Innovation in London teenage speech: the reversal of ...

Innovation in London teenage speech: the reversal of ...

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis Paul Kerswill, Eivind Torgersen and Sue Fox Lancaster University, Queen Mary, University of London 1 Or New contact varieties as the source of innovation in a highly levelled, and still levelling, dialect area 2 Innovation, levelling and diffusion These are three basic mechanisms of change. Innovation:

not predicated on contact endogenous in the sense of generated from within the speech community Levelling: dialect levelling and by extension accent levelling, a process whereby differences between regional varieties are reduced, features which make varieties distinctive disappear, and new features emerge and are adopted by speakers over a wide geographical area (Williams & Kerswill, 1999:149) by definition non-directional predicated on face-to-face contact (but not always) Diffusion the directional spread of a feature similarly predicated on face-to-face contact (again 3 not always) Interaction of internal and external factors Neogrammarian change: slow, subconscious, in principle governed by internal factors Labovs Principles of Vowel Shifting are intended as

universal, and govern Neogrammarian change for vowels: Principle I In chain shifts, Principle II In chain shifts, Principle IIa In chain shifts, Principle III In chain shifts, long vowels rise. short vowels fall. the nuclei of upgliding diphthongs fall. back vowels move to the front. (Labov, 1994:116) 4 Drift Well look at an example of a set of Neogrammarian vowel shifts Such shifts seem to be susceptible to drift-like behaviour a shift process, once started, can

continue in a new speech community even after separation What effect do non-internal (contact and non-linguistic) factors have on drift-like changes? 5 Finding a testing ground for the interaction of internal principles and external factors Insight from dialectology: a metropolis is the supposed origin of change A Western metropolis is usually the location with most immigration and in-migration in its region Influence of non-internal effects likely to be high due to (i) language contact and (ii) complex intergroup relations Related to this is the likelihood of finding new L1 varieties of the language following contact with L2 varieties through individual bilingualism. These new varieties are contact dialects Possibility of innovation resulting from contact with these varieties

6 Dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of England Reports of widespread homogenisation in the south-east (Kerswill & Williams 2000; Britain 2002) New features are assumed to originate in London, based on gravity model (diffusion) cf Wells (1982: 302): its working-class accent is today the most influential source of phonological innovation in England and perhaps in the whole English-speaking world. Hypothesis: the new, levelled features spread out from London 7 A problem with the gravity model

the gravity model assumes spread by diffusion, not levelling if we observe gradually increasing homogenisation with no directionality, then this cant be the result of diffusion (the partial exception would be where diffusion has run its course, leading to complete replacement but directionality should be visible while the diffusion is ongoing) 8 London and three South-east periphery towns 9 Regional dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the southeast of England Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing, bruvver) GOAT-fronting to [] RP variant in MOUTH []

Low-back onset of PRICE [], lowered/unrounded from [], [] or [] Raising of onset of FACE to [] Fronting of GOOSE to [] Fronting of FOOT to [] or [] Lowering and backing of TRAP to [] Backing of STRUT to [] 10 We will focus on Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing)

GOAT-fronting to [] RP variant in MOUTH [] Low-back onset of PRICE [], lowered/unrounded from [], [] or [] Raising of onset of FACE to [] Fronting of GOOSE to [] Fronting of FOOT to [] or [] Lowering and backing of TRAP to [] Backing of STRUT to [] 11 four diphthong-shift vowels Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse)

Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) GOAT-fronting to [] RP variant in MOUTH [] Low-back onset of PRICE [], lowered/unrounded from [], [] or [] Raising of onset of FACE to [] Fronting of GOOSE to [] Fronting of FOOT to [] or [] Lowering and backing of TRAP to [] Backing of STRUT to [] 12 and two monophthongs undergoing change

Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) GOAT-fronting to [] RP variant in MOUTH [] Low-back onset of PRICE [], lowered/unrounded from [], [] or [] Raising of onset of FACE to [] Fronting of GOOSE to [] Fronting of FOOT to [] or [] Lowering and backing of TRAP to [] Backing of STRUT to [] 13 Diphthong shift (Wells 1982) But note that /u:/, or GOOSE, now falls outside the Diphthong

