Television and language change – evidence from Glasgow

1. Jane Stuart-Smith Department of English Language, University of Glasgow Television and language change –evidence from Glasgow IPS Munich, Hauptseminar, Soziophonetik 28 May 2008

2. Television and language change – evidence from Glasgow • Quantitative sociolinguistics and language change • TV and language change • Why consider TV? • The Glasgow media project • Results: the correlational study • Interpreting the results • Linguistic appropriation from TV – a working model • The next steps …

3. Recap: quantitative sociolinguisticsobserving sound change in progress • classic sociolinguistic investigation of language variation and change was formulated by William Labov (e.g. Labov 1972), and pioneered in large cities, like New York City and Glasgow • Linguistic variables (any aspect of language which shows a number of variants) are correlated with extra-linguistic variables (any aspect of society, e.g. social class, gender, age, ethnicity) • Language change in progress observed through the comparison of patterns of variation across age groups/times, and explained with reference to social factors/processes

4. A (set of) social factor(s) –TV and language change? traditional view of ‘variationist’/’quantitative’ sociolinguistics • watching TV may affect vocabulary • but not core features of language, e.g. pronunciation, grammar (e.g. Chambers, e.g. 1998, Trudgill, 1986) ‘at the deeper reaches of language change – sound changes and grammatical changes – the media have no significant effect at all’ (Chambers 1998: 124)

5. A (set of) social factor(s) –TV and language change? traditional view of ‘variationist’/’quantitative’ sociolinguistics • watching TV may affect vocabulary • but not core features of language, e.g. pronunciation, grammar (e.g. Chambers, e.g. 1998, Trudgill, 1986) • language change primarily takes place through accommodation during face-to-face interaction (dialect contact) • assumption of strong media effects with ‘direct’ influence on behaviour

6. TV and language change? • TV may • increase awareness of linguistic varieties • and/or affect attitudes towards other varieties (e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1985) • If core features of grammar are affected, this results from • voluntary orientation towards media • conscious copying from media models (e.g. Trudgill 1986; Carvalho 2004)

7. Consonant changes in the UK Certain consonant changes, typical of London accents (e.g. Cockney), are spreading rapidly across urban accents of British English e.g. TH-fronting, [f] for // in e.g. think, tooth e.g. Foulkes and Docherty (1999), Kerswill (2003) In some accents, e.g. Glaswegian, these features are found exclusively in working-class adolescents with relatively low social and geographical mobility (e.g. Stuart-Smith et al, 2007)

8. the media themselves are happy to blame television especially popular soap dramas set in London, such as EastEnders, apparently featuring Cockney dialect

9. Why linguists should consider TV (1) • TV is exceptionally prevalent • Some TV programmes constitute social phenomena, e.g. the London-based soap EastEnders (1985-) • screened 4 times/week plus weekend omnibus • regularly attracted 18 million viewers/episode (i.e. almost one-third UK population) • viewing of key episodes have caused exceptional surges in electricity demand (e.g. National Grid 2001) • viewers can be highly engaged (e.g. Buckingham 1987)

10. Why linguists should consider TV (2) • Media are assumed to affect social behaviours (e.g. McQuail 2005) BUT • TV is assumed to be a contributory factor, along with other factors (Klapper 1960: 8) • audience assumed to be active interpreters of media texts (e.g. Philo 1999) • TV and para-social interaction (e.g. Abercrombie 1996)

11. Why linguists should consider TV (3) • linguists are starting to include TV: • as possible cause of language change, in, e.g. German (e.g. Lameli 2004; Muhr 2003) • in accounts of language change e.g. Br. Portuguese (Naro 1981, Naro and Scherre 1996) Ur. Portuguese (Carvalho 2004) • and to wonder about TV in these changes (e.g. Foulkes and Docherty 2000)

12. The Glasgow media project Is TV a contributory factor in accent change in adolescents? (2002-5) Economic and Social Research Council (R000239757) Are the media a contributory factor in systemic language change under certain circumstances for certain individuals?

13. The Glasgow media project Is TV a contributory factor in accent change in adolescents? (2002-5) Economic and Social Research Council (R000239757) Are the media a contributory factor in systemic language change under certain circumstances for certain individuals? Does TV play a role in the appearance of Cockney accent features in the speech of Glaswegian adolescents?

14. The research team • The Research Fellow Claire Timmins • The Statistician (Prof) Gwilym Pryce • The Media expert (Prof) Barrie Gunter • a group of kids (and adults) from Maryhill in Glasgow

15. Method • sample • 36 adolescents; 12 adults (working-class) • data • speech: wordlist and spontaneous • Questionnaire; informal interviews • design • Experiment; correlational study • analysis • auditory transcription • all tokens of wordlist • first 30 tokens of spontaneous speech

16. Linguistic variables • TH-fronting: [f] for /θ/ in e.g. think, both • DH-fronting: [v] for // in e.g. brother • L-vocalization: /l/ vocalized to high back (un)rounded vowel e.g. people, milk, well • typical of Cockney (working-class London) accent • unexpected in Glasgow English • reported informally since 1980s (Macafee 1983) • confirmed as changes in 1997 (Stuart-Smith et al 2007)

17. Results I: Glaswegian is changing • For all three variables, in wordlists and conversational speech • apparent-time change: adolescents use more ‘new’ variants than adults • real-time change: we find more ‘new’ variants in 2003 than in 1997

