Paul KerswillFRIAS, 27 November 2009Workshop III: Language, Space and Geography
2
Expectation: speech community type has a perceptual correlate
Perceptual linguistic parameters: what is the envelope of variability?
Perceived social parameters: which parameters? Which values (ethnicity, class)?
Link to focusing What is effect of listener
characteristics?3
More consideration of the ‘big picture’: Expansion in ethnographic and cognitive
approaches More concern with geographical context But perceptual dialectology has not (yet)
made a big impact▪ Garrett et al.’s study of recognition of Welsh
English varieties (1990s)▪ Montgomery’s perceptual maps (200os)
4
The context: a model of dialect change 1. Speech community type
Community structure (Henning Andersen’s open/closed, exocentric/endocentric dichotomies), stratification, group formation, intergroup relations, in-migration/immigration, outward contact, orientation
The mirroring of these factors in observable sociolinguistic variation patterns, including change
The embedding of the speech community in wider geographical dynamics of levelling and divergence
2. Community-external factors, related to wider (both local and national) ideologies about social groups and language
5
Dedialectalisation
Regional dialect levelling
(= supralocalisation)
Geographical diffusion
Innovation (divergence)6
7
8
9
Endocentric closed (Type 1): Metropolitan inner city. Language contact-based innovation. Examples: London and Birmingham inner cities
Endocentric open (Type 2): General urban, with strong external contacts favouring outward diffusion. Examples: Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester
Exocentric closed (Type 3): A low-contact community whose orientation to outside linguistic norms is positive. Change by ideology, not contact. Example: Glasgow inner-city communities, taking up off-the-shelf features (discussed in Lecture 1).
Exocentric open (Type 4): Often rural communities, and unlike Type 1 not especially protective of local norms. Strongly affected by incoming features, diffusing from local urban centres. Example: Huntly.
Also high-mobility, high-contact urbanised regions around a metropolis: the south-east of England
10
Hypothesis 1: Recognising voices from one’s own community (‘own-community recognition’) will be better if one has strong local ties. Thus, working-class judges in established towns will be more successful than middle class groups in the same towns, but working-class judges in a New Town will not have the same advantage.
Hypothesis 2: Own-community recognition will be better in towns with relatively little mobility than in towns with high mobility.
Hypothesis 3: Own-community recognition of an accent with strongly localised phonetic features will be better than that of accents without such distinctive features
11
12
Tape presented to judges in:
Voices
HULL1
Hull F83
2
Milton
Keynes F13
3
Durham
M55
4
Middles-
brough F17
5
Reading
F50
6
Hull
M9
7
Public
school M14
8
Yorks. East
Riding M80
9
London
M13
10
Hull M15
READING
1
Reading
M82
2
Hull M15
3
London F35
4
Reading
M15
5
Durham
M55
6
London
M13
7
Public
school M14
8
Reading
F50
9
Milton
Keynes F13
10
Reading
F18
MILTON KEYNES
1
Milton
Keynes F82
2
Hull M15
3
London F35
4
Reading
M15
5
Durham
M55
6
London
M13
7
Public
school M14
8
Reading
F50
9
Milton
Keynes F13
10
Milton
Keynes M9
Voices presented to judges in Hull, Reading and Milton Keynes
13
0102030405060708090
100
Hull WC Hull MC
Pe
rce
nt c
orr
ect
Judges
Hull teenager M15
Hull child M9
Fig. 11.2a: Correct identifications of young Hull voices by Hull judges
(From P. Kerswill and A. Williams 2002)
14
0102030405060708090
100
Reading WC Reading MC
Pe
rce
nt c
orr
ect
Judges
Reading teenager F18
Reading teenager M15
Fig. 11.2b: Correct identifications of young Readingvoices by Reading judges
(From P. Kerswill and A. Williams 2002)
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Milton Keynes WCMilton Keynes MC
Pe
rce
nt c
orr
ect
Judges
Milton Keynes teenager F13
Milton Keynes child M9
Fig. 11.2c: Correct identifications of young MiltonKeynes voices by Milton Keynes judges
(From P. Kerswill and A. Williams 2002)
16
17
18
19
20
21
Perceptual disjunction between older voices and younger voices Older voices perceived as ‘further west
than here’ But judgement of young voices not
uniform: voice with levelled accent was problematic, though notably not judged as ‘London’
Difference in WC and MC perceptions Ascribable to differences in familiarity
22
Investigators: Paul Kerswill (Lancaster University)Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, University of London)
Research Associates: Sue Fox (Queen Mary, University of London)Eivind Torgersen (Lancaster University)
Funded by the Economic and Social Research Councilwww.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/278/
E· S· R· C
ECONOMIC
& S O C I A L
RESEARCH
C O U N C I
L
23
Investigators: Paul Kerswill (Lancaster University)Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, University of
London)
Research Associates: Sue Fox, Arfaan Khan, (Queen Mary, University
of London)Eivind Torgersen (Lancaster University)
E· S· R· C
ECONOMIC
& S O C I A L
RESEARCH
C O U N C I L
Funded by the Economic and Social Research Councilwww.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/539/
Multicultural London English: the emergence, acquisition and diffusion of a new variety (2007–10)
24
Are these the innovators?
Roll Deep Crew (East London Hip-Hop crew)25
HaveringHackney
26
300
400
500
600
700
800
5007009001100130015001700190021002300
F2
F1
FACE
MOUTH
TRAP
STRUT
START
PRICE
CHOICE
GOAT
27
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
500700900110013001500170019002100230025002700
F2
F1
300
400
500
600
700
800
5007009001100130015001700190021002300
F2
F1
300
400
500
600
700
800
5007009001100130015001700190021002300
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
500700900110013001500170019002100230025002700
F2
F1
Laura, Anglo Issah, Kuwait
Grace, NigeriaJack, Anglo
Issah & Grace: shorter trajectories than Laura & Jack. In GOAT, they go their own way – divergence from south-eastern fronting change
28
There is awareness in the press and radio of a ‘new’ way of talking in London: people claim that more and more white kids ‘talk black’ or ‘sound like they’re black’
The media have coined this ‘Jafaican’. We’ve called it Multicultural London English
Is there evidence that it is ethnically relatively neutral? If so, we have evidence of a new,
multiethnic variety (a “multiethnolect”)29
Task: ethnic and geographical
classification of real speech from
2005 interviews
10 second sound clip per speaker
All listeners from inner London
Listeners aged 12 or 17 (N=68)
30
Megan Hackney Anglo
Andrew Hackney Anglo
Laura Hackney Anglo
Ryan Hackney AngloSulema Hackney Non-Anglo (Bangladeshi)
Kirsty Hackney Non-Anglo (Chinese)
Grace Hackney Non-Anglo (Nigerian)
Dom Hackney Non-Anglo (Columbian)
Amjad Hackney Non-Anglo (Pakistani)
Chris Hackney Non-Anglo (Afro-Caribbean)
Kelly Havering Anglo
Dale Havering Anglo
31
Plus four Birmingham voices: 2 female, 2 male, one Afro-Caribbean, one Anglo for each sex
If a listener claims a voice to be that of a Londoner, then we take this as a claim that the voice belongs to the listener’s speech community
32
33
Actual ethnicity of
speakers (1f, 1m for each ethnicity)
Judgement of speaker’s ethnicity
based on voice sample
Actual ethnicity/sex of
speaker
Is heard as coming from ... 34
Is heard as ...
Is heard as coming from... 35
Is heard as
being ...
Is heard as coming from...
36
Is heard as ...
Is heard as coming from ... 37
Birmingham Non-Anglo voices are more likely to be heard as ‘London’ than Birmingham Anglos voices
Havering Anglo voices are heard as ‘white’ and as from London or Essex
Hackney Anglo voices are also heard as ‘white’, but much less consistently. One is consistently heard as ‘black’. They are heard as from London with more consistency than the Havering Anglos
Hackney Non-Anglo voices are heard as coming from various backgrounds, with no correspondence with actual race/ethnicity. The exception is Grace.
38
Non-Anglo voices are heard as coming from London This effect is extended to Birmingham Non-Anglo voices
Anglo voices are less strongly associated with London
Anglo voices from Hackney are more likely to be heard as being from London than those from Havering
Question: can a content analysis of interviews shed light on these associations?39
How are ‘own place’ and ‘own language’ constructed? Likely relevant categories for language:
‘Cockney’, ‘posh’, ‘Multicultural London English’ (need to look for members’ term for this concept, along the lines of Kiezdeutsch), ...
Parameters of construction for place and language: Age, behaviour, dress, ethnicity, words, pronunciation ...
40
41
Identi-fies as Cock-ney
Identi-fies as
‘myself’
Identi-fies as East
London
Identi-fies as
London
Identifies as foreign
‘Cockney’ somewhere other than Hackney or local area
‘Cockney’ distinct
from current
language of own area
Anglon=13
5 1 3 2 0 3 10
Non- Anglo n=11
0 1 2 3 1 1 10
Columbian
42
‘Cockney’ spoken by
older people
Cock-neys are
white
Cockneys have specific
cultural character-istics (tea,
beer, pubs, chips; they are chavs,
racist)
Cockney associated with words (geezer, all right, mate, cock, sweet,
governor, rhyming
slang)
Associates own speech with words (what’s up,
blood, bredren,
save it, safe, shank, mug,
bless)
Refers to ‘slang’ as
words distinguish-
ing their speech from
Cockney
Refers to own variety as
‘slang’
Anglon=13
2 2 3 5 4 2 0
Non- Anglo n=11
2 2 1 6 2 2 4
also ‘ghetto’, ‘rude’ (Non-
Anglos), ‘raggo’ (Anglo)
5/13 Anglos claim to be Cockneys Citing family background: ‘Mum is a real Cockney’ Also language mentioned
No Non-Anglos claim either the identity or the dialect Cockneys are defined by a process of othering
Social and linguistic practices (tea, bags of chips; ‘mate’, ‘geezer’ ...) White (and sometimes racist) Older people ‘Cockney’ spoken somewhere else (other parts of London, Essex) Or spoken here, but in another time
Own identity defined as local, East London, sometimes by postcode But never ‘East End’, thus setting themselves apart from the soap
Eastenders No mention of race or ethnicity in this section of interviews
43
Almost everybody says their speech is different from Cockney Cockney is defined by words, freely cited The speakers claim different words for themselves
Own speech and speech of the area rarely given a name The designation ‘slang’ is often used, but speakers cite
vocabulary to define it (what’s up, blood, bredren, save it, safe, shank, mug, bless)
Accent never mentioned Match in individual cases between self-ascription and members’
perception Ryan is heard as black. He says of himself that he hates white people, and is
always taken for black in the absence of visual clues Dom does not claim a British identity. Of the Non-Anglos, he is heard as the least
‘London’
44
Dialect recognition and geographical ascription shows local perceptions of speech communities Correlation with focusing/diffuseness,
ongoing levelling Gives quantifiable, but subtle picture of
how individuals perceive local areas, local speech, and who is ‘one of us’
Match with both variation patterns and with ethnographic information
45