Perceptions of Different Accents of English

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Hana Richterová

Perceptions of Different Accents of English Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Kateřina Tomková, Ph. D.

2013

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,

using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

I would like to thank all of my American respondents who took the time and effort to

take part in my research, and all of those who helped me contact them via Facebook,

especially Karolina Schmid. My greatest thanks go to Mrs. Kateřina Tomková for her

continuous support, willingness and inspirational remarks, which were at the very root

of this thesis outline.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

2. Theory ........................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 The definition of accent .......................................................................................... 5

2.2 Development of accents of English......................................................................... 6

2.3 Differences between British and American accents ................................................ 8

2.3.1 The separation of the accents ........................................................................... 8

2.3.2 Pronunciation differences ............................................................................... 10

2.3.3 Other linguistic differences ............................................................................ 13

2.3.4 Sociolinguistic patterns of British and American English pronunciation ...... 15

2.4 The Yorkshire accent ............................................................................................ 16

2.4.1 Distinctive features in pronunciation .............................................................. 16

2.4.2 Distinctive features in other linguistic categories........................................... 17

2.4.3 Sociolinguistic and cultural patterns of Yorkshire accent .............................. 18

2.5 The Cockney accent .............................................................................................. 19

2.5.1 Distinctive features in pronunciation .............................................................. 19

2.5.2 Distinctive features in other linguistic categories........................................... 20

2.5.3 Sociolinguistic and cultural patterns of Cockney accent ................................ 21

3. Research ...................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Recordings............................................................................................................. 23

3.1.1 Phonetic aspects of Yorkshire accent recording ............................................. 23

3.1.2 Phonetic aspects of Cockney accent recording .............................................. 25

3.2 Questions ............................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Respondents .......................................................................................................... 29

3.4 Evaluations of accents ........................................................................................... 32

4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 40

Works Cited and Consulted ............................................................................................ 43

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix I ...................................................................................................................... 46

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 47

Resumé ............................................................................................................................ 48

1

1. Introduction

In interpersonal communication everyone inevitably makes judgements about

the people they speak with and simultaneously makes an impression on the same

people. These impressions consist of a vast amount of factors such as physical

appearance, non-verbal communication strategies and of course the content of the

utterance (communiqué), but one of the most prominent factors that reveals itself

immediately is the speaker’s manner of pronunciation, intonation and prosodic features:

the accent. An accent is something that every speaker has and that cannot be avoided;

although there are “general” or “standard” varieties of languages connected with

appropriate accents that are used in media or on official occasions, even the standard

forms will always be marked with the idiolect of individual speakers. Whether we are

aware of it or not, in every spoken communication we “construct impressions of people

from whatever information is available” (Giles and Powesland 1975: 1).

Speaking an accent defines how an individual’s personality will be perceived by

others, and that is the reason why the field of phonetics has always been of great interest

and attractiveness to the author: by intentionally changing our accent we are actually

acting, playing a role. Even though the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of language

determinism has most likely been overcome in the field of linguistics, I find in it a valid

point that speaking a language shapes our view of the world to some extent, and

I believe that speaking a different accent helps to immerse oneself in the foreign

language speaking world and in the minds of its speakers.

The present study deals with how accents influence the perceptions of their

speakers by other speakers of the same language, i.e. English. The thesis focuses on

native speakers of English, which applies both to the judging listeners and the speakers

who are being judged, and it draws a comparison between the two most prevalent forms

2

of English: British English and American English. The aim is to monitor the linguistic

differences between these two forms from the theoretical point of view, and to assess

how native speakers of American English evaluate British English accents and what

values they ascribe to their speakers in the research carried out by the author.

The hypothesis that the British and the Americans believe there are differences

between them is based on socio-historical background the two countries have had. Ever

since the founding of pilgrim colonies in North America through defining events such

as the War of Independence, two world wars and an alliance in the Cold War, Great

Britain and United States of America have been in a “special relationship” (BBC News

Magazine, 2012). The thesis claims that a part of this mental image of mutual feeling

of difference is reflected in the evaluation of speakers of British English done by

speakers of American English. A third person’s point of view, in this case a non-native

speaker of English, can bring in an unbiased reflection of these impressions.

The theory defines accent contrasting it with dialect and describes the factors

that have an influence on accent perception. The thesis then takes a diachronic view on

the history of British and American accents, the separation of the American accent and

describes the differences between British and Americans accents in terms of

pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and sociolinguistic features. Then it focuses on two

British accents that were used as recordings in the research for this thesis, Yorkshire and

Cockney, and their linguistic patterns.

The research is based on a survey among native speakers of American English

that was carried out online by the author of the study. The participants were instructed

to listen to two audio recordings of British accents, the first in Yorkshire accent and the

second in Cockney accent, and then they evaluated the speakers in a set of prepared

questions. The questions monitored the intelligibility of the accents and the impression

3

the two recorded speakers made on the American participants. The questions regarded

supposed personal qualities and lifestyle choices of the two speakers.

The aim of the survey was to find out what preconceived opinions or prejudices

the Americans have towards their across the Atlantic neighbours, the British. Two

different accents were used in order to draw a comparison between them and to obtain

more interesting results: the rural Yorkshire accent typical for Northern England and the

urban Cockney accent associated with London. Any accent resembling Received

Pronunciation (RP) has not been chosen purposefully as there already has been

substantial research in the area of perceptions of the B.B.C English (Giles 1970). What

has not been studied much so far, however, is the preconceived image of the citizens of

the United Kingdom in the eyes of the U.S. nationals, and it is the motivation of this

thesis to map this particular topic that borders on several linguistics sub-disciplines:

phonetics, phonology and sociolinguistics.

The hypothesis of the research is that the speaker of the Yorkshire accent will be

perceived as more good-natured than the speaker of the Cockney accent because of the

notions popularly connected to rural Northern England areas – family traditions, close

and lasting relationships or solidarity, and that the Cockney speaker will be perceived as

more competent because his accent is closer to RP, and RP is associated with

competence and socio-economic prestige (Giles and Powesland 1975: 67). The

Yorkshire accent is expected to be more popular overall, which is based on the recent

popularity with U.S. viewers of two British television series that feature many

characters speaking Northern England accents: Downton Abbey and Game of Thrones.

However, the Cockney accent is also embedded in popular culture, G. B. Shaw’s

Pygmalion to name the most famous, and so Cockney is expected to gain some level of

popularity too. This personal hypothesis is admittedly reflected in the selection of

4

accents I chose to feature in the survey. In the search for recordings, many Yorkshire

accent speakers’ recordings that talked about personal stories and many Cockney accent

recordings of commercial spirit were encountered, therefore I decided to feature these

recordings accordingly; after all, Shaw’s Cockney-speaking Eliza Doolittle was too

a saleswoman. The content of the recordings inevitably plays a role in the perception,

which cannot be avoided; the choice of the two particular recordings has been

a compromise I believe to be the best for the research’s purposes.

5

2. Theory

2.1 The definition of accent

When speaking of accents, one must be aware of what exactly the term

encompasses. The discussion in linguistics has led to the popular use of the term

“variety” (Wells 1982: 3). Variety comprises what a lay person would probably call

a “dialect” – a difference in “any or all of the following categories: grammar, syntax,

vocabulary, and pronunciation,” as opposed to the standard or general variety of the

language (Wells 1982: 3). An accent can be a part of a dialect, but a dialect consists of

more linguistic features than pronunciation. This confusion has therefore given rise to

the wide usage of the neutral term “variety”. In this thesis, when the term “accent” is

used, it denotes the manner of pronunciation, intonation, stress, and other

suprasegmental features.

Accents are influenced by many important factors, both inherent and variable

according to one’s will. The most commonly used differentiation is geographical – the

way a person speaks gives the listeners information about the region where the speaker

lives, or where they have spent their childhood, as accent is mostly formed from early

childhood and does not tend to change past puberty (Wells 1982: 24). In today’s age of

globalisation, the geographical factor remains important in tracing one’s roots, but

accents are becoming more and more diffused with increased mobility, which leads to

shaping accents by new places of residence.

Age is another criterion of accent forming because voice is physically affected

by the human body getting older. Another (socio-) physical factor is the speaker’s

(and listener’s) gender. Listeners tend to distinguish between male and female speakers

very precisely, and there are certain notions in speech ascribed to women (tentativeness,

6

wider pitch range) and to men (slower tempo, smaller intonation range) that highlight

the differences between female and male voices (Wells 1982: 21).

