What accent do you really hate? and which one you love?

<<And I have found—always after the fact—that the accents that displease me are generally lower-class accents.>>

The reason you like them less is because they are harder to understand and less like standard English. Historically the middle classes have been both socially and geographically mobile, so their accent has tended to be much less strong and more standardized through necessity of communicating with people from different areas.

The same is happening in the US with children with strong southern accents leaving the south, for university or work, and returning with a more standardized accent with few of their original features left.

Guest makes some very good points in terms of the relative similarity of the more standard varieties of English around the world. Being a native speaker of English, Mxsmanic, you're far removed from being unbiased or unprejudiced in terms of how different varieties of English strike you. I'm not saying that other people aren't biased (we all have our own subjective preferences) but since you're actually claiming you're looking at the situation from a purely objective standpoint I thought it necessary to point out that's not the case.

I hate the South-African one, even though I am from South-Africa. My favourites are the Irish accent, and Daniel Radcliffe's british one.

"Daniel Radcliffe's british one." yeah, me too I like his accent a lot

Guest's conjecture seems entirely plausible to me; I had not previously thought of that, although to some extent it implies a difference in education as well (people who go to university are more mobile, and learn a more standard pronunciation, at least in the UK, it seems).

My impression is that education imposes much more standardization of pronunciation in the UK than in the US. Several of my British acquaintances have commented on their acquisition of a "posh" accent at a leading university (which apparently replaced a less prestigious accent with which they grew up). In the US, I don't see anything more posh about speech in universities than elsewhere, although I'm sure the mobility still acts to standardize pronunciation (even if nobody feels inclined to point it out, or even notices it).

Actually, I am looking at the situation from an objective standpoint, with respect to UK accents, as I still do not know which accents come from where. Some sound pleasant, others don't, but I cannot identify them, and therefore I cannot have any preconceived notions about them.

I suppose I might have preconceived notions about a few US accents, but US pronunciation is so much more standardized that the issue rarely comes up. I don't care for southern accents or for certain metropolitan accents (those of New York, Boston, etc.), although I disliked them before I knew where they were from (and I still don't know a Bronx from a Brooklyn accent).

For Australia, I'm in the same state of ignorance as I am for the UK, and so I like or dislike accents based solely on how they sound to me. I've not investigated correlations between my preferences and socioeconomic status of Australians, so I don't know if they show the same pattern as they do for my preferences in UK accents.

I've encountered South Africans whom I've taken to be British, so standard is their accent. They generally seem to have been raised in the upper classes and apparently were taught RP or something. The more common English-speaking South African on the street does seem to have an accent, and I agree that it's disagreeable.

Fortunately, regional accents are gradually disappearing in the US, and to a lesser extent around the world, it seems. A great many Irish people sound American to me initially, until I hear them speak for a while, and this is true of many Australians as well. The British continue to have more pronounced accents (from an American standpoint). The better and faster communication becomes, the more pronunciation tends to standardize. Perhaps one day everyone will speak with exactly the same accent, and hopefully that accent will conform closely to the written language.

I forgot to put Mxsmanic in that previous post (it wasn't a case of Guest agreeing with himself).

<<Fortunately, regional accents are gradually disappearing in the US, and to a lesser extent around the world, it seems.>>

Actually, linguistic research has consistently shown that English accents/dialects are actually continually diverging from one another. In the past few decades in the US we've seen several new vowel chain-shifts emerge which had not previously existed, and once areas like the Northern Midwest and now the West have come to be more established, more certain regional patterns have begun to spring up. This is evidenced by such things as the well-documented Northern Cities Vowel Shift and the more recent California Vowel Shift, as well as many other noteworthy phenomena.

<<Perhaps one day everyone will speak with exactly the same accent, and hopefully that accent will conform closely to the written language.>>

That won't happen. Since varieties are actually slowly but surely diverging from one another, this won't be possible.

Even with overall increased mobility we're still seeing the increase of regional varieties (such as the relatively new ones in the Northern Midwest and California). This is because language change (especially in regards to phonology, which governs what we call "accents") requires consistent speaker-to-speaker contact which simply isn't possible on a large enough basis to assure accents will stay the same or come together. For example, I'm from California and mostly come into contact with other Californians. This is true of most other Californians as well. Consistent contact with people from the East Coast or the Upper Midwest is not something most people have--thus, the large-scale speaker-to-speaker contact which is the necessary catalyst for language changes taking place in those areas is not present because contact between most Californians and most Upper Midwesterners is low.

It's no surprise that California English, borne mostly of pre-WWII Midwestern English (due to massive Midwestern immigration to California from 1900-1950) has not come to share in many of the features which many Midwestern dialects have acquired since WWII (Northern Cities Vowel Shift, Canadian Raising, etc.), while the same is true going the other direction. Changes and innovations to California English (California Vowel Shift, various substratum influences) have not been seen in Midwestern dialects. Thus, what once were two very similar or functionally identical dialects have considerably diverged in the past 50 years even with an unprecedented level of mobility in the US. This can be seen in folk linguistics/common perceptions of dialects--people here can generally easily tell if someone is from the Midwest (especially the Northern Midwest which has been most affected by the NCVS or CR) while the clear differences between the varieties would've been unlikely 50+ years ago as enough time had not passed for them to diverge significantly.

Linguists spend their lives looking for divergence; mere users of a language do not. I'm sure that with sufficient effort all sorts of shifts can be found here and there, but the overall trend is towards homogenization. It cannot be otherwise as the mobility and facility of communication among English-speaking populations continues to increase. If the entire Anglophone world were instantly and constantly mobile and in perfect communication throughout, there would be only one pronunciation of English. And current trends are moving in that direction.

The gradual spread of English itself is further evidence of this trend, although it crosses language boundaries instead of being limited to variations of a single language. The greater the mobility and ease of communication, the greater the standardization of that communication. Very few people seek to impede communication; most prefer to facilitate it. And so standardization tends to progress, if there are no barriers to it (such as an inability to travel or an inability to establish channels of communication).

We don't even know what differences existed long ago, as we have records of only the past few decades (since sound recording has become possible). What seems like a significant difference today may well pale in comparison to differences that existed in the past. When all deviations are small deviations, they may look like big deviations to those who are looking for deviations.

Linguists, like so many specialists, cannot see the forest because of the trees. They become so meticulous in their search for patterns and distinctions that they exaggerate the importance of anything they find. They give _names_ to things that nobody else has even noticed. Now, there's no harm in this, as it keeps them off the streets, but one must keep in mind that all of this is utterly insignificant to the population at large. It is also utterly insignificant in ESL, for the vast majority of students, who wish only to communicate, not to split hairs.

<<Linguists spend their lives looking for divergence; mere users of a language do not. I'm sure that with sufficient effort all sorts of shifts can be found here and there, but the overall trend is towards homogenization.>>

If that were true then the average person here who's unaware of linguistics wouldn't be able to pretty consistently identify a Midwestern accent. They can.

<<It cannot be otherwise as the mobility and facility of communication among English-speaking populations continues to increase. If the entire Anglophone world were instantly and constantly mobile and in perfect communication throughout, there would be only one pronunciation of English. And current trends are moving in that direction.>>

While mobility has increased greatly, it still does not involve significant numbers of people to bring about homogenization. As I said before, if most Californians don't even come into contact with Midwesterners, how would they be expected to all have consistent contact with Australians or Irish people, or anyone else, for that matter? Yes, mobility has increased but not to the extent that it's allowed for homogenization of accents. Quite the contrary, in fact.

<<We don't even know what differences existed long ago, as we have records of only the past few decades (since sound recording has become possible). What seems like a significant difference today may well pale in comparison to differences that existed in the past. When all deviations are small deviations, they may look like big deviations to those who are looking for deviations.>>

Well, several decades ago (in the pre-WWII period) there *were* significant recordings, many of which are still around today so your point is irrelevant here. These are a vital tool in documenting language change but they're not the only way, as dialects and languages can be reconstructed thru the comparative method for pre-sound-recording eras.

Also, no one's splitting hairs or "looking for deviations." The differences I've mentioned in dialects are quite apparent even to the average person even if they couldn't articulate the processes that are going on which cause other people to sound so different.

<<Linguists, like so many specialists, cannot see the forest because of the trees. They become so meticulous in their search for patterns and distinctions that they exaggerate the importance of anything they find. They give _names_ to things that nobody else has even noticed.>>

They name and describe processes that other people have noticed, but haven't known how to articulate or were things they were subconsciously aware of. Most people can tell you that they know someone who has a different accent but that can't give you many (accurate) details about what exactly makes up the accent. They just know that right off the bat it sounds "different." Also, the linguist-bashing is unnecessary.

