US English: Accents or Dialects?
March 1, 2010 11:13 AM Subscribe
US English variation: 'Accent' or 'Dialect' (from a linguistics perspective)?
Is there any academic consensus regarding the difference between the terms 'dialect' and 'accent'? I am looking for definitive linguistic references as to whether mainstream US English regional variations are considered to be dialects or accents.
A friend told me that US English regional variations were dialects and that calling them accents was erroneous.
Upon researching this, Wikipedia articles seem to use the terms inconsistently.
Dictionaries define dialects as possessing variance along three metrics: pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. Accents are defined as varying along the single metric of pronunciation.
According to this definition it would seem to me that nearly all US English variations are accents rather than dialects; 'Midwestern dialect' and 'California dialect' vary inconsequentially along grammatical or vocabulary metrics, and very little along pronunciation.
Wikipedia list of English dialects. According to the definition of 'dialect' how could 'Boston English' be considered one? It has almost no variance with standard English except in pronunciation. The same applies for nearly all of the mainstream 'dialects' listed. (Exceptions would be rare enclaves in rural Louisiana or the Northeast in which significant variance in all three metrics renders speakers basically unintelligible to the rest of US English speakers.)
It seems to me that 'dialect' is used rather loosely and no weight is given to the amount of variance along the three definitive metrics to determine what amounts to a 'dialect' vs. simply an accent.
A made-up example comparing 'Midland America English' to 'California English':
Pronunciation differential: 2%
Grammar differential: 1%
Vocabulary differential: 1%
Another for 'US English' vs 'English English'
Pronunciation differential: 10%
Grammar differential: 1%
Vocabulary differential: 5%
Without requiring some arbitrary degree of disparity-threshhold, the term seems almost useless from an academic standpoint. But perhaps linguists have some consensus in which they apply the term more rigorously?
Also I suppose any dialect would always _have_ an accent, whereas a given dialect might have any number of accents. Thus in my thinking 'Standard American English' would have accents like: Boston, New York, Southern, Midwestern, etc. Labeling these as dialects would still leave them with their respective accents, however.
This interesting PBS article seems to indicate that there isn't much academic consensus regarding the term, and that in fact some groups of linguists differentiate dialects based solely on pronunciation...which would mean there's no functional difference between 'accent' and 'dialect', with the latter being more of an academic term and the former a more colloquial one.
Is there any academic consensus regarding the difference between the terms 'dialect' and 'accent'? I am looking for definitive linguistic references as to whether mainstream US English regional variations are considered to be dialects or accents.
A friend told me that US English regional variations were dialects and that calling them accents was erroneous.
Upon researching this, Wikipedia articles seem to use the terms inconsistently.
Dictionaries define dialects as possessing variance along three metrics: pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. Accents are defined as varying along the single metric of pronunciation.
According to this definition it would seem to me that nearly all US English variations are accents rather than dialects; 'Midwestern dialect' and 'California dialect' vary inconsequentially along grammatical or vocabulary metrics, and very little along pronunciation.
Wikipedia list of English dialects. According to the definition of 'dialect' how could 'Boston English' be considered one? It has almost no variance with standard English except in pronunciation. The same applies for nearly all of the mainstream 'dialects' listed. (Exceptions would be rare enclaves in rural Louisiana or the Northeast in which significant variance in all three metrics renders speakers basically unintelligible to the rest of US English speakers.)
It seems to me that 'dialect' is used rather loosely and no weight is given to the amount of variance along the three definitive metrics to determine what amounts to a 'dialect' vs. simply an accent.
A made-up example comparing 'Midland America English' to 'California English':
Pronunciation differential: 2%
Grammar differential: 1%
Vocabulary differential: 1%
Another for 'US English' vs 'English English'
Pronunciation differential: 10%
Grammar differential: 1%
Vocabulary differential: 5%
Without requiring some arbitrary degree of disparity-threshhold, the term seems almost useless from an academic standpoint. But perhaps linguists have some consensus in which they apply the term more rigorously?