Shift set and this is allowed for by Wells 14 Drift in the diphthongs of early New Zealand English (Trudgill 2004) NZE has Cockney-like diphthongs today, but with more extreme shifts in MOUTH Trudgill finds evidence that diphthong shift got greater during the 19th century, and concludes that this is due to drift. Britain (2005) argues that the evidence for continued shifting is only likely for FACE Either way, diphthong shift clearly thrived and then

stabilised, in the absence of the strong social sanctions against it in south-east England at the same time Research question: what is happening to drift in London today, a typologically very similar variety of English, but where the sociolinguistic set-up is extremely different from early and current NZE? 15 Reduced H-dropping in the Southeast periphery and a northern English city 100 80 Milton Keynes Reading 60 Hull 40 20 0

Elderly Boys Girls 16 Changes in MOUTH and PRICE 17 Percentage use of variants of /au/ (MOUTH), Reading Working Class, interview style (1995) (from Kerswill & Williams 2005). [a ]

Survey of English Dialects (SED) informants, 1950-60s Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m) 53.5 38.1 3.3 0 4.1 0.7 Girls age 14 (n=8)

0 2.3 0 8.0 0 90.4 Boys age 14 (n=8) 3.8 3.2 0 5.7 0

87.1 18 Percentage use of variants of // (MOUTH), Milton Keynes Working Class, interview style (1995) SED informants, 1950-60s Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m)

63.2 25.6 9.8 0 1.2 0 Girls age 14 (n=8) 0 0 0 5.9 4.7 88.8

Boys age 14 (n=8) 0 0 0 12.3 3.8 83.1 19 Percentage use of variants of /ai/ (PRICE), Reading Working Class, interview style

Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m) 0 12.4 47.8 21.8 1.7 15.7 Girls age 14/15 (n=8) 2.8 21.2 45.1 21.1 4.3 5.1 Boys age 14/15 (n=8)

0.6 19.1 63.7 13.7 2.7 0 20 Percentage use of variants of (a) (PRICE), Milton Keynes Working Class, interview style (1995)

Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m) 0 0 24.4 56.6 15.3 3.4 Girls age 14/15 (n=8) 25.4 44.6 29.2 0.5 0

0 Boys age 14/15 (n=8) 1.0 38.0 60.0 0 0 0 21 MOUTH and PRICE in the South-east MOUTH: simultaneous replacement of various regional forms through the south-east, both rural and urban, by [a]

very rare in south-eastern vernacular varieties very similar to traditional Received Pronunciation not a phonetically levelled form, i.e. not arrived at as either the survival of a majority form or the appearance of a phonetically intermediate form PRICE: the rise of [], which is not RP, but is a phonetically intermediate variant good candidate for phonetic levelling and also geographical (non-directional) dialect levelling 22 GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r. F2 1996). 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 200

FLEECE GOOSE 300 400 GOAT 500 F1 600 700 START 800 TRAP 23 900 GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r.

1996). F2 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 200 300 FLEECE GOOSE

400 GOAT 500 F1 600 700 TRAP START 800 24 900 Phonological/phonetic change in London the fate of h-dropping MOUTH PRICE

GOAT FACE 25 Research question: Is this city the origin of all these changes? 26 Are these the innovators? Roll Deep Crew (East London hip-hop crew) 27 Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London (20047) Multicultural London English: the emergence, acquisition and diffusion of aInvestigators: new variety (200710) Paul Kerswill (Lancaster University)

Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, University of London) E S R C Research Associates: ECONOMI Sue Fox, Arfaan Khan, (Queen Mary, University of London) C Eivind Torgersen (Lancaster University) & SOCIA Funded by the Economic and Social Research L 28 Council RESEARC www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/278/ Research question 1: innovation What evidence is there that phonological and grammatical innovations start in London and spread

out from there? 29 Research question 2: multilingualism One-third of Londons primary school children in 2001 had a first language other than English. Does this degree of multilingualism have any long-term impact on mainstream English? Reinterpreted in terms of the current spoken English of the capital, this becomes: Does the use of a putative Multicultural London English by adolescents lead to language change? 30 Research question 3: the innovators Which types of Londoners, socially (including ethnically) defined, innovate linguistically? 31