18. Change in progress: TH-fronting % [f] progress of change

19. Change in progress: L-vocalization % [V] progress of change

20. Change in progress: DH-fronting % [v] progress of change

21. Why are these changes happening? Correlational study • (th):[f], (dh):[v], (l):[V] with • dialect contact (beyond and within Glasgow) • attitudes to accents • social practices/identity • music (incl. radio) • computers (incl. internet) • film (incl. video/DVD) • sport • TV

22. Why are these changes happening? Correlational study • (th):[f], (dh);[v], (l):[V] with • dialect contact (beyond and within Glasgow) • attitudes to accents • social practices/identity • music (incl. radio) • computers (incl. internet) • film (incl. video/DVD) • sport • TV

23. Statistical analysis • logistic regression • ‘general-to-specific’ model • create list for each category of social factors (e.g. dialect contact, attitudes, TV, etc.) • run regressions on each category list • significant variables from each list + theoretically interesting variables -> overall shortlist • run regressions on list until only significant variables remain

24. Results II: Dialect contact Initial baseline criteria: informants born and raised in area (2.8% born in England, 2001 Census) Most have few relatives beyond Glasgow, whom they talk to more than they see. Main contact with friends and family within Glasgow. • Some positive links with relatives and friends living in the South of England for four linguistic variables • variance explained: 5-8%

25. Results II: Attitudes to accents • speech samples of 7 accents • female speakers same age • reading same passage • beginning of questionnaire • also checked identification of accents • ‘mental image’ of 8 urban accents (cf Preston 1999) • e.g. ‘what do you think of the accents in London?’ • end of questionnaire

26. Results II: Attitudes to accents • Glasgow kids like London accents but less than other accents (less positive ……………... more positive) average responses for all informants to speech samples

27. Results II: Attitudes to accents • Some positive links for liking London accent, and/or being able to identify London accent correctly, but also scattered relationships with other accents. • variance explained: 5-12%

28. Results II: Social practices Our sample captures some existing groups and fragments of others The majority of the sample identify each other as ‘neds’, i.e. young urban delinquents “I’m a wee Glasgow person. I wouldnae say I’m a ned ’cause I don’t like go oot and start fights an’ aw that.” (2m3) http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk/

29. Results II: Social practices • some positive links with more anti-school practices • variance explained: 2-18%

30. Results II: TV Our informants report access to 3+ TV sets at home, and say that they watch TV every day, with average exposure of around 3 hours/day. London-based programmes are rated highest for soap (EastEnders), comedy (Only Fools and Horses), and police drama (The Bill). TH-/DH-fronting and L-vocalization occur (variably) in ‘media-Cockney’

31. Two Glaswegian adolescent boys talking … R have you been watchin’ EastEnders? L Phhhh, uuh. R Do you watch it? L Aye ah watch it but. R Brilliant man L No’ saw it (inaudible) R They two nearly got caught aff ay, L Aye R Sam was it? L Sam, an, R (laughs) L She hid behind the couch. R Aye. (laughs) L That’s the last one ah saw ah think. R Ah know she wants tae break it up now an’ he doesnae. L (laughs) R Pure shockin’ innit? L Aye, ‘cause he’s R Mad Barry’s left in his cell man, pure makes, things for him an’ aw that. So he does, ‘s quite shockin’

32. Results II: TV • Several factors are significant • positive correlations, mainly with engagement with EastEnders • negative with simply watching TV, or engaging with Scottish/Northern/US programmes • Fairly consistent pattern across the five variables • variance explained: 4-13%

33. TH-fronting (wordlists) all categories Variables tested: linguistic film music sport computers social attitudes dialect contact TV Reg 1: n = 715, r2 = 35; Reg 2: n = 715, r2 = 35

34. TH-fronting (conversations) all categories Variables tested: linguistic film music sport computers social dialect contact TV Reg 1: n = 1327, r2 = 23; Reg 2: n = 1327, r2 = 23

35. DH-fronting (wordlists) all categories Variables tested: linguistic film music social attitudes dialect contact TV Reg 1: n = 644, r2 = 53; Reg 2: n = 662, r2 = 50

36. L-vocalization (wordlists) all categories Variables tested: linguistic music sport computers social attitudes dialect contact TV Reg 1: n = 876, r2 = 20; Reg 2: n = 876, r2 = 19

37. L-vocalization (conversations) all categories Variables tested: Linguistic film sport computers social attitudes dialect contact TV Reg 1: n = 1015, r2 = 20; Reg 2: n = 1015, r2 = 19

38. Correlational study – results for all linguistic variables • satisfactory model only achieved when a range of social factors entered together • A number of social factors are significant together including • dialect contact • social practices • engagement with TV (EastEnders) • How should these results be interpreted?

39. Social factors and language change Language e.g. (th):[f] attitudes TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

40. Attitudes and language change? Language attitudes TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

41. Dialect contact and language change? Language TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

42. Dialect contact and language change Language Speech accommodation in face-to-face interaction (e.g. Trudgill 1986) TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

43. Social practices and language change? Language TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

44. Social practices and language change Language Linguistic practices develop with social practices as part of identity construction (e.g. Eckert 2000) TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

45. Social practices/TV and language change? Language TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

46. Social practices/TV and language change? Language TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

47. TV and language change? Language Factors not measured TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

48. TV and language change? Language Factors not measured TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

49. TV and language change? Language Factors not measured How? TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices

50. TV and language change? Language Factors not measured Direct behavioural influence? TV engagement Dialect contact Social practices