Search results for 'tag:American English tag:Intonations' matching tags 'American English' and 'Intonations'

Re: How to change my accent?

Kooyeen — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:04:20 GMT

sanycool4
Am really struggling with my accent...English people can't really understand some words what am saying...So any body advice me how to change my accent?

You might need an accent reduction course. Learn the sounds, learn how to connect words, learn to use a decent intonation, etc. It depends on the variety you want to learn though. For American English, I once read "American Accent Training" by Ann Cook. I found it vital for my English, learned a lot of things and I improved a lot. I can't say anything about British English or other dialects though. Good luck. :)

Re: Mimicking an actor's accent

Kooyeen — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:27:59 GMT

Hi,
yes, I remember you asked about him. I'm not an expert at all, but I can tell you my opinion, as a learner.
I agree it's a good accent for those who are interested in British English. I don't find any annoying features in his accent (=features I don't like). It doesn't sound posh to me, his intonation seems to be normal and not exaggerated like in annoying posh accents.

3:54 - That is strange, yes. <-- Tapped T in "that is". I don't know how many accents have this feature and to what extent because I don't really know enough about British English.
3:57 - Yeah, that's a little weird <-- Glottal stops in "little". But they are not everywhere... either he's changing hir accent while he speaks, or those glottal stops are only found in certain special cases in his accent.
He doesn't release final T's. - Notice the difference between his final consonants and the hosts' ones, especially the woman's (the hosts sound like they overpronounce final consonants to me, since I'm mainly used to American English).

Just my non-native opinion, though. I don't know how difficult it is for a learner to pick up such an accent, because I don't know how widespread those kinds of accents are in the UK and in the media in general. Good luck.

Re: When I have trouble...

Kooyeen — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:36:17 GMT

Hi Anon,
what Jim said makes a lot of sense, and we discussed it a little in another thread, I think.
The point was that teaching completely descriptively is impossible. The teacher would have to say: Mr X says this, Mr Y says that, and Mr Z says another thing. Now learn what they say and then decide what to do by yourself.
Every time a teacher gives advice or suggest something, they're being at least a little bit prescriptive.
So if you want a good teacher, you need a teacher who "prescribes" the most appropriate English for you.

Now, suppose I'm 17. The better you know English, the more it should sound like English spoken by native speakers (this should be true for every language). How can I be as similar to a native as possible? If am learning American English and I imagine I am a native speaker, I should imagine I am a 17-year-old American guy. If I found an American teenager to imitate, I would learn how to speak like my imaginary native clone.

So, why would a ESL student who is 17, listen to punk rock and don't care much about school and rules in society... why would he want to have a teacher who is 50, listen to classical music, and is a literature professor? Learning English from a punk like him is probably the best way to learn the best kind of English for him.

And as for females... sometimes girls talk a little differently. Vocabulary might be different, tipical topics in conversations are definitely different, and sometimes intonation might vary (example: uprising intonation).

Re: have [got] an idea

Marcelinx — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:34:07 GMT

Hi,
In the first sentence, I'd use "I've an idea", even with American English, because I'm picturing the person saying it very quickly, she has just thought about it, and she's saying it with a particular intonation.
In the second sentence, i've got is better because they person is saying it more slowly and with a different intonation.
I've seen i've with a. english lots of times.
That's just my opinion and how I'd use it.

Re: accents

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:01:44 GMT

Cvilla wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I believe that I haven't missed anything. I think that you don't understand the concept clearly.I agree that (nothing new here) an intonation is one of the most important part of any accent. But in your example it is related to an empasis of some particular words to add a bit different meaning to your phrase (it is NOT an accent!). Usually it is done by changing a pitch of your voice at the right place. So, it has nothing to do with a concrete accent as we don't allways need to emphasize something, do we? But an intonation is used in every phrase. Every native speaker will do this if it is needed. On the other hand accents imply certain intonation patterns which add some kind of "melody" to the speech.
For example the Irish accents are characterised by frequent fluctuation of the pitch. To emphasisize some word an Irishman (like all other people) will just inrease the pitch of his voice to draw your attention to this word (He will change his usual intonation pattern). So, to conclude all accent have their own intonation patterns if you need to emphasize something (that is your example) you need to inrease a pitch at this place despite the accent you speak with.

Like I said, examples like that very specific one, which happens a lot in English, can't be found in other languages... because of the accent. You are trying to be even more "specific" by targeting specifc accents within the accent pool of the English language, but that scenario I describe exists in English because the accent allows for it. Again, you don't find it in some other language because those "lack" that specific pattern in their accents.

Anonymous wrote:

Let's forget what I've just said. I've got a question: who needs this if nobody uses this? Accents are totally useless, since everybody uses his own pattern of speech and it is nearly impossible to learn how to speak with "right" intonation if you are quite old. Moreover nobody will be able to understand you anyway if you succeed, because not all people can hear and understand intonation. International English is just different from British and American English.
I hope you will get it.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Nobody uses what? Things like the example I gave you or accents in general? If nobody uses accents, how come do they exist??? Accents aren't useless, my friend; you're simply trying to fight something you can't.