Research question 4: inner vs. outer London as sources of change Inner and outer London boroughs differ in: ethnic profile proportion of recent migrants non-first language English speakers socio-economic class Is there evidence that different linguistic features, including innovations, are characteristic of inner London vs. outer London? 32 Research question 5: social factors What social mechanisms facilitate (1) innovation and (2) diffusion? social network ethnicity gender identity

Operationalisation of these social factors 33 Havering Hackney 34 35 36 Languages spoken Hackney Turkish 10.61% Yoruba 6.79% Bengali + Sylheti 5.41%

Havering Panjabi 0.36% Hindi/Urdu Gujarati 0.32% 0.09% 37 Population Hackney: 208,365 Havering: 224,248 38 Project design 16 elderly Londoners 105 17 year old Londoners from inner London (Hackney) and outer London (Havering) female, male Anglo and non-Anglo

Free interviews in pairs 1.4m words transcribed orthographically, stored in a database time-aligned at turn level 39 H-dropping Percent dropped H in lexical words (interviews) MK & MK Reading Hackney Havering Reading 14 year 14 year 17 year 17 year elderly olds olds olds olds (1995) (1995) (1995) (2005) (2005) 92% 14%

35% 9% 32% 1. Correspondence between MK and Hackney is very surprising, because MK is highly mobile with a very levelled accent, while Hackney is not mobile with an accent with many innovations. 2. Correspondence between Reading and Havering less surprising: both are areas with fairly mobile populations and somewhat levelled accents 40 Monophthongs in Hackney anticlockwise chain shift 200 350 500 u:

u: :: 2000 e e 650 800 2500

1500 1000 F2 (Hz) Elderly speakers (circles), Young speakers (diamonds) 500 41 Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney NonAnglos 200 Anglos 350 500 with nonAnglo u: network u: u:

2000 eee e 650 800 2500 Anglos with Anglo network u:

:::: FOOT is relatively back compared to Havering see next slide! 1500 1000 500 F2 (Hz) Elderly speakers (circles), non-Anglo speakers (inverted triangles), Anglo 42 speakers with non-Anglo networks (triangles), Anglo speakers with Anglo networks (squares)

Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes Non-Anglo Youth, Hackney FOOT GOOS E Anglo Youth, Havering FOOT GOOS E 43 Working-class white Londoner

born 1938 (Hackney) F2 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 500 300 GOAT FAC

E MOUTH 400 CHOIC E 500 F1 PRICE START TRAP STRUT 600 700 800 44

Young speakers in Hackney F2 F2 2700 2500 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900

700 2300 500 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 500 300

300 Laura, Anglo Alan, Kuwait 400 500 400 500 600 F1 F1 700 600

800 700 900 800 1000 F2 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900

700 500 2700 2500 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 Jack, Anglo

400 900 700 500 300 300 Grace, Nigeria 400 500 500 600 F1 600 700

800 700 900 800 45 1000 Young Havering Anglo speakers F2 2700 2500 2300 2100 1900

1700 F2 1500 1300 1100 900 700 500 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500

1300 1100 900 700 500 300 300 400 400 500 500 600 F1 F1

700 600 800 Donna 900 1000 Ian 700 800 46 Innovation, diffusion and levelling revisited Loss of H-dropping London matches London periphery in loss

of H-dropping unexpected match between inner-city nonAnglos and high-contact south-east periphery Anglos in Milton Keynes (a New Town) same feature different social embedding in south-east periphery, high mobility may lead to susceptibility to overt norms (hfulness) in London, may be a result of high contact with L2 varieties of English (which may be hful) 47 Fronting of GOOSE Advanced in London, matching periphery GOOSE in London is rarely diphthongal in our data, so falls outside Diphthong Shift unexpectedly, most advanced among non-Anglo Londoners and Anglos with non-Anglo networks as with loss of H-dropping, the same feature has different social embedding in inner London and south-east periphery extreme fronting among inner city non-Anglos is innovatory levelling in periphery Fronting of FOOT Less advanced in London than in periphery in London, more advanced in Havering (outer city), in line

with the Anglos in the periphery lack of fronting in inner city is conservative, matching Caribbean Englishes levelling in periphery 48 GOAT (1) GOAT-fronting Prevalent among south-east periphery speakers levelling (shared innovation). Agnostic as to Diphthong Shift reversal Absent in most inner-London speakers of both sexes and all ethnicities, present in outer-city girls Instead, (2) GOAT-monophthongisation highly correlated with ethnicity (Afro-Caribbean, Black African) and multi-ethnic network (for Anglos) monophthongisation: a result of innovation in the inner city, resulting from contact with British Caribbean English and L2 Englishes. No general diffusion except to minority ethnic speakers outside the inner city looks like Diphthong Shift reversal 49

PRICE Lowering across region Diphthong Shift reversal But added fronting is greater in London than south-east periphery fronting and monophthongisation correlated with ethnicity strongest among non-Anglos seems to be a geographically directional and diachronically gradual process The change (from approximately []) involves lowering of the onset and as such is a reversal of Diphthong Shift interpretable as a London innovation with diffusion to periphery 50 Monophthongisation of FACE, PRICE and GOAT is correlated with four interacting scales: 1. Non-Anglo > Anglo 2. Non-Anglo network > Anglo network 3. Male > female 4. Inner London > outer London > South-east periphery (Milton Keynes, Reading, Ashford)

The nature of the interaction is not yet clear 51 MOUTH In the south-east periphery, the RP-like realisation [a] has made inroads In London, [a:] is the norm Additionally, [] is used by some non-Anglos, especially girls, in the inner city RP-like [a] is not the result of levelling in the sense of the selection of a majority or phonetically intermediate form, but may be seen as socially more unmarked But the outcomes suggest three different changes: (1) south-east periphery [a] (2) inner-city [a:] (3) inner-city non-Anglo [] 52 Contact, innovation, diffusion and levelling in dialectology (1) Overall patterns: divergence/innovation in inner London non-Anglos and Anglos with non-Anglo

networks in the lead in innovation some evidence of diffusion to south-east periphery but also levelling in periphery, without involvement of inner London Havering lies between inner London and periphery 53 (2) Locus of contact in dialectology In modern metropolises new contact varieties result from language contact following large-scale concentrated immigration Transmission of innovations through social networks can be demonstrated quantitatively (harder to show in individual cases!) Contact varieties have the potential to spearhead language change, given the right social relations and favourable identity factors 54 (3) Where does contact not count?

Transmission is said to be dependent on face-to-face contact But there is evidence that this is not necessary: th-fronting in Great Britain ( f; v) up to about 1980 was geographically gradual and very slow (250+ years) Since then it has spread in a manner that cannot be explained by face-to-face contact and is no longer geographically gradual becoming increasingly mainstream in North of England and Scotland simultaneously in about 1980 (Kerswill 2003) spreading to low-contact working-class speakers first (StuartSmith et al. 2007) the spread of [a] in the south-east periphery is rapid and simultaneous, and is not a typical automatic result of levelling as predicted by Trudgill (majority and/or intermediate form wins out) 55 (4) We need to account for the spread of features by face-to-face contact and absence of contact Milroy (2004; 2007) suggests an accessibility hierarchy, with a number of features being available off the shelf. th-fronting is one of

them Observation suggests that some of the new vowel features are adopted outside London, but mainly by minority ethnic speakers is this because of Trudgill-style levelling, or are the identities they signal not (yet) available to Anglo youth outside London? 56 Contact, levelling and diffusion in relation to Neogrammarian change Briefly: taking the long view, we can see that the Diphthong Shift reversal we have observed is consistent and regular, even partly mirroring the order in which it is thought to have progressed in the first place But the social and phonetic detail is extremely messy 57 Innovation, levelling and diffusion revisited Little that we have discovered flatly

contradicts the predictions of the gravity model, provided that: We recognise that different features have different social values (social indexation) We recognise some salience-like concept (not discussed here!) We recognise that ideology and identity must be added to face-to-face contact 58 Consequences for dialectology Sources of innovation must today be sought in minority-ethnic metropolitan varieties and: need to recognise a more complex diffusion and levelling model 59 Bibliography Britain, David (2002). Phoenix from the ashes?: The death, contact, and birth of dialects in England. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 41: 42-73 Britain, David (2005). Where did New Zealand English come from? In

A. Bell, R. Harlow & D. Starks (eds.), Languages of New Zealand. Wellington: Victoria University Press. 156-193. Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue, Kerswill, Paul & Torgersen, Eivind (in press) Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: linguistic innovation in London. Sociolinguistica 22, Special Issue on Dialect Sociology, edited by Alexandra N. Lenz and Klaus J. Mattheier. Kerswill, Paul (2003). Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In D. Britain & J. Cheshire (eds.), Social dialectology. In honour of Peter Trudgill. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 223-243. Kerswill, Paul, Torgersen, Eivind & Fox, Sue (2008fc) Reversing drift: Innovation and diffusion in the London diphthong system. Language Variation and Change 8(3). 60 Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann (2000). Creating a new town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29:65-115. Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann (2005). New towns and koineization: Linguistic and social correlates. Linguistics 43:1023-1048. Meyerhoff, M. & Niedzielski, N. (2003). The globalisation of vernacular variation, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4): 534-555. Milroy, L. (2004). The accents of the valiant. Why are some sound

changes more accessible than others? Plenary lecture given at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Stuart-Smith, Jane, Timmins, Claire & Tweedie, Fiona (2007). Talkin' Jockney? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (2), 221260. Torgersen, Eivind, & Kerswill, Paul (2004). Internal and external motivation in phonetic change: Dialect levelling outcomes for an English vowel shift. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8:23-53. Trudgill, Peter (2004). New-dialect formation: The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wells, John C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 61

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Khalifatul Masih II: Pearls of Wisdom - Al Islam

    Khalifatul Masih II: Pearls of Wisdom - Al Islam

    Summary. August 7th 2015. Khalifatul Masih II: Companions of Promised Messiah (a.s.) We note their intense desire to recognise the truth, to make financial and personal sacrifice and their ardent love and devotion for the Promised Messiah (on whom be...
  • Selling - Ms. Shaffer

    Selling - Ms. Shaffer

    Selling adds usefulness or value to products. Selling allows products to be in the right place at the right time. Skilled salespeople will create desire in a product. Sell the product & complimentary goods along with it. Product: Golf Clubs....
  • Institute of Materials,Minerals and Mining

    Institute of Materials,Minerals and Mining

    MEMBERSHIP MATTERS SARAH BOAD MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT MANAGER MARCH 2012 ATTENDANCE SHEETS Vital information re membership Columns re joining / upgrading Please send names / copies to Sarah Rewards if enquiry turns into a member!! £4.50 vs £1!!!
  • Hatchet - jaguarenglish.weebly.com

    Hatchet - jaguarenglish.weebly.com

    What strong verb could I replace the verb "ran" with? (sprinted, raced, dashed) How do the meanings differ based on the choice of verbs? Why is word choice important in helping the reader picture the action in a story? W....
  • The Periodic Table

    The Periodic Table

    Group 17 (Halogens) All non metals except astatine (metalloid) Salt formers (halogens) w/ alkali metals Chlorine (Cl)- w/ sodium (table salt) - kill bacteria (pool) Flourine ( Fl)- most reactive Iodine (I)- least reactive - needed by many systems in...
  • Sedimentary Materials - University of Vermont

    Sedimentary Materials - University of Vermont

    This is the basis for supergene enrichment and acidic mine drainage Actively Oxidizing Pyrite AMD neutralization Metals are soluble in low pH solutions - can get 100's of grams of metal into a liter of very acidic solution HOWEVER -...
  • Jane Schaffer Writing Strategy

    Jane Schaffer Writing Strategy

    Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 Attention Grabber (AG) Examples Title & Author Sentence Example Slide 9 Background/Set-up/ Brief summary Example Slide 11 Slide 12 Slide 13 Jane Schaffer Writing Strategy Slide 15 How to write an Effective...
  • Chapter 28 The Civil Rights Movement - George Evans

    Chapter 28 The Civil Rights Movement - George Evans

    Missouri ex rel. Gaines . v. Canada, Registrar of the University of Missouri. 1950 - Sweatt . v. Painter. Fighting Segregation 28.1. Key Issues in the Supreme Court's ruling on Brown v. ... The civil rights movement took place at...