<<Now, there's no harm in this, as it keeps them off the streets, but one must keep in mind that all of this is utterly insignificant to the population at large. It is also utterly insignificant in ESL, for the vast majority of students, who wish only to communicate, not to split hairs.>>

You seem to favor bringing ESL into the argument when that wasn't even necessarily the topic at hand. It wasn't here. But since you've mentioned it, yes, it's important for ESL students to learn the basics first but a knowledge of different dialects can actually improve their comprehension when they realize that no one speaks like a textbook in real life. This is not to say they should be made familiar with the minutiae of vowel shifts and other such phonological phenomena (I don't think they should--they have way more basic things to cover) but then again I wasn't addressing the average ESL student's needs but discussing these noteworthy differences that *do* exist. Accordingly, please don't try and invalidate someone's comments by bringing something into the mix that wasn't even the scope of the discussion.

I personally love the Irish and Scottish accent, theyre each so individual and distinct.
The American accent is generoully okay on the ears, I particuarly enjoy hearing the Southerners speak with their slow and relaxed depiction of the common American accent.

I believe that the Australian accent is probably the most unique of all accents. Most people of non Australian accents have the most trouble when trying to act out the TRUE Australian accent (not the often over- exagerated one). The Aussie tongue is the most recent of all English speaking accents to evolve , it is the result of a combination of North Irish, Scottish, and midland Brittish accents rolled into one in such a rapid amount of time. Whereas, the New Zealand accent is crossed between South African & Brittish.New Zealander eg: Six is sehx, or fush 'nd chups instead of Fish and Chips.

The funny thing about a countries accent is that you can usually tell where a person is from in the country by their spoken accent. Eg : Southern USA is different sounding to that of someone who lives in New York, or Northern Ireland & Southern Ireland. Australian on the otherhand gernerally speaks in same tongue, even though the country is as large as north America....
Another thing to point out is, how fast one does speak in their accent. A Southern American speaks slower to that of a Northern American (USA),Australians speak faster then most Americans and a Cockney speaks faster that of an upper class Londener. I think Scots speak faster then most Brittish people.
This may be an arguable statement though. It all really depends on what country the person replying to this forum question is from, hence, a different depiction on other countried, as they can understand other country accents easier then other countries can!

Southern Australia = 'Feesh and Cheeps'
Northern Australia = 'Flesh e chesps'

<<The same is happening in the US with children with strong southern accents leaving the south, for university or work, and returning with a more standardized accent with few of their original features left. >>

Oh, I don't know about that. Half my family is southern, and I haven't noticed any change in their accents, even after years abroad.

My father, however, who left New England in his youth and never returned, did lose much of his accent over the years, but I notice it is now creeping back -- he's much less rhotic than he used to be.

<<Oh, I don't know about that. Half my family is southern, and I haven't noticed any change in their accents, even after years abroad.

My father, however, who left New England in his youth and never returned, did lose much of his accent over the years, but I notice it is now creeping back -- he's much less rhotic than he used to be.>>

Yes, linguistic research has shown the Southern dialects are overall in no danger in the US and in fact are experiencing net growth.

Here's an excellent excerpt from a very recent book on US dialects which describes the situation and makes it clear that dialects are not becoming more homogenous in the US but actually becoming less and less alike:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1405121092/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7991016-2385600#reader-page

According to a report based on research by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) even the birds in the UK have regional accents! It seems that birds of the same species which do not migrate or move en masse to other areas ..... ie remain in the same districts for their entire lives (eg sparrows or starlings) ...... have slight differences in their twitterings or songs, or whatever sounds they make, from those in other areas. Apparently sparrows in the North of Scotland make slightly different sounds to those in the South East of England. So it must be safe to say that Scottish sparrows have different "accents" to those in the South of England...or in Wales, or wherever.

I've also heard that dogs from one area of the UK have difficulty following commands given by people who have different regional accents (in English) from those of their owners. This followed on from a case when a police dog trained by officers of Scotland's Strathclyde Police was adopted for police duties by the Kent Police in the South of England and could not follow the same commands down there when given by officers in his new area. It seemed the difficulty had nothing to do with tone of voice or the officers' personalities.....more to do with accent.

<<have slight differences in their twitterings or songs, or whatever sounds they make, from those in other areas.>>

About a year ago I was woken up by a bird who sung part of a nokia ring tune, quite irritating although apparently it's actually not that rare.