Why Do Some Accents Sound More Intelligent.

Why do some accents seem to sound more intelligent? I don't think I am alone in this. I have heard a lot of Americans say a British accent sounds intelligent. To me, an Australian a little less so. Jamaican accents have always sounded more intelligent to me. Now that's interesting, because they are British. Some people say people from the Bronx sound less smart. But that might just be the way they're stereotyped. And Southern accents I don't know. Do they sound less intelligent, or no difference?

 

Jamaica is British? wtf? lol.

What's is actually a British accent? There's over a hundred different ones in 'Britain'.
Bath/SW, Cornwall, London, Essex, Newcastle, Lancashire, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham as the stand out distinct ones. Then there's "Received pronunciation". And, of course, as British accents, there's those in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Isle of Wight too.

As for intelligent; I think it's the grammar that would suggest one way or the other on that.
Even then that's more indicative of where someone was (well or poorly) edumacated (lol) rather than of their intelligence because intelligence comes from within whereas education is, um, taught.

I've never considered someone less well-educated because of their accent. More wealthy perhaps or from a more wealthy family and it's more clear if they went to a public school, which are actually private, btw. (Eg Eton Winchester, Badminton and others). The accents from the private schools are more distinct, and probably fall into the category of Received pronunciation.


I think from the perspective of one's own country, I'm not sure any accent from another country, can be deemed more or less intelligent because there's less of a reference point.
Australian can be a little more harsh than say, an NZ accent but not everyone.
Canadian can be softer than US accents, but not softer than them all.

I think it's the generalisation that might prevent there being a real answer.

Of course there's a joking rivalry between some areas in the UK. Some (not from Newcastle) laugh when they see US TV programs putting up subtitles so you guys can understand them.

Then there's Gerald/Gerard (dunno which) on Clarkson's Farm (Amazon Prime). Not even Clarkson can make him out lol. He's got a really definite/strong local SW England accent.

 

There is more to this than just the accent (and I assume you are referring to English language accents exclusively). Part of this might be the register (formal vs informal discourse), the vocabulary, the pitch, and even the fact that you look at what the speaker looks like. Do you seem more impressed when a person of color speaks with an accent similar to that of the King of England?
Then there's grammar. As a North American, I like British accents much as anyone else from my country, but I've heard Beatles' songs with some pretty mangled lyrics.
When it comes to Southern speak, I think I am also attuned to the content of the discourse. If I am going to hear Bible thumping or anti-homosexual rhetoric, my bias tends to shift more towards the negative.
Here's something for you. How do you feel when someone from India talks to you about computer science... he/she knows the field and can think on his/her feet, but the accent is different than what you are accustomed to hearing? Or how about when someone from Tibet can talk about oppression by colonialist rulers from China? Sometimes we have to get past the accents.

 

To me, accents don't matter. The words that one uses are the key to how much one pays attention to any given subject---or any subject, for that matter. Couple of speech issues that grate on my nerves are : I seen rather than I saw and : they was instead of they were. Also Less people , less athletes, for example ,rather than fewer people ,fewer what ever. Seems to be somewhat regional, but maybe not. Also the use of the contraction , for example: there's plenty of reasons for---instead of there are . That one is widely misused.

 

There could be a whole thread on such grammatical errors lol.
BTW there's plenty of reasons for....is correct. Break down the sentence and it's 'there's plenty'. All else after the 'of' is secondary in the sentence.

However, reading search results suggests I am wrong and that the pluralisation is determined by the object. Not the way I was taught so I wonder if it's an example of the evolution of English?

 

I dunno, some in these here parts can really turn on the redneck southern....those people are usually found as spokespersons on the news after a tornado or flood or alien abduction...

 

I actually brought this up on another message board a while back. There's no such thing as "proper" English (or German or French or Mandarin etc.). The point is to be understood. Some people think French is so sophisticated. But it came into being the same way as the other Romance languages. Through the misuse of a slang language (Vulgar Latin).

 

Unforchinittlee, mosta them IS stoopid.

 

I wuz gunna make komment , but i ain't ate yet--so laetter after brekfuss.

 

I wouldn't disagree entirely but there are exceptions

 

Sorry, I misspelled "stoopid" it should have been "stoopit"

 

Oh---I tout it waz stuppud.

 

Like I've said, 50% of the population has an IQ of less than 100....