Why do different accents pronounce words so differently?

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's not the "e", it's because it's a french word originally.

I think.

 

[Mise]

Well if you're Canadian, route rhymes with boot and about and doubt and rout.

 

[Arakhor]

Route is of course a French word. Rout is a different word and pronounced very differently.

 

[Stapel]

Go ahead and cringe at the sound of the following example of Dunglish!



There's nothing wrong with having an accent. Everyone has an accent anyway. Still, the one accent isn't as cool as the other.
Also, about that Dutchman: is he sucking up unto English desperately failing to imitate an American accent? Or is he speaking normal English with a Dutch accent? I still haven't got a clue.

Oh, I've heared far far worse than that.

This guy has probably been in the US for some time.

 

[Stapel]

Basically the word is question is the route. Some say that is rhymes with doubt and some say that is rhymes is boot. The weird thing is that we would say rout rhymes with doubt and yet add an 'e' on the end and it some how changes the way the word is spoken in some parts of the world.

The a in cat and car... That's the one that puzzles me. If an e was added (care), the a in car becomes like the a in cat. If we would add an e to cat, we would probably prounce cate like Kate.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Stapel, I think it's because of the etymology

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=CAT
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=car

 

[Bill3000]

This is somewhat from a poem in Site Feedback, but why are their so many different ways of pronouncing certain words? The speeling is the same and yet the pronunciation is different.

Well, first of all, how words are pronounced is a completely independent matter of how they are pronounced, especially within English. The spelling system of English is some sort of pseudo-warped Middle English orthography.

Essentially, language naturally changes over time; how words are pronounced change over time; the phonology, the sounds of the language, and phonotactics, the rules in which these sounds may be placed to form words. The reasons why they change is unknown, but they do, and at different rates.

Phonological innovations tend to happen in a population and spread. (or retract) For example, within America, there is a growing spread of the cot-caught merge. (In which the vowel of "cot" and "caught", /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ in American English, become identical) On the other hand, Nonrhoticity (In which /r/ is pronounced in final syllables) is retracting, and younger people in areas such as New York and the coastal South tend to have rhotic dialects. The dynamics for why this happens is a complex sociological phenomenon, but I suppose you could say what perf said:

because it's cool to pronounce things differently

e.g. prestige (either regular or covert prestige) and imitation of peers, et cetera.

Dialects are formed by this uneven spreading of linguistic innovations; dialects can preserve old sounds or obtain new linguistic innovations, whether it be through spreading of innovations or innovations within the dialect itself.

For example, there is a new dialect that has been formed in America caused by the [wiki]Northern cities vowel shift[/wiki] -i as recent as the mid-20th century, this shift did not exist, and Inalnd Northern American was identical to North Midland. (dialect most closely approximating General American)

As for foreigners, non-native speakers tend to adapt the phonology and phonotactics of the non-native languge to their own native language; for example, Germans might devoice final consonants because that phonotactic rule exists in German.

The phonology and phonotactics that one has are wired to the brain during the critical period of language; (it's been experimentally tested to see how one perceives a linguistic sound) this is why it is extremely hard to truly sound native as a foreign speaker.

It depends, but normally I'd say isolation.

Isolated dialects tend to be more conservative than non-isolated ones, actually. The most innovative dialects tend to be in largely populated areas, such as London.

 

[fizikis]

How about lead? If it is a chemical element it rhymes with led, but if it is somebody in front it rhymes with need.

 

[Chieftess]

Funny, I was just searching this the other day.

First, there's political-geographic isolation (like the Pyrenees Mountains and Spain/Portugal on the other side), or the Franks living on the other side of the Rhine River. The southern Slavs were split from the northern Slavs by Magyar tribes. Since they're split, the peoples have different, unique experiences and don't share them with the other groups. A more recent example is the US, Australia and England. These countries have been isolated for a few hundred years and are starting to sound different (although the media may be hindering divisions in dialects since loan words are being exchanged and such).

Vowel-Shifts are another (and probably syllable additions/subtractions). In my city, there's several ways to pronounce "Baltimore" - from "Bawlmer" to "Bawlamer" to even "Bawldamer". Where Bostonians say "Cah", we say "car". I think that's part of the "aught" sound to "ot/ah-t" sound change.