The most important accent determinant for this thesis is the socio-economic

status of speakers, or class. Especially in Great Britain, where the concept of social

classes has been reinforced for centuries by constitutional monarchy and cohabitation of

members of aristocracy with the working class, the spoken accent has become an

indicator of one’s membership in one or the other group. This separation is fading

nowadays, but there are still accents that guarantee prestige for its speakers.

Interestingly, the most prestigious British accent, Received Pronunciation, is not

geographically specified and occurs in speakers from all over the United Kingdom

(Trudgill 1990: 2).

2.2 Development of accents of English

When the Germanic tribes Angles and Saxons invaded the isles of what is now

Great Britain, they have brought with them the language that would later become an

international lingua franca. Together with the Norman invasion that brought an

influence from French, Middle English was born and it replaced Old English, the

language of Beowulf. Most phonetic handbooks dealing with history of English begin

their diachronic approach to English with Middle English, but not to dwell on it for

long, as the most important event from phonetic point of view, the Great Vowel Shift,

had started to shape the language into its Early Modern form (Waniek-Klimczak 2012).

The Great Vowel Shift thus gave rise to Modern English by changing the quality

of the vowel sounds. As J. C. Wells summarizes it, „the half-close, half-open and open

long vowels moved one step closer and the close long vowels diphthongised”

(Wells 1982: 184). This means that what was before pronounced [sweət] would become

7

[swǺət] (sweet) as the unrounded vowel /eə/ shifted to the closer unrounded sound of /Ǻə/.

Vowels in words that used /Ǻə/ or /ʊə/ before the Shift transformed to diphthongs, such

as in [hʊəz] changing to [hoʊz] or perhaps [həʊz] in what later became today’s [hɑʊz]

(house). As to why did the Great Vowel Shift happen there is no single explanation and

the “search for originating causes of sound change (...) remains one of the most

recalcitrant problems of phonetic science” (Labov 1971: ?), but according to the

principle of least effort mentioned by Wells, it is in the naturally lazy human nature to

make words easier to pronounce, for instance in the case of /t/ glottalization present in

the Cockney accent, which removes the need to lift the tip of the tongue to the alveolar

ridge (Wells 1982: 97). On the other hand, this theory does not account for all the

phonemic changes, and another possible explanation is that people after all understood

the need not only to resort to the easiest phonemes, but also to preserve intelligibility of

English by maintaining necessary sound differences.

Another typical change often occurring in the historical development of English

is the emerging of various splits and mergers. These are opposites: in a split, what used

to be the same phoneme transforms into two different phonemic realizations, whereas in

a merger, two different phonemes accept the same pronunciation. Splits and mergers are

best illustrated on the so called “standard lexical sets”, a term borrowed from the

renowned J. C. Wells (Wells 1982): a typical member of a word group with the same

vowel pattern is chosen to represent all the words belonging to that vowel group. There

are many examples of both splits and mergers throughout the history; for this thesis, the

more relevant examples worth mentioning are the FOOT-STRUT split and the FLEECE

merger. In the FLEECE merger, words spelled with ee such as meet or ie such as piece

change their pronunciation from /eə/ to /iə/, and words with ea such as meat or ei such as

receive changed from /ǫə/ to /iə/ as well, therefore merging their pronunciation to

8

a single phoneme, /iə/. However, in Northern England there is still some residue of the

previous pronunciation pattern, for instance in the Yorkshire accent (Wells 1982: 195).

The same applies to the FOOT-STRUT split, where in most accents of English, the

pronunciation is [fʊt] and [strȜt] respectively, but in some areas of Northern England

this split never occurred and both groups of words have the same phonemic realization

/ʊ/, which can also be observed in the Yorkshire accent.

It was only after the Great Vowel Shift that the inhabitants of Great Britain

started to settle other continents and, with the beginning of colonization, started to

spread their language in its then form. In the next chapter the focus will be on the

separation of American English, one of the most prevalent forms of English nowadays,

from its British origins.

2.3 Differences between British and American accents

2.3.1 The separation of the accents

As was previously mentioned, at the beginning of seventeenth century, a group

of settlers boarded the Mayflower ship and set off to North America. There were around

30 different communities of English inhabitants on the ship, the best represented

community being East Anglia – the eastern part of England comprising of Norfolk,

Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and Essex. According to Waniek-Klimczak’s data, during the

next thirty years, about 250,000 residents with roots in London or East Anglia settled in

the north-east of America, and there were also focal points of settlement towards the

south in towns such as Jamestown (Waniek-Klimczak 2012). This means that American

English was influenced by the specific phonetic features of the language spoken at the

time on the east coast of England and London, at least at the beginning. The settling of

the American continent then continued to the inland from east to west; therefore,

9

pronunciation isoglosses (geographical borders of a certain pronunciation variety) in the

USA can be described as “horizontal bands stretching across the country” (Wells

1982: 467). The arrival of settlers, however, meant for the language that it must

inevitably undergo some changes, as the new environment was bound to have influence

on the English spoken by the first settlers. The newcomers came into contact with

Native Americans and their indigenous languages, and their own language has reflected

this encounter and acquired some new lexical items such as skunk or caucus (Trudgill

2010: 108). Later the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies experienced other European

languages in the process of colonization that the British have not, or not in such an

extent, such as Spanish or Dutch, and even German and Yiddish (Trudgill 2010: 109),

from all of which American English has also borrowed vocabulary. The increasing

mobility of people also resulted in more settlers from other European countries arriving

in America, namely from Ireland, Netherlands and many others; their language

background influenced American English as well.

Given the separated development of the American accent, it is understandable

that there are some phonetic phenomena (almost) exclusive for American English. The

settlers came from different parts of England, and so speakers of different local accents

that would not normally meet in England have interacted and communicated in

America, enabling processes that Peter Trudgill overall calls “dialect contact” (Trudgill

2010). For instance, /t/ flapping appears typically in American English in words such as

[sǺɾǺ] (city), but does not occur in British English accents (Wells 1982: 76). On the other

hand, this development goes both ways, so that glottalization of intervocalic or final-

position /t/ such as in [bǢʔə] (butter) or [bȜʔ] (but) occurs only in British English

accents, e.g. as a typical feature of the Cockney accent, but not in American English

accents (Trudgill and Hannah 1985: 36).

10

2.3.2 Pronunciation differences

Taking into consideration the hundreds of years that American English and

British English have developed with limited mutual contact, it seems natural that there

are phonetic variations in American English which are not present in British English

and vice versa. This subchapter will cover the most important differences between the

two in terms of specific phonemes and stress differences, comparing the standard

varieties of both, i.e. Standard English and General American, as the forms nationally

accepted as language norms. The abbreviations BrE and AmE will be used for Standard

British English and General American English respectively. Where there are two

variants, the first one stands for BrE, the latter for AmE.

/r//r//r//r/ – alveolar trill

One of the most prominent and well-known differences between British and

American English is rhoticity – pronouncing of postvocalic (non-prevocalic) /r/, or lack

thereof. In BrE, the majority of varieties are non-rhotic, meaning that postvocalic /r/ is

not pronounced like in [kɑə] (car), whereas in AmE, most varieties are rhotic, and

postvocalic /r/ is pronounced as in [kɑər]. However, even in BrE a postvocalic /r/ can

be pronounced as the correct form of pronunciation in case there is another vowel

present after it: [ðə kɑər Ǻz] (the car is), and also in the case of intrusive (intervocalic)

/r/ such as in [ðǺə aǺdǺər Ǻz] (the idea is). What’s more, some regional varieties of AmE

deviate from the norm and are non-rhotic, mostly in the south (Alabama, Georgia) and

parts of New England such as New York or Boston, and likewise, some northern

accents of BrE are rhotic such as Lancashire (Wells 1982: 368).

11

vowels before /r//r//r//r/

The alveolar trill is interesting not only on the basis of actually being

pronounced or not, but also from the point of influence on vowels that precede it. Where

there normally is a difference in BrE between [Ǻr] in words like mirror and [ir] in words

like nearer, American English tends to blend /Ǻ/ and /i/, making mirror and nearer

rhyme and simultaneously shortening the vowel of the FLEECE lexical set in nearer.

Similar situation arises in differencing between marry and merry: where in BrE the first

is [mærǺ] and the second [mǫrǺ], in some areas of the United States, namely New

England and the middle and far west, the prevalent pronunciation of both is [mǫrǺ] –

marry and merry become homophones (Wells 1982: 480-1).

