1. Ethnicity as a source of changes in the London vowel system Eivind Torgersen and Paul Kerswill Lancaster University

2. Why study London? Wells (1982) on London: ‘Its working-class accent is today the most influential source of phonological innovation in England and perhaps in the whole English- speaking world.’

3. September 2004–August 2007 (ESRC ref. RES 000 23 0680). Grant held jointly by Paul Kerswill (Lancaster) and Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, University of London) RAs: Eivind Torgersen (Lancaster), Sue Fox (London) Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London

4. Vowels in the provincial south-east as evidence of innovation and levelling

5. Summary of south-east vowel changes noted in previous research Lowering/backing of TRAP in 20th century Lowering of DRESS Recent centralisation/fronting of FOOT Recent fronting of GOOSE, often extreme Recent fronting of offset of GOAT

6. Reading/Ashford normalised data

7. Re-stating conclusions from the Reading–Ashford study The Ashford shift seems to follow descriptions of recent change in London though data for DRESS and TRAP is unclear Ashford and London show evidence of an anti- clockwise chain shift - though the London descriptions don’t talk about the backing of STRUT We can now suggest that the London/Ashford shift is internally motivated Hard to say anything about the order of changes

8. The Reading ‘shift’ is a collection of unrelated changes but it leads to the same result as Ashford So we conclude it gets there through dialect levelling and is therefore contact-induced

9. London study: One inner and one outer borough

10. Reasons for this choice Diversity: –Social network type, including mobility –Ethnicity –Language contact This leads to presumed different language change patterns

11. Hypothesised changes District: Inner city vs. outer city: hypothesis that features originating or are widespread in outer London will have a better chance of spreading to e.g. Milton Keynes and Reading Changes in Hackney (inner city) may originate within the community, but may also arise through language contact Changes here may have difficulty in diffusing because of supposed lack of contact? Changes in Havering (outer city) may be towards levelled forms because of greater mobility and more open communities

12. Research question … Are the vowel changes we have noted in Ashford/Reading diffusing from London? How can we tell?

13. Methodological issues in investigating vowel change in London Real vs. apparent time Solution: combine both methodologies … Available archive recordings: Labov’s London interviews (r1968 – men and some women, aged late teens) Corpus of London Teenage Language (COLT, part of BNC), r1993 – teenagers of various/unknown origins Intonational Variation in English (IViE), r1998 – teenagers of West Indian origin

14. Labov 1968 ɪ ʌ ɒ ʊ

15. COLT 1993 ɪ ʌ ʊ ɒ

16. IViE 1998 ɪ ʌ ɒ ʊ

17. Hackney elderly 2005 ɪ ʊ ʌ ɒ ɑː

18. Hackney young 2005 ɪʊ ɒ ʌ ɑː

19. Havering elderly 2005 ɪ ʊ ʌ ɒ ɑː

20. Havering young 2005 ɪ ʊ ɒ ʌ ɑː

21. Internal motivation for change in London? The short vowel chain shift seen in Ashford but only suspected for London is now confirmed for London STRUT is backer than in Ashford/Reading, suggesting a more advanced stage in London, But: FOOT is backer, suggesting a less advanced stage Evidence that this is change within the community: No external model for vowel shift STRUT-backing is more advanced than in south-east periphery (Ashford, Reading) But: FOOT-fronting is less advanced in Hackney than in Havering and the south-east periphery

22. Multiple causation for London changes? STRUT is more back in both Hackney and Havering for the young speakers than the elderly speakers – internally motivated? West Indian English possible model for back STRUT and non-fronted FOOT vowels in Hackney So changes in Hackney may be due also to dialect contact with West Indian English – externally motivated

23. Is there evidence of diffusion of features to periphery (Reading/Ashford)? 1. Yes: Some features are more advanced in London than in periphery (i.e. present in both, but more marked in London): STRUT-backing Short vowel shift, for which we have argued for diffusion from London (Torgersen & Kerswill 2004)

24. 2. Perhaps: Features are shared in equal measure by London and periphery: GOOSE-fronting FOOT-fronting (but not shared by all Londoners: fronting is typical of levelled and middle-class speech) TRAP-backing/lowering

25. Conclusion Some evidence of diffusion from London Change in inner London seems to originate within the community, though this is through dialect contact with West Indian English By comparison, change in the periphery seems to be through dialect levelling at the regional level This leads to divergence/innovation in London and levelling in the periphery

26. Bibliography Andersen, H. (1988). Center and periphery: adoption, diffusion and spread. In Fisiak, J. (ed.) Historical dialectology: regional and social. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 39-85. Andersen, H. (1989). Understanding linguistic innovations. In Breivik, L. E. & Jahr, E. H. (eds.) Language change. Contributions to the study of its causes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 5-29. Baker, P. & Eversley, J. (eds.) (2000). Multilingual capital. The languages of London’s schoolchildren and their relevance to economic, social and educational policies. London: Battlebridge. Cheshire, J. (fc). Syntactic variation and beyond: gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2005 fc). On the non- convergence of phonology, grammar and discourse. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens & P. Kerswill (eds.) Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27. Docherty, G. & Foulkes, P. (eds.) (1999). Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold. Gordon, E., Campbell, L., Hay, J., Maclagan, M., & Trudgill, P. (2004). New Zealand English: its origins and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2000). Creating a new town koine: children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29: 65-115. Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2005). New towns and koineisation: linguistic and social correlates. Linguistics 43 No. 5. Marshall, J. (2004). Language change and sociolinguistics. Rethinking social networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Røyneland, U. (2005). Dialektnivellering, ungdom og identitet. Ein komparativ analyse av språkleg variasjon og endring i to tilgrensande dialektområde, Røros og Tynset. PhD thesis, University of Oslo.

28. Torgersen, E. & Kerswill, P. (2004). Internal and external motivation in phonetic change: dialect levelling outcomes for an English vowel shift. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8: 23-53. Trudgill, P. (1999). ‘Norwich: endogenous and exogenous linguistic change’. In Foulkes, P. and Docherty, G. (eds.) Urban Voices, London: Arnold, 124-140. Trudgill, P. (2004). New-dialect formation. The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wells, J. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, A. & Kerswill, P. (1999). Dialect levelling: change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Foulkes P. & Docherty G. (eds.) Urban Voices, London: Arnold, 141-162.