English! PLEASE HELP! URGENT!Watch this thread
Evaluate the idea that the region a person comes from plays a strong part in determining the variety of English they use.
Varieties of English contain different dialects of language that are used throughout the world, they are separated by change in their accents. For instance, if they are originally located from South Africa, they would speak that variety of English, however if they were to move to another variety such as New Zealand then you would be able to identify the difference in tones, the words being used or how they are pronounced. Within South Africa, in some words the /ɪ/ vowel will sound closer to /ə/ whilst still being in a stressed syllable. Some vowels reflected as /ɒ/ may sound like /ɔː/ but significantly shorter. Meanwhile in New Zealand, the consonants l, m, and n can take on the function of a vowel in some unstressed syllables. It should generally be clear when this interpretation is intended, but in cases of potential ambiguity, the consonant symbol may appear with a diacritic, as in the British.
Another reason that proves that region does play a role in what variety of English they use is the relevance and impact it has had in their life. If they were born into a more populated country the effect of learning to speak their variety would be stronger, making their accent stronger. Resulting in lack of dialect leveling, meaning there will be a clearer pronunciation and dialect divergence to occur.
Its not much because i dont really know what else to put in the paragraph, so please give me ideas.
MLE is often categorised by it's monophthongisation, where a diphthong becomes a monophthong. This is most often seen in words such as like, where /laik/ becomes /la:k/. Furthermore, there is substitution process within MLE with the dental consonant /ð/ seen in words such as them or there, changes to become the alveolar consonant /d/ to become dis, dem, or dere. It is linguist Kerswill who believes that these features stem from the Jamaican heritage, however other linguists would disagree. For example, linguist Labov committed a study where he went into three different clothing stores in New York, each one to represent a different social class within society. He found that when going into the high end stores the use of a rhotic accent was more prevalent than in one representing the working-class. This shows that people change or alter their accents in order to fit there social standing, and therefore would disagree with the statement given. I believe this argument to be a rather one against the statement, however, it does not negate the fact that a person's social standing maybe altered by their geographical location, and so consequently their location still plays a vital role.