Jon wrote: >It is easier to do an accent when imitating a sound than to do it when >trying to convey meaning in conversation.
I disagree, and I do so from my experience as an actor who studied dialects. At one point I got rather good at picking out where people were from in the world just by listening to them talk (though I've never been as good as Henry Higgins), and I was more often than not cast in roles requiring some sort of dialect. All speech is merely sound that conveys meaning, and the sense of meaning changes to the listener when the dialect confers a different inflection on the words than one is normally used to hearing. I have recently had to explain to some American friends that an English lady of my acquaintance is not really the harridan they think she is because of what she says, but that it's her upper class English dialect that is causing them some confusion. They (the Americans) are not used to hearing it and so think she means something other than what she actually does. I on the other hand have gotten on very well with her because I know the dialect and understand its nuances. But to continue, all speech can be broken down into phonetic sounds (see Higgins again), and how you produce this sound is what conveys meaning in a conversation. Regional dialects determine the shape of those sounds. I recall a lady once telling me a story of when a southern American fellow once asked her for a pin, so she reached into her sewing kit and pulled out a safety pin. The fellow looked at her rather puzzled and said, "No, a pin. To rat with." Regards, Craig
