Which city is leading the fashion of English accent? New York, or Los Angeles, or London?
Which city is leading the fashion of English accent?
This is a wee bit of a hazy topic - all three cities named have huge accent variations among it's populations due to an influx of people from all sorts of backgrounds and cultures.
With regard to Los Angeles - it can't really compared with the other two cities....both London and New York have clearly defined city centres, whereas Los Angeles (apparently...I've never been there) is simply an amorphous mass with no real focal point - in the European sense, anyway. As for a distinguishable Los Angeles accent....I've no idea what that sounds like should it actually exist. I would imagine it would be massively influenced by the fact that the population of the metro area contains a huge number of Latinos who may actually form the majority of the inhabitants.
The "traditional" New York accent is more identifiable to a degree, but as with the "London accent" it's probably undergone changes over the years by newcomers to the city.
I know that's the case with London - genuine Cockney has more or less died a long lingering death, and been replaced by an amalgam of Cockney and Estuary, while at the same time "posher" English English RP dominates large sections of the Greater London population, while immigration on a large scale has now seen a myriad of accents and dialects affecting other sections of the "New Londoners". It's not uncommon in "black Caribbean" areas of London, in particular, for a sort of "Ghettospeak" to influence the way the SOME of the local "whites" speak, but strangely enough that does not seem to have happened in the localities with large Asian populations.
A report out today shows huge numbers of children in schools in many areas of the UK amongst whom English is not the first Language. Even in rural areas, which have seen large numbers of Poles and other Eastern Europeans taking up residence, teachers are having to cope with youngsters who start their education with very little knowledge of English, if any at all, and in some areas, such as down in Dorset, Wiltshire and Somerset, teachers are attending courses where they can learn the basics of the Polish Language in order to make some sort of first hand contact with these kids and make it easier for them to learn English. Fortunately, very young people are about the most proficient of Language learners, as we all know. They just learn naturally, without getting all wound up over complexities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1912331/English-not-first-language-for-800%2C000-children.html
To go back to the question posed by the OP...the answer is dead easy. It's the Edinburgh accent, of course! Forget about the other cities. :-)
With regard to Los Angeles - it can't really compared with the other two cities....both London and New York have clearly defined city centres, whereas Los Angeles (apparently...I've never been there) is simply an amorphous mass with no real focal point - in the European sense, anyway. As for a distinguishable Los Angeles accent....I've no idea what that sounds like should it actually exist. I would imagine it would be massively influenced by the fact that the population of the metro area contains a huge number of Latinos who may actually form the majority of the inhabitants.
The "traditional" New York accent is more identifiable to a degree, but as with the "London accent" it's probably undergone changes over the years by newcomers to the city.
I know that's the case with London - genuine Cockney has more or less died a long lingering death, and been replaced by an amalgam of Cockney and Estuary, while at the same time "posher" English English RP dominates large sections of the Greater London population, while immigration on a large scale has now seen a myriad of accents and dialects affecting other sections of the "New Londoners". It's not uncommon in "black Caribbean" areas of London, in particular, for a sort of "Ghettospeak" to influence the way the SOME of the local "whites" speak, but strangely enough that does not seem to have happened in the localities with large Asian populations.
A report out today shows huge numbers of children in schools in many areas of the UK amongst whom English is not the first Language. Even in rural areas, which have seen large numbers of Poles and other Eastern Europeans taking up residence, teachers are having to cope with youngsters who start their education with very little knowledge of English, if any at all, and in some areas, such as down in Dorset, Wiltshire and Somerset, teachers are attending courses where they can learn the basics of the Polish Language in order to make some sort of first hand contact with these kids and make it easier for them to learn English. Fortunately, very young people are about the most proficient of Language learners, as we all know. They just learn naturally, without getting all wound up over complexities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1912331/English-not-first-language-for-800%2C000-children.html
To go back to the question posed by the OP...the answer is dead easy. It's the Edinburgh accent, of course! Forget about the other cities. :-)
DEFINITELY not Los Angeles. Definitely not New York. These two huge cities aren't going to have the leading "fashion" of the English speaking world. San Diego, maybe, but definitely not LA. The urban Southwestern or Mountain Western dialects.
''whereas Los Angeles (apparently...I've never been there) is simply an amorphous mass with no real focal point ''
It's an earthquake zone, so the skyline is limited, but the downtown is pretty nice. From Hollywood to Long Beach, there are many nice things to do and see.
LA, the marvelous city of Angels:
http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=layv4.jpg
It's an earthquake zone, so the skyline is limited, but the downtown is pretty nice. From Hollywood to Long Beach, there are many nice things to do and see.
LA, the marvelous city of Angels:
http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=layv4.jpg
''San Diego, maybe, but definitely not LA.''
90% of people living in San Diego were born BackEast or in the Midwest (or even South), it is a military base with many people from all around the USA, without any particular accent (but you can rarely hear a Western accent there)
90% of people living in San Diego were born BackEast or in the Midwest (or even South), it is a military base with many people from all around the USA, without any particular accent (but you can rarely hear a Western accent there)
I visited San Diego and I felt like everyone was a transplant. It takes a little bit away from the city. Unlike Boston and Chicago where there is a lot of city pride, I felt everyone here was more so so of their city.
I'm not sure as to the exact meaning of the original guest's question, but if he or she is asking which of the three cities mentioned gives rise to more trends and neologisms in the English language, then I would argue that Los Angeles could perhaps be considered the leader. Because Los Angeles is the center of the American entertainment industry (and therefore, some would argue, the world) its slang and colloquialisms tend to become general Americanisms far quicker and more completely than those of other regions in the country. It's long been observed that general trends in American slang tend to work their way from the West Coast to the East Coast. This is especially true because so many young Americans look to California as the embodiment of "cool" and consciously adopt behavior and mannerisms associated with the state. In turn, many foreigners often look to American youth and popular culture for behavioral cues themselves. Thus, many new words and phrases attributed to the United States as a whole are really native to California and its most prominent city: Los Angeles.
Due to the influence of mass media, I'd say Los Angeles has the most impact.
Whether or not it's considered "posh" is quite a different matter.
Whether or not it's considered "posh" is quite a different matter.
It would truly be a sad world if L.A. set standards for the world or even the English speaking world. Lets all act like Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton: shallow, materialistic, and stupid. God help us all if we start to march to that drummer.
I would have to agree myself. At least here in southeastern Wisconsin, southern California is really not looked to as a source of cultural influence by the general population. If anything, its culture is commonly actually looked down upon as being rather shallow, superficial, and often even cliche in nature here. Yes, such may be commonly reflected in media content throughout the US, but the same media content is often seen here as practically embodying such shallowness and superficiality. This is similarly reflected by how things such as the "Valley Girl accent" and the other common cliches associated with southern California are not regarded as things to emulate but rather as things to mock here.
The only choices given were L. A., NY, and London. I have been in all three cities (Whoo-HOO), and I don't see either NY or London influencing speech in the US. I have noticed that Southern girls are starting to talk more like Californians and teenagers in general sound more western, at least.
Travis, you're undoubtedly right, but the original thread poster gave us only three choices of cities from which to choose. I maintain that, out of those three choices, Los Angeles probably has the greatest influence on speech, although that, too, is admittedly limited.