Also I suppose any dialect would always _have_ an accent, whereas a given dialect might have any number of accents. Thus in my thinking 'Standard American English' would have accents like: Boston, New York, Southern, Midwestern, etc. Labeling these as dialects would still leave them with their respective accents, however.
This interesting PBS article seems to indicate that there isn't much academic consensus regarding the term, and that in fact some groups of linguists differentiate dialects based solely on pronunciation...which would mean there's no functional difference between 'accent' and 'dialect', with the latter being more of an academic term and the former a more colloquial one.
In my (undergraduate-level) experience with the study of linguistics, "accent" is not a term that linguists use. "Dialect" is, and yes, the variations that laypeople call accents are a subset of the variations that linguists call dialects. A dialect is a variant of a given language that is intelligible to people who speak a different dialect of the same language. If two language variants are not mutually intelligible, they aren't dialects; they're something else. (What they are to each other depends, long story short, on a bunch of different variables. Of course, "mutually intelligible" isn't as cut-and-dried as I'm making it sound here either.)
posted by clavicle at 11:36 AM on March 1, 2010
posted by clavicle at 11:36 AM on March 1, 2010
In theatre school they told me that an accent is a holdover from another language (ie, a Francophone person who is speaking English with a French accent will roll their Rs and stress final syllables, etc). A dialect is a different version of the same language (ie, a person might speak a Bronx dialect of American English).
posted by pseudostrabismus at 11:39 AM on March 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by pseudostrabismus at 11:39 AM on March 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
My layperson sense of the terms is that "dialect" refers to linguistic variation. For instance, the second-person plural is "you" in some dialects, "y'all" in others, "you guys" in others (being synonymous with "y'all," not literally referring to guys), etc. Accent refers to the qualities of the voice itself, such as rising or falling pitches, or consonants being drawn-out (in Italian) or shortened (in British English).
I'm not a Southerner, but I can briefly adopt a Southern dialect by saying "y'all." I still won't have a Southern accent unless I also affect what sounds to me like an animated twang that many Southerners use.
But these distinctions aren't always obvious: for instance, in Italian, drawn-out consonants aren't just a style of speaking; they have actual meaning. Unlike in English, a double consonant is held for longer than a single consonant. "Papa" means "pope," but "pappa" -- the second "p" drawn out -- means "porridge." I wouldn't say that's an accent or dialect -- it's just how the words are pronounced. But the drawn-out consonants also make up part of the Italian accent (not dialect).
Again, layperson. I'm sure a linguist will show up with a better explanation.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:45 AM on March 1, 2010
I'm not a Southerner, but I can briefly adopt a Southern dialect by saying "y'all." I still won't have a Southern accent unless I also affect what sounds to me like an animated twang that many Southerners use.
But these distinctions aren't always obvious: for instance, in Italian, drawn-out consonants aren't just a style of speaking; they have actual meaning. Unlike in English, a double consonant is held for longer than a single consonant. "Papa" means "pope," but "pappa" -- the second "p" drawn out -- means "porridge." I wouldn't say that's an accent or dialect -- it's just how the words are pronounced. But the drawn-out consonants also make up part of the Italian accent (not dialect).
Again, layperson. I'm sure a linguist will show up with a better explanation.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:45 AM on March 1, 2010
Dialects can involve descriptive variations of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and lexicon between language varieties. It is not limited to those either. Accents refer to differences in sounds (phonology) between language varieties, and it is more or less limited to that.
[...] the difference between morphology and syntax. This is why the term morphosyntax was coined.
This is so not true.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:59 AM on March 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
[...] the difference between morphology and syntax. This is why the term morphosyntax was coined.
This is so not true.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:59 AM on March 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
Best answer: iamkimiam has it. To rephrase slightly (and at the risk of oversimplifying), accent is an aspect of dialect. The two are not the same thing, nor are they in the same category of thing.
To illustrate: I grew up in Alabama. I do not have a southern accent. However, I do speak with many aspects of southern dialect. I say "y'all," emphasize words and phrases on the first syllable (INsurance, UMbrella, NEW haven), use double modals ("might could," "might should"), and so forth.