Words such as hurry usually fall into the STRUT lexical set, but in AmE, the half-

open back unrounded /Ȝ/ before /r/ is quite rare and “virtually restricted to New York

City” (Wells 1982: 480); it is replaced by /Ǭ/ or /ǭ/, so that hurry and furry sound

practically the same. However, the vowel /Ǭ/ is phonetically very close to /Ȝ/, so this

distinction is not considered a merger with the NURSE lexical set.

////ǢǢǢǢ/ / / / �� ////ɑɑɑɑ//// – open back rounded vowel/open back unrounded vowel

This is a distinctive difference in the LOT lexical set: where Received

Pronunciation usually pronounces the rounded open vowel in [lǢt], General American

pronunciation is the unrounded open [lɑt] (lot) (see lottery in Appendix I). Sometimes,

the half-open back rounded vowel /Ǥ/ of the THOUGHT lexical set is mentioned in close

connection to these two, because in the midlands and south of the United States, where

the THOUGHT-LOT merger is widespread, /Ǥ/ and /ɑ/ are not distinct, and on rhymes both

with John and with lawn (Wells 1982: 245).

12

////ɑəɑəɑəɑə/ / / / �� ////ææææ//// – half-open front unrounded vowel/open back unrounded vowel

In the BATH lexical set there is one of the most prominent different sounds

between British and American accents. Whereas in BrE, the pronunciation is [bɑəȅ], in

AmE the word is pronounced with the open [bæȅ]. Both the vowels occur in both

varieties of English, but in words such as ask, dance or laugh, the difference is most

noticeable. In some accents in the north of England though, the vowel is shortened and

[lɑəftə] becomes [lɑftə], or more precisely [lɑftər] (laughter), as some northern BrE

accents tend to be rhotic rather than non-rhotic (Wells 1982: 353-67).

////jjjj//// – palatal approximant

Almost all English accents, both British and American, have been subjected to

the so called Early Yod Dropping (Wells 1982: 206), which meant the loss of [juə] after

palatal consonants and /r/, so that e.g. threw and through have become homophones.

However, in AmE this process went further and resulted in the loss of /j/ after all

coronal consonants /t, d, n, ȅ, s, z, l/. The standard Received Pronunciation retains [juə]

after these consonants, so the BrE [djuətǺ] is pronounced [duətǺ] (duty) in AmE (Wells

1982: 489).

word stress differences

As was mentioned before, English has been influenced by French in history, and

has borrowed many loanwords that became part of English vocabulary. These words

with French origin are often pronounced differently by speakers of BrE and AmE

regarding word stress: where BrE tends to put stress on first syllables, AmE stresses the

final syllable. For instance, ballet is pronounced [,bæleǺ] in British English but [bæ,leǺ]

in American English. On the other hand, AmE tends to have stress on the first syllable

in many words in which BrE has stress on other syllables – the word adult is

13

pronounced [,ædȜlt] in General American but [æ,dȜlt] in RP. Also, in polysyllabic

words (4 and more syllables) with suffixes –ary and –ory, the last syllable is reduced

such as in [,dǺkʃənrǺ] in British English, whereas in AmE, the penultimate syllable is

stressed as in [dǺkʃə,nærǺ] (dictionary) (Trudgill and Hannah 1985: 42-43).

2.3.3 Other linguistic differences

British and American English naturally does not vary in pronunciation only.

There are differences in other linguistic categories: in this subchapter, the following will

be briefly covered to encompass the most prominent differences: grammar, vocabulary,

and spelling.

grammatical differences

As Trudgill and Hannah discuss the level of grammatical differences, “at the

level of educated speech and writing, there are relatively few differences in grammar

and spelling” between BrE and AmE (Trudgill and Hannah 1985: 45). The most

prominent grammatical difference can be observed in irregular verbs inflection, where

some verbs considered irregular in BrE take on a regular form in AmE. In some cases,

the difference is only in voicing the final consonant (BrE burnt �AmE burned), in

others the change is also in the vowel that changes e.g. from the BrE past and past

participle of to dream from the vowel /ǫ/ (dreamt – [drǫmt]) to /i/ in the AmE variant

(dreamed – [drimd]). Trudgill and Hannah also note that the typically American past

and past participle of to get, i.e. gotten, is not used in BrE (Trudgill and Hannah 1985:

47), but according to the author’s opinion, nowadays this verb form is used quite

frequently in British English as well. The two varieties of English also differ in the use

of auxiliary verbs in many slight details: for instance, BrE consideres the verb to have

14

as more active, whereas AmE lacks the dynamism for to have and uses it only as

a stative auxiliary (Trudgill 2010: 110). American English is also more open to new

word formations and more often creates new verbs by adding the suffixes –ify and –ize

or creates verbs by zero formation from nouns (Trudgill and Hannah 1985: 47-48).

lexical differences

Perhaps the most apparent difference between BrE and AmE that confuses even

native speakers from opposite sides of the Atlantic is the varying vocabulary. The

reasons for new vocabulary to occur in AmE are the same as reasons described in 2.3.1,

i.e. different environment, intermingling of different regional speakers and influence of

newly encountered inhabitants and foreigners. Different technological development that

had progressed in the two countries can be also added to the list of influential factors

(Trudgill and Hannah 1985); even the most common appliances and machines differ in

name, such as in BrE hoover vs. AmE vacuum (floor-cleaning device) or BrE bonnet vs.

AmE hood (metal part of car that covers the engine).

orthographical differences

Spelling is probably the least striking difference from all here discussed,

however, the differences are still respected and therefore should be mentioned too.

There is a number of sets of words where BrE and AmE typically vary. Taking into

consideration the age of sources used in this regard (Trudgill and Hannah 1985, Wells

1982), those considered by the author to be still up-to-date are for example:

BrE –our / AmE –or (colour/color)

BrE –re / AmE –er (centre/center)

BrE –ce / AmE –se (licence/license)

BrE doubled consonant / AmE single consonant (travelled/traveled)

BrE retains French diacritics / AmE leaves them out (café/cafe)

15

2.3.4 Sociolinguistic patterns of British and American English pronunciation

Among the differences between these two varieties of English also count the

different sociolinguistic patterns, perceptions and judgements of their speakers on

others. The research in this thesis deals with accents that are generally understood as

being “outside the norm” or non-standard. This implies that there are certain forms of

languages that are perceived as setting the norm or standard, and indeed there are such

forms. This subchapter will refer to the two standard varieties of BrE and AmE,

Received Pronunciation and General American, and describe the allocation of prestige

in accents of British and American English.

As Howard Giles observes, “the English are (...) particularly sensitive to

variations in the pronunciation of their language” (Giles and Powesland 1975: 24), and

other renowned authors agree on this as well (Wells 1982, Trudgill 1985, Trudgill

1990). England has always had more regional and social variation in pronunciation than

the USA, for both geographical and historical reasons (Giles and Powesland 1975: 25),

and both the regional and class affiliation seems to be of more significance to the British

(Trudgill 1990). Received Pronunciation is now perceived as a region-less accent, but

originally it arose from the south-east of England, and because this region with London

in its centre was the politic and commercial centre, it gradually gained more prestige

than any other accent of BrE. This explanation corresponds with the “imposed norm

hypothesis”, which believes that prestige accents are not phonetically superior or more

pleasing than others, but that their prestigious status was brought on by socio-cultural

circumstances. The opposite of this theory is the “inherent value hypothesis”, which

suggests that accents that carry the most prestige within a language community have

become prestigious thanks to their phonetic features, which are intrinsically more

pleasant to the ears than others (Giles and Powesland 1975, Mugglestone 2003).

16

According to various studies, RP possesses the most prestige in BrE, being followed by

Scottish and Irish, other regional English accents (Welsh, Northern English), and the list

is closed by the least prestigious accents of large industrial towns such as Liverpool,

Birmingham or Leeds (Coupland and Bishop 2007, Wells 1982). The closer to RP, the

more prestige the speaker is perceived to have; a number of regional accents, on the

other hand, are judged highly on trustworthiness and honesty (Coupland and Bishop

2007: 77), which seem to be on the opposite of prestige many studies on accent

perceptions.

In the U.S., there is no one regional variety that would enjoy considerably more

prestige than others, although there have been attempts by for instance William Labov

to measure the prestige of AmE accents in several variables, e.g. rhoticity or height of

specific vowels (Giles and Powesland 1975: 38). If there is any difference in prestige

allocation, it is between the so-called “White” and “Black” English, for the lack of

a better term. Giles remarked that “sounding White is equated with high status” (Giles

and Powesland 1975: 43), but since some 40 years have passed since then, the situation

has perhaps undergone a change thanks to the globalized nature of today’s culture and

media. There is also a tendency for prestige in accents of AmE to be stronger in the

North and wane towards the South (Giles 1975).

