Natural accents is a form of identity, the linguistics experts are able to detect trace of accents from folks who have lived in a country for donkey years - of course, there are some folks whose accents remain with them, from birth to the grave, wherever they are dispersed amidst the nations. I like the linguistics experts, they say or usually conclude that it does not matter how well you speak the 'native accent' of any country, they can detect your original accent roots. (And regardless of my English excellence, they are able to spot subtle traces of my infinitesimal island parish 'root' accent - very humbling for Granny will be very proud of them to remind me of her 'patois' pronounced corrections as she stirred the cocoa tea over the wood fire with words of Bonjay, mac'mere, followed by my mother in London with her perpetual Bonjay - I must add none of this patios pronunciation from my grammar perfect father - hence always emphasis of the natural mother tongue) So, down the journey line, most folks who have departed from their shores of birth, may or possibly have made minor or major adjustments to their speaking accents, by a 'mirrored cloned imagery' of the 'natural habitants' of the particular societal country possibly by personal choice where they now reside.

After years in a society, even Darwin's theory about evolution draws its conclusions, natural changes occurs over a long period of time or duration, so how could some live in a country and within a couple of years by some 'personal sensor controlled evolution', may I say this, 'speak' as a natural native - by what has been classified as 'mirroring pronunciation'?


So, what underpins the function, as to why some folks seek to quickly adapt to speak with their 'migrated to' country's accent - of course, some countries have a diverse range of 'natural accents', eg where applicable a family may be exposed to either a south accent or a north accent - it is still an accent, so what underpins the 'dropping' or the clouding over of one's own natural accent in favour of a new one? Is this 'deletion' of an accent, based on the dismissive 'identity' resentment to one's own primary and secondary 'identity' socialisation exposure patterns. I remember a colleague stating that she had two brothers one lived in USA - north and the other in USA - south, and it was an 'accent' nightmare during a family reunion, according to her, they were both speaking a totally 'a different language', in terms of their pronounced pronunciation, she told me at least if we were non English speakers, we would all converse with a mother tongue, ie French, or whatever to stop this 'separating' pronunciation dilemma.

From my perspective, as stated in previous posts, societal needs and trends are changing rapidly, global 'speech' patterns are subjective to numerous 'mirroring occurrences' from street accent, movie accent (dependent on your favourite movies), neighbours accent...

So, on a linguistic end note, is one's speaking accent, still identifiable as to who you are and where your roots are, be it in the south, north, east or west part of a country or an island? or shall we leave it in the hands of the linguistic experts, to listen and trace one's speech patterns... to reveal one's 'natural' identity....in a foreign land....and should it be so? Should not one take pride in their identifiable stance, their accent?