Learning about the non-phonological aspects of dialect can be really fun; it's a cool party trick to identify the home regions of people who think they don't have any accent anymore based on word choice and syntax.
posted by ocherdraco at 12:07 PM on March 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
To illustrate: I grew up in Alabama. I do not have a southern accent. However, I do speak with many aspects of southern dialect. I say "y'all," emphasize words and phrases on the first syllable (INsurance, UMbrella, NEW haven), use double modals ("might could," "might should"), and so forth.
Learning about the non-phonological aspects of dialect can be really fun; it's a cool party trick to identify the home regions of people who think they don't have any accent anymore based on word choice and syntax.
posted by ocherdraco at 12:07 PM on March 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
iamkimiam, I agree that morphology and syntax have separate definitions, but when you get into particular languages and certain instances (like agglutinative languages), the line becomes really blurry.
posted by joan cusack the second at 12:41 PM on March 1, 2010
posted by joan cusack the second at 12:41 PM on March 1, 2010
Response by poster: Very interesting replies; thanks.
What I'm garnering from them is that it's not incorrect to say someone "has a Southern accent", but rather that an accent is a always a component of a dialect. Generally, then, someone speaking with a Southern accent will also have (or be speaking in?) a Southern dialect, which contains various differences in verbiage and syntax from other US English dialects.
Although the theater response (that an accent refers to a native tongue different from the one the speaker is using) is also interesting and makes a great deal of sense.
I guess I always thought dialects were further apart in nature, as with Mandarin and Cantonese (though truth be told I have no idea how 'far apart' those dialects are). Having never taken any linguistics courses, it never occurred to me that a very few syntactical differences ("car needs washed" or "might could") might equate to a different dialect.
Really it seems like a semantic question: 'dialect' is the word linguists use to refer to minor and/or major variations of a mutually-intelligible language, but the word doesn't see much usage outside of academia. Whereas 'accent' is commonly used, but only refers to variance in pronunciation.
posted by jjsonp at 12:42 PM on March 1, 2010
What I'm garnering from them is that it's not incorrect to say someone "has a Southern accent", but rather that an accent is a always a component of a dialect. Generally, then, someone speaking with a Southern accent will also have (or be speaking in?) a Southern dialect, which contains various differences in verbiage and syntax from other US English dialects.
Although the theater response (that an accent refers to a native tongue different from the one the speaker is using) is also interesting and makes a great deal of sense.
I guess I always thought dialects were further apart in nature, as with Mandarin and Cantonese (though truth be told I have no idea how 'far apart' those dialects are). Having never taken any linguistics courses, it never occurred to me that a very few syntactical differences ("car needs washed" or "might could") might equate to a different dialect.
Really it seems like a semantic question: 'dialect' is the word linguists use to refer to minor and/or major variations of a mutually-intelligible language, but the word doesn't see much usage outside of academia. Whereas 'accent' is commonly used, but only refers to variance in pronunciation.
posted by jjsonp at 12:42 PM on March 1, 2010
Whereas 'accent' is commonly used, but only refers to variance in pronunciation.
Oh, I think "accent" can mean things other than pronunciation. Doesn't it also include inflection and even timbre?
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:46 PM on March 1, 2010
Oh, I think "accent" can mean things other than pronunciation. Doesn't it also include inflection and even timbre?
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:46 PM on March 1, 2010
There seems to be somewhat general agreement that "accent" refers to phonetic features (the sound of the words) and is one feature of "dialect," which refers to many different features of language. (And by the way, vague agreement is about as close to unanimity as one gets in linguistics.)
As a long-ago linguistics major I don't think I ever read a careful definition of "accent," but I know we used it to refer to differences that were phonetic. "Dialect," we employed for a wide range of differences, including some grammar rules, varying meanings of words, etc.
So if I pronounce the drink as *kawfee* and you say it more like *kahfee* that's a phonetic difference, and it's a matter of accent - one aspect of dialect.