Let us now concern with linguistic patterns of two specific BrE accents.

2.4 The Yorkshire accent

2.4.1 Distinctive features in pronunciation

vowels

There are two distinctive features that separate the Northern (and Midlands) BrE

accents from their Southern counterparts: the absence of the FOOT-STRUT split that was

17

already mentioned in 2.2 and absence of broadening of the BATH lexical set mentioned

in 2.3.2, paragraph /ɑə/ � /æ/. In the Yorkshire accent then, put and putt are

homophones pronounced [pʊt] and the vowel in gas and glass is the same open mid

unrounded vowel /a/ (Wells 1982: 349). Northern accents generally feature more open

vowels; /æ/ transforms into short /a/, so the TRAP words are pronounced [trap]. The

middle class in Yorkshire and other Northern regions tries to escape the local stigma

and replaces the STRUT words’ /ʊ/ with /ə/, but short /a/ in the BATH lexical set is an

important part of the Northern identity (Gupta 2005: 23). The FLEECE merger has not

undergone completely in Yorkshire accent, so there is a distinction between words like

meet [məǺt] and meat [mǺət]. A more traditional-accent pronunciation in some areas of

Yorkshire is [lǤv] (love) that rhymes with of (Wells 1982).

consonants

The Yorkshire accent is typically non-rhotic, although there are some areas of

Yorkshire that feature a post-vocalic “/r/-coloured sound” in words like farmer (Wells

1982: 368). There is a particular phenomenon in Yorkshire when a final voiced

consonant is followed by an initial voiceless consonant, such as in wide trousers – the

final voiced consonant becomes devoiced, so the pronunciation [waǺt traʊzəz] is

actually homophonic to white trousers. H Dropping is also present in Yorkshire accent,

making happy pronounced [apǺ] (Wells 1982: 367).

2.4.2 Distinctive features in other linguistic categories

Every regional accent usually features a couple of lexically uncommon words,

and so does Yorkshire: sand-shoes (trainers) or tab (ear), or old dialect words like owt

18

(anything) and nowt (nothing)1 may serve as an example (Trudgill 1990). Yorkshire also

features grammatical deviations from Standard English. In possessive pronouns, the

word us is often used instead of me or our (we should put us names on us property), me

sometimes replaces my (me worries drifted away), and third person was can be

substituted with were (it were lovely) (Petyt 1985: 190). Like in many non-standard

dialects, the double-negative is present in the Yorkshire accent as well, enabling

sentences such as I was never scared of nobody (Petyt 1985: 238).

2.4.3 Sociolinguistic and cultural patterns of Yorkshire accent

Although rural accents tend to be ridiculed in comparison to urban accents

(Labov 1971), regional accents such as Yorkshire play a part in personal identity of

their speakers. Despite some accents of northern industrial towns (such as the

Birmingham “Brummie”) being stigmatised and not enjoying much popularity (The

Telegraph, 2008), the Yorkshire accent has apparently always been perceived as

likeable, and in a recent study at Bath Spa University, Yorkshire has beaten all other

regional BrE accents and was perceived by the participants as "wise, trustworthy, honest

and straightforward" (The Guardian, 2008). In a larger scale study by Strongman and

Woosley mentioned by Howard Giles, speakers of Yorkshire accent were perceived as

more honest and reliable than speakers of London accents (Giles and Powesland 1975:

66).

Speakers and lovers of the Yorkshire accent are united in the Yorkshire Dialect

Society, which holds meetings and cultural events (YDS, 2010). Yorkshire accent is

embedded in popular English literature such as Charlotte Bronte’s work (Smith 1987:

637). The accent has gained recognition with airing of the Downton Abbey series set in

1 Derived from Old English, these traditional-dialect words are on decline.

19

the North Riding in Yorkshire at the Highclere Castle (The York Press, 2010) that

features matching Yorkshire accents of its protagonists. Another internationally popular

series Game of Thrones also grants Yorkshire speakers, Sean Bean to name the most

well-known, some on-screen time accessible to English speakers from all around the

world (Daily Telegraph, 2002).

2.5 The Cockney accent

2.5.1 Distinctive features in pronunciation

vowels

The Cockney accent is the traditional accent of working-class Londoners from

the East End suburbs Hackney, Shoreditch, Whitechapel and others, and true Cockneys

are supposed to live within earshot of the Bow Bells of St. Mary-le-Bow

(Wright 1981: 11). Its most prominent distinctive feature is the shifted diphthongs. The

/aǺ/ of [baǺt] (bite) becomes /ǢǺ/ as in [bǢǺʔ], /eǺ/ of [reǺn] (rain) becomes /ȜǺ/ as in

[rȜǺn], /əʊ/ of [kəʊt] (coat) becomes /aʊ/ or /æʊ/ as in [kaʊʔ]. In addition, the FLEECE

and GOOSE words are diphthongised; the /Ǻə/ of [pǺəpl] (people) is pronounced /ǠǺ/ as in

[pǠǺpl], and /uə/ of [guəs] (goose) is diphthongised in /əʉ/ - [gəʉs]. On the other hand,

the MOUTH words are monophthongised from [maʊȅ] into [maəf]. Otherwise, the

Cockney vowel (and consonant) system is very close to London English, which is

“almost isomorphic to RP” (Wells 1982: 304,321).

consonants

Glottalization was already mentioned in 2.3.1 and is a widespread feature of

Cockney, with glottal stops replacing not only /t/, but also other voiceless plosives /p/

and /p/. H Dropping is also present in Cockney, although highly stigmatised by speech-

20

conscious individuals. Another distinctive feature of Cockney is Th Fronting:

replacement of dental fricatives /ȅ/ and /ð/ by labiodentals /f/ and /v/, making [ȅǺn]

(thin) sound like [fǺn] and [brȜðə] (brother) sound like [brȜvə]. As many other accents of

Southern England, Cockney is non-rhotic and does not pronounce /r/ in post-vocalic

positions, the only exception being the intrusive (intervocalic) /r/. The final –ng is

either shortened and taking is pronounced [tȜǺkǺn], or /g/ is replaced with /k/, resulting

in [tȜǺkǺnk] (Wright 1981: 126-38, Wells 1982: 301-35).

2.5.2 Distinctive features in other linguistic categories

Cockney is not so well-known because of its pronunciation only – the most

prominent non-phonetic feature of Cockney is the famous rhyming slang and peculiar

vocabulary. The rhyming slang, substitution of expressions with other words that rhyme

perfectly and often allude wittily to the original expression (trouble an’ strife = wife,

loaf of bread = head), is an intriguing way of speaking that leaves listeners puzzled and

contrasts with “slurrings and shortenings elsewhere in city speech” (Wright 1981: 95).

The lexis of the Cockney accent also features many distinctive phrases and vocabulary

in general: gapin’ (yawning), moggy (cat), schmutters (rubbish), ‘avin it away (working

idly) or goin’ to the flicks (the cinema), with some of them being of foreign origin

(Yiddish, German or Polish) (Wright 1981).

Grammatically, Cockney tends to leave out verbs and substitute them with

emphasised subjects, and also not to distinguish between past tense and past participle

(do/done/done, speak/spoke/spoke), or even to omit words completely (Tha’ i’, love? =

Is that it, love?). Doubling negatives for emphasis is also common (I ain’t got none)

(Wright 1981).

21

2.5.3 Sociolinguistic and cultural patterns of Cockney accent

Since the nineteenth century, Cockney has been perceived negatively as

a “modern corruption without legitimate credentials, unworthy of (...) any person in the

capital city of the Empire” (Santipolo n.d.: 421). The glottal stop, for instance, was

formerly “a feature of lower-social-class dialects” (Trudgill 1990: 12). Since then,

however, the public opinion has fortunately changed and Cockney is now largely

perceived as equally valuable linguistic variety of English with many of its original

features making way to the current Estuary English (Santipolo n.d.).

The Cockney accent and dialect has been present in English literature ever since

Geoffrey Chaucer and it is most distinctive in the works of Charles Dickens and G. B.

Shaw, whose Pygmalion was adapted for screen in My Fair Lady, becoming a never-

aging classic. The British Broadcasting Corporation is nowadays widely featuring

Cockney speakers among others (Mugglestone 2003), refraining on insistence on RP

only and allowing the accent to become well-known and popular; in a recent survey

among 2000 British respondents, the Cockney accent was voted the fourth most

popular, ranking at the same place with none other than the Yorkshire accent (The

Telegraph, 2008).

Given this overview of the level of difference between British and American

English from both diachronic and synchronic point of view in socio-historical, linguistic

and sociolinguistic categories and the sociolinguistic patterns of Yorkshire and Cockney

accent, the present study will now proceed to the research on perceptions of these two

British English accents by native speakers of American English.

22

3. Research

The research for this thesis was carried out online using SurveyGizmo.com,

a specialized website for creating surveys. The desired participants were people who are

currently living in the United States, so the social network Facebook was used to spread

the survey among Americans by means of personal messages including the link to the

survey, which were sent to the author’s Facebook friends, who sent the message

forward to their American acquaintances. This proved to be a very effective method and

perhaps the best possible in the circumstances and time span of the thesis writing

process. The only condition for the American respondents was stated not to be working

in the field of language teaching, as that would manifest in their higher consciousness of

accent influence on perceptions of speakers. The survey was made accessible online on

17th February 2013 and closed to evaluate the results on 14th April 2013, gathering the

total of 25 responses. Completing of the whole survey took each participant about 10

minutes, which was considered long enough to obtain relevant information, but at the

same time conveniently short so it would not put the potential respondents off.

The recordings were chosen to reflect the wide range of British English

pronunciation; therefore, the survey featured two different recordings of accents that are

different on several levels. Yorkshire accent represents rural areas, Cockney accent is

typically urban, and so the sociolinguistic connotations of Yorkshire reflect the notions

usually connected to rural areas (more friendly, sympathetic and good-natured) and

connotation of Cockney reflect urban areas (more intelligence, authority and self-

confidence) (Mugglestone 2003: 51). This difference is reflected in the phonetic

realization of the accents too; no one would deem the accents very similar. Neither of

the accents is very close to RP, but the Cockney is phonetically closer (Wells 1982).

23

Both accents are also relatively well-known and present in English literature,

cinematography and media, so that they should not be completely strange to Americans.

The survey consisted of four sets of questions preceded by playing the recording

that was available to be played as many times as needed throughout the whole survey.

The respondents did not have access to any transcription of the recordings, nor is it

available online. The recording was in audio form only in order to make the respondents

focus solely on the accent and not on the appearance of the speakers.

3.1 Recordings

3.1.1 Phonetic aspects of Yorkshire accent recording

The Yorkshire accent recording is spoken by a young male voice, approximately

35 years old, and was found on a website with a database of short audio recordings of

various accents of English. The speaker’s manner of speech was found to be in

accordance to Yorkshire accent pronunciation by both the author and the supervisor of

this thesis, PhDr. Kateřina Tomková, Ph.D, whose specialization is Phonetics and

Phonology of English. The recording is 38 seconds long, the speaker has relatively wide

intonation range and pitch (especially when he does an impression of a female speaker),

and the speed of his speech varies from moderately fast to fast.

Transcription of Yorkshire accent recording

(Male voice speaking, no background noises) “When I realized that we won the lottery

I was in the kitchen, and Frankie’s making a cup of tea. And I s’, I said: ‘Frankie’, I

said ‘Frankie, we’re rich!’ She said ‘No, no, no’, she said we’ve got comfortable

lifestyle and we’re happy, and I said ‘No, no, you don’t understand, I said we’re

millionaires! We, we won the lottery!’ And there was a...a lot of hugging, and a lot of

24

kissing, and a lot of screaming, from both of us admittedly. And as I slouched down on

the sofa and all me worries just drifted away, I said to her, I said ‘Frankie love, come

on, let’s have a brew.’”

Phonetic transcription of the Yorkshire accent recording

[wen aǺ rəǺlaǺzd | ðət wi wǢn ðə lǢtəri | aǺ wəz Ǻn ðə kǺtʃən | ənd frankǺ z meǺkǺŋ ə kʊp

əv tiə | ənd aǺ s | aǺ sed | frankǺ | aǺ sed frankǺ | wǺə rǺtʃ | ənd ʃi sed | nǢə nǢə nǢə | ʃi

sed wiv ǱǢt kǢmftəblʜ laǺfstaǺl ənd wǺər apǺ | ənd aǺ sed nǢə | nǢə | ju dǢnt Ȝndəstand |

aǺ sed wǺə mǺlǺəneəz | wi | wi wǢn ðə lǢtəri | ənd ðə wəz ə | ə lǢʔ Ǣv ugǺŋ | ənd ə lǢʔ

əv kǺsǺŋ | ənd ə lǢʔ əv skriəmǺŋ | frəm bǢəθ əv ʊz ədmǺtǺdli | ənd az aǺ slaʊtʃt daʊn Ǣn

ðə sǢəfər ənd Ǥəl miə wȜrǺz dȢəst drǺftǺd əweǺ | aǺ sed tə hər | aǺ sed frankǺ lǢv | kǢm

Ǣn | lets həv ə bruə]

The following table covers the most distinctive phonetic differences in the

Yorkshire accent recording in comparison with Received Pronunciation standard of

each expression. The expressions can be compared with words marked by the

respondents as most different from their American accent (see Appendix I).

Table 1 Distinctive phonetic features in the Yorkshire accent recording

Yorkshire Accent Received Pronunciation

realized [rəǺlaǺzd] [rǺəlaǺzd]

Frankie [frankǺ] [frænkǺ]

cup [kʊp] [kȜp]

no [nǢə] [nəʊ]

happy [apǺ] [hæpǺ]

understand [Ȝndəstand] [Ȝndəstænd]

25

hugging [ugǺŋ] [hȜgǺŋ]

both [bǢəθ] [boʊθ]

us [ʊz] [əz]

as [az] [æz]

sofa [sǢəfər] [soʊfər]

love [lǢv] [lȜv]

come [kǢm] [kȜm]

3.1.2 Phonetic aspects of Cockney accent recording

The Cockney accent recording was found on the voiceovers.co.uk commercial

database of English speakers and was spoken by Guy Harris, a voice over artist based in

Leicester, England. Among other available recordings, his Cockney accent extract had

the best length, absence of distractive background noises and an excellent show of many

typical phonetic features of Cockney. The recording is 34 seconds long, the speaker has

smaller intonation range and pitch than the Yorkshire speaker, and the speed of his

speech is moderate and does not vary much during the whole recording.

Transcription of Cockney accent recording

(Male voice speaking, a slight disturbance in the background) “You see, when people

think of GEICO they think of car insurance, and of course, savin’ money. Sometimes,

that can lead even the savviest driver astray. Take for example the motorcycler. GEICO

wanted to save money on his car insurance, only to realize that he doesn’t actually own

a car! Needless to say he’s quite embarrassed, isn’t he? Doesn’t matter; GEICO

insures ATVs an’ motorcycles as well. That way, no one ends up looking foolish.”

26

Phonetic transcription of the Cockney accent recording

| ju siə | wen pǠǺplʜ fǺŋk əv ǱaǺkəʊ ðeǺ fǺŋk əv kɑər Ǻnʃʊərəns | ənd əv kǤəs | sȜǺvǺn mȜni

| sȜmtǢǺmz | ðət kən liəd iəvnʜ ðə sæviəst drǢǺvər əstreǺ | tȜǺk fər ǺǱzɑəmplʜ ðə

məʊʔəsǢǺkl | ǱaǺkəʊ wǢntǺd tə seǺv mȜni Ǣn Ǻz kɑər Ǻnʃʊərəns | əʊnli tə rǺəlaǺz ðət hi

dȜznt æktʃuəli əʊn ə kɑə | nǠǺdləs tə sȜǺ hiz kwaǺt Ǻmbærəst | Ǻnt hiə | dȜznt mæʔə |

ǱaǺkəʊ Ǻnʃʊəz | eǺ tǺə vǺəz ən məʊʔəsaǺklʜz əz wel | ðət wȜǺ | neʊ wȜn endz Ȝp lʊkǺŋ

fəʉlǺʃ |

The following table covers the most distinctive phonetic differences in the

Cockney accent recording in comparison with Received Pronunciation standard of each

expression. The expressions can be compared with words marked by the respondents as

most different from their American accent (see Appendix I).

