ackeiyword
Junior Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Bhutani
- Home Country
- Anguilla
- Current Location
- Austria
what is neutral accent?
The phrase is also a marketing tool for those web sites and schools which can teach you how to make your accent less marked - less Chinese, less Indian, etc.what is neutral accent?
That's interesting. The Australian accent is the same all over. That's probably because the main areas of settlement are all on the coast, and have always been connected by shipping ports. Few communities have been relatively isolated.I agree with Raymott, but I am one of those people that teach accent reduction. There is so much variety in accents that chances are your foreign accent is comparable to a native English speaker somewhere.
But to simplify, the most desired accent in the British dialect would be what is often referred to as a BBC accent.
In America, the preferred accent for broadcasters is a West Coast accent. So while a New Jersey accent or a Texan accent are understandable, a Califorina accent is considered the most neutral.
The same trend occurs in Canada, where the West Coast accent is considered more neutral compared to Southern Ontario or the Eastern Provinces.
R.I agree in part with both sides. In some cultures, female infanticide is fairly common, as is aborting a female foetus. I have a 5 month old daughter, and no one will ever convince me a son is better than a daughter. It's a completely illogical position, to me.
Yet I recognize that, sociologically, in certain communities, the normative reality is that there is a preference.
I don't aim to combat that preference by saying there aren't 2 genders. I just say it's unnecessary and not rational.
Hmm, that's interesting, kon. So, you're arguing that an accent is like a God-given gender. You don't want to neutralise it even though eunuchs make more sense?
The same goes for neutral accents. I see little point in preferring one accent over another, but it's tosh to say that all are equally intelligible by other groups. Some are "easier" than others, by virtue of vowel commonalities with the largest number of other dialects, and such criteria.
I have been told by many international students (France, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, Mexico) that my Toronto English is easier to understand than the accents of other teachers (Cockneys, Glasgoweegians [sp.], Mancunians, South Africans, for instance).
That's an argument for teaching Canadian pronunciation, isn't it? But are you saying that Canadian is a neutral accent?
Cultural attitudes and normative phenomena exist.
You may say I don't know what "neutral" means but Canadian is sure more neutral than Cockney to me. When I hear a person speaking Canadian English, I'm much less likely to think about their nationality than when I hear a person speaking Indian English. Perhaps I won't contemplate that with the latter either but it'll probably draw my attention. General American, modern RP - these are "most neutral" to me. Of course, you won't be speaking a neutral accent if you try RP in New York. But whether you speak GA or RP in Warsaw, doesn't make much difference. And if you speak an Oriental accent, even a person who barely understands English will notice that.That's an argument for teaching Canadian pronunciation, isn't it? But are you saying that Canadian is a neutral accent?
How can my position be obtuse? All I've said so far is that I believe there are no neutral accents. From the "Ask a Linguist" page that lauralie2 gave above: "There is no neutral accent of English." This is a linguistic commonplace.So saying neutral accents don't exist is like saying there aren't right angles in man-made structures. Sure, you will win the quick argument if you're stubborn, but ... your position is obtuse, to me.
That's my point. You are saying that you can speak in a neutral accent in one English-speaking country, but in another country your accent is not neutral. That would be my definition of an accent that is not neutral - speaking linguistically.General American, modern RP - these are "most neutral" to me. Of course, you won't be speaking a neutral accent if you try RP in New York.
It's difficult to define a term so that everybody is satisfied. I think, to me, neutrality of an accent is more continuous than to you. You seem to say accents can be either neutral or not and there's nothing in between.That's my point. You are saying that you can speak in a neutral accent in one English-speaking country, but in another country your accent is not neutral. That would be my definition of an accent that is not neutral - speaking linguistically.
If you wanted to make a case for the most often-spoken accent as being the most neutral, you'd probably have others arguing with you.It's difficult to define a term so that everybody is satisfied. I think, to me, neutrality of an accent is more continuous than to you. You seem to say accents can be either neutral or not and there's nothing in between.
No, I've never said that accents can be neutral. I'm saying all accents are not neutral. I'm saying that there is no neutral way of saying 'o' as in 'dog', for example.
I, on the other hand, could say something is more neutral and something else is less. That's why I said Cockney was less neutral than RP. Isn't it to you?
That's depends. How are you defining neutral?
I'm not going to try to strictly define what I mean by "neutrality"; it's too difficult.
Oh. :-(
But I certainly think that a simple, absolute definition like yours makes the problem too simple.
It's not my definition. It's the definition of linguistics. If we were having a scientific discussion and you wanted to claim that a neutral pH is not 7, but the pH of the most numerous substances, I'd disagree there too.
I'd also disagree if you said that the most neutral umpire was the one who gave the most equal number of points to the teams.
My definition, if I made one, would involve some kind of numerical representation of accents based on statistical data and then would say that the neutral accent is that one which has the highest representation.
Well, then you're dealing with statistcs, and you'd be talking about the 'modal' accent. I would not disagree that a certain accent might be the one most represented, assuming we could agree on what makes two people's accents the same.
Of course, what exactly I'd like to represent and how I'd do that requires much thought. The existence and uniqueness of the highest representation should also be considered.
What's your definition of a neutral accent then? Or do you mean that "neutral accent" doesn't mean anything? (I'm not asking whether it exists or not, just whether it means something.)If you wanted to make a case for the most often-spoken accent as being the most neutral, you'd probably have others arguing with you.
Given that "by 2050, the number of English-speaking Chinese is likely to exceed the number of native English speakers in the rest of the world", your modal accent would be Chinese. And all these Chinese people having language neutralisation classes would be wasting their time.
http://www.bookofjoe.com/2005/05/the_ascent_of_e.html
Anyhow, here are a few other concepts of neutrality:
Neutral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Personal judgements are worth studying too. And such studies can be objective. It's a fact that I find RP more neutral than Cockney. This personal judgement of mine exists. It's also a fact that many other people make the same judgement. It is true that some other people might make a different one. We can count both groups.(*) We can therefore compare the obtained numbers. We could (?) do that with all of the English accents. We could give the following definition:personal, not an objective judgement.
An accent is the quality and characteristics of a person's speech. It's a sound. The vowels are more or less open/closed, anterior/posterior, rounded/unrounded. A 't' is more or less alveolar or flapped, tapped, retroflex, dental ...What's your definition of a neutral accent then? Or do you mean that "neutral accent" doesn't mean anything? (I'm not asking whether it exists or not, just whether it means something.)
Yes, it's meaningless. Your accent is the way your voice sounds when you speak.
I think that saying that "neutrality of accents" doesn't exist is incorrect. It is perceived. I do perceive it.
You perceive something. And you choose to call it 'neutrality'. I don't know why you choose that word to define your perception with. You are simply taking the "accent-neutralisers" 'definition' and you want to change it again. (Note, I have nothing against "accent reduction" - either the practice or that term. I suppose they must call it something.)
I think what you're trying to define is comprehensibility, or something similar to that.
PS: Do you acknowledge that there are more people who find RP "neutral" than people who think so about Cockney?
I think more people would find RP less marked than Cockney, but I wouldn't call a relatively unmarked accent neutral.
By the way, the OP still hasn't got their answer yet. No one who believes in neutral accents has given an answer saying what a neutral accent is. No one can say how you pronounce 'dog' in a neutral accent. Why do you think this is?
That's how language works. Words don't have absolute meanings. I tried to explain what I perceive. I and some other people choose to call this thing neutrality. We're perhaps not entirely sure what this thing is but we know we mean more or less the same. I don't know why you don't want to call it neutrality. I think it's a good word.You perceive something. And you choose to call it 'neutrality'.
They could exist - to someone. If there were many such someones it could be worth talking about. What would neutrality of an instrument mean? I don't know. People would have to start using this word in this context to give it a meaning. There's no meaning without usage, and - I believe - when there is usage, there is a least some meaning.It's like saying there's a neutral hair colour, or eye colour. It's like asking a musician which is the most neutral tone on a piano; which is the most neutral instrument in an orchestra. None of these things exist.
5jjPersonal judgements are worth studying too. And such studies can be objective. It's a fact that I find RP more neutral than Cockney. Right. It's a fact that you find it more neutral. It is not a fact that it is more neutral. This personal judgement of mine exists. It's also a fact that many other people make the same judgement. It is true that some other people might make a different one. We can count both groups. We can therefore compare the obtained numbers. We could (?) do that with all of the English accents. We could give the following definition:
"Accent A is more neutral than accent B if and only if more people find A neutral."
(Someone might object that this definition uses a word to define itself. I think it doesn't)
I'm one of those someones. I think that all that one can legitimately say is "If enough people consider Accent A to be neutral, then it may become generally accepted that Accent A is neutral".
This changes nothing. If enough people agreed that red was a hostile colour, this too might mean that red was generally accepted as a hostile colour. But, even if everybody in the world had this opinion, it still wouldn't make it hostile. Red is red. Red is not hostile.