1. Paul Kerswill ICLaVE, 27 June 2009
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. This is (hierarchical) geographical diffusion
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: the diffusion of a process or regional 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
Word set
Examples
Village/Year of birth
Byers Green 1880
(Orton 1933)
Ushaw Moor 1940
(Kerswill 1987)
Ushaw Moor 1987
(recordings by Kerswill, 2002) 1
food, choose, move, prove ...
‘choose’ vowel 2
out, mouth, house, town, cow, down ...
Set 2 varies between ‘choose’ and ‘mouth’ vowels 3
owt (‘anything’), nowt (‘nothing’) ...
‘mouth’ vowel 4
four, daughter, thought, bought ...
Set 4 varies between ‘caught’ and ‘mouth’ vowels
Set 4 has ‘caught’ vowel

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)
Endocentric closed communities (Type 1): geographically peripheral, and self- contained. Røyneland 2004 comments that they are rare in the West.
Endocentric open (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.
Exocentric closed communities (Type 3) appear to be rare. Here, linguistic norms have become pervious to outside influence, but contact is actually slight.
Exocentric open (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 endocentric open (Type 2) speech communities
Urban, sources of innovation, diffusion outwards
Exocentric open (Type 4) speech communities in Norway (Røros) and Scotland (Huntly)

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

16. Huntly (Aberdeenshire): ‘Social network’ plotted against PHOVAR variable (Marshall 2004: 169)
Conclusion: for exocentric open 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. Vowels and identity choices among Birmingham Caribbean adolescents
Jamaican
N=4
Black Caribb.
N=8 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %
Jamaican(n=4)
(Black)Afro-
Caribbean(n=4)
(Black)
Caribbean(n=8)
Black
(other)(n=6)
(Black)Car/Jam-
English(n=3)
British
Black(n=4)
English(n=1)
Ethnic identity choices
[]
[]
[]
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. Four ESRC projects on dialect change in England, 1990–2010
ECONOMIC
& S O C I A L RESEARCH
C O U N C I L
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
Directional?
Face-to-face contact?
Ideology driven (attitudes)?
Innovation type
internally motivated (evolutive) no
contact based
yes
Ideology driven
yes (!)
Propagation type
Geographical diffusion
Regional dialect levelling
Dedialectalisation

35. Overall conclusion: ‘Labovian’ speech communities in Britain
Endocentric closed (Type 1): Metropolitan inner city. 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.
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

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,
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.) The English 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.