Skip to main content

Acute accents

Eeh, by eck, it's t't mill. Beam's gone
skew on t't treadle!
Many years ago, while still at BA, I had the misfortune to cross the Atlantic sat between two large ladies. They were GI brides who had decamped from Newcastle to Texas in the 1940s and were now returning to the States after a nostalgic visit to the North-east of England.

The worst thing about sitting between them is that they talked across me for the entire flight. I tried to swap seats with either of them without avail. They seemed to find it amusing. The one slight consolation for being in this trap was listening to their accents. Although they had been in Texas for a good 40 years, there was still a strong Geordie twang amongst the American drawl. It was an unusual mix, to say the least.

The reason I bring this up is that I sometimes get asked about my accent, and I think people get the question the wrong way round. As I've mentioned before, I come from Rochdale, in the North-west of England. It's a place with quite a strong Lancashire accent and as a child I had the full works, as broad as you like. Yet, if you hear me speaking now, I have very little in the way of a regional accent, with just the struggle with the odd word (bucket is a classic) to give me away to those with an ear for the voice.

People have often asked me how I lost the accent, but this is what I think they get wrong. Instead, they should ask why some people keep their accent after many years in other parts. As far as I can see, it's very easy to pick up an accent. I only have to spend a day in part of the country with a strong accent to start getting a few shifts in pronunciation. And take me to somewhere like Wales, Ireland or Scotland and I have to actively fight off slips that might be taken as offensive. It just happens - and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

My suspicion is, when someone does hold onto a regional accent that is different from the local accent where they live, it is most often an attempt to cling on to identity, perhaps because the person is a little insecure. This may be conscious or unconscious, but it certainly happens. You even get people whose accents get significantly stronger after a while away from home territory. This is defensive, pure and simple.

 I think as I've always felt reasonably at home in the various places I've been in the South, I haven't felt the need to put up the barriers. And I actually think that's a good thing. I know many would disagree with me, but I don't think there's any great merit to clinging on to your accent. Go with the flow, I say. It really isn't a matter of identity. If you really know who you are, and have your own views, you don't need the crutch of an accent.


Image from Wikipedia

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense