Putting the accent in the right place

Even in an era of globalization, regional accents are still with us.

Amid the excitement of British pop singer Adele's triumph at the Grammy Awards earlier this month, inquiring minds want to know, why does the accent of her singing voice sound so different from the accent of her speaking voice?

The difference between a singer's speaking voice and singing voice can be startling. And different musical genres have different native accents: the twang of country singers, for instance.

Regional accents were already on my mind as I tuned into the buzz about Adele. The Independent had a "trend" piece on people signing up for elocution lessons to help them sound less like where they came from and more like where they want to go – professionally, at least. The Economist's language blog, Johnson, noted that the trend, if it really was one, had less to do with losing an accent and more with acquiring one – "received pronunciation," or RP, or what Americans may think of as "BBC English."

And speaking of received standards: I've just taken an online quiz that purports to identify which American accent a test-taker has. Some Americans, the setup suggested, don't realize they even have an accent. But after I had punched through all the questions, hoping for some new self-understanding, phonologically anyway, the assessment came back that my accent was the one widely considered to be not an accent at all: Midwestern.

The questions focused on some short vowel sounds and the distinctions people make (or don't make) between them: dawn and don, caught and cot, and pen and pin. It asked about marry, Mary, and merry – three distinct words in parts of the US, but complete homophones in the mouths of millions.

It did not ask about the letter "r," present, absent, or "intrusive" (the Boston lawyer's announcement that he's "withdraw-ring" his appeal, for instance). They might have asked, but did not, "Is it possible for the word 'today' to have three or even four syllables?" In the South, I can attest, the answer is yes.

The regional accent story I cannot top, though, appeared in the British newspaper the Daily Mail. It told of a woman in the south of England who took ill and was left unable to speak. After a month of therapy she got her voice back. But she was inexplicably speaking with a French accent instead of the dialect of her native Birmingham, in the English Midlands. "Foreign accent syndrome," the doctors call it. The Daily Mail piece, helpfully illustrated with photos of Birmingham and Paris, quoted the woman: " 'I was so happy I could talk but when I started to say words I was thinking this is not how I speak. It didn't sound like me.

" 'I didn't think any more about it until I bumped into my neighbour outside. Her grandson, who's three, was there and he asked me why I was speaking like I was from France.' "

It's tempting to play this one for laughs. We may not have the whole story. But the woman's distress shows how closely voice and identity are related.

As humanity gets homogenized in the great Mixmaster of the global economy, it may be fair to wonder whether regional accents – those sets of sounds that anchor people in one specific place or another – will continue to matter.

But I have a hunch they always will.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.