<<   2. Helen Lawton Smith Department of Management Birkbeck, University of London Oxfordshire Economic Observatory, Oxford University Presentation at Department of Planning Seminar Series, Oxford Brookes University, March 6 2014  >>
Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in
Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in
London and three South-east periphery towns
London and three South-east periphery towns
Diphthong shift (Wells 1982)
Diphthong shift (Wells 1982)
Diphthong shift (Wells 1982)
Diphthong shift (Wells 1982)
Reduced H-dropping in the South-east periphery and a northern English
Reduced H-dropping in the South-east periphery and a northern English
GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r
GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r
GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r
GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r
Research question: Is this city the origin of all these changes
Research question: Is this city the origin of all these changes
Are these the innovators
Are these the innovators
Monophthongs in Hackney  anticlockwise chain shift
Monophthongs in Hackney anticlockwise chain shift
Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney
Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney
Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes
Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes
Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes
Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes
Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis

: kerswill. , . , Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis.ppt zip- 8298 .

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis.ppt
1Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 37Languages spoken. Hackney. Turkish
2007 Phonological innovation in London 10.61%. Yoruba 6.79%. Bengali + Sylheti
teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of 5.41%. Havering. Panjabi 0.36%. Hindi/Urdu
change in a metropolis. Paul Kerswill, 0.32%. Gujarati 0.09%. 37.
Eivind Torgersen and Sue Fox Lancaster 38Population. Hackney: 208,365 Havering:
University, Queen Mary, University of 224,248. 38.
London. 1. 39Project design. 16 elderly Londoners
2Or New contact varieties as the 105 17 year old Londoners from inner
source of innovation in a highly levelled, London (Hackney) and outer London
and still levelling, dialect area. 2. (Havering) female, male Anglo and
3Innovation, levelling and diffusion. non-Anglo Free interviews in pairs 1.4m
These are three basic mechanisms of words transcribed orthographically, stored
change. Innovation: not predicated on in a database time-aligned at turn level.
contact endogenous in the sense of 39.
generated from within the speech 40H-dropping. Percent dropped H in
community Levelling: dialect levelling lexical words (interviews). MK &
and by extension accent levelling, a Reading elderly (1995). MK 14 year olds
process whereby differences between (1995). Reading 14 year olds (1995).
regional varieties are reduced, features Hackney 17 year olds (2005). Havering 17
which make varieties distinctive year olds (2005). 92%. 14%. 35%. 9%. 32%.
disappear, and new features emerge and are 1. Correspondence between MK and Hackney
adopted by speakers over a wide is very surprising, because MK is highly
geographical area (Williams & mobile with a very levelled accent,
Kerswill, 1999:149) by definition while Hackney is not mobile with an accent
non-directional predicated on face-to-face with many innovations. 2. Correspondence
contact (but not always) Diffusion the between Reading and Havering less
directional spread of a feature similarly surprising: both are areas with fairly
predicated on face-to-face contact (again mobile populations and somewhat levelled
not always). 3. accents. 40.
4Interaction of internal and 41Monophthongs in Hackney
external factors. Neogrammarian change: anticlockwise chain shift. Elderly
slow, subconscious, in principle governed speakers (circles), Young speakers
by internal factors Labovs Principles of (diamonds). 41.
Vowel Shifting are intended as universal, 42Monophthongs: groups of speakers in
and govern Neogrammarian change for Hackney. Non-Anglos. Anglos with non-Anglo
vowels: Principle I In chain shifts, long network. Anglos with Anglo network. FOOT
vowels rise. Principle II In chain shifts, is relatively back compared to Havering
short vowels fall. Principle IIa In chain see next slide! Elderly speakers
shifts, the nuclei of upgliding diphthongs (circles), non-Anglo speakers (inverted
fall. Principle III In chain shifts, back triangles), Anglo speakers with non-Anglo
vowels move to the front. (Labov, networks (triangles), Anglo speakers with
1994:116). 4. Anglo networks (squares). 42.
5Drift. Well look at an example of a 43Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering:
set of Neogrammarian vowel shifts Such the extremes. Non-Anglo Youth, Hackney.
shifts seem to be susceptible to Anglo Youth, Havering. FOOT. GOOSE. FOOT.
drift-like behaviour a shift process, once GOOSE. ? ? 43.
started, can continue in a new speech 44Working-class white Londoner born 1938
community even after separation What (Hackney). GOAT. CHOICE. FACE. PRICE.
effect do non-internal (contact and MOUTH. START. TRAP. STRUT. 44.
non-linguistic) factors have on drift-like 45Young speakers in Hackney. Laura,
changes? 5. Anglo. Alan, Kuwait. Grace, Nigeria. Jack,
6Finding a testing ground for the Anglo. 45.
interaction of internal principles and 46Young Havering Anglo speakers. Donna.
external factors. Insight from Ian. 46.
dialectology: a metropolis is the supposed 47Innovation, diffusion and levelling
origin of change A Western metropolis is revisited. Loss of H-dropping London
usually the location with most immigration matches London periphery in loss of
and in-migration in its region Influence H-dropping unexpected match between
of non-internal effects likely to be high inner-city non-Anglos and high-contact
due to (i) language contact and (ii) south-east periphery Anglos in Milton
complex intergroup relations Related to Keynes (a New Town) same feature
this is the likelihood of finding new L1 different social embedding in south-east
varieties of the language following periphery, high mobility may lead to
contact with L2 varieties through susceptibility to overt norms (h-fulness)
individual bilingualism. These new in London, may be a result of high contact
varieties are contact dialects Possibility with L2 varieties of English (which may be
of innovation resulting from contact with h-ful). 47.
these varieties. 6. 48Fronting of GOOSE Advanced in London,
7Dialect levelling matching periphery GOOSE in London is
(supralocalisation) in the south-east of rarely diphthongal in our data, so falls
England. Reports of widespread outside Diphthong Shift unexpectedly, most
homogenisation in the south-east (Kerswill advanced among non-Anglo Londoners and
& Williams 2000; Britain 2002) New Anglos with non-Anglo networks as with
features are assumed to originate in loss of H-dropping, the same feature has
London, based on gravity model (diffusion) different social embedding in inner London
cf Wells (1982: 302): its working-class and south-east periphery extreme fronting
accent is today the most influential among inner city non-Anglos is innovatory
source of phonological innovation in levelling in periphery Fronting of FOOT
England and perhaps in the whole Less advanced in London than in periphery
English-speaking world. Hypothesis: the in London, more advanced in Havering
new, levelled features spread out from (outer city), in line with the Anglos in
London. 7. the periphery lack of fronting in inner
8A problem with the gravity model. the city is conservative, matching Caribbean
gravity model assumes spread by diffusion, Englishes levelling in periphery. 48.
not levelling if we observe gradually 49GOAT (1) GOAT-fronting Prevalent among
increasing homogenisation with no south-east periphery speakers levelling
directionality, then this cant be the (shared innovation). Agnostic as to
result of diffusion (the partial exception Diphthong Shift reversal Absent in most
would be where diffusion has run its inner-London speakers of both sexes and
course, leading to complete replacement all ethnicities, present in outer-city
but directionality should be visible while girls Instead, (2) GOAT-monophthongisation
the diffusion is ongoing). 8. highly correlated with ethnicity
9London and three South-east (Afro-Caribbean, Black African) and
periphery towns. 9. multi-ethnic network (for Anglos)
10Regional dialect levelling monophthongisation: a result of innovation
(supralocalisation) in the south-east of in the inner city, resulting from contact
England. Reduced amount of H-dropping with British Caribbean English and L2
(ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting Englishes. No general diffusion except to
(fing, bruvver) GOAT-fronting to [??] RP minority ethnic speakers outside the inner
variant in MOUTH [??] Low-back onset of city looks like Diphthong Shift reversal.
PRICE [??], lowered/unrounded from [???], 49.
[??] or [??] Raising of onset of FACE to 50PRICE Lowering across region
[????] Fronting of GOOSE to [??] Fronting Diphthong Shift reversal But added
of FOOT to [??] or [?] Lowering and fronting is greater in London than
backing of TRAP to [??] Backing of STRUT south-east periphery fronting and
to [??]. 10. monophthongisation correlated with
11We will focus on Reduced amount of ethnicity strongest among non-Anglos