After dialects come Creoles (just like there were several Celto-Roman creoles by the 5th century, and there's modern creoles like Haitian). These eventually become a language after a few hundred years of isolation.

 

[Masada]

A more recent example is the US, Australia and England. These countries have been isolated for a few hundred years and are starting to sound different (although the media may be hindering divisions in dialects since loan words are being exchanged and such).

I'm not sure the isolation is as significant as Bill suggested. Australian English was virtually indistinguishable from what was spoken in the Motherland right up till the sixties. Prior to that only the poor used to have a distinguishable Australian accent. The middle class and above often made a conscious effort to cultivate British English as a desirable accent. This wasn't all that difficult when you consider that the majority of the population had only very recent ties to the country. What is astonishing is how quickly it diverged after the sixties from being a minority dialect of the poor to being something that everyone spoke as a matter of course.

 

[Danielion]

I'm not sure the isolation is as significant as Bill suggested. Australian English was virtually indistinguishable from what was spoken in the Motherland right up till the sixties. Prior to that only the poor used to have a distinguishable Australian accent. The middle class and above often made a conscious effort to cultivate British English as a desirable accent. This wasn't all that difficult when you consider that the majority of the population had only very recent ties to the country. What is astonishing is how quickly it diverged after the sixties from being a minority dialect of the poor to being something that everyone spoke as a matter of course.

I think this is a global phenomenon and a result of an increasing decadence among Westerners. Also here in Flanders the middle class speaks what used to be seen as 'poor man's language' and use a more Brabantian variant of Dutch, rather than Standard Belgian Dutch.
Also, in French I notice people who just speak as they please, and I find the language to have evolved into something considerably less elegant.
By the way, when I talk to lower class Brits, I sometimes have troubles understanding them (being a non-Anglophone). They just speak dialect as they please to anyone. This is a global phenomenon which I am noticing in every language I'm familiar with.

Actually it's no new evolution neither (hence why one generation just sufficed, not coincidentally the period in which poor people climbed toward the middle class), but just an existing dialect gaining upper hand over the former standard. It's not a good thing because such phenomena make languages to disintegrate. The parvenus are causing this and television is catalyzing this evolution.

 

[Masada]

I think this is a global phenomenon and a result of an increasing decadence among Westerners. Also here in Flanders the middle class speaks what used to be seen as 'poor man's language' and use a more Brabantian variant of Dutch, rather than Standard Belgian Dutch.

I'm not sure what 'decadence' has to do with it. Here the dominance of that accent probably arose out of the massive inflows of people from non-English speaking backgrounds after the war. These people usually didn't speak English and tended to end up speaking a broken English. Their children usually grew up being encouraged to speak English or if not attended English speaking schools. As a result of this they learned Australian English but didn't have the levels of erudition or the impetus to master proper English. The result was that 'Australian' English came to predominate and proper English declined. Some of the harshest Australian accents come from the children of these migrants.

But I don't think that the 'Australian' accent of the pre-war years has done all that well. The number of people speaking in the stereotypical (think Steven Irwin) Australian fashion is basically nil now. Some places keep it going predominately Northern Queensland and the more isolated outback towns. But in the cities it is basically extinct. What seems to predominate now is something that sounds similar but doesn't seem to derive from the same source. The differences are there but I suppose with a smaller population and greater internal movement that say Britain or the United States a convergence is far more likely that any further divergence. The bleed from the country to the city is just one aspect of this. More broadly the derision heaped on speaking in that fashion is also another factor. New media probably to a lesser extent. But the one is taking over the other.

 

[Dachs]

If you're using the word "decadent" to describe a society instead of, say, a meal, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Stapel]

Stapel, I think it's because of the etymology

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=CAT
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=car

Hmm, not so sure.

In the Dutch kat and German Katze the a's are (somewhat) pronounced like the a in car.....

 

[warpus]

This is somewhat from a poem in Site Feedback, but why are their so many different ways of pronouncing certain words? The speeling is the same and yet the pronunciation is different.

English is a messed up language and the pronunciation & spelling often don't make any sense anyway. This opens up a lot of doors for saying stuff however the hell you like. Also, what everyone else is saying

 

[Danielion]

If you're using the word "decadent" to describe a society instead of, say, a meal, you're doing it wrong.

How so?