Or …

1. Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis Paul Kerswill†, Eivind Torgersen† and Sue Fox‡†Lancaster University, ‡Queen Mary, University of London

2. Or … “New contact varieties as the source of innovation in a highly levelled, and still levelling, dialect area”

3. Innovation, levelling and diffusion • These are three basic mechanisms of change. • Innovation: • not predicated on contact – endogenous in the sense of ‘generated from within the speech community’ • Levelling: • “… dialect levelling and by extension accent levelling, a process whereby differences between regional varieties are reduced, features which make varieties distinctive disappear, and new features emerge and are adopted by speakers over a wide geographical area” (Williams & Kerswill, 1999:149) • by definition non-directional • predicated on face-to-face contact (but not always) • Diffusion • the directional spread of a feature • similarly predicated on face-to-face contact (again not always)

4. Interaction of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors Neogrammarian change: slow, subconscious, in principle governed by internal factors Labov’s Principles of Vowel Shifting are intended as universal, and govern Neogrammarian change for vowels: Principle I • In chain shifts, long vowels rise. Principle II • In chain shifts, short vowels fall. Principle IIa • In chain shifts, the nuclei of upgliding diphthongs fall. Principle III • In chain shifts, back vowels move to the front. (Labov, 1994:116)

5. Drift • We’ll look at an example of a set of Neogrammarian vowel shifts • Such shifts seem to be susceptible to drift-like behaviour • a shift process, once started, can continue in a new speech community even after separation • What effect do non-internal (contact and non-linguistic) factors have on drift-like changes?

6. Finding a testing ground for the interaction of internal principles and external factors • Insight from dialectology: a metropolis is the supposed origin of change • A Western metropolis is usually the location with most immigration and in-migration in its region • Influence of non-internal effects likely to be high due to (i) language contact and (ii) complex intergroup relations • Related to this is the likelihood of finding new L1 varieties of the language following contact with L2 varieties through individual bilingualism. These new varieties are contact dialects • Possibility of innovation resulting from contact with these varieties

7. Dialect levelling (“supralocalisation”) in the south-east of England • Reports of widespread homogenisation in the south-east (Kerswill & Williams 2000; Britain 2002) • New features are assumed to originate in London, based on gravity model (diffusion) • cf Wells (1982: 302): ‘its working-class accent is today the most influential source of phonological innovation in England and perhaps in the whole English-speaking world.’ • Hypothesis: the new, ‘levelled’ features spread out from London

8. A problem with the gravity model • the gravity model assumes spread by diffusion, not levelling • if we observe gradually increasing homogenisation with no directionality, then this can’t be the result of diffusion • (the partial exception would be where diffusion has run its course, leading to complete replacement – but directionality should be visible while the diffusion is ongoing)

9. London and three “South-east periphery” towns

10. Regional dialect levelling (“supralocalisation”) in the south-east of England • Reduced amount of H-dropping (’ouse) • Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing, bruvver) • GOAT-fronting to [] • “RP” variant in MOUTH [] • Low-back onset of PRICE [], lowered/unrounded from [ɪ], [ɔɪ] or [ɒɪ] • Raising of onset of FACE to [ɛ̝̝ɪ] • Fronting of GOOSE to [] • Fronting of FOOT to [] or [] • Lowering and backing of TRAP to [] • Backing of STRUT to []

11. We will focus on … • Reduced amount of H-dropping (’ouse) • Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) • GOAT-fronting to [] • “RP” variant in MOUTH [] • Low-back onset of PRICE [], lowered/unrounded from [ɪ], [ɔɪ] or [ɒɪ] • Raising of onset of FACE to [ɛ̝̝ɪ] • Fronting of GOOSE to [] • Fronting of FOOT to [] or [] • Lowering and backing of TRAP to [] • Backing of STRUT to []

12. … four “diphthong-shift” vowels • Reduced amount of H-dropping (’ouse) • Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) • GOAT-fronting to [] • “RP” variant in MOUTH [] • Low-back onset of PRICE [], lowered/unrounded from [ɪ], [ɔɪ] or [ɒɪ] • Raising of onset of FACE to [ɛ̝̝ɪ] • Fronting of GOOSE to [] • Fronting of FOOT to [] or [] • Lowering and backing of TRAP to [] • Backing of STRUT to []

13. … and two monophthongs undergoing change • Reduced amount of H-dropping (’ouse) • Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) • GOAT-fronting to [] • “RP” variant in MOUTH [] • Low-back onset of PRICE [], lowered/unrounded from [ɪ], [ɔɪ] or [ɒɪ] • Raising of onset of FACE to [ɛ̝̝ɪ] • Fronting of GOOSE to [] • Fronting of FOOT to [] or [] • Lowering and backing of TRAP to [] • Backing of STRUT to []

14. Diphthong shift (Wells 1982) But note that /u:/, or GOOSE, now falls outside the Diphthong Shift set … … and this is allowed for by Wells

15. Drift in the diphthongs of early New Zealand English (Trudgill 2004) • NZE has Cockney-like diphthongs today, but with more extreme shifts in MOUTH • Trudgill finds evidence that diphthong shift got greater during the 19th century, and concludes that this is due to drift. • Britain (2005) argues that the evidence for continued shifting is only likely for FACE • Either way, diphthong shift clearly thrived and then stabilised, in the absence of the strong social sanctions against it in south-east England at the same time • Research question: what is happening to drift in London today, a typologically very similar variety of English, but where the sociolinguistic set-up is extremely different from early and current NZE?

16. Reduced H-dropping in the South-east periphery and a northern English city

17. Changes in MOUTH and PRICE

18. Percentage use of variants of /au/ (MOUTH), Reading Working Class, interview style (1995) (from Kerswill & Williams 2005).

19. Percentage use of variants of /aU/ (MOUTH), Milton Keynes Working Class, interview style (1995)

20. Percentage use of variants of /ai/ (PRICE), Reading Working Class, interview style

21. Percentage use of variants of (a) (PRICE), Milton Keynes Working Class, interview style (1995)

22. MOUTH and PRICE in the South-east • MOUTH: simultaneous replacement of various regional forms through the south-east, both rural and urban, by [aʊ] • very rare in south-eastern vernacular varieties • very similar to traditional Received Pronunciation • not a phonetically levelled form, i.e. not arrived at as either the survival of a majority form or the appearance of a phonetically intermediate form • PRICE: the rise of [ɑɪ], which is not RP, but is a phonetically intermediate variant • good candidate for phonetic levelling – and also geographical (non-directional) dialect levelling

23. GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r. 1996).

24. GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r. 1996).

25. Phonological/phonetic change in London • the fate of h-dropping • MOUTH • PRICE • GOAT • FACE

26. Research question: Is this city the origin of all these changes?

27. Are these the innovators? Roll Deep Crew (East London hip-hop crew)

28. Linguisticinnovators: the English of adolescents in London (2004–7) • Multicultural London English: the emergence, acquisition and diffusion of a new variety (2007–10) 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 & SOCIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/278/ www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/539/

29. Research question 1: innovation • What evidence is there that phonological and grammatical innovations start in London and spread out from there?

30. Research question 2: multilingualism • One-third of London’s primary school children in 2001 had a first language other than English. Does this degree of multilingualism have any long-term impact on ‘mainstream’ English? Reinterpreted in terms of the current spoken English of the capital, this becomes: • Does the use of a putative Multicultural London English by adolescents lead to language change?

31. Research question 3: the innovators • Which types of Londoners, socially (including ethnically) defined, innovate linguistically?

32. Research question 4: inner vs. outer London as sources of change • Inner and outer London boroughs differ in: • ethnic profile • proportion of recent migrants • non-first language English speakers • socio-economic class • Is there evidence that different linguistic features, including innovations, are characteristic of inner London vs. outer London?

33. Research question 5: social factors • What social mechanisms facilitate (1) innovation and (2) diffusion? • social network • ethnicity • gender • identity • Operationalisation of these social factors

34. Havering Hackney

37. Languages spoken

38. Population • Hackney: 208,365 • Havering: 224,248

39. Project design • 16 elderly Londoners • 105 17 year old Londoners • from inner London (Hackney) and outer London (Havering) • female, male • “Anglo” and “non-Anglo” • Free interviews in pairs • 1.4m words transcribed orthographically, stored in a database time-aligned at turn level

40. H-dropping Percent ‘dropped’ H in lexical words (interviews) 1. Correspondence between MK and Hackney is very surprising, because MK is highly mobile with a very ‘levelled’ accent, while Hackney is not mobile with an accent with many innovations. 2. Correspondence between Reading and Havering less surprising: both are areas with fairly mobile populations and somewhat levelled accents

41. Monophthongs in Hackney – anticlockwise chain shift Elderly speakers (circles), Young speakers (diamonds)

42. Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney Non-Anglos Anglos with non-Anglo network Anglos with Anglo network FOOT is relatively back compared to Havering – see next slide! Elderly speakers (circles), non-Anglo speakers (inverted triangles), Anglo speakers with non-Anglo networks (triangles), Anglo speakers with Anglo networks (squares)

43. Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes Non-Anglo Youth, Hackney Anglo Youth, Havering FOOT GOOSE FOOT GOOSE æ æ

44. Working-class white Londonerborn 1938 (Hackney) GOAT CHOICE FACE PRICE MOUTH START TRAP STRUT

45. Young speakers in Hackney Laura, Anglo Alan, Kuwait Grace, Nigeria Jack, Anglo

46. Young Havering Anglo speakers Donna Ian

47. Innovation, diffusion and levelling revisited • Loss of H-dropping • London matches London periphery in loss of H-dropping • unexpected match between inner-city non-Anglos and high-contact south-east periphery Anglos in Milton Keynes (a New Town) • same feature – different social embedding • in south-east periphery, high mobility may lead to susceptibility to overt norms (h-fulness) • in London, may be a result of high contact with L2 varieties of English (which may be h-ful)

48. Fronting of GOOSE Advanced in London, matching periphery GOOSE in London is rarely diphthongal in our data, so falls outside Diphthong Shift unexpectedly, most advanced among non-Anglo Londoners and Anglos with non-Anglo networks as with loss of H-dropping, the same feature has different social embedding in inner London and south-east periphery extreme fronting among inner city non-Anglos is innovatory levelling in periphery Fronting of FOOT Less advanced in London than in periphery in London, more advanced in Havering (outer city), in line with the Anglos in the periphery lack of fronting in inner city is conservative, matching Caribbean Englishes levelling in periphery

49. GOAT (1) GOAT-fronting Prevalent among south-east periphery speakers – levelling (shared innovation). Agnostic as to Diphthong Shift reversal Absent in most inner-London speakers of both sexes and all ethnicities, present in outer-city girls Instead, (2) GOAT-monophthongisation highly correlated with ethnicity (Afro-Caribbean, Black African) and multi-ethnic network (for Anglos) monophthongisation: a result of innovation in the inner city, resulting from contact with British Caribbean English and L2 Englishes. No general diffusion except to minority ethnic speakers outside the inner city looks like Diphthong Shift reversal

50. PRICE • Lowering across region – Diphthong Shift reversal • But added fronting is greater in London than south-east periphery • fronting and monophthongisation correlated with ethnicity – strongest among non-Anglos • seems to be a geographically directional and diachronically gradual process • The change (from approximately [ɔɪ]) involves lowering of the onset – and as such is a reversal of Diphthong Shift • interpretable as a Londoninnovation with diffusion to periphery