If I call it a "paper bag," and you call it a "paper sack," or if the past tense "drag" is "dragged" for me and "drug" for you, those are other dialect features that have nothing to do with accent.
posted by wjm at 1:08 PM on March 1, 2010
As a long-ago linguistics major I don't think I ever read a careful definition of "accent," but I know we used it to refer to differences that were phonetic. "Dialect," we employed for a wide range of differences, including some grammar rules, varying meanings of words, etc.
So if I pronounce the drink as *kawfee* and you say it more like *kahfee* that's a phonetic difference, and it's a matter of accent - one aspect of dialect.
If I call it a "paper bag," and you call it a "paper sack," or if the past tense "drag" is "dragged" for me and "drug" for you, those are other dialect features that have nothing to do with accent.
posted by wjm at 1:08 PM on March 1, 2010
> I guess I always thought dialects were further apart in nature, as with Mandarin and Cantonese
Those are not dialects, they are different languages, as distinct as French and Spanish. They are generally called "dialects" for historical and cultural reasons (Chinese are very big on the unity of China), but linguists refer to them as languages.
As for your question, iamkimiam and ocherdraco rule.
posted by languagehat at 2:42 PM on March 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Those are not dialects, they are different languages, as distinct as French and Spanish. They are generally called "dialects" for historical and cultural reasons (Chinese are very big on the unity of China), but linguists refer to them as languages.
As for your question, iamkimiam and ocherdraco rule.
posted by languagehat at 2:42 PM on March 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Thanks, LH!
Regarding Mandarin and Cantonese: one way China gets away with calling them "dialects" is that their written forms are similar (though not identical). There's a good post on this overlap (and, more specifically, on identifying differences between the two) over at Language Log.
posted by ocherdraco at 5:56 PM on March 1, 2010
Regarding Mandarin and Cantonese: one way China gets away with calling them "dialects" is that their written forms are similar (though not identical). There's a good post on this overlap (and, more specifically, on identifying differences between the two) over at Language Log.
posted by ocherdraco at 5:56 PM on March 1, 2010
For fun reading, check out The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson.
posted by wwartorff at 6:28 PM on March 1, 2010
posted by wwartorff at 6:28 PM on March 1, 2010
The Mother Tongue is fun, but is incredibly linguistically inaccurate. A quick google comes up with these two criticisms of the book; there are many, many more.
I love Bill Bryson, but he's not a linguist, and that book spreads a ton of misinformation.
posted by ocherdraco at 6:41 PM on March 1, 2010
I love Bill Bryson, but he's not a linguist, and that book spreads a ton of misinformation.
posted by ocherdraco at 6:41 PM on March 1, 2010
A good lay-definition is that an accent is different pronunciation and a dialect is different words, but still within the confines of the original language.
posted by gjc at 7:36 PM on March 1, 2010
posted by gjc at 7:36 PM on March 1, 2010
« Older Help me cover a corner window! | Is this landlord extortion or a reasonable request... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
"The dimension of language-variation that is accounted for in terms of the scale language-dialect-idiolect was introduced earlier in connection with the fiction of homogeneity (cf. 1.6). So too was the distinction between accents and dialects…The most obvious difference between the terms 'accent' and 'dialect' is that the former is restricted to varieties of pronunciation, whereas the latter also covers differences of grammar and vocabulary.”
So basically, I think you are right in saying that "a given dialect might have any number of accents," but also probably right in thinking that there isn't any real consensus, and for any given dialect, some linguists might argue that it isn't actually a dialect. (Linguists love to argue amongst themselves. Try getting one to explain the difference between morphology and syntax. This is why the term morphosyntax was coined.)
As a psycholinguist (who has taken 0 sociolinguistics courses, sadly), I hear "dialect" all the time and "accent" almost never, but I think the heart of what makes a dialect a dialect is the difference in grammar and vocabulary. In Pittsburgh, a person will say things like "The car needs washed" whereas other dialects of English don't allow for such constructions. If you live in Pittsburgh and would never say "The car needs washed," but you still speak with a Pittsburgh accent, I think linguists would argue that you are speaking a different dialect of English than that first person, even if the two of you have similar accents.
But again, someone else may argue differently.
posted by joan cusack the second at 11:27 AM on March 1, 2010 [1 favorite]