H-dropping (ouse) Increased amount of seems to be a geographically directional
TH-fronting (fing) GOAT-fronting to [??] and diachronically gradual process The
RP variant in MOUTH [??] Low-back onset change (from approximately [??]) involves
of PRICE [??], lowered/unrounded from lowering of the onset and as such is a
[???], [??] or [??] Raising of onset of reversal of Diphthong Shift interpretable
FACE to [????] Fronting of GOOSE to [??] as a London innovation with diffusion to
Fronting of FOOT to [??] or [?] Lowering periphery. 50.
and backing of TRAP to [??] Backing of 51Monophthongisation of FACE, PRICE and
STRUT to [??]. 11. GOAT is correlated with four interacting
12 four diphthong-shift vowels. scales: 1. Non-Anglo > Anglo 2.
Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse) Non-Anglo network > Anglo network 3.
Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) Male > female 4. Inner London >
GOAT-fronting to [??] RP variant in outer London > South-east periphery
MOUTH [??] Low-back onset of PRICE [??], (Milton Keynes, Reading, Ashford) The
lowered/unrounded from [???], [??] or [??] nature of the interaction is not yet
Raising of onset of FACE to [????] clear. 51.
Fronting of GOOSE to [??] Fronting of FOOT 52MOUTH In the south-east periphery, the
to [??] or [?] Lowering and backing of RP-like realisation [a?] has made inroads
TRAP to [??] Backing of STRUT to [??]. 12. In London, [a:] is the norm Additionally,
13 and two monophthongs undergoing [??] is used by some non-Anglos,
change. Reduced amount of H-dropping especially girls, in the inner city
(ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting RP-like [a?] is not the result of
(fing) GOAT-fronting to [??] RP variant levelling in the sense of the selection
in MOUTH [??] Low-back onset of PRICE of a majority or phonetically intermediate
[??], lowered/unrounded from [???], [??] form, but may be seen as socially more
or [??] Raising of onset of FACE to [????] unmarked But the outcomes suggest three
Fronting of GOOSE to [??] Fronting of FOOT different changes: (1) south-east
to [??] or [?] Lowering and backing of periphery [a?] (2) inner-city [a:] (3)
TRAP to [??] Backing of STRUT to [??]. 13. inner-city non-Anglo [??]. 52.
14Diphthong shift (Wells 1982). But note 53Contact, innovation, diffusion and
that /u:/, or GOOSE, now falls outside the levelling in dialectology. (1) Overall
Diphthong Shift set and this is patterns: divergence/innovation in inner
allowed for by Wells. 14. London non-Anglos and Anglos with
15Drift in the diphthongs of early New non-Anglo networks in the lead in
Zealand English (Trudgill 2004). NZE has innovation some evidence of diffusion to
Cockney-like diphthongs today, but with south-east periphery but also levelling in
more extreme shifts in MOUTH Trudgill periphery, without involvement of inner
finds evidence that diphthong shift got London Havering lies between inner London
greater during the 19th century, and and periphery. 53.
concludes that this is due to drift. 54(2) Locus of contact in dialectology
Britain (2005) argues that the evidence In modern metropolises new contact
for continued shifting is only likely for varieties result from language contact
FACE Either way, diphthong shift clearly following large-scale concentrated
thrived and then stabilised, in the immigration Transmission of innovations
absence of the strong social sanctions through social networks can be
against it in south-east England at the demonstrated quantitatively (harder to
same time Research question: what is show in individual cases!) Contact
happening to drift in London today, a varieties have the potential to spearhead
typologically very similar variety of language change, given the right social
English, but where the sociolinguistic relations and favourable identity factors.
set-up is extremely different from early 54.
and current NZE? 15. 55(3) Where does contact not count?
16Reduced H-dropping in the South-east Transmission is said to be dependent on
periphery and a northern English city. 16. face-to-face contact But there is evidence
17Changes in MOUTH and PRICE. 17. that this is not necessary: th-fronting in
18Percentage use of variants of /au/ Great Britain (? ? f; ? ? v) up to about
(MOUTH), Reading Working Class, interview 1980 was geographically gradual and very
style (1995) (from Kerswill & Williams slow (250+ years) Since then it has spread
2005). ????? ???? ???? [a??]. ???? ???? in a manner that cannot be explained by
Survey of English Dialects (SED) face-to-face contact and is no longer
informants, 1950-60s. ? . . . . . geographically gradual becoming
Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m). 53.5. 38.1. increasingly mainstream in North of
3.3. 0. 4.1. 0.7. Girls age 14 (n=8). 0. England and Scotland simultaneously in
2.3. 0. 8.0. 0. 90.4. Boys age 14 (n=8). about 1980 (Kerswill 2003) spreading to
3.8. 3.2. 0. 5.7. 0. 87.1. 18. low-contact working-class speakers first
19Percentage use of variants of /aU/ (Stuart-Smith et al. 2007) the spread of
(MOUTH), Milton Keynes Working Class, [a?] in the south-east periphery is rapid
interview style (1995). [EU+]. [EI]. [E?]. and simultaneous, and is not a typical
[a??]. [QU]. [aU]. SED informants, automatic result of levelling as predicted
1950-60s. ? Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m). by Trudgill (majority and/or intermediate
63.2. 25.6. 9.8. 0. 1.2. 0. Girls age 14 form wins out). 55.
(n=8). 0. 0. 0. 5.9. 4.7. 88.8. Boys age 56(4) We need to account for the spread
14 (n=8). 0. 0. 0. 12.3. 3.8. 83.1. 19. of features by face-to-face contact and
20Percentage use of variants of /ai/ absence of contact Milroy (2004; 2007)
(PRICE), Reading Working Class, interview suggests an accessibility hierarchy, with
style. ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? a number of features being available off
Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m). 0. 12.4. 47.8. the shelf. th-fronting is one of them
21.8. 1.7. 15.7. Girls age 14/15 (n=8). Observation suggests that some of the new
2.8. 21.2. 45.1. 21.1. 4.3. 5.1. Boys age vowel features are adopted outside London,
14/15 (n=8). 0.6. 19.1. 63.7. 13.7. 2.7. but mainly by minority ethnic speakers
0. 20. is this because of Trudgill-style
21Percentage use of variants of (a?) levelling, or are the identities they
(PRICE), Milton Keynes Working Class, signal not (yet) available to Anglo youth
interview style (1995). [a=I]. [A+I]. outside London? 56.
[AI]. [?I]. [?+I]. [?I]. Elderly age 70-80 57Contact, levelling and diffusion in
(2f, 2m). 0. 0. 24.4. 56.6. 15.3. 3.4. relation to Neogrammarian change. Briefly:
Girls age 14/15 (n=8). 25.4. 44.6. 29.2. taking the long view, we can see that the
0.5. 0. 0. Boys age 14/15 (n=8). 1.0. Diphthong Shift reversal we have observed
38.0. 60.0. 0. 0. 0. 21. is consistent and regular, even partly
22MOUTH and PRICE in the South-east. mirroring the order in which it is thought
MOUTH: simultaneous replacement of various to have progressed in the first place But
regional forms through the south-east, the social and phonetic detail is
both rural and urban, by [a?] very rare in extremely messy. 57.
south-eastern vernacular varieties very 58Innovation, levelling and diffusion
similar to traditional Received revisited. Little that we have discovered
Pronunciation not a phonetically levelled flatly contradicts the predictions of the
form, i.e. not arrived at as either the gravity model, provided that: We recognise
survival of a majority form or the that different features have different
appearance of a phonetically intermediate social values (social indexation) We
form PRICE: the rise of [??], which is not recognise some salience-like concept (not
RP, but is a phonetically intermediate discussed here!) We recognise that
variant good candidate for phonetic ideology and identity must be added to
levelling and also geographical face-to-face contact. 58.
(non-directional) dialect levelling. 22. 59Consequences for dialectology. Sources
23GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r. of innovation must today be sought in
1996). 23. minority-ethnic metropolitan varieties
24GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r. and: need to recognise a more complex
1996). 24. diffusion and levelling model. 59.
25Phonological/phonetic change in 60Bibliography. Britain, David (2002).
London. the fate of h-dropping MOUTH PRICE Phoenix from the ashes?: The death,
GOAT FACE. 25. contact, and birth of dialects in England.
26Research question: Is this city the Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 41:
origin of all these changes? 26. 42-73 Britain, David (2005). Where did New
27Are these the innovators? Roll Deep Zealand English come from? In A. Bell, R.
Crew (East London hip-hop crew). 27. Harlow & D. Starks (eds.), Languages
28Linguistic innovators: the English of of New Zealand. Wellington: Victoria
adolescents in London (20047) University Press. 156-193. Cheshire,
Multicultural London English: the Jenny, Fox, Sue, Kerswill, Paul &
emergence, acquisition and diffusion of a Torgersen, Eivind (in press) Ethnicity,
new variety (200710). E S R C ECONOMIC friendship network and social practices as
& S O C I A L RESEARCH C O U N C I L. the motor of dialect change: linguistic
Investigators: Paul Kerswill (Lancaster innovation in London. Sociolinguistica 22,
University) Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, Special Issue on Dialect Sociology, edited
University of London) Research Associates: by Alexandra N. Lenz and Klaus J.
