diverge some of that variety of English from that in the Americas. Namely that non-rhotic speech wasn't particularly popular in the UK until the early 19th century.
From the article
From a more academic source
While the accents of the various immigrant people had an affect on different regional varieties of American English, e.g. Scots-Irish in Appalachia, West African slaves in the South, Dutch in New England, etc., the non-rhoticity of some UK Englishes mostly wasn't really a thing until after the Americans generally wanted to distance themselves from the "Mother Country". Rightly or wrongly, that is deemed the defining feature of British English in the U.S., even if it's relatively recent and there are quite a few more differences than just that.
I remember reading that the Boston accent is the closest to the English accent. Which actually makes some sense to my ears. When I try to pronounce "Harvard" in Bostonian and English accents they are pretty close: Hahvahd. In my attempts the only difference is how the "a" is pronounced. In Bostonian it's almost an "eh" sound vs. the English "ah."
Here is an explanation I found on Quora:
They never did. But language (including dialects/accents) constantly change, both in America and in Britain (and in every other place).