Do West Coast Americans have an Accent?

[Sage_Rat]

Gah, hit the wrong button. Fixing coding:

That’s the difference between phonemic and phonetic transcription. A phonetic transcription tries to represent each sound precisely, while a phonemic transcription tries to represent each sound as it’s perceived by a native speaker. That’s what Johanna was alluding to earlier.

Then it appears that my words have no translation in technical jargon. For a linguist it may make sense that you are better to take a snapshot of a phoneme being pronounced by a native speaker and mark it as its own character and do this to capture all the sounds of the language. But just as some guy who can do impressions, he does so by keeping his throat, tongue and so forth positioned slightly differently, stressing some sounds more or less, than the way he normally does, and that difference forces the same words and letters to come out sounding different.

To the (or at least this) lay-person, it makes a lot more sense to say that the only difference between (sh)edyule and (s)(k)edyule methoding is that there is only a single difference. Any discernable difference between a native speaker saying the word and a foreign after that would be an overall different “addition” to their speach, and not that they were using an entirely different sound for each individual character. A unique phonetic alphabet would essentially be required per not only every single region of the world, but even for at different time periods. For something as unquantifiable as the pitch at which one speaks or how long he holds the “m” sound in his words, trying to represent “m” differently for each language sounds impossible. While as taking a snapshot of the throat/nose/tongue area and saying “Ya set yourself up about like this and start talking to sound cockney” makes a lot more sense. Of course you can’t codify that as individual phonemic characters anymore–but then I can’t see that you ever would have been able to either without a lot of characters or some serious markup.

(s)[sup]duration:0.13sec/pitch:MediumHigh/nasalness:little/aspiration:yes/tonguePosition:forwardMiddle/sup[sup]…[/sup]…

A variety of language spoken in a particular region is a “dialect” - for instance, American English is divided into several dialects including Midwestern, Southern, Mid-Atlantic, Western, etc.; a variety of language spoken by a particular class or group of people (say, African-American Vernacular English or AAVE) is a “sociolect”. In general, the term “variety” is used to describe (not surprisingly) different varieties of language (or occasionally “lect”.)

Dialect means the same thing to me, so apparently we can dispell of cliquety.

We won’t say anything of the sort until you find specific evidence for it. There are obviously some differences in manner of speaking, but I’m not familiar with any work that suggests that different American dialects use different pitches to speak, not on a consistent basis.

I’m not sure that an American ones do either. Choosing to have “octavity” only refer to pitch was just because pitch is something easily quantifiable and where you can say that any sound X can be pronounced at any pitch and stiil be discernably sound x. As stated many times in the thread I’m meaning something more than just pitch, but rather a whole series of various things that effect the overall sound–of which pitch would just be one. And in Japanese, yes, there is a pitch change for “manly talk.” In modern day it might have somewhat to do with smoking, but still generally the overall pitch of Japanese men lowers as they go from single to married with children. And of course that if you ever hear an impression of some samurai warrior talking, they’ll speak in a low growl.

Except that doesn’t make sense. Why would a particular speech community share word choices or pronunciations of sounds and not share suprasegmental aspects of speech?

All Americans pronounce it “skedyule” just the same, and yet we all sound different saying it. Whether it makes sense for that to have become so doesn’t really matter as it is still the world we are presented with. We have agreed on a specific methoding for the word as a country, but alternate in our octavity by region. While as “fer” of “fer sure” would be a localized methoding popular Valley Girls and some Southerners (i.e. “Fer chrisakes Billy-Joe!”), and yet have entirely separate and unrelated octavitings. Just because they both use “fer” doesn’t mean that any other words are going to share methoding.

I’m guessing that you were suggesting that a Japanese speaker could somehow pronounce each sound with all their articulatory organs used exactly as an English speaker does,

No. That is not what I mean. Only the bare minimum of those organs would be alligned correctly. Methoding describes only the bare minimum of positioning of articulary organs to create a sound that is distinguishable as the same character. For instance, with the methoding/octaviting paradigm, there would be no difference between the t in team or steam. Anyone who could discernably method it as a “t” sound is methoding it just fine for the local dialect.

I don’t think there is a single concept matching “octavity”;

But there is! And it is called: Octavity! I guess we’ll just have to go with it.