And maybe you're right, maybe it's almost "impossible" to speak with the "right" intonation (let's say "accent", better) if you are quite old. But if you succeed, people will understand you... There's no point in saying that nobody will understand if you succeed; I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. I succeeded at learning a "standard" american accent, and americans understand everything I say. And I have seen a few people succeeding at it too, with the best results.

Now, there is no "international" English which is differenciated from American and British English. And if it existed, that International English would have a accent of its own... You can't escape that, because the accent is defined by intonation patterns, pronunciation, inflection, and other factors that are always present when people speak. We don't speak like robot.... and even there we can talk about a "robotic accent," like "he speaks like a robot."

I just can't see why you are so obsessed in fighting accents. They have existed, they exist, and they will exist.

Ok, I see you didn't get it. I will repeat it again. Accents and intonation aren't the same things. You can emphasize something without speaking a perfect accent, let's say American one. Just rise a pitch of your voice at the right place. This doesn't depend on a concrete accent, it is more matter of communication. Perhaps, you learnt these "tricks" at a pronunciation class, therefore you associate them only with an accent. Most learners are unaware about these topics, so most likely they will not understand you.
Believe me that international English exists, but of course not in the USA. Italians, Spaniards, Russians all have their own version of English. I'M NOT OBSESSED with fighting of accents. I just want to show that their sdudying by foreign learners are totally useless. It is because: it is extremely HARD (if you succeeded it doesn't mean that everyone will be able to do that) to tune your pronunciation to the correct one, there are not so many native speakers in the international environment; you are surrounded by various foreign accents, which you need to understand somehow, these people have various levels of English skills, they simply will not understand you if you say something like "I wanna", but you desperately need to communicate with them. Of course if you live in the terrarium like the USA then it is a different story. So, I just want to remove all obstacles in communication with everyone.

Re: accents

Cvilla — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:49:19 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

I believe that I haven't missed anything. I think that you don't understand the concept clearly.I agree that (nothing new here) an intonation is one of the most important part of any accent. But in your example it is related to an empasis of some particular words to add a bit different meaning to your phrase (it is NOT an accent!). Usually it is done by changing a pitch of your voice at the right place. So, it has nothing to do with a concrete accent as we don't allways need to emphasize something, do we? But an intonation is used in every phrase. Every native speaker will do this if it is needed. On the other hand accents imply certain intonation patterns which add some kind of "melody" to the speech.
For example the Irish accents are characterised by frequent fluctuation of the pitch. To emphasisize some word an Irishman (like all other people) will just inrease the pitch of his voice to draw your attention to this word (He will change his usual intonation pattern). So, to conclude all accent have their own intonation patterns if you need to emphasize something (that is your example) you need to inrease a pitch at this place despite the accent you speak with.

Like I said, examples like that very specific one, which happens a lot in English, can't be found in other languages... because of the accent. You are trying to be even more "specific" by targeting specifc accents within the accent pool of the English language, but that scenario I describe exists in English because the accent allows for it. Again, you don't find it in some other language because those "lack" that specific pattern in their accents.

Anonymous wrote:

Let's forget what I've just said. I've got a question: who needs this if nobody uses this? Accents are totally useless, since everybody uses his own pattern of speech and it is nearly impossible to learn how to speak with "right" intonation if you are quite old. Moreover nobody will be able to understand you anyway if you succeed, because not all people can hear and understand intonation. International English is just different from British and American English.
I hope you will get it.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Nobody uses what? Things like the example I gave you or accents in general? If nobody uses accents, how come do they exist??? Accents aren't useless, my friend; you're simply trying to fight something you can't.

And maybe you're right, maybe it's almost "impossible" to speak with the "right" intonation (let's say "accent", better) if you are quite old. But if you succeed, people will understand you... There's no point in saying that nobody will understand if you succeed; I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. I succeeded at learning a "standard" american accent, and americans understand everything I say. And I have seen a few people succeeding at it too, with the best results.

Now, there is no "international" English which is differenciated from American and British English. And if it existed, that International English would have a accent of its own... You can't escape that, because the accent is defined by intonation patterns, pronunciation, inflection, and other factors that are always present when people speak. We don't speak like robot.... and even there we can talk about a "robotic accent," like "he speaks like a robot."

I just can't see why you are so obsessed in fighting accents. They have existed, they exist, and they will exist.

Re: accents

Anonymous — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:50:52 GMT

Cvilla wrote:
SillyMe wrote:
"You knew your brother did a bad thing, did you?"
"You knew your brother did a bad thing, did you?"

Is the difference between those two an accent matter, or a pronunciation matter?

Neither. The intonation is the key. You have used an intonation stress to emphasise those words in the sentences. It has nothing to do with an accent. A lot of languages have the same mechanism for this purpose. People rarely speak in a monotonic way. They need an intonation to emphasise their ideas.

You missed it, my friend. Intonation is part of an accent. And those specific intonation patterns I just showed you can be found in some languages, not all (you won't find it in Spanish, for example). Those patterns have a specific purpose, so there's reason for learning at least the "basics" of an accent.

I believe that I haven't missed anything. I think that you don't understand the concept clearly.I agree that (nothing new here) an intonation is one of the most important part of any accent. But in your example it is related to an empasis of some particular words to add a bit different meaning to your phrase (it is NOT an accent!). Usually it is done by changing a pitch of your voice at the right place. So, it has nothing to do with a concrete accent as we don't allways need to emphasize something, do we? But an intonation is used in every phrase. Every native speaker will do this if it is needed. On the other hand accents imply certain intonation patterns which add some kind of "melody" to the speech.
For example the Irish accents are characterised by frequent fluctuation of the pitch. To emphasisize some word an Irishman (like all other people) will just inrease the pitch of his voice to draw your attention to this word (He will change his usual intonation pattern). So, to conclude all accent have their own intonation patterns if you need to emphasize something (that is your example) you need to inrease a pitch at this place despite the accent you speak with.
Let's forget what I've just said. I've got a question: who needs this if nobody uses this? Accents are totally useless, since everybody uses his own pattern of speech and it is nearly impossible to learn how to speak with "right" intonation if you are quite old. Moreover nobody will be able to understand you anyway if you succeed, because not all people can hear and understand intonation. International English is just different from British and American English.
I hope you will get it.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Re: accents

SillyMe — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:32:36 GMT

"You knew your brother did a bad thing, did you?"

"You knew your brother did a bad thing, did you?"

Is the difference between those two an accent matter, or a pronunciation matter?

Neither. The intonation is the key. You have used an intonation stress to emphasise those words in the sentences. It has nothing to do with an accent. A lot of languages have the same mechanism for this purpose. People rarely speak in a monotonic way. They need an intonation to emphasise their ideas.

If your friends have a hard time understanding you when you start speaking with a "stupid" accent, then you need to analyze if you're really learning the target accent or not. It's not the accent's fault. How can it be?

Ok, Iâll say it again: I am not learning an accent. I just made sure that everyone could understand me. All people have different abilities in languages. I donât want to make anyone feel inconvenient when they are listening to me. My goal is to speak as accessible as possible for EVERYONE. I see accents as the main obstacle on this way.

Now, accents are part of a culture... be it in a country or in regions of that country. It may seem useless to you, but learning the american accent has given me the ability of having great conversations with many many americans. What about british people? They have no problem understanding americans, so I'm sure they'll have no problem understanding me... and I have spoken with british people, too. No communication issues.

I have never spoken to people whose first language was English and I donât think that Iâll ever do. English is the second language for most people. Why should I make my speech inaccessible for them? If I know that their level will not allow them to understand even a half of my speech, why should I? Language is a great tool to convey your ideas, why should I make it more complex and inaccessible?

LOL! This one made me smile! They are not speaking fast, it's that you are listening too slowly.

I have never said that I was a slow listener. But most people used to complain to me that speech of native speakers was hard to understand. Well, their (not natives) language might be poor, but anyway I am trying to sound easy to for them and for everyone in general.

To be understood by Americans... well, chances are you need to learn American English to understand Americans

I donât think so. I have never spoken to an American. I watch only dubbed films and like them that way. I donât listen to contemporary music, I like classical music. So, I think American English isnât present in my life.

The same applies for americans: how can I tell them that they don't know how to speak their own language?

They actually do. They are natives and they know it better. But unfortunately a spoken language is totally different from a written one to some extent of course. An accent is one of the main things that make this difference bigger. Why should one learn it, if nobody uses a spoken language (of course you have American friends, your situation might be a bit different or you live there, I donât know)? Most foreigners communicate using a written language. Thatâs why I want to speak slowly and without any reduction in my words.

Unreleased final consonants

Kooyeen — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:46:37 GMT

Hi,
I read Nona's new post earlier, but... where is it now? I can't see it anymore. It was a post with a link to a website where you could listen to IPA sounds (for British English).
Well, I heard a lot of words pronounced with a clear consonant sound at the end. I thought of posting this:

What are the consonant that are unreleased at the end of a word? (In American English, but Nona's and the other brits' opinions are welcome too of course, lol).

If you say Bob as Bo-buh, bod as bo-duh, bop as bo-puh, and bot as bo-tuh, you will be doing a stereotypical Italian accent. What I notice is that in American English all the final consonants are unreleased, apart form k, which is not aspirated though. The T is unreleased and often with a glottal stop. For M, N, P, ect., not releasing them means not opening the mouth again at the end.
Sometimes final consonants are released, but only very very little, so... Having said that, there's not much difference between:
Bot / Bop
Bod / Bob
The fist pair can be distinguished from the second by the vowel length (longer vowel and on two levels of intonation if the syllable ends with a voiced consonant). But there's not much difference between the words in each pair, is there?

Opinions? Thannk you in advance

Re: vowel length distinction before voiced or unv. consonants

Marvin A. — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 03:25:55 GMT

I don't think it's called intonation. It's allophonic vowel length: vowel phonemes are realized as longer vowel allophones before voiced consonant phonemes in the coda of a syllable. This is found in all dialects of American English. Some American dialects have some phonemic vowel distinctions as well, but this is less common. Australian English has a distinctive phonemic vowel length: pairs such as ferry/fairy; hut/heart; and bid/beard are distinguished solely by vowel length.