Paul KerswillFRIAS, 27 November 2009Workshop III: Language, Space and Geography

2

Expectation: speech community type has a perceptual correlate

Perceptual linguistic parameters: what is the envelope of variability?

Perceived social parameters: which parameters? Which values (ethnicity, class)?

Link to focusing What is effect of listener

characteristics?3

More consideration of the ‘big picture’: Expansion in ethnographic and cognitive

approaches More concern with geographical context But perceptual dialectology has not (yet)

made a big impact▪ Garrett et al.’s study of recognition of Welsh

English varieties (1990s)▪ Montgomery’s perceptual maps (200os)

4

The context: a model of dialect change 1. Speech community type

Community structure (Henning Andersen’s open/closed, exocentric/endocentric dichotomies), stratification, group formation, intergroup relations, in-migration/immigration, outward contact, orientation

The mirroring of these factors in observable sociolinguistic variation patterns, including change

The embedding of the speech community in wider geographical dynamics of levelling and divergence

2. Community-external factors, related to wider (both local and national) ideologies about social groups and language

5

Dedialectalisation

Regional dialect levelling

(= supralocalisation)

Geographical diffusion

Innovation (divergence)6

7

8

9

Endocentric closed (Type 1): Metropolitan inner city. Language contact-based innovation. Examples: London and Birmingham inner cities

Endocentric open (Type 2): General urban, with strong external contacts favouring outward diffusion. Examples: Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester

Exocentric closed (Type 3): A low-contact community whose orientation to outside linguistic norms is positive. Change by ideology, not contact. Example: Glasgow inner-city communities, taking up off-the-shelf features (discussed in Lecture 1).

Exocentric open (Type 4): Often rural communities, and unlike Type 1 not especially protective of local norms. Strongly affected by incoming features, diffusing from local urban centres. Example: Huntly.

Also high-mobility, high-contact urbanised regions around a metropolis: the south-east of England

10

Hypothesis 1: Recognising voices from one’s own community (‘own-community recognition’) will be better if one has strong local ties. Thus, working-class judges in established towns will be more successful than middle class groups in the same towns, but working-class judges in a New Town will not have the same advantage.

Hypothesis 2: Own-community recognition will be better in towns with relatively little mobility than in towns with high mobility.

Hypothesis 3: Own-community recognition of an accent with strongly localised phonetic features will be better than that of accents without such distinctive features

11

12

Tape presented to judges in:

Voices

HULL1

Hull F83

2

Milton

Keynes F13

3

Durham

M55

4

Middles-

brough F17

5

Reading

F50

6

Hull

M9

7

Public

school M14

8

Yorks. East

Riding M80

9

London

M13

10

Hull M15

READING

1

Reading

M82

2

Hull M15

3

London F35

4

Reading

M15

5

Durham

M55

6

London

M13

7

Public

school M14

8

Reading

F50

9

Milton

Keynes F13

10

Reading

F18

MILTON KEYNES

1

Milton

Keynes F82

2

Hull M15

3

London F35

4

Reading

M15

5

Durham

M55

6

London

M13

7

Public

school M14

8

Reading

F50

9

Milton

Keynes F13

10

Milton

Keynes M9

Voices presented to judges in Hull, Reading and Milton Keynes

13

0102030405060708090

100

Hull WC Hull MC

Pe

rce

nt c

orr

ect

Judges

Hull teenager M15

Hull child M9

Fig. 11.2a: Correct identifications of young Hull voices by Hull judges

(From P. Kerswill and A. Williams 2002)

14

0102030405060708090

100

Reading WC Reading MC

Pe

rce

nt c

orr

ect

Judges

Reading teenager F18

Reading teenager M15

Fig. 11.2b: Correct identifications of young Readingvoices by Reading judges

(From P. Kerswill and A. Williams 2002)

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Milton Keynes WCMilton Keynes MC

Pe

rce

nt c

orr

ect

Judges

Milton Keynes teenager F13

Milton Keynes child M9

Fig. 11.2c: Correct identifications of young MiltonKeynes voices by Milton Keynes judges

(From P. Kerswill and A. Williams 2002)

16

17

18

19

20

21

Perceptual disjunction between older voices and younger voices Older voices perceived as ‘further west

than here’ But judgement of young voices not

uniform: voice with levelled accent was problematic, though notably not judged as ‘London’

Difference in WC and MC perceptions Ascribable to differences in familiarity

22

Investigators: Paul Kerswill (Lancaster University)Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, University of London)

Research Associates: Sue Fox (Queen Mary, University of London)Eivind Torgersen (Lancaster University)

Funded by the Economic and Social Research Councilwww.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/278/

E· S· R· C

ECONOMIC

& S O C I A L

RESEARCH

C O U N C I

L

23

Investigators: Paul Kerswill (Lancaster University)Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, University of

London)

Research Associates: Sue Fox, Arfaan Khan, (Queen Mary, University

of London)Eivind Torgersen (Lancaster University)

E· S· R· C

ECONOMIC

& S O C I A L

RESEARCH

C O U N C I L

Funded by the Economic and Social Research Councilwww.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/539/

Multicultural London English: the emergence, acquisition and diffusion of a new variety (2007–10)

24

Are these the innovators?

Roll Deep Crew (East London Hip-Hop crew)25

HaveringHackney

26

300

400

500

600

700

800

5007009001100130015001700190021002300

F2

F1

FACE

MOUTH

TRAP

STRUT

START

PRICE

CHOICE

GOAT

27

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

500700900110013001500170019002100230025002700

F2

F1

300

400

500

600

700

800

5007009001100130015001700190021002300

F2

F1

300

400

500

600

700

800

5007009001100130015001700190021002300

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

500700900110013001500170019002100230025002700

F2

F1

Laura, Anglo Issah, Kuwait

Grace, NigeriaJack, Anglo

Issah & Grace: shorter trajectories than Laura & Jack. In GOAT, they go their own way – divergence from south-eastern fronting change

28

There is awareness in the press and radio of a ‘new’ way of talking in London: people claim that more and more white kids ‘talk black’ or ‘sound like they’re black’

The media have coined this ‘Jafaican’. We’ve called it Multicultural London English

Is there evidence that it is ethnically relatively neutral? If so, we have evidence of a new,

multiethnic variety (a “multiethnolect”)29

Task: ethnic and geographical

classification of real speech from

2005 interviews

10 second sound clip per speaker

All listeners from inner London

Listeners aged 12 or 17 (N=68)

30

Megan Hackney Anglo

Andrew Hackney Anglo

Laura Hackney Anglo

Ryan Hackney AngloSulema Hackney Non-Anglo (Bangladeshi)

Kirsty Hackney Non-Anglo (Chinese)

Grace Hackney Non-Anglo (Nigerian)

Dom Hackney Non-Anglo (Columbian)

Amjad Hackney Non-Anglo (Pakistani)

Chris Hackney Non-Anglo (Afro-Caribbean)

Kelly Havering Anglo

Dale Havering Anglo

31

Plus four Birmingham voices: 2 female, 2 male, one Afro-Caribbean, one Anglo for each sex

If a listener claims a voice to be that of a Londoner, then we take this as a claim that the voice belongs to the listener’s speech community

32

33

Actual ethnicity of

speakers (1f, 1m for each ethnicity)

Judgement of speaker’s ethnicity

based on voice sample

Actual ethnicity/sex of

speaker

Is heard as coming from ... 34

Is heard as ...

Is heard as coming from... 35

Is heard as

being ...

Is heard as coming from...

36

Is heard as ...

Is heard as coming from ... 37

Birmingham Non-Anglo voices are more likely to be heard as ‘London’ than Birmingham Anglos voices

Havering Anglo voices are heard as ‘white’ and as from London or Essex

Hackney Anglo voices are also heard as ‘white’, but much less consistently. One is consistently heard as ‘black’. They are heard as from London with more consistency than the Havering Anglos

Hackney Non-Anglo voices are heard as coming from various backgrounds, with no correspondence with actual race/ethnicity. The exception is Grace.

38

Non-Anglo voices are heard as coming from London This effect is extended to Birmingham Non-Anglo voices

Anglo voices are less strongly associated with London

Anglo voices from Hackney are more likely to be heard as being from London than those from Havering

Question: can a content analysis of interviews shed light on these associations?39

How are ‘own place’ and ‘own language’ constructed? Likely relevant categories for language:

‘Cockney’, ‘posh’, ‘Multicultural London English’ (need to look for members’ term for this concept, along the lines of Kiezdeutsch), ...

Parameters of construction for place and language: Age, behaviour, dress, ethnicity, words, pronunciation ...

40

41

Identi-fies as Cock-ney

Identi-fies as

‘myself’

Identi-fies as East

London

Identi-fies as

London

Identifies as foreign

‘Cockney’ somewhere other than Hackney or local area

‘Cockney’ distinct

from current

language of own area

Anglon=13

5 1 3 2 0 3 10

Non- Anglo n=11

0 1 2 3 1 1 10

Columbian

42

‘Cockney’ spoken by

older people

Cock-neys are

white

Cockneys have specific

cultural character-istics (tea,

beer, pubs, chips; they are chavs,

racist)

Cockney associated with words (geezer, all right, mate, cock, sweet,

governor, rhyming

slang)

Associates own speech with words (what’s up,

blood, bredren,

save it, safe, shank, mug,

bless)

Refers to ‘slang’ as

words distinguish-

ing their speech from

Cockney

Refers to own variety as

‘slang’

Anglon=13

2 2 3 5 4 2 0

Non- Anglo n=11

2 2 1 6 2 2 4

also ‘ghetto’, ‘rude’ (Non-

Anglos), ‘raggo’ (Anglo)

5/13 Anglos claim to be Cockneys Citing family background: ‘Mum is a real Cockney’ Also language mentioned

No Non-Anglos claim either the identity or the dialect Cockneys are defined by a process of othering

Social and linguistic practices (tea, bags of chips; ‘mate’, ‘geezer’ ...) White (and sometimes racist) Older people ‘Cockney’ spoken somewhere else (other parts of London, Essex) Or spoken here, but in another time

Own identity defined as local, East London, sometimes by postcode But never ‘East End’, thus setting themselves apart from the soap

Eastenders No mention of race or ethnicity in this section of interviews

43

Almost everybody says their speech is different from Cockney Cockney is defined by words, freely cited The speakers claim different words for themselves

Own speech and speech of the area rarely given a name The designation ‘slang’ is often used, but speakers cite

vocabulary to define it (what’s up, blood, bredren, save it, safe, shank, mug, bless)

Accent never mentioned Match in individual cases between self-ascription and members’

perception Ryan is heard as black. He says of himself that he hates white people, and is

always taken for black in the absence of visual clues Dom does not claim a British identity. Of the Non-Anglos, he is heard as the least

‘London’

44

Dialect recognition and geographical ascription shows local perceptions of speech communities Correlation with focusing/diffuseness,

ongoing levelling Gives quantifiable, but subtle picture of

how individuals perceive local areas, local speech, and who is ‘one of us’

Match with both variation patterns and with ethnographic information

45