Ethnicity as a source of changes in the London vowel system

Eivind Torgersen and Paul KerswillLancaster University

Why study London?

• Wells (1982) on London:

‘Its working-class accent is today the most influential source of phonological innovation in England and perhaps in the whole English-speaking world.’

• September 2004–August 2007 (ESRC ref. RES 000 23 0680). Grant held jointly by Paul Kerswill (Lancaster) and Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, University of London)

• RAs: Eivind Torgersen (Lancaster), Sue Fox (London)

Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London

Vowels in the provincial south-east as evidence of innovation and levelling

Summary of south-east vowel changes noted in previous research

• Lowering/backing of TRAP in 20th century

• Lowering of DRESS

• Recent centralisation/fronting of FOOT

• Recent fronting of GOOSE, often extreme

• Recent fronting of offset of GOAT

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

300900150021002700

F2

F1

Ashford_old_KIT

Ashford_old_DRESS

Ashford_old_TRAP

Ashford_old_FOOT

Ashford_old_STRUT

Ashford_young_KIT

Ashford_young_DRESS

Ashford_young_TRAP

Ashford_young_FOOT

Ashford_young_STRUT

Reading_old_KIT

Reading_old_DRESS

Reading_old_TRAP

Reading_old_FOOT

Reading_old_STRUT

Reading_young_KIT

Reading_young_DRESS

Reading_young_TRAP

Reading_young_FOOT

Reading_young_STRUT

Reading/Ashford normalised data

Re-stating conclusions from the Reading–Ashford study

• The Ashford shift seems to follow descriptions of recent change in London though data for DRESS and TRAP is unclear

• Ashford and London show evidence of an anti-clockwise chain shift

• - though the London descriptions don’t talk about the backing of STRUT

• We can now suggest that the London/Ashford shift is internally motivated

• Hard to say anything about the order of changes

• The Reading ‘shift’ is a collection of unrelated changes but it leads to the same result as Ashford

• So we conclude it gets there through dialect levelling and is therefore contact-induced

London study: One inner and one outer borough

Reasons for this choice

• Diversity:– Social network type, including mobility– Ethnicity– Language contact

• This leads to presumed different language change patterns

Hypothesised changes• District: Inner city vs. outer city: hypothesis that

features originating or are widespread in outer London will have a better chance of spreading to e.g. Milton Keynes and Reading

• Changes in Hackney (inner city) may originate within the community, but may also arise through language contact

• Changes here may have difficulty in diffusing because of supposed lack of contact?

• Changes in Havering (outer city) may be towards levelled forms because of greater mobility and more open communities

Research question …

• Are the vowel changes we have noted in Ashford/Reading diffusing from London?

• How can we tell?

Methodological issues in investigating vowel change in London

Real vs. apparent time• Solution: combine both methodologies …Available archive recordings: • Labov’s London interviews (r1968 – men and

some women, aged late teens)• Corpus of London Teenage Language (COLT,

part of BNC), r1993 – teenagers of various/unknown origins

• Intonational Variation in English (IViE), r1998 – teenagers of West Indian origin

Labov 1968

F2 (Hz)3150 700

1000

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

105014001750210024502800

æ

e

ɪ

ʌ

ɒ

ʊ

Labov 1968

COLT 1993

F2 (Hz)3150 700

1000

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

105014001750210024502800

æ

e

ɪ

ʌ

ʊ

ɒ

IViE 1998

F2 (Hz)3150 700

1000

200

126018902520

400

600

800

æ

e

u:ɪ

ʌ

ɒʊ

Hackney elderly 2005

3150 2537.5 1925 1312.5 7001000

800

600

400

200

F2 (Hz)

æ

e

u:

:

ɪ ʊ

ʌ

ɒ

ɑː

Hackney young 2005

3150 2537.5 1925 1312.5 7001000

800

600

400

200

F2 (Hz)

æ

e

u:

:

ɪ ʊ

ɒ

ʌ ɑː

Havering elderly 2005

3150 2537.5 1925 1312.5 7001000

800

600

400

200

F2 (Hz)

æ

e

u:

:

ɪ ʊ

ʌ

ɒɑː

Havering young 2005

3150 2537.5 1925 1312.5 7001000

800

600

400

200

F2 (Hz)

æ

e

u:

:

ɪ ʊ

ɒʌ ɑː

Internal motivation for change in London?

• The short vowel chain shift seen in Ashford but only suspected for London is now confirmed for London

• STRUT is backer than in Ashford/Reading, suggesting a more advanced stage in London,

But:• FOOT is backer, suggesting a less advanced stage

Evidence that this is change within the community:• No external model for vowel shift• STRUT-backing is more advanced than in south-east

periphery (Ashford, Reading)But:• FOOT-fronting is less advanced in Hackney than in

Havering and the south-east periphery

Multiple causation for London changes?

• STRUT is more back in both Hackney and Havering for the young speakers than the elderly speakers – internally motivated?

• West Indian English possible model for back STRUT and non-fronted FOOT vowels in Hackney

• So changes in Hackney may be due also to dialect contact with West Indian English – externally motivated

Is there evidence of diffusion of features to periphery (Reading/Ashford)?

1. Yes: Some features are more advanced in London than in periphery (i.e. present in both, but more marked in London):

• STRUT-backing

• Short vowel shift, for which we have argued for diffusion from London (Torgersen & Kerswill 2004)

2. Perhaps: Features are shared in equal measure by London and periphery:

• GOOSE-fronting

• FOOT-fronting (but not shared by all Londoners: fronting is typical of levelled and middle-class speech)

• TRAP-backing/lowering

Conclusion

• Some evidence of diffusion from London

• Change in inner London seems to originate within the community, though this is through dialect contact with West Indian English

• By comparison, change in the periphery seems to be through dialect levelling at the regional level

• This leads to divergence/innovation in London and levelling in the periphery

Bibliography• Andersen, H. (1988). Center and periphery: adoption, diffusion and

spread. In Fisiak, J. (ed.) Historical dialectology: regional and social. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 39-85.

• Andersen, H. (1989). Understanding linguistic innovations. In Breivik, L. E. & Jahr, E. H. (eds.) Language change. Contributions to the study of its causes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 5-29.

• Baker, P. & Eversley, J. (eds.) (2000). Multilingual capital. The languages of London’s schoolchildren and their relevance to economic, social and educational policies. London: Battlebridge.

• Cheshire, J. (fc). Syntactic variation and beyond: gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers.

• Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2005 fc). On the non-convergence of phonology, grammar and discourse. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens & P. Kerswill (eds.) Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Docherty, G. & Foulkes, P. (eds.) (1999). Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold.

• Gordon, E., Campbell, L., Hay, J., Maclagan, M., & Trudgill, P. (2004). New Zealand English: its origins and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2000). Creating a new town koine: children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29: 65-115.

• Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2005). New towns and koineisation: linguistic and social correlates. Linguistics 43 No. 5.

• Marshall, J. (2004). Language change and sociolinguistics. Rethinking social networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Røyneland, U. (2005). Dialektnivellering, ungdom og identitet. Ein komparativ analyse av språkleg variasjon og endring i to tilgrensande dialektområde, Røros og Tynset. PhD thesis, University of Oslo.

• Torgersen, E. & Kerswill, P. (2004). Internal and external motivation in phonetic change: dialect levelling outcomes for an English vowel shift. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8: 23-53.

• Trudgill, P. (1999). ‘Norwich: endogenous and exogenous linguistic change’. In Foulkes, P. and Docherty, G. (eds.) Urban Voices, London: Arnold, 124-140.

• Trudgill, P. (2004). New-dialect formation. The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

• Wells, J. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Williams, A. & Kerswill, P. (1999). Dialect levelling: change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Foulkes P. & Docherty G. (eds.) Urban Voices, London: Arnold, 141-162.