This is cool. My first thought is the choice of dialect rather than accent.
I'm from NC and the Lumbee Indians had a way of speaking that was unique and endearing. It feels like many places in the US are losing that identity and the language of most areas is merging. Especially in the west, the differences between peoples' idiolects is usually greater than the differences between regions' dialects.
Dialect can include pronunciation, vocabulary, word choice, grammar, semantics, and other ways of speaking where accent refers only to ways of pronunciation. Academics almost always go with "dialect" for "different ways of speaking" unless they're specifically meaning only pronunciation. And sometimes not even then.
The differences covered here do seem to be mostly accent (though some might consider sound changes to be more than accent), but calling it dialect allows for broader consideration if warranted.
I guess that's a consequence of media, global communication and mobility.
Which raises the question, what's up with the UK? Modern country with internet access and a good transportation network, not to mention a century-old central media establishment with basically one accepted dialect, but they've still got almost-mutually-unintelligible dialects in places fifty miles apart.
Oh, I'm not sure what this "one accepted dialect" is. For example, Scottish English is widely accepted in Scotland; it's a true dialect, not just an accent.
When I was a kid (I was raised speaking RP) I couldn't understand a geordie accent at all. I lived and went to school for some years in Liverpool; I could understand a scouse accent, usually, but I certainly couldn't speak like that. And sometimes scousers would put it on strong, so that I couldn't understand a word.
Nowadays all the accents have become more restrained; geordie, in particular, has become much softer, and is nowadays quite acceptable for e.g. TV and radio presenters. I never hear a really thick scouse accent.
Just a guess, but UK's accents have been developing for a 1000 years while the US has only had a few hundred at the most. Probably just less sticky. That said, bums me out because I love my region's dialect. I grew up in N. Georgia in the boonies and I love coming home to hear the accents.
Love that kid! I live just south of Nashville, but I'm originally from rural Northern California. When we moved here about 10 years ago Southern folks were far more comfortable speaking with their local accents around us transplants. But there have been tons of people moving in from all over our country. Now a lot of folks "cover up" their accents. It's a super bummer. I also realized it's the same thing I do. I sound different when I go back home to rural farm country in California.
Yeah, there's a mass of outsiders moving into my hometown and while it has been good for the local economy, it has really eroded the culture in a big way. It's gentrification, but on poor whites. It was gonna happen eventually, but I do hate watching it happen for selfish reasons.
I used to cover up my accent but I let her rip now. lol. Last of the Mohicans.
Perhaps some of it has to do with class rivalries, which are more acrid in the UK than in the US? In the UK, the wealthy adopted a supraregional standard (Received Pronunciation) through their schooling. Therefore, by retaining one’s regional accent an ordinary person was emphasizing that one was not one of that detested class.
This is a pure guess. But I have heard that features of London’s “Estuary English” are now spreading to other UK cities. That accent is not an upper class one.
Received pronunciation is typically spoken by a very small percentage of Brits- a quick Google search claims around 3%.
There are class differences, but even within classes there are very wide variations- thinking Geordie v Yorkshire vs West country vs scouse vs South London.
I don't know where you live, but as someone who does live in the UK, I think everything really is about class here! It affects every almost interaction, and where contemporary fashion usually masks class, it is one's accent that usually gives it away.
I think it's an overstatement to suggest mutual unintelligibility but they can be extremely distinctive though.
I don't know if this happens in the US, but in the UK it's not uncommon to adopt the accent of an area. I had a cockney accent as a child but now live in the north with a softer, hybrid northern accent. I tend to switch back when I am in London.
I am also familiar with people who have moved to places like Newcastle and Liverpool and picked up the accent to some extent. I even know a guy who has an Australian wife and some of his vowels slide into the Australian accent despite having never lived there. Not to mention all the young British techies who've spent more than 2 seconds in the US and start dropping their "t"s to "d"s.
Hey in graduate school one of my classmates seemed normal until her mother called. Then she'd put her feet up on the desk, talk much louder and adopt her native Texan accent, so thick I could barely understand her.
Hang up, and click! she was back to the local one.
Longer historical isolation. But I'd guess that most of these dialects are converging under modern influence and are a lot more similar to each other today than they were a century ago.
I'm from NC and the Lumbee Indians had a way of speaking that was unique and endearing. It feels like many places in the US are losing that identity and the language of most areas is merging. Especially in the west, the differences between peoples' idiolects is usually greater than the differences between regions' dialects.