But when I mentioned consistent differences in vowel quality, you dismissed that - and that’s problematic, because those things aren’t aspects of how words are stored in the mental dictionary but rather of what a phoneme represents in different dialects. They aren’t haphazard - they’re absolutely consistent. Those things are a feature of how the language variety’s sound system works, not different ways of pronouncing a word.

I would say that the in/an/en vowel sounds of the French are separate vowel sounds that don’t exist in English. But I wouldn’t say that the “ou” sound of French “vous” and “oo” of American “loot.” Yet, I would still be able to tell whether it was an American or a French person saying the word. You might say that they are (v)[sup]A/sup[sup]A[/sup] and (l)[sup]B/sup[sup]B/sup[sup]B[/sup] and that if you don’t do pronounce each sound specifically as an local would then your pronunciation is wrong, while as I would mark them as “(v)(ou)” and “(l)(ou)(t)” and then say that there are octavities French and American, and that so long as each (X) item is discernably that item then their methoding is just perfect, only there might be a remaining octavity.

Someone with a Spanish accent will tend to pronounce /t/ as a dental sound, which means that their tongue is pressed against their front teeth rather than the alveolum, which is a ridge behind the front teeth, and it’s where an English /t/ is made.

To linguists it might make more sense to list them as entirely separate /t/s, but for me if it’s obviously a t, you may as well call it a t and just say that he does his with a Spanish accent. That might not be scientifically useful, but who ever said that lay-speak had to be scientifically useful.

Like I said, while there’s some vocabulary problems here, I think what you’re proposing is just not conceptually valid.

Well I’m not proposing anything as such. I’m explaining my breakdown of pronunciation so that my question might be answered. Whether that breakdown is one that would in the long run be useful system to classify languages isn’t really relevant. It isn’t a scientific system nor was it set up to be so. It might not be useful to classify clouds as “fluffy” or “thin” either, but if you’re dealing with a lay-person who doesn’t know his cumolous from his nimbus, and is specifically asking about the difference between “fluffy” and “thin” and yet there is no direct translation to those words in the technical jargon–I’m not sure it makes sense to say that “fluffy” and “thin” aren’t valid cloud classifications. They are simply not useful classifications to scientists.

[Sage_Rat]

@Monty

Technically, written letters have nothing to do with Linguistics.

Well, unfortunately there is nothing between a phoneme and a letter. I guess one could go with “sound”, but perhaps it is better to have created a separate word for this as well. I hereby pronounce it a “Slice.”

[jimmmy]

@Sage Rat

Indeed, many Country Western singers sing with phonemic accents (eh, giving the word a shot.) The question is whether they are having to work extra to do this, or if they are the only ones who have not fallen into the whole “singing like West Coast Americans” movement of the 60s, and did not thus practice and perfect this art? If you know that, then I will (finally) have my answer.

Haven’t we long ago established that the standard American singing accent is not a “West Coast” signing Accent? The American Accent that “sounds american” has nothing in particular to do with the west coast … right?

[Monty]

@Sage Rat

Choosing to have “octavity” only refer to pitch was just because pitch is something easily quantifiable and where you can say that any sound X can be pronounced at any pitch and stiil be discernably sound x.

There are a few languages where that is not the case. For English speakers, I’d say that you’re correct (for the most part; there are probably one or a few exceptions, but I can’t think of any at the moment); however, for a couple of other languages, pitch is contrastive.

[Excalibre]

@Sage Rat

Well I’m not proposing anything as such. I’m explaining my breakdown of pronunciation so that my question might be answered.

Fine, Sage Rat. You’re not interested in learning anything about basic phonetics and phonology. You’re not interested in learning about what makes regional varieties and foreign accents distinct. So fine then: West Coast Americans, unique among all varieties of all languages, have no “accent”. You have defined these words in such a way that this is now true.

The only problem being that in this conceptual structure, “accent” has no meaning.

Seriously, dude, I’m done trying to explain this stuff to you. You have no desire to remedy your ignorance of the subject, or discuss it in any meaningful way. Fine. You can sit around and make up all the words you want, and deny basic, simple concepts, and believe what you want. For your next step, use your l33t vocabulary-inventing skills to prove that you have a fire-breathing dragon in a cage in your garage, and it will be true, for some new definition of “fire” and “dragon” and “garage”. Congratulations. You have now successfully accomplished nothing.

[Sage_Rat]

Apologies for taking time off again. I’m not trying to be annoying by taking time off; I am just rather busy at the moment and using my free time to get showered with flames isn’t high on the list.

But no, I haven’t defined my words such that any solution is proven one way or the other–if anything having split phonemes into two parts, I’ve probably done more internally to disprove the OP theory. And yes, I am perfectly fine to learn about linguistics. The problem being that my question is meaningless based on the methodology of linguistics–I fully accept and admit this. That still doesn’t mean there isn’t a factual answer that would satisfy my curiosity one way or the other.

Again, really all I would need would be for someone to answer either of the two questions by which I can verify the question one way or another to my own satisfaction:

1. Many Country Western singers sing with accents (accents as I intend them.) The question is whether they are having to work extra to do this, or if they are the only ones who have not fallen into the whole “singing like West Coast Americans” movement of the 60s, and did not thus practice and perfect this art?

2. The names of any British bands/singers previous to the 60s that I could look up (the more the better.)

@Jimmmy

Haven’t we long ago established that the standard American singing accent is not a “West Coast” signing Accent? The American Accent that “sounds american” has nothing in particular to do with the west coast … right?

I’m not sure what you mean. Certainly, it is used outside of the West Coast, but given as it is popularised by Hollywood and that I am not specifically sure of what other regions besides the West Coast states it is used in–and that the term does work to conjure the sound I am referring to–I don’t see anything wrong with it. I feel rather silly to just call it the American Accent when only a percentage of the country uses it (even if it is the official name of the accent): Why call the West Coast accent the American Accent and not the New York one? New York has been part of the US a lot longer.

@Monty

There are a few languages where that is not the case. For English speakers, I’d say that you’re correct (for the most part; there are probably one or a few exceptions, but I can’t think of any at the moment); however, for a couple of other languages, pitch is contrastive.

That is indeed an issue–and is one thing that makes the probability that there is no “zero” accent rise. Or perhaps the answer to the question: That there may be no pitch change in spoken English–and that, that is what I am noticing (as, when you sing you are locked in to the pitch of the song)? Certainly it would make sense–and is potentially what several posters meant in their technobabble. I’ll need to go back and look.

How do people in pitch-based languages sing?

[Monty]

That’s been addressed in another thread, can’t recall which one at the moment.

And, no, you didn’t divide phonemes into two parts scientifically. Linguistics, contrary to what many people seem to think, actually is a science.

You certainly didn’t disprove the assertion that West Coast Americans have an accent. All people have accents. It’s a simple and basic fact.

[Monty]

Quite often, I get the feeling that being a Linguist is like being Mormon (I’m both). In either case, completely unqualified people seem to be compelled to tell me “what are the facts about languages” or “What Mormons really believe” and they’re completely mistaken.

Odd, ain’t it?

[Excalibre]

@Monty

Quite often, I get the feeling that being a Linguist is like being Mormon (I’m both). In either case, completely unqualified people seem to be compelled to tell me “what are the facts about languages” or “What Mormons really believe” and they’re completely mistaken.

Odd, ain’t it?

I’ve felt that way about linguistics from time to time - people tend not to appreciate the complexity of what linguistics does. Perhaps I should carry a copy of Syntactic Structures around and say, “So explain THIS!” to people who seem to think they are just as capable within the field as those trained in linguistics. Folks tend to believe that since they use language all day, they clearly understand language from the same perspective as a linguist. Which to me seems analogous to people assuming that since they perform cellular respiration all day, obviously they are trained biologists.

People do this with medicine, too, and education. I don’t think there’s any shortage of people who don’t understand exactly how complex different fields of expertise are or that they don’t have nearly as much knowledge as experts in the field. I suspect your perspective is in large part the product of your expertise on linguistics and you’d probably see exactly the same thing if you were in, say, psychology. I think it’s natural not to appreciate how complex and difficult something is if you haven’t studied it, and in the case of linguistics in particular the average person has virtually no formal education, since it’s not a normal part of most high school and college curricula.

Hmm, maybe we should use lots of equations with weird looking Greek and Hebrew symbols in our work; it seems to keep non-physicists from assuming they can personally understand quantum theory without study . . .

[RickJay]

@Excalibre

I’ve felt that way about linguistics from time to time - people tend not to appreciate the complexity of what linguistics does. Perhaps I should carry a copy of Syntactic Structures around and say, “So explain THIS!” to people who seem to think they are just as capable within the field as those trained in linguistics. Folks tend to believe that since they use language all day, they clearly understand language from the same perspective as a linguist.

Well, language is such an integral part of us - I mean, it’s how we think - that you can understand people not comprehending the complexity of it.

I mean, what would really be nuts is if someone was, saying, arguing about meaning in a language that they didn’t even speak. Like, say, someone who doesn’t speak Spanish arguing with Spanish-speaking folks about context and meaning in Spanish. But that would never happen on this board! Ha ha!

[Excalibre]

@RickJay

Well, language is such an integral part of us - I mean, it’s how we think - that you can understand people not comprehending the complexity of it.

I mean, what would really be nuts is if someone was, saying, arguing about meaning in a language that they didn’t even speak. Like, say, someone who doesn’t speak Spanish arguing with Spanish-speaking folks about context and meaning in Spanish. But that would never happen on this board! Ha ha!

It is to laugh!

[Fish]

@Sage Rat

Indeed, many Country Western singers sing with phonemic accents (eh, giving the word a shot.) The question is whether they are having to work extra to do this, or if they are the only ones who have not fallen into the whole “singing like West Coast Americans” movement of the 60s, and did not thus practice and perfect this art? If you know that, then I will (finally) have my answer.

Of course they have to work harder to imitate someone else’s accent while singing. Anybody does.

The mistake you’re making is that since you don’t have to work harder to sing in your own accent, that your accent is somehow “normal” or “natural” for everyone. It is not: it is normal and natural to you.

An Aussie might just as easily argue that since you have to work harder to sing like an Aussie, that Australian is somehow the “default” sound.

There are Australians who play (American) country-western music, and they sing it in a Texas twang. Why? Partly for the commercial viability — it legitimizes their presence in the C/W music market, until they can attract a following.

Conversely, there are musicians from Texas who try to lose their Texas accents because it isn’t appropriate for their style of music.

It’s all about the ear, and how pervasively it shifts your manner of speaking and singing. Many people imitate without even being aware of it.

Listen to your favorite song, and sing along. Suppose it’s in A major. Now try to sing the song in G major, while the song plays. It’s not easy to listen to one key, and sing another. You have to work hard to ignore what your ear tells you is “correct.” That doesn’t mean A major is a “natural singing key” any more than American is a “natural singing accent.” All it tells you is that the human ear is very, very good at imitation, even when you don’t want it to be.

Just google for “Australian country music” or “singing accent” and you’ll find as much confirmation as you’d like.

[YaWanna]

@Sage Rat

Bump. Hoping for any answer to the specific items mentioned …
And the new addition of:

5. Floridians (as I recall) and other areas of the country also use, or are near it, even though they are physically separated from the West Coast. (?)
   …
   I was wondering if there was some sort of something where, like Shagnasty postulated, lots of people with different pitch accents who have converged on an area and are now trying to communicate will default to some pitch accent that is easier for everyone to pick up the words. So far we have determined that the accent sounds “slow” (“drawl,” per even sven) which sounds likely from that theory.

You surely must be aware that a lot of Florida residents are not Florida natives, at least/especially in the more urban/suburban areas, which is similar to California. I daresay you have never heard a native Florida “cracker” speak. Most of them live or were born & brought up in rural, non-tourist-oriented parts of the state (specifically, the further-north and further-inland areas, where farming - citrus, other fruits & vegetables, and cattle, especially - dominates). Their accent is most similar to Georgians, I would say. Of course, they are a dying breed - the accent will probably be extinct in no more than a few generations.

So, who are the rest of these “Floridians” of whom you speak? Guess what - they’re from “everywhere”! My parents came from (generally speaking) the Midwest, a lot - a lot of New Englanders and esp. New Yorkers move there, I’ve even known of some California natives that are there, and then, of course, the Miami area has a very strong influx of Cuban and Central/South American people. So - as kids are born to these various people, and they all grow up together, go to school together, watch the same TV, guess what accent they eventually end up with? Duh! - the one they hear on TV! Which is generally populated by Californians. Wow - what a concept.

Incidentally, the Portland Oregonian featured an article a month or so back about the native Portland accent which was fascinating. It might be worth Googling up if one was interested.