You get more hyper-local accents like the Boston, Philly and NYC accents in the older US cities, and fewer in places that haven’t been densely settled as long.
Is there a difference between a Las Vegas accent and a Pheonix or Los Angeles accent? Honestly, I don’t really know.
Still, there’s fewer hyper local accents and accents tend to be spoken over a wider area. Probably also because the US has had relatively large amounts of internal migration. Also, I assume average people travel further on average than they used to when wagons were the state of the art.
Europeans have been settling in North America for 500 years. The United States being a young country has nothing to do with the evolution of accents and dialects. When the US was formed the Spanish had been in the Americas for 200 years, the French and English not much less, in addition to enslaved Africans who brought their own native languages to the continent and then were forced to learn English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese. That alone is more than enough time and groups of people for dialects and accents to develop.
Then you compare that to say England, that has been around for several millenia and has had influence from Celtic, Gaelic, Norse, Germanic, French and even Spanish to extent for hundreds or thousands of years before America existed. And then since America existed has had influence from Indians, Chinese, enslaved Africans and other immigrant cultures from around the world, just like America did. Then its just not really comparable at all. 200 years is legitimately nothing on the time scales needed for the depth of accents to form and Americans just don’t understand that at all. It’s like a European talking about 100 miles being a long distance, an American would scoff at that idea.
Because comparatively it doesn’t.
Your country simply hasn’t existed long enough pre industrialisation for a broad range of accents to develop.
The US isn’t a uniform age.
You get more hyper-local accents like the Boston, Philly and NYC accents in the older US cities, and fewer in places that haven’t been densely settled as long.
Is there a difference between a Las Vegas accent and a Pheonix or Los Angeles accent? Honestly, I don’t really know.
Still, there’s fewer hyper local accents and accents tend to be spoken over a wider area. Probably also because the US has had relatively large amounts of internal migration. Also, I assume average people travel further on average than they used to when wagons were the state of the art.
Europeans have been settling in North America for 500 years. The United States being a young country has nothing to do with the evolution of accents and dialects. When the US was formed the Spanish had been in the Americas for 200 years, the French and English not much less, in addition to enslaved Africans who brought their own native languages to the continent and then were forced to learn English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese. That alone is more than enough time and groups of people for dialects and accents to develop.
Then you compare that to say England, that has been around for several millenia and has had influence from Celtic, Gaelic, Norse, Germanic, French and even Spanish to extent for hundreds or thousands of years before America existed. And then since America existed has had influence from Indians, Chinese, enslaved Africans and other immigrant cultures from around the world, just like America did. Then its just not really comparable at all. 200 years is legitimately nothing on the time scales needed for the depth of accents to form and Americans just don’t understand that at all. It’s like a European talking about 100 miles being a long distance, an American would scoff at that idea.