Language versus Accent

P

Pollux V

Ra Bless America
Registered Senior Member
This is something I've been thinking about for awhile, and I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on it, to perhaps widen my knowledge regarding this particular topic.

The whole question comes from Latin, and the eventual creation of its daughters, the Romance Languages--French, Spanish, Italian, etcetera. During the Dark Ages as far as my knowledge goes the archaic forms of the Romance languages formed, however since my knowledge here is hazy I'd gladly accept corrections regarding my information. My question is--did the respective accents to each region (France or Gaul, Spain or Iberia, Italy) form alongside the new languages, did they form before them, or did they form after them? Why did they form at all? Did they have a hand in creating the new languages? Or did the new languages create them?

Essentially, what comes first--accent, or language?
 
Are you talking about peoples primary languages? Or new learned languages?

If primary then I guess they develop side by side. I would guess one couldn't come before the other if the language was completely new. As new ways of saying words and sounds are developed the accent is further engraved in the speaker, and a different form of vocal sounds are developed specifically for those new ways of saying words and vowels.

If the new language stems from already existing language then I'd say accent comes first and it helps shape the new words and vocal sounds of the new language. For example the word for "let's go" in Hindi is "Chalo" and when the same word is said in Punjabi it is said with more assertive tone...with the more force applied to the "Cha" of the word. The new breed of people interpret the language in their own way and eventually make a whole new language of their own out of the orignal language.
 
You speak Hindi, Lard? :bugeye:

Other than that, I agree with lard. The accent will create the new language, dictating its vocals as according to that type of accent, if it is branching from an older language.

If the language is developing entirely separately, then an accent won't be apparent, until someone learns both that language and another, and then it will become apparent.
 
it could happen in three ways.

The language and accent form together
language first then accent
accent first then language

In china. Everyone supposed speak mandarin the universal language and i do believe the language came first. But over time different provinces and even different cities developed their own accent. Then their own languages.

And as for the first choice. Alot of Chinese-born Canadians speak chinglish to their parents. So the accent and language grow together.

Even so my niece speaks fringlish-> french chinese english

eg. je veux eat mien mien -> i want to eat noodles.
 
Another "egg or hen?" question.....
Many languages indeed come from the same origin, and I think they differed merely in accent... and yet, now I find it difficult to learn German after knowing lots about English....
 
ask the same question about New York, Boston, the South &/or the Mid-West. Same people, same country, why different? or England; cockney, London, Midlands, Kentish?

as for the Romance languages; they all had first various Celtic tribes (pre-Roman), then German tribes (post-Roman) influence their development. Visigoths, Franks, Burgundians & Normans in France; Visigoths & Vandals in Spain; Alani (Hunnic) & Suevi in Portugal; Lombards & Ostrogoths in Italy, to me both French (somewhat) & Portuguese(a lot) sound Germanic. Italian is like spanish, so much so, that I can understand a lot of it, just as is.

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/Burgundians.CP.html
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/medieval/history/earlymiddle/visigoths.htm
http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Vikings_.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans
http://www.genealogienetz.de/reg/HIST/swabia.html
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/medieval/history/earlymiddle/ostrogoths.htm
http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Langobar.htm
 
Another important issue when talking about languages is the understanding of the difference between STANDARD, COLLOQUIAL and DIALECT; this differentiation goes for most languages.

The standard variant is the written language and is spoken in official situation. This variant you learn at school.

The colloquial variant is the one spoken in a certain (bigger) region of a certian country/nation. Usually this is not written.

Each language has several dialects; a dialect is a language variant spoken by smaller geographically defined group of people.

The only "natural" language is the dialect. Nowadays it is confined to rural parts of a coutry. For most countries of the Old World it is typical, that a certain dialect is spoken by a relatively small amount of people who don't have much contact with other parts of their country.

Within a language, there are usually several colloquial variants, spoken in cities and where there is a lot of communication. While dialects are quite arhaic, colloquial variants introduce novelties.

The standard variant of a language was made by agreement by linguists and other important people, out of the dominant colloquial variant with respect to dialects. Standard variants of languages in Europe begin to emerge around the 16th century, as trade, warfare, schools etc. made communication more lively, and a need for a language all people of a certain nation can understand.
A standard variant is less archaic than dialects, but more archaic than colloquial variants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top