Table 2 Distinctive phonetic features in the Cockney accent recording

Cockney Accent Received Pronunciation

people [pǠǺplʜ] [pǺəplʜ]

think [fǺŋk] [ȅǺŋk]

GEICO [ǱaǺkəʊ] [ǱeǺkəʊ]2

saving [sȜǺvǺn] [seǺvǺŋ]

sometimes [sȜmtǢǺmz] [sȜmtaǺmz]

driver [drǢǺvər] [draǺvər]

take [tȜǺk] [teǺk]

motorcycle [məʊʔəsǢǺkl] [məʊtəsaǺkl]

needless [nǠǺdləs] [nǺədləs]

say [sȜǺ] [seǺ]

2 Expected RP form of the [eǺ] diphthong.

27

isn’t he [Ǻnt hiə] [Ǻznt hiə]

matter [mæʔə] [mætə]

way [wȜǺ] [weǺ]

no one [neʊ wȜn] [nəʊ wȜn]

foolish [fəʉlǺʃ] [fuəlǺʃ]

3.2 Questions

There were three sets of questions for each accent and a fourth set of

demographic questions at the end. The first set investigated the intelligibility of the

accent and a very rough first impression. The second set had the respondents evaluate

the speaker’s personal qualities on a pre-made Likert scale which enables respondents

to simply click on a button for one option on a three to five option scale, expressing

their degree of agreement or disagreement with the speaker’s presumed qualities. The

third set of questions evaluated the alleged lifestyle and occupation of the speaker on

a Likert scale ranging from low to high expectations in each sphere. The fourth question

set monitored demographic data and information about the respondents’ own accent and

place of residence.

Intelligibility and first impression

The first set of questions was mostly informative for reasons of relevance of the

research results: the level of understanding the recording was monitored on a Likert

scale, the respondents were asked to write down the words that strike them as most

different from their own accent (see Appendix I), and the first impression of the speaker

was also monitored on a Likert scale (see Table 3).

28

Perceived personal qualities

The second set of questions was inspired by previous studies from many authors

carried out by experts on sociolinguistic and phonetic perception, summarized by Giles

and Powesland (1975). In these studies, there seems to be a pattern when comparing

perceptions of Received Pronunciation and rural accents, which can be roughly divided

into two main personal characteristics groups: for this study, the set of perceived

personal qualities of RP will be called competence and the set of perceived qualities for

rural accents will be called good-naturedness. Various qualities from these sets were

used as questions in the research and were shuffled randomly so that the respondents

were not likely to notice this two-sided pattern. There were included both qualities that

are generally perceived as “good” and as “bad” character traits.

The competence set of qualities was represented in the research by following

qualities: high intelligence, arrogance, ambitiousness, confidence, slyness.

The good-naturedness set of qualities was represented in the research by

following qualities: kind-heartedness, naivety, reliability, honesty, sociability,

trustfulness.

The evaluation of personal qualities was done with the following option scale:

Likert scale: Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly disagree

Lifestyle , occupation, and general socio-economic status

The third set of questions was also inspired by studies mentioned above and

comprised of questions evaluating the following criteria:

level of education

Likert scale: Very high | High | Average | Below average | Low

occupational prestige

29

Likert scale: Very prestigious | Respectable | Ordinary | Non-qualified

salary level

Likert scale: Very high | High | Average | Below average | Low

interpersonal relationships quality

Likert scale: Very Satisfactory | Satisfactory | Average | Below average | Poor

Demographic data of respondents

The fourth set of questions was directed at collecting demographic data of the

respondents with focus on the respondents’ own accent. The following questions were

asked:

gender: male | female

age: under 18 | 18-24 | 25-34| 35-44 | 45-54 | 55+

place of birth: list of all U.S. states

place of residence: optional question – if different from place of birth and considered

significant for accent shaping

description of own accent (e.g. typical for my area, a blend of X/Y etc.): open-ended

control question

3.3 Respondents

The respondents were addressed by messages using the social network Facebook

either directly by the author or by the author’s friends. Their names were obtained on

Facebook as well; none of the respondents were friends of the author. The message

contained an introduction of the research, its purposes, estimated length of the survey

30

completing, link to the survey, and a polite request to fill in the survey. The gender and

age of the participants is dealt with in Table 8.

Table 3 Demographic data of respondents3

Gender female 80% male 20%

Age

18-24 years 64% under 18 years 20%

25-34 years 12% 35-44 years 0% 55+ years 4%

The predominance of female respondents was not opted for but was probably

caused by the author appealing to more women than men as the “mediators”, who then

also sent the message to more female than male friends. According to Wells, women

tend to evaluate speakers more positively (Wells 1981: 21), which could have led to the

research results being more favourably evaluated.

The average age of the participants is also not surprising as the Americans were

addressed by the author or her friends of the same or similar age (23), but there was also

a Texan family of five among the members. This means that the majority of respondents

probably have been exposed to modern culture and the variety of British accents that are

contained in it and should not be influenced by obsolete opinions on the naturally

superior status of Received Pronunciation and the inferior rank of accents that deviate

from the standard pronunciation (Mugglestone 2003, Wright 1985).

3 The percentage of results is illustrated by font size as follows:

> 70% � 15; 69-50% � 14; 49-35% � 13; 34-20% � 12, 19-10% � 11, < 10% � 10

31

The place of birth (or place of residence where it was given as a significant

influence) is covered in the following graph.

Table 4 Places of birth of respondents

This image illustrates the geographical spread of the American respondents and

shows that all parts of the United States were represented in the research.

The South was represented by: Texas (with the most respondents), Mississippi,

Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida.

The Northeast was represented by: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Massachusetts, and Delaware.

The Midwest was represented by: Nebraska and Illinois.

The West was represented by: Wyoming, Utah, California, Washington, and Alaska.

32

3.4 Evaluations of accents

After almost two months of sharing the survey among American respondents,

the questionnaire was closed and results were viewed. The website offers various tools

to see the results as both aggregative and individual, and both of these were used in

obtaining the results. The following tables show the aggregative results sorted by sets of

questions.

Table 5 Intelligibility of Yorkshire and Cockney accents

Yorkshire Cockney

I understood the speaker clearly with no troubles. 60% 76%

I understood the speaker for most of the recording and only did not catch one or two words.

40% 24%

I understood the speaker with difficulties and did not catch several words.

0% 0%

I did not understand the speaker for most of the recording.

0% 0%

I did not understand the speaker at all. 0% 0%

The Cockney accent was more intelligible than the Yorkshire accent for

American respondents, and that is presumably because Cockney is phonetically closer

to Received Pronunciation, with which might the U.S. participants be most familiar. On

the other hand, the recent popularity of television series featuring North England

accents (see 2.4.3) could lead to Americans being more familiar with Yorkshire accent,

but obviously it has not had such an influence.

The first set of questions also comprised of the following inquiry: What is your

first impression of the speaker’s personality? The aim of this question was to obtain as

33

unbiased first impression as possible after the first encounter with the accent before

exposing the respondents to more controlled questions of 2nd and 3rd set.

Table 6 First impressions of speakers’ personality

Yorkshire Cockney

Very likable 60% 16%

Likable 32% 48%

Neutral 8% 32%

Unlikable 0% 4%

Very unlikable 0% 0%

The Yorkshire accent speaker was perceived as more likable after the first

listening to the recording, with the overall of 92% of positive responses. The Cockney

accent speaker was also predominantly perceived as likable with the overall of 64% of

positive reactions. However, Cockney received roughly a third neutral responses; this

might be put down to the contrast of the recordings’ content; the Yorkshire recording is

concerned with sharing a happy event with a partner, whereas the Cockney recording is

of a more matter-of-fact nature. The lower likability of Cockney is therefore attributed

to the content rather than the accent itself.

The next two tables show the results of the two sets of questions focused on

perceived personal qualities: the competence and the good-naturedness sets.

Commentary on the results is always stated below the table.

34

Table 7 Competence set questions4

Yorkshire Cockney

High intelligence Neutral 48% Agree 44% Disagree 8%

Neutral 56% Agree 36%

Strongly agree 4% Disagree 4%

Arrogance Disagree 52%

Strongly disagree 32% Neutral 8%


Disagree 20% Strongly agree 4%

Strongly disagree 4%

Ambitiousness Neutral 48%

Agree 32% Disagree 12%

Agree 60% Neutral 24%

Strongly agree 16%

Confidence Neutral 56% Agree 36%

Strongly agree 8%

Agree 52% Strongly agree 32%

Neutral 16%

Slyness Disagree 56%

Strongly disagree 28% Neutral 16%

Agree 32% Disagree 32% Neutral 24%

Strongly agree 8% Stronly disagree 4%

With the competence questions set, the hypothesis expected prevalence of

negative responses in the first column for Yorkshire accent and positive responses in the

second column for Cockney accent.

In high intelligence, both accents scored the majority of neutral responses, and

Yorkshire scored 44% on agree, which beats Cockney with 36% agree responses; the

Yorkshire speaker was perceived more intelligent; the hypothesis was not confirmed.

The Cockney speaker was not evaluated a highly intelligent person based on his accent,


> 70% � 15; 69-50% � 14; 49-35% � 13; 34-20% � 12, 19-10% � 11, <10% � 10

35

which might be connected with the former lower-class status of Cockney accent

(Trudgill 1990: 12).

Arrogance is a trait generally perceived as “bad”, so more polarized results were

expected. Yorkshire gained an 82% majority of disagree and strongly disagree votes,

thereby confirming the hypothesis. Cockney was predominantly evaluated neutral but

with 28% of agree votes and 20% disagree votes; the respondents were ambivalent, but

the primary hypothesis of Cockney being more arrogant was confirmed to a point.

In ambitiousness, the results in Cockney were according to the hypothesis with

the majority of agree evaluations. Yorkshire was mostly perceived neutral, but a third

of respondents disproved the hypothesis and clicked on agree; interestingly enough, the

recording does not mention any plans to spend the lottery prize, so some amount of

ambitiousness can be ascribed solely to the Yorkshire accent.

In confidence, Cockney also scored according to the hypothesis with the

aggregate of 92% positive votes. Yorkshire was again perceived as neutral with one

third of respondents choosing agree; again, more amount of a quality typical of the

competence set was attributed to the rural Yorkshire accent.

Slyness is another controversial characteristic. Yorkshire accent was evaluated

precisely in accordance to the hypothesis with overall 84% of negative perceptions.

With Cockney, the responses were very ambivalent; the aggregate of all positive votes

was slightly higher (38%) than the total of negative responses (36%). Along with the

fact that the Cockney speaker was also evaluated as more honest than expected (see

Table 8), the conclusion is that Cockney accent is perceived as more sincere than

expected.

Perceptions of the good-naturedness set of qualities were allotted as follows:

36

Table 8 Good-naturedness set questions5

Yorkshire Cockney

kind-heartedness Agree 56%

Strongly agree 40% Neutral 4%



naivety Neutral 44%

Agree 32% Disagree 24%

Disagree 56% Neutral 28% Agree 12%

Strongly disagree 4%

reliability Agree 48% Neutral 44%

Strongly agree 8%

Neutral 40% Agree 36% Disagree 12%

Strongly agree 8% Strongly disagree 4%

honesty Agree 76%



Disagree 28%

sociability Agree 56%


Agree 56% Neutral 32%


trustfulness Agree 76%



Disagree 20% Strongly agree 8%

With the good-naturedness questions set, the hypothesis would expect

prevalence of positive responses in the first column for Yorkshire accent and negative

responses in the second column for Cockney accent.


> 70% � 15; 69-50% � 14; 49-35% � 13; 34-20% � 12, 19-10% � 11, <10% � 10

37

In kind-heartedness, the Yorkshire accent gained almost all positive evaluations,

whereas Cockney scored the majority of neutral perceptions. This is one of the

perceptions where the content of the Cockney recording probably played more

significant part – the recording is of commercial, not personal nature. However,

Cockney also achieved an overall third of positive votes from respondents; therefore,

despite the content, the Cockney speaker was also perceived as kind-hearted by some,

disproving the hypothesis to some extent.

The Cockney accent speaker was not perceived as naive, whereas the Yorkshire

speaker was evaluated either neutral or positive in naivety; these results confirm the

hypothesis.

With reliability, the Yorkshire accent was predominantly perceived as reliable,

but almost half of the respondents showed indecisiveness in this regard. Cockney also

disproved the hypothesis by 40% of the votes neutral and aggregate of 40% agree and

strongly agree votes; both accents were therefore perceived similarly reliable.

The Yorkshire accent was evaluated as extremely honest, whereas Cockney

gained the majority of neutral votes. However, one third of respondents clicked on

agree in Cockney in connection to honesty; Cockney was on the whole perceived as

more honest and less sly than expected.

In sociability, both accents scored the same 56% of agree evaluations.

Sociability is on the border of the competence and good-naturedness set according to

previous studies (Giles and Powesland 1975), because RP speakers were also perceived

as having a network of possibly profitable relationships. Taking this into consideration,

high sociability can be interpreted from different points of view: either as a perceived

friendly and open personality trait or as a convenient means to an end.

38

The Yorkshire accent speaker was perceived as extremely trustful, while the

Cockney speaker received half of neutral evaluations and a rough third of overall

positive votes, which is unexpected and disproves the hypothesis, as the content of the

Cockney recording is commercial; if a different Cockney recording with a personal-

based content had been used, the perceived trustfulness would presumably be even

higher.

The third set of questions evaluated perceived lifestyle, education and socio-

economic status of the speakers. The results are as follows:

Table 9 Lifestyle and occupation set questions6

Yorkshire Cockney

level of education Average 84%

High 12% Very high 4%

Average 56% High 32%

Below average 8% Very high 4%

occupational prestige Ordinary 76% Respectable 24%

Respectable 68% Ordinary 32%

salary level Average 72% Below average 16%

High 12%

Average 68% High 24%

Very high 4% Below average 4%

interpersonal relationships quality

Satisfactory 60% Very satisfactory 28%

Average 12%

Satisfactory 48% Average 40%

Very satisfactory 8% Below average 4%


> 70% � 15; 69-50% � 14; 49-35% � 13; 34-20% � 12, 19-10% � 11, <10% � 10

39

The hypothesis, according to similar researches e.g. by Strongman and Woosley

or Cheyne (Giles and Powesland 1975), was that the Yorkshire accent speaker’s socio-

economic status will be perceived as lower than the Cockney speaker’s because

Cockney is phonetically closer to RP in both vowel and consonant systems, and RP

speakers’ social status has always been evaluated as the highest of all BrE accents in

both older and recent studies (Giles and Powesland 1975, Mugglestone 2003, The

Guardian 2008).

Concerning the perceived level of education, the Yorkshire accent speaker was

evaluated predominantly average. Cockney was also evaluated average by a rough half

of respondents, but 36% of them thought his achieved education was high, in contrast

with the mere 12% of high level of education for the Yorkshire speaker; with Cockney

formerly being downgraded as lower-class, the number of high votes confirms the

hypothesis that accents closer to RP are perceived as more prestigious.

Occupational prestige shows an interesting division: 76% of participants

evaluated the presumed job of the Yorkshire speaker ordinary, whereas a similar

number (68%) perceived the Cockney speaker’s occupational status as respectable.

Given the Cockney speaker is promoting car insurance, which is not typically a very

well-respected occupation, this result can be ascribed to the Cockney accent and his

urban connotations. The Yorkshire speaker does talk about winning a large amount of

money, but there is no information about his or his wife’s/girlfriend’s occupation, so the

result for Yorkshire accent can also be attributed to the phonetic aspects and not the

recording’s contents.

The salary level is related to occupation, and in the Yorkshire accent recording

there is some information given on the financial situation of the speaker (We have

a comfortable lifestyle and we’re happy); in Cockney there is naturally not. However,

40

both accents were evaluated surprisingly similarly – average. In Cockney, that might be

attributed to the fact that the speaker’s occupation is given (although it was perceived as

respectable) and people might have actual knowledge on insurance brokers’ salary

levels. On the other hand, Cockney scored a quarter of votes in high salary level

evaluations, which is in accordance to the hypothesis of accents close to RP having

higher socio-economic status.

The interpersonal relationships quality question is, like sociability, on the

border between the competence/urban accents end of scale and the good-

naturedness/rural accents end of the accent evaluations scale. The Yorkshire speaker

was evaluated as having better relationships with friends, co-workers and family

members than the Cockney speaker, but the Cockney was not perceived as having poor

social relationships either; this disproves the hypothesis that RP speakers and

phonetically close accents speakers are perceived as predominantly calculating and

work-focused (Mugglestone 2003).

4. Conclusion

Accent plays a significant part in constructing one’s perceived identity in the

eyes of other people, who inevitably make judgements about speakers of any language

based on their accents, and is influenced by geographical factors, age, gender and socio-

economic statuses of speakers. Accents of British English have developed throughout

the history, have gone through the Great Vowel Shift, and eventually have stood at the

formation of American English accents. The English of United States of America has

been developing separated from British English for centuries, and this fact can be

observed in phonetic and many other linguistic and sociolinguistic features of the two

varieties of English.

41

Two representatives of the wide variety of accents of the British Isles, Yorkshire

and Cockney, have been chosen to be featured in the research for this thesis for their

mutual dissimilarities. The accents have been described from phonetic, generally

linguistic and sociolinguistic points of view to illustrate the linguistic and cultural

differences between them and outline hypotheses for the research. Recordings of

speakers of both accent have been found and used in survey, making American

respondents evaluate the personalities and socio-economic status of the speakers based

on their manner of speech.

The hypotheses for the research have come from previous studies in perceptions

of British English accents, whose participants evaluated urban accents speakers as

competent, work-focused, intelligent and ambitious but lacking good-heartedness and

friendliness, and rural accents speakers as trustworthy, honest and good-natured but

lacking confidence and work-related ambitiousness.

The American respondents have been found to have surprisingly similar

opinions on British English accents as the British themselves stated in previous studies,

and the respondents evaluations predominantly confirmed the hypotheses, even though

American English has different phonetic patterns and its accents are much less

regionally and socially divided. The similarity of opinions can be explained by the

intertwined globalised culture that enables Americans to grow used to various British

accents thanks to television, film, and radio. Both accents have been evaluated as highly

intelligible, Cockney being more intelligible than Yorkshire.

The Yorkshire accent has been evaluated as more likeable, more good-natured

and less competent than Cockney, which can be attributed to English rural accents

generally being perceived as sounding good-natured, and also to recent international

popularity of television series featuring North England accents speaking characters. The

42

socio-economic status of the Yorkshire speaker has been evaluated as average and as

lower than in the case of the Cockney speaker. The Cockney accent has been generally

evaluated less likeable than Yorkshire, and has been perceived as sounding less good-

natured and more competent than Yorkshire but less competent than Received

Pronunciation had been evaluated in previous phonetic studies, and that can be ascribed

to its former lower-class status; at the same time, however, Cockney has evaluated

competent enough to make the conclusion that its former disparaged status is not valid

in the eyes of native speakers of American English.

43

Works Cited and Consulted

"A Point of View: Churchill and the birth of the special relationship." BBC News

Magazine. BBC, 9 Mar 2012. Web. 21 Apr 2013.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17272610>.

Batty, David. "Yorkshire named top twang as Brummie brogue comes bottom." The

Guardian. 4 Apr 2008: n. p. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/04/6>.

Coupland, N., & Bishop, H. (2007). “Ideologised values for British accents.” Journal of

Sociolinguistics, 11(1), 74-93. Pdf.

Giles, H. and Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London:

Academic Press London.

Gupta, A. F. (2005). “Baths and becks.” English Today, 21(1), 21-27. Web. 21 Apr

2013. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266078405001069>.

Irvine, Chris. "Brummie accent voted least cool in Britain."Telegraph. 24 Sep 2008: n.

page. Web. 21 Apr 2013.

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3073282/Brummie-

accent-voted-least-cool-in-Britain.html>.

Ježek, M. (2006). Glottalization in today’s London English. Brno: Masaryk University.

Pdf.

Labov, W. (1980). Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press

London.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Mugglestone, L. (2007). Talking Proper: The rise of accent as social symbol. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Web. 21 Apr 2013.

<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10229923>.

44

Santipolo, M. (n.d.). “On the opposite sides of: the continuum: Standard British English

and Cockney.” Web. 21 Apr 2013.

<http://www.humnet.unipi.it/slifo/articolosantipolo.pdf>.

Sučková, M. (2012). Phonetic changes in the speech of Anglophone expatriates. Brno:

Masaryk University. Pdf.

The Yorkshire Dialect Society. N.p., 2010. Web. 21 Apr 2013.

<http://www.yorkshiredialectsociety.org.uk/index.html>.

Trudgill, P. and Hannah, J. (1985). A guide to varieties of Standard English. London:

Arnold.

Trudgill, P. (2010). Investigations in Sociohistorical Linguistics. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Trudgill, P. (2000). The Dialects of England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa. "English pronunciation across time and space: from Middle

English to World Englishes." Masaryk University, Brno. 19 Apr 2012. Lecture.

Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English: An Introduction. (Vol. 1). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English: The British Isles. (Vol. 2). Cambridge:


Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English: Beyond the British Isles. (Vol. 3). Cambridge:


Wright, P. (1981). Cockney Dialect and Slang. London: B. T. Batsford.

45

List of Tables

Table 1 …………………………………………………………………………….. 24-25

Table 2 …………………………………………………………………………….. 26-27

Table 3 ………………………………………………………………………………... 30

Table 4 ………………………………………………………………………………... 31

Table 5 ………………………………………………………………………………... 32

Table 6 ………………………………………………………………………………... 33

Table 7 ………………………………………………………………………………... 34

Table 8 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 36

Table 9 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 38

46

Appendix I

Words perceived as most different from American English accents

Yorkshire accent Cockney accent

lottery (8x) motorcycler (10x)

cup, cuppa (6x) people (9x)

happy (6x) matter (9x)

realized (4x) isn’t he (6x)

hugging (4x) foolish (5x)

sofa (3x) he (4x)

love (3x) example (2x)

won (2x) that (2x)

let’s (2x) only (2x)

brew (2x) car (2x)

a lot of (2x) doesn’t

Frankie embarrassed

comfortable motor

understand astray

words ending with -ing course

admittedly saving

away way

hot

47

Summary

The aim of the present thesis was to monitor how native speakers of American

English accents perceive the phonetic aspects of speech of British English accents

speakers. Two representatives of accents of the British Isles, Yorkshire and Cockney,

were chosen to be featured in the research for this thesis, as representatives of rural, and

of urban accents of British English respectively, and were evaluated by speakers of

American English.

First, the general accent-influencing factors are introduced. The differences in

development of Standard British English and General American English are described

from diachronic point of view, and then the two varieties are compared on phonetic,

grammatical, lexical, orthographical, and sociolinguistic levels. The two chosen accents

of British English are then described from phonetic, generally linguistic and

sociolinguistic points of view to illustrate the linguistic and cultural differences between

them and outline hypotheses for the research. Recordings of speakers of Yorkshire and

Cockney accents were used in an online survey, in which American respondents

evaluated perceived personal qualities and socio-economic statuses of British speakers

based on their manner of speech.

The evaluations of Yorkshire and Cockney accent by Americans were both

similar to evaluations of the same accents by speakers of British English. The rural

Yorkshire accent was perceived as less intelligible, more likeable, more good-natured

and less competent than the Cockney accent by the participants, and the socio-economic

status of its speaker was found average and comparatively lower than in the case of

Cockney. The urban Cockney was evaluated as more intelligible, less likeable, less

good-natured and more competent than the Yorkshire accent, and its socio-economic

status was perceived as higher than Yorkshire, but as lower than the prestigious RP.

48

Resumé

Cílem předkládané práce bylo zjistit, jak rodilí mluvčí amerických přízvuků

angličtiny posuzují fonetické aspekty řeči rodilých mluvčí britských přízvuků

angličtiny. Dva přízvuky britské angličtiny, yorkshirský a cockney, byly vybrány do

výzkumu k této práci jako zástupci typicky venkovského a typicky městského přízvuku

britské angličtiny, a byly ohodnoceny americkými účastníky internetového výzkumu.

Práce představuje obecné faktory ovlivňující přízvuk řeči. Z diachronického

hlediska popisuje rozlišnosti ve vývoji standardní britské angličtiny a obecné americké

angličtiny, načež jsou tyto formy porovnány z fonetického, gramatického, lexikálního,

ortografického a sociolingvistického hlediska. Následuje popis obou vybraných

britských přízvuků z fonetické, obecně lingvistické a sociolingvistické stránky za

účelem demonstrování jejich jazykové a kulturní odlišnosti a nastínění hypotéz pro

výzkum. Ve výzkumu byly použity nahrávky mluvčích přízvuků yorkshirského

a cockney, na nichž američtí účastníci studie hodnotili domnělé osobní vlastnosti

a společensko-ekonomický status mluvčích těchto přízvuků na základě jejich

mluveného projevu.

Vnímání yorkshirského a cockney přízvuku se u amerických respondentů

podobalo hodnocení stejných přízvuků mluvčími britské angličtiny. Venkovský

yorkshirský přízvuk byl účastníky posuzován jako méně srozumitelný, více sympatický,

více dobrosrdečný a méně kompetentní než přízvuk cockney, a jeho sociálně-

ekonomické postavení bylo shledáno průměrné a nižší v porovnání s cockney

přízvukem. Urbánní přízvuk cockney byl vnímán jako srozumitelnější, méně

sympatický, méně dobrosrdečný a kompetentnější než yorkshirský přízvuk, a jeho

společensko-ekonomický status byl ohodnocen jako vyšší než u yorkshirského

přízvuku, ale nižší než u prestižní „Received Pronunciation“.

Perceptions of Different Accents of English

Documents

Transcript of Perceptions of Different Accents of English