Sue Fox, Arfaan Khan, (Queen Mary, Mattheier. Kerswill, Paul (2003). Dialect
University of London) Eivind Torgersen levelling and geographical diffusion in
(Lancaster University). Funded by the British English. In D. Britain & J.
Economic and Social Research Council Cheshire (eds.), Social dialectology. In
www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/278/ honour of Peter Trudgill. Amsterdam:
www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/539/. 28. Benjamins. 223-243. Kerswill, Paul,
29Research question 1: innovation. What Torgersen, Eivind & Fox, Sue (2008fc)
evidence is there that phonological and Reversing drift: Innovation and
grammatical innovations start in London diffusion in the London diphthong system.
and spread out from there? 29. Language Variation and Change 8(3). 60.
30Research question 2: multilingualism. 61Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann
One-third of Londons primary school (2000). Creating a new town koine:
children in 2001 had a first language Children and language change in Milton
other than English. Does this degree of Keynes. Language in Society 29:65-115.
multilingualism have any long-term impact Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann
on mainstream English? Reinterpreted in (2005). New towns and koineization:
terms of the current spoken English of the Linguistic and social correlates.
capital, this becomes: Does the use of a Linguistics 43:1023-1048. Meyerhoff, M.
putative Multicultural London English by & Niedzielski, N. (2003). The
adolescents lead to language change? 30. globalisation of vernacular variation,
31Research question 3: the innovators. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4): 534-555.
Which types of Londoners, socially Milroy, L. (2004). The accents of the
(including ethnically) defined, innovate valiant. Why are some sound changes more
linguistically? 31. accessible than others? Plenary lecture
32Research question 4: inner vs. outer given at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15,
London as sources of change. Inner and University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
outer London boroughs differ in: ethnic Stuart-Smith, Jane, Timmins, Claire &
profile proportion of recent migrants Tweedie, Fiona (2007). Talkin' Jockney?
non-first language English speakers Variation and change in Glaswegian accent.
socio-economic class Is there evidence Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (2),
that different linguistic features, 221260. Torgersen, Eivind, &
including innovations, are characteristic Kerswill, Paul (2004). Internal and
of inner London vs. outer London? 32. external motivation in phonetic change:
33Research question 5: social factors. Dialect levelling outcomes for an English
What social mechanisms facilitate (1) vowel shift. Journal of Sociolinguistics
innovation and (2) diffusion? social 8:23-53. Trudgill, Peter (2004).
network ethnicity gender identity New-dialect formation: The inevitability
Operationalisation of these social of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh:
factors. 33. Edinburgh University Press. Wells, John C.
34Havering. 34. Hackney. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge:
3535. Cambridge University Press. 61.
Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis.ppt

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis

The green movement - One of the largest victories in the given campaign can name refusal of flooding of an oil platform brent spar as it contained many toxic substances. "Green" movement in the world. Their features. The main objective to achieve the decision of global environmental problems, including by attraction to them of attention of the public and the authorities.

London - a raven - the guard of Tower. Paul's Cathedral. knowing. James' Park. PICCADILLY CIRCUS. INVITE. The Queen's residence. Tower of London. . . Speaker's Corner. . Westminster Abbey. We like our city, and you ? Will you go with me ? the heart of London. TRAFALGAR SQUARE. LONDON. Buckingham Palace.

City London - A rich sugar manufacturer Henry Tate founded it in 1897. To the east the large area called the East End. The West End. Its population is about 7 million people. Paul's by William III. Statue on border the city of London. Here are the historical places as well as the famous parks. Buckingham Palace. The Cathedral of Saint Paul.

the woman - As great a pity to see a woman cry as a goose go barefoot. . . Un homme- . A man - . - , - ; - . Chickens mind- . A good wife makes a good husband. .


The english-speaking countries - Disneyland. Scotland. Australia. USA. The English-speaking countries. Great Britain.


900igr.net > > > Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis