New Motors of Change in an Old World Speech Community: Minority-Led Innovation in Britain

1. New motors of change in an Old World speech community: minority-led innovation in Britain Paul Kerswill ICLaVE, 27 June 2009

2. Accent/dialect 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 & Kerswill1999: 13).

3. Spread of [f] for // and [v] for // in low-status urban varieties. Earliest dates of birth of cohorts using the innovations occasionally but non-idiosyncratically. (Kerswill 2003) • This is (hierarchical) geographical diffusion Note: The size of the circles indicates the relative populations of each town/city

4. The South-East Short Vowel Shift: thediffusion of a processorregional dialect levelling?

5. South-East Short Vowel Shift: data from London, late 20th century Short vowels plus GOOSE, London borough of Hackney (inner city) Data recorded in 2005 GOOSE FOOT KIT LOT DRESS START STRUT TRAP Key: = elderly = 17 year olds

6. Summary of Short Vowel Shift in Reading and Ashford Short vowel changes in Reading Short vowel changes in Ashford • Conclusion: The shift as such has not diffused, but vowel qualities may have diffused. The effect is equally interpretable as regional dialect levelling – an increase in homogeneity

7. Dedialectalisation(move to Standard English pronunciation of words)Example from County Durham, N.E. England

8. Parameters of variation • A characterisation of the overall sociodemographic, socio-political and geographical context of change • An understanding of the age-related constraints on language acquisition with respect to the adoption of new linguistic features • An understanding of how social structure at community level impinges on language change • The manner of the geographical spread (diffusion vs. levelling) of new features

9. Parameter 1: Sociodemographic and sociopolitical context:Britain as a speech community • monolingualism with variably low-to-moderate language contact • an ‘Old World’ dialect landscape • long-term settlement, with a dialect continuum • a standard-language ‘roof’ • of some age and a strong standard-language ideology • Trudgill-style triangular model of social hierarchy and linguistic diversity (less diversity higher up) • political unification under a single state with a metropolitan centre but having some federal structures • (the language) Scots is an embryonic part of the ecology • a medium-to-high degree of internal migration and mobility • pull to the south • counterurbanisation • large-scale short- and medium-distance commuting

10. Parameter 2: Age restrictions on change • Chambers 1992 • Payne 1980 • Trudgill 2009fc, 2010fc

11. Parameter 3: How social structure at community level impinges on language change Andersen 1988: • open vs. closed communities (which in his model also applies to the dialects spoken there), where external contact is high vs. low • exocentric vs. endocentric communities (similarly also referring to dialects), where attitudinal factors favour vs. disfavour selecting external norms

12. 4 community types (after Andersen and Røyneland) • Endocentricclosed communities (Type 1): geographically peripheral, and self-contained. Røyneland 2004 comments that they are rare in the West. • Endocentricopen (Type 2): urban, containing innovation but in the context of a ‘great or fair amount of interdialectal communication’ (Andersen 1988: 60). Because of their openness (i.e. high degree of external contact, in Andersen’s terms), there is much scope for features to diffuse outwards. They are endocentric because they don’t take up features from outside. • Exocentricclosed communities (Type 3) appear to be rare. Here, linguistic norms have become pervious to outside influence, but contact is actually slight. • Exocentricopen (Type 4) communities are often rural, and unlike Type 1 are not especially protective of local norms. Instead, they are strongly affected by incoming features, diffusing from local urban centres.

13. Parameter 4: Diffusion and regional dialect levelling in the spread of linguistic features • (Hierarchical) geographical diffusion • Regional dialect levelling • Better definition: • The reduction, across a geographical area, in the diversity in the realisations of particular linguistic units • OR supralocalisation • Same referent, different emphasis • Dedialectalisation

14. Why do different features behave differently in diffusion, dialect levelling and innovation? • L. Milroy (2007): off-the-shelf vs. under-the-counter features • Importance of endocentricopen (Type 2) speech communities • Urban, sources of innovation, diffusion outwards • Exocentricopen (Type 4) speech communities in Norway (Røros) and Scotland (Huntly)

15. Huntly (Aberdeenshire): ‘Mental urbanisation’ plotted against PHOVAR variable (Marshall 2004: 162) PHOVAR Mental urbanisation index

16. Huntly (Aberdeenshire): ‘Social network’ plotted against PHOVAR variable (Marshall 2004: 169) PHOVAR Conclusion: for exocentricopen communities, an orientation away from the community is enough to bring on the adoption of ‘off the shelf’ features Social network index (Network Strength Scale)

17. Birmingham inner-city communities Khan (2006; 2009) • Birmingham contains several minority communities which are more or less single-ethnic • Relatively poor; low contact with other groups • Khan investigated working-class teenagers living in these areas

18. Local Birmingham vowel and ethnicity of network, Anglo adolescents Percentage of [] in the PRICE vowel and British white friends (BWF) for Anglo adolescents in Birmingham

19. 35 30 25 20 % [] [] 15 [] 10 5 0 Jamaican(n=4) (Black)Afro- (Black) Black (Black)Car/Jam- British English(n=1) Caribbean(n=4) Caribbean(n=8) (other)(n=6) English(n=3) Black(n=4) Ethnic identity choices Vowels and identity choices among Birmingham Caribbean adolescents Black Caribb. N=8 Jamaican N=4 Caribb./Jam. English N=3 Black (other) N=6 Afro-Caribb. N=4 English N=1 British black N=4 Percentage of forms of the GOAT vowel and Caribbean adolescents’ ethnic identity choices in Birmingham

20. Birmingham inner city: attitude vs. network as predictor • Orientation to own group (attitude) strong predictor of use of variables for ethnic minority young people • Multiethnic social network strong predictor for Anglo young people

21. Andersen and Birmingham inner city • These inner-city communities appear to be relatively endocentric and relatively closed – i.e. Type 1 • Much linguistic variation generated from within • Conclusion: these exist in inner cities, not just pre-contemporary rural areas • For ethnic minorities, individual endocentricity/exocentricity is associated with use of ethnic markers • For Anglos, individual closedness/openness of networks is associated with use of local Anglo dialect markers • Conclusion: these complex relations suggest we need to further theorise the link between these dimensions and linguistic change

22. So do innovations escape from their communities of origin? • Khan’s data suggests that they spread via social networks, i.e. close personal relations • This suggests a dialect contact mechanism, and not an attitude-related or identity mechanism • We look next at innovation and diffusion in London

23. E· S· R· C ECONOMIC & SOCIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Four ESRC projects on dialect changein England, 1990–2010 • September 1990–February 1994 (Reading): A new dialect in a new city: children’s and adults’ speech in Milton Keynes • September 1995–May 1999 (Reading): The role of adolescents in dialect levelling • October 2004–September 2007 (Lancaster): Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London • October 2007–September 2010 (Lancaster): Multicultural London English: the emergence, acquisition and diffusion of a new variety Personnel: Paul Kerswill, Ann Williams, Jenny Cheshire, Eivind Torgersen, Sue Fox, Arfaan Khan

24. Havering Hackney

25. Diphthong shift reversal in London ‘Shifted’ Diphthongs in Hackney (inner city: female speaker b. 1928)

26. Outer-city preservation of older London diphthong trajectories Diphthongs in Havering (outer city: female speaker b. 1988)

27. New patterns in inner city diphthongs – Laura (Anglo speaker from Hackney, b. 1988)

28. Diphthongs – Nazma (Moroccan parentage, Hackney, b. 1988)

29. Diphthongs – Grace (Nigerian parentage, b. 1988)

30. Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney Non-Anglos Anglos with non-Anglo network Anglos with Anglo network Elderly speakers (circles), non-Anglo speakers (inverted triangles), Anglo speakers with non-Anglo networks (triangles), Anglo speakers with Anglo networks (squares)

31. London diverging! • Previous studies show that London’s inner city is only marginally taking part in South East regional dialect levelling • E.g. little fronting of GOAT vowel • But takes full part in off-the-shelf th-fronting and t-glottalling • At the same time, the inner city is innovating • Diphthong shift reversal • Different outcome for short vowel shift plus GOOSE • Extreme /h/-reinstatement (replacing /h/-less London dialect)

32. London pattern confirms Birmingham • Innovatory features are endogenous to the inner-city communities • Complex set of language contact factors • Children growing up learning English in an environment where L1 and/or local dialect models are in a minority • The same goes for Anglo children • Little evidence of transfer of L1 phonetic features • Therefore development of Multicultural London English is hypothesised • Spread beyond these communities is via personal social networks

33. Conclusion – metropolitan areas and language change • Metropolitan inner cities are often socially and economically marginalised: leads to their being endocentric and closed • High density of L2 users of English, coupled with marginalisation and low mobility, allows linguistic innovation to take place, while protecting from regional dialect levelling • Off-the-shelf features of t-glottalling, th-fronting and r-labiodentalisation are nevertheless fully adopted • Low outward contact inhibits spread of innovations to other communities • Spread to other communities is face-to-face, i.e. via social networks; therefore not adopted ‘off-the-shelf’

34. Innovation & propagation types

35. Overall conclusion: ‘Labovian’ speech communities in Britain • Endocentricclosed (Type 1): Metropolitan inner city. Contact-based innovation. Examples: London and Birmingham inner cities • Endocentricopen (Type 2): General urban, with strong external contacts favouring outward diffusion. Examples: Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester • Exocentricclosed (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. • Exocentricopen (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

36. Using population movement figures to explain regional dialect levelling • Sayers (2009)

37. Population density 1991(from Sayers 2009)

38. Cross-district migration flows(from Sayers 2009)

39. Travel-to-work patterns(from Sayers 2009)

40. Using regional development data to explain endogenous change • Sayers 2009

41. Objective 2 Areas, inner London(from Sayers 2009)

42. References • Andersen, Henning (1988). Center and periphery: adoption, diffusion and spread. In Fisiak, J. (ed.). Historical dialectology: regional and social. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 39-85. • Kerswill, Paul (1996). Children, adolescents and language change. Language Variation and Change 8: 177–202. • Khan, Arfaan (2006). A sociolinguistic study of Birmingham English: Language variation and change in a multi-ethnic British community. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University. • Khan, Arfaan (2009fc). Language and ethnicity. In Culpeper, J., Katamba, F., Kerswill, P., McEnery, A. & Wodak, R. (eds.) TheEnglish language: structure, contexts and use. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. • Marshall, Jonathan. (2004). Language Change and Sociolinguistics: Rethinking Social Networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave. • Røyneland, Unn (2004). Dialektnivellering, ungdom og identitet. Ein komparativ analyse av språkleg variasjon og endring i to tilgrensande dialektområde, Røros og Tynset. PhD thesis, University of Oslo.

43. Trudgill, Peter (1999). Norwich: endogenous and exogenous linguistic changes. In P. Foulkes & G. Docherty (eds.) Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles. 124–140. London: Arnold. • Sayers, David (2009). Reversing Babel: Declining linguistic diversity and the flawed attempts to protect it. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex. • Trudgill, Peter (2009fc). Contact and sociolinguistic typology. In R. Hickey (ed.) Handbook of language contact. Oxford: Blackwell. • Trudgill, Peter (2010fc). Social structure and language change. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone and P. Kerswill (eds.) Sage handbook of sociolinguistics. London: Sage.