Stepney, Mile End, Hackney, Whitechapel, Shoreditch, Poplar or Bow. Yet, Fox (2007; quoted in Nødtvedt, 2011) claims that Cockney has spread significantly ...
GRADO EN ESTUDIOS INGLESES
Received Pronunciation, Estuary English and Cockney: a study focused on l-vocalisation, th-fronting and t-glottaling
TRABAJO DE FIN DE GRADO REALIZADO POR
Manuel Moreno Falcón BAJO LA DIRECCIÓN DE
Dr. José Antonio Mompeán González
UNIVERSIDAD DE MURCIA Curso 2015/2016
Table of contents
Page
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………….
1
1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………...
1
2. WHAT IS AN ACCENT? ........................................................................................
2
2.1 Received Pronunciation, Estuary English and Cockney …………………. 2 2.2 Received Pronunciation, Estuary English and Cockney phonology …….. 6 3. METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………………
9
3.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses ………………………………………. 9 3.2 Informants ………………………………………………………………….. 10 3.3 Data …………………………………………………………………………... 10 3.4 Procedure ……………………………………………………………………. 11 3.5 The linguistic variables ……………………………………………………. . 11 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………....................... 12 4.1 L-vocalisation ……………………………………………………………….. 12 4.2 Th-fronting ………………………………………………………………….. 14 4.3 T-glottaling ……………………………………………………………………16 4.4 Regarding the Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................... 19 5. CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………………………... 20 References ……………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Abstract La propuesta de la existencia del Inglés Estuario a mediados de los 80 suscitó un gran interés no solo en el ámbito de la fonética, sino incluso en los medios de comunicación de toda Inglaterra. Consecuentemente, durante dos décadas hubo todo tipo de investigaciones que se centraron no sólo en este nuevo acento sino también en comparar y contrastar aquellos otros que la misma definición del Inglés Estuario incluía: Cockney y Pronunciación Recibida. Sin embargo, desde Przedlacka (2002) no ha habido ningún gran estudio centrado en los tres acentos: más bien han sido analizados de forma individual. Debido a esto, el autor de esta tesis llevó a cabo un estudio contrastivo entre los tres acentos centrándose en tres características de fonemas consonánticos: la realización labiodental de [ð] y [θ], la glotalización de [t] y la vocalización de [ɫ]. Para ello se seleccionaron nueve hablantes, tres por cada acento, se analizó su habla durante cinco minutos por hablante y se anotó en qué casos pronunciaban esas variables. Con ello, se buscó comprobar la frecuencia actual de las variables en cada acento y responder a una serie de preguntas de investigación. Este estudio sin embargo se limitó únicamente a analizar una pequeña muestra hombres adultos de raza blanca, por lo que los resultados obtenidos no se deben considerar representativos de los acentos sujetos a estudio.
1. Introduction The aim of this thesis is to study the current status of three accents spoken in the city of London, namely, Received Pronunciation, Cockney and Estuary English. These accents are said to be placed in a linguistic continuum with Received Pronunciation and Cockney at both ends and Estuary English in the middle (Coggle, 1993; Maidment, 1993; Rosewarne, 1984; 1994). However, despite the little agreement on the existence of Estuary English (Kamata, 2008), this dissertation will consider it as an actual accent which is also going to be subject to study. In order to analyse these three British accents, this thesis will present the results of a study focused on a specific number of consonantal features within each accent: t-glottaling, th-fronting and l-vocalisation, which will occur with some degree of frequency depending on the variety spoken. Hence, by analysing the speech of nine participants divided into three groups and comparing their speech, this dissertation will intend to measure the current patterning of the three consonantal variables within each accent as other linguists such as Altendorf (1999) or Przedlacka (2002) have done before. Besides, this dissertation will also try to address questions such as what features best mark the boundaries between these varieties, to what end of the continuum Estuary English is closer or the status of t-glottaling
1
and l-vocalisation within RP. In addition, the study will be carried out by considering several hypotheses that can be distilled from the literature since the 90s.
2. What is an accent? In sociolinguistics, according to Chambers and Trudgill (1980: 5), an accent refers to the way in which a speaker pronounces. Therefore, accents are exclusively concerned with pronunciation and this is what distinguishes them from dialects, which also include lