Sure, there’s a basic “standard newsreader accent” in Indian English just as there’s one in British English, American English, etc. (although the “standard accent” of each of those dialects is different, of course). Speech pattern similarity to the “standard newsreader accent” correlates to some extent with perceived status and education. Nobody’s disputing that.
Where you goofed was in asserting that the characteristics of the Indian English “standard newsreader accent” were somehow associated with speakers from northern India as opposed to southern India. In fact, as Pingali Sailaja remarks in Indian English, that standard accent is specifically non-regional:
Interesting, thanks. Without reading up on this: While ANI and ASI obviously correlate well with IE and Dravidian, the Andaman* connection (sounds reasonable to me --darker skin, curlier hair…) implies an even earlier Austroasiatic dominance of the subcontinent, represented in India today only by the Munda languages.
*Nicobar, actually. Andaman might represent and even EARLIER linguistic family of this essentially same genetic stock, going back to when it was even closer to what survives today only as Negritos/some Orang Asli/probably most Australians…but I’m probably getting into speculative territory here, or maybe just making mistakes.
I’d like to note that languages and language groups are not necessarily correlated with genetic groups. So I’d advise caution before going too far down that road.
Notice the difference in how retroflexed stops are created between Hindi and Tamil speakers on p 19, fig 2.4 here. As a native speaker but non linguist I may not be getting the liguistic description right but I can tell you that the sounds are markedly different and the one produced by the way the tongue is in that Tamil diagram is not the one used in media-standard Indian English because it is not perceived to be as polished in the same way that southern US drawls are not perceived to be as polished.
While there may be a perception this standard accent is non-regional, (and of course on TV and so on it may be non-regional), the relative concentration of Tamil speakers in southern India create the defacto pattern I referred to.
Right, that was kind of my point…that what could be considered on some level a genetic “group” underwent at least two, more likely three, major language family replacements over the past seven thousand years or whatever. But your word of caution is always a good reminder.
Nobody is disputing that there are different consonants and different ways of forming consonants in Hindi and Tamil.
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
and the one produced by the way the tongue is in that Tamil diagram is not the one used in media-standard Indian English because it is not perceived to be as polished in the same way that southern US drawls are not perceived to be as polished.
[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that there exist certain regionalisms in Tamil-influenced (or more broadly, Dravidian-influenced) Indian English that are perceived as “less polished” or lower-status than their counterparts in “standard” Indian English.
What you seem to be consistently failing to grasp is the fact that there are also certain regionalisms in Indian English influenced by northern Indian languages that are also perceived as “less polished” or lower-status than their counterparts in “standard” Indian English.
A heavy Punjabi or Bengali accent in Indian English, for example, does not sound more like “standard newsreader Indian English” than a heavy Tamil accent does, and it is not perceived as “more polished”.
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
While there may be a perception this standard accent is non-regional, (and of course on TV and so on it may be non-regional)
[/QUOTE]
That’s the point. The “high status” register of Indian English that is regarded as “standard” in, e.g., media broadcasting is not specifically “north Indian” in nature. It differs from both southern and northern Indian regional variants.
If it will help you understand it better, think of the “less polished” US Southern accents as a counterpart of “less polished” northern US regional variants such as the “Maine drawl” or “Brooklyn twang”. Neither of those sounds like “standard” American English, any more than the stereotypical “Southern accents” do.
If it will help you understand it better, think of my original point:
By CP:
"A US analog might be along the lines of media folk not using strong “southern” accents.
D’s and T’s, for example, are much less retroflex and more dental as the polish and education of the speaker go up the scale.
Obviously this is a crude approximation, and I’ve always thought it may have its roots in the Dravidian background of the underlying peoples and languages (Kannada v Hindi, e.g.) along with the rough divisions of classes that occurred w/ the historic divisions after Aryan peopling of India…
As mentioned above, at a crude approximation this carries over to “northern” and “southern.”
I should correct this to say “much less retroflex and more alveolar/anterior” since it’s not actually a dental T.
But really retroflexed D’s and T’s pronounced with the tongue curled farther back the way Tamil speakers do relative to Hindi speakers, is seen as a less polished accent. This pronunciation is more common in the southern part of India, and the reason for it lies in the history of India.
You are right that in any part of any country–including India–a given local accent might be perceived as cruder.
You remain confused about the point I made (tried to make, anyway) and your tangent point that local accents in general may be perceived as unpolished is lovely but unrelated.
I agree that an “educated” accent is somewhat neutral, but not wrt to retroflexed Ds and Ts pronounced w/ the tongue curled way back. There are many other subleties, or course, that are a lot easier for a native speaker to pick up on in the same way the accents for various English speakers are easier to pick up on if you are a native speaker.