[Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens]

[alex gross]

> Doesn't that sort of beg the question?

Not really, Mark.  I don't quite get what you're objecting to, I've already 
said
sure, it's a myth.  What more do you want?  But some myths can take on
reality among their believers.  If we go on this way, we'll find ourselves 
almost
in metaphysical unreality.

> I think the point is that there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for a "standard
> accent", no matter who tells you otherwise and how important they are.

Yes, of course.  There was also no objective reality to the sort of English
we were told we should be speaking up until the 1970s.  Yet lots of people 
either
spoke it or tried it or felt they ought to.

> So the language pursued by people working in film, TV and theatre is
> the language approved by their directors, producers or, umm, speech
> therapists. Those folks are no more privy to divine articulatory wisdom
> than anybody else.

Yes, but you can't put on a play or create a film or TV script without
deciding what accent people will use or should use.  Actors expect
to be told this sort of thing.  Here I speak from theatre experience--
should directors tell them there are no rules & they can use any
accent they want (though in a few cases they can)? Also, I've never
heard anyone in the theatre claim directors are "privy to divine
articulatory wisdom."  They're artists, Mark, sure, artists have
their faults, but I'm a trifle worried you're just a few steps away
here from playing Cromwell's game, that all theatre (or perhaps
all TV) must be closed down as false and frivolous.

What about estuary english?  Is that a myth too?  I suppose you could
make that case, since it too does not create a genuine form of standard
English for all of Britain but only for the southeast. Which means that
someone speaking deep Yorkshire or Scots or Welsh will still have trouble
twisting their uvulas around it.  But socially & culturally it still marks
quite an advance over RP.  So it's not really a myth either.

> So, it's still a myth. But like all myths, it has its believers no matter
> how far removed it might be from reality.

We really don't have an argument here, Mark.  I love "reality" as much
as you do, I just think it can sometimes be hard to harness. How about
the idea that everything we believe may be a myth?  Capitalism is
supposed to create wealth, but we just saw it do the opposite.  Medical
research is supposed to ultimately make us live forever, the space
program will have us living on uncountable galaxies.  Are these myths?
I rather think they may be.

Eppur si muove....things keep moving regardless.

All the best!

alex

PS--Not your fault at all, Mark, but I wonder if most of today's 
credentialed
linguists may not be so ignorant of practical language applications,
including theatre and literary uses, that they can't formulate an informed
opinion about specialized or contrived languages.  A few examples:

1. Ancient Greek scholars have long disputed why Athens' great tragedians
did not write their plays in Athenian Greek but in a semi-Doric Corinthian
dialect, offering every possible explanation except the one I'm willing to
bet is correct.  In portraying the gods and serious themes, they simply did
not consider it appropriate to employ the same speech forms they used for
buying fish and wine.  You'll find more of my reflections on ancient Greek
theatre at:

http://language.home.sprynet.com/theatdex/satyrs.htm#totop

2. Numerous Elizabethan scholars have pointed out that Shakespeare and
his contemporaries wanted a more elevated form of language than that
used in the streets to convey events taking place on the stage, and their
audience indeed craved such a language.  They're probably right.

3. The devotion to British English by so many educated Americans today
is probably motivated by similar reasons, the need to believe that a
slightly heightened vocabulary conveys a more genuine reality than
their everyday manner of speaking.

These are all contrived uses of language. In this light, is it really
so evil or reprehensible for Americans to seek out a standardized
form of language for use in their films and TV?  Or don't
Americans qualify for such a privilege?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark P. Line" <mark at polymathix.com>
To: <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer 
Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens]


> Doesn't that sort of beg the question?
>
> I think the point is that there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for a "standard
> accent", no matter who tells you otherwise and how important they are.
>
> So the language pursued by people working in film, TV and theatre is the
> language approved by their directors, producers or, umm, speech
> therapists. Those folks are no more privy to divine articulatory wisdom
> than anybody else.
>
> So, it's still a myth. But like all myths, it has its believers no matter
> how far removed it might be from reality.
>
> -- Mark
>
> Mark P. Line
> Bartlesville, OK
>
>
>
> alex gross wrote:
>>
>>>  Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth,
>>
>> Yes, of course it's a myth, and as you say, all standard accents are
>> myths.
>> But this does not mean it is not sought after by many people working in
>> film, TV, & the theatre, plus quite a few other Americans eager to modify
>> their accents.  At least the actors among them are often able to switch
>> over
>> to many other accents when they need to.
>>
>> But for all those people it's not a myth at all, it's compellingly real.
>>
>> Thanks for your message!
>>
>> All the best!
>>
>> alex
>>
>>
>>> On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote:
>>>> Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers &
>>>> others
>>>> aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York
>>>> or
>>>> Boston, the midwest or the south.
>>>     Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with
>>> the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive.
>>> It's
>>> closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything
>>> from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any
>>> specific Midwestern accent.  And of course, since we're talking about
>>> Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can
>>> approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's
>>> particularly far from most Black English accents.
>>>
>>>     There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many
>>> people
>>> throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU
>>> students, although maybe not speech pathology majors.  It shares some
>>> features with a number of Black English accents.  In my experience
>>> native
>>> Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans
>>> who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native
>>> Africans by British or French features in their accents.  This raises
>>> the
>>> possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to
>>> pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead
>>> of
>>> raising it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith
>>> grvsmth at panix.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- Mark
>
> Mark P. Line
> Bartlesville, OK
>
>