1 / 32

Prolegomena to a real-time sociolinguistics of 'modern RP': varieties, social practice and language change-in-progress

Prolegomena to a real-time sociolinguistics of 'modern RP': varieties, social practice and language change-in-progress. Anne Fabricius Roskilde University, Denmark Guest Lecture, University of Cambridge, 2nd December 2008. Introduction. The issues behind today’s title:

kaipo
Download Presentation

Prolegomena to a real-time sociolinguistics of 'modern RP': varieties, social practice and language change-in-progress

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prolegomena to a real-time sociolinguistics of 'modern RP': varieties, social practice and language change-in-progress Anne Fabricius Roskilde University, Denmark Guest Lecture, University of Cambridge, 2nd December 2008

  2. Introduction • The issues behind today’s title: • the implications for the whole of each part of the title • Real time studies of speech communities • Modern RP/SSBE • ‘Native’ and ‘construct’ varieties • Varieties and social practice perspectives • Language change in progress, its social embedding, predictions and complications • Blending these ingredients into the theoretical, methodological and empirical foundations for a real-time diachronic study of some features of modern RP/changing SSBE • Prolegomena: a series of introductory remarks or prefaces • …amounting to the kernel of a research project description… • …with exemplificatory sound samples…

  3. First, a case for relevance... • Making a contribution to models of the relationship between language change and social embedding • Regional sociolinguistic studies often focus on a broad working class/middle class dichotomy • Would perhaps a priori exclude speakers who had e.g. boarding school backgrounds • (Is there sometimes a slippage/false analogy between ‘vernacular’ and ‘non-standard’ in sociolinguistics?) • Result: Ignoring the non-regional accent as a historical process and product

  4. Of the interaction of class and sociolinguistic theory... • Chambers (1995:37), • The “upper class,” consisting of people with inherited wealth and privileges, is so inconsequential – nonexistent outside Europe and Asia and dwindling rapidly there - that it will not be considered here. • Schneider's (1999:51) review of Chambers • "we are less well-informed about [upper-class] speech patterns, attitudes, and model character, and although it may be true that for sociolinguistic purposes they are rather irrelevant, that still does not imply non-existence, - for sociolinguistic modelling, a continuum of which one pole just does not exist, would not be very convincing." • Macaulay (2002: 398) points out, social class has to some extent been sidelined compared to ethnicity, social networks and gender as important sociolinguistic categories. • MC/UMC rather than UC

  5. And also ... • Phonologically and phonetically the RP accent has been well described (native speaker phoneticians e.g. Daniel Jones’ EPD) • has its scientific foundation in a structuralist tradition of phonetics, a ‘variety’ perspective • has therefore not always sat easily with the sociolinguistic/variationist school of thought arising in the 1960s. • Historical roots of RP discussed in Mugglestone (2003)

  6. Therefore... • Much less is known about the sociolinguistics of successor to RP, e.g. speakers rates of participation in ongoing England-wide vernacular changes (such as discussed in Foulkes and Docherty 1999) • Is a regionalizing process taking place? • Is non-regionality breaking down/changing? • Higher education koinéization (Bigham 2008)? • a changing picture of (fluid) relationships between language and socioeconomic privilege and social processes • Part of the picture of English in the UK in its entirety

  7. Philosophical issues • When is an accent variety no longer the same, when has it changed beyond recognition (mutually intelligible still across generations or breaking down: through changes below consciousness... yeast/used, toasties/tasties) • Linguistic Variety perspectives and social practice/social constructionist perspective complementing each other (having an accent versus doing being a student at Cambridge linguistically) • Thus, linguistic and ethnographic/sociological perspectives can/must potentially intertwine... • Need an updated model of the generational picture also for ’modern RP’ speakers (cf Rampton’s model, Wells 1982)

  8. Some overarching theoretical issues for sociolinguistics ... • the role of cognitive processes in the initiation of language change and their relation to social life • Variation, variability and the triggers of language change • Actuation problem: why does change X emerge here and now? • Labov (1994: 415): “The diffusion of linguistic change in large cities is promoted by women who combine upward mobility with a consistent rejection of the constraining norms of polite society” • UMC? • The core of the transmission problem (Labov 1994: 416) is“Children must learn to talk differently from their mothers, and these differences must be in the same direction in each succeeding generation” • Also UMC, for some changes

  9. Social polarities in the UK • Historical social differentiation in UK secondary education: public school - independent school – grammar school - state school (similar to Australia, vs e.g. Denmark, Scandinavia) • Universities, Govt. Education policy and Access schemes • Are educational backgrounds blurred or maintained in a higher education context? • Application rates to e.g. Cambridge are rising • Economic situation • What are students’ perceptions? (North-South divide, levelling) • Are old distinctions being maintained or dissipating • If the latter, what replaces them? (an empirical ethnographic question)

  10. Kroch 1996 • Anthony Kroch’s interview-based study of the upper-class of Philadelphia • members of that group were users of the same phonological system as other Philadelphians • E.g. complex phonetic conditioning of features such as Philadelphians short /a/. • What distinguished them in their speech and in the perception of others was a distinctive set of prosodic and lexical behaviours. (cf creak in RP)

  11. Accessing the variety empirically • Interplay of ‘native’ and ‘construct’ results in a systematic ambiguity; Ramsaran: fact and fiction • ‘Native RP’ • Sociolinguistically observable through a defined population in successive generations • Sociologically and phonologically • Phonetic variations … • Change in Native variety and the ‘construct’ variety are different • ‘Construct RP’ • Systematically related to n-RP but distinct and with its own diachrony • Here the notion of ‘standard’ comes into play, and can change • E.g. on age-graded reactions to t-glottalling • Each generation has its own cutoff points: ‘posh’ • Examples of ‘clergy-speak’ • A sociolinguistics of perception… (Harrington , Kleber and Reubold 2008, on generational perceptions of /u/-fronting, NWAV)

  12. Categoricity versus Variability • ‘no-one speaks RP anymore’ .... • a categorical view following Chambers' (1995:25) formulation of the Chomskyan "axiom of categoricity” • all linguistic units are invariant, discrete and qualitative, • Thus a description of RP ties down that object ... • However, language in a sociolinguistic perspective is variant, continuous, and quantitative • Thus diachronic fluidity is possible through generational transmission; variability built in

  13. A theoretical presupposition • The forces of linguistic change which act on all varieties of a language will also apply to n-RP • whether internally-motivated endogenous or contact-induced exogenous changes (Trudgill 1999) • Popular or folk-linguistic notions of, and about, correctness or standardness also undergo change, due to historical societal developments, • these changes represent developments in c-RP (cf Rampton’s ’posh’ performances)

  14. Modern RP or SSBE? • A question of naming practice • Why ‘Modern RP’ • Why ‘SSBE’ • What do the titles emphasize and de-emphasize • Standard as a label mixes form and function, Southern as a result of regionalizing • Modern RP emphasizes a generational sociolinguistic continuity • which however may be illusory in some individual cases • Asking what is the ‘breaking point’, empirically, for a decisive cut with the earlier label…

  15. The 1997-8 corpus • Phd thesis, Fabricius 2000, plus subsequent studies on weak vowels (2002b) and the short vowel system (2007) • PhD: A synchronic study of word–final t-glottalling in the speech of 24 ex-independent school students at Cambridge University recorded in 1997-1998. • Sample evenly split by gender, 12m, 12f • Speakers chosen through a combination of social and linguistic criteria • Educational background, parents’ occupations • Conforming to a phonological model of RP

  16. The phonological criteria used in 1997-1998 • /i:, I, e, {, A:, Q, O:, U, u:, V, 3:, @, eI, aI, OI, @U, aU, I@, e@, U@/ • last is lexically limited but solidly present in Hannisdal’s 2007 study; all 30 BBC announcers have it • Suggested smoothing was still active (variability here needs tracking) eg lower, triumph, player in reading passage 1997-8 and 2008 • Hannisdal 2007 examined smoothing as well in fire,power sequences; used significantly more by male newsreaders

  17. Outside the phonological envelope in 1997-8... • no contrast between STRUT and FOOT • Lexical h-dropping in stressed syllables • TH-fronting • Yod dropping, new [nu] • [æ] for the BATH words, such as grass and past • Velar nasal fronting [n] in –ING forms

  18. Variable phonetic parameters for the (2000) study • HAPPY-tensing happy, coffee, valley, but also pre-vocalically as in various,happier (Wells 1997a: 20) • GOAT allophony/@U/ before dark /l/, [oU], as in cold, gold, goal; 24/30 speakers in Hannisdal 2007, 2/6 on BBC World • l-vocalization coming into mainstream RP? • Wells(1997a: 21)contra Maidment 1994 • Note two possible variants • Yod coalescence in stressed syllables :Tuesday ["tSu:zdeI] Wells (ibid). • Quality of GOOSE, FOOT and TRAP vowel

  19. The unity of varieties... • Varieties emerging from dialectologically-focussed studies • Demarcation lines become important; Wells 1982 (RP, near-RP…) • However, difficulties of demarcation and definition in late modern societies are sometimes emphasized (RamptonLanguage in Late Modernity) • Or is the British accent landscape characterized by stability as well as change? • Coupland and Bishop 2007 reporting stability in regional vernacular downgrading alongside younger speakers’ rejection of standard prestige in highly decontextualised attitudinal rating settings • Report ”disappointingly familiar conservative tendencies”..(2007:84) • Alongside findings for younger listeners ” [that] at least to a limited extent, challenge the inference that there is a consolidated, single ideological set in the evaluation of English accents” (2007:85)

  20. ...contra social practice perspectives • Social practice emerging through ethnographic approach • could for example ask how do students do being at Cambridge linguistically • speaking differently when they start and when they finish… (Evans and Iverson 2007) • Are there gender distinctions? (are they potential motors of change?) • Communities of practice in the Cambridge University landscape: rowing clubs, choirs, subject groups (Classics?), different colleges, could all form basis for (others’) ethnographic studies

  21. Real time studies(Tillery and Bailey 2003) • Can be done by comparing data from present time to documented sources (eg dictionaries like EPD; weak vowels, Fabricius 2002b) • Real time replication studies of two types: • Trend survey (community) • Panel survey (individuals) • LANCHART in Copenhagen using both • My replicated corpus is a trend study

  22. Corpus 2008 • Presently being collected (40+ interviews) • Chance to explore the accent over a ten year span... • With data collection methodology (sociolinguistic interview plus reading passage) replicated, same physical setting • Aiming again for 12m 12f core speakers, plus a continuum to local southern varieties/midlands • a trend survey • Defining the community sociolinguistically • Potential disadvantages: wider demographic changes in community can interfere with real time comparisons • Researcher age/positioning… (effect on e.g. t-glottalling?)

  23. Future plans for the real-time corpus 1998-2008: • 1997-8 and 2008 materials transcribed and annotated to form a Praat-based database, similar to LANCHART (Copenhagen) and DyViS (Cambridge) • External funding sources... • Real-time segmental phonetic comparisons over the ten-year span of the corpus • Could also be used for prosodic comparisons • Building up a series of inductive quantitative sociolinguistic-oriented studies of change-in-progress

  24. Language change in progress: other potential comparisons • GOAT fronting/merging with FACE, • GOAT-allophony • MOUTH-PRICE onsets • T-glottalling (caveat…) • Intonational patterns • Vowels in unstressed syllables (weak vowels) • L-Vocalisation (variants) • Gender differentiations, lexical effects, style effects in all of the above

  25. Other contributions • Bente Hannisdal’s Ph.D. Thesis, following six variables could all be tested • CURE lowering • GOAT allophony • R-sandhi (Linking /r/ overall av. 60% Hannisdal 2007; higher rates between function words) • T-voicing • Smoothing • Yod coalescence • Comparisons with London WC vowel patterns (Kerswill, Torgersen, Fox, & Cheshire) • Comparisons with DyViS

  26. Sound samples 1 • From reading passage: ”Mr. Beebe sitting unnoticed in the window, pondered over this illogical element in Miss Honeychurch” • ((Sound)) • Variations in l-vocalisation, NURSE vowel, strength of ejective /t/, creak...

  27. Sound samples 2 • Both conservative and innovative features... • Male speaker: 1990 (no happY-Tensing..) • Male speaker: travelling • Female speaker (So how was starting at college for you?) • Female speaker (plans for year abroad?) • Ejective release on the increase?....

  28. In conclusion • real-time corpus established • Enabling quantitative variationist studies of the embedding of linguistic variables in speech of a sociolinguistically-identified group • Gender differences • changes over the span of ten years • E.g. changes in vowel and diphthong qualities • Consonantal features e.g. stops (t-glottalling, ejectives, lenition) • ....

  29. Bibliography 1 • The Modern RP page www.akira.ruc.dk/~fabri • Bigham, D. 2008. Dialect contact and accommodation among emerging adults in a university setting . Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin. • Chambers, J.K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell. • Coupland, Nikolas and Hywel Bishop. 2007. Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11, 1: 74-103. • Evans, B. And P. Iverson,2007.Plasticity in vowel perception and production: A study of accent change in young adults. JASA 121, 6: 3814-3826. • Fabricius, Anne. 2007. Variation and change in the TRAP and STRUT vowels of RP: a real time comparison of five acoustic data sets. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37:3: 293-320. • Fabricius, A. 2007. Vowel Formants and Angle Measurements in Diachronic Sociophonetic Studies: FOOT-fronting in RP. Proceedings of the 16th ICPhS, Saarbrücken, August 2007. www: www.icphs2007.de/. • Fabricius, Anne H. 2002a. RP as sociolinguistic object. Nordic Journal of English Studies, Vol 1, nr 2:355-372. • Fabricius, Anne H. 2002b. Weak vowels in modern RP: an acoustic study of happy-tensing and KIT/schwa shift. Language Variation and Change.Vol 14, nr 2: 211-237. • Fabricius, Anne H. 2002c. Ongoing change in modern RP: evidence for the disappearing stigma of t-glottalling. English Worldwide 23, 1:115-136. • Foulkes, P. and G. J. Docherty. eds. 1999. Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold.

  30. Bibliography 2 • Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford:Blackwell. • Hannisdal, Bente Rebecca . 2007. Variability and change in Received Pronunciation : a study of six phonological variables in the speech of television newsreaders . University of Bergen PhD thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/1956/2335 • Harrington, J., F. Kleber and U. Reubold. 2008. Compensation for coarticulation, /u/-fronting, and sound change in standard southern British: An acoustic and perceptual study. JASA 123,5: 2825–2835. • Macaulay, Ronald. 2002. "Extremely interesting, very interesting, or only quite interesting? Adverbs and social class." Journal of Sociolinguistics. 6.3:398-417. • Maidment, John. 1994. Estuary English: hybrid or hype? Paper presented at the 4th NZ Conference on Language & Society, Christchurch, NZ. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/estuary/maidment.htm • Mugglestone, Lynda. 2003. Talking Proper: the Rise of Accent as Social Symbol. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd edition. • Rampton, B. 2006. Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Schneider, E. W. (1999). Review of Chambers 1995. Journal of English Linguistics. 27,1. 49-56. • Tillery, Jan and Guy Bailey 2003. Approaches to real time in dialectology and sociolinguistics. World Englishes 22,4: 351-365. • Trudgill, P. 1999. Norwich: endogenous and exogenous linguistic change. In P. Foulkes and G.J. Docherty 1999, 124-140. • Wells, J.C. 1982. Accents of English, 3 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  31. Acknowledgements • Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University • Department of Linguistics, Cambridge University • Francis Nolan • Kirsty McDougall, Toby Hudson • (for corpus-talk, coffee and companionship )

  32. Thank you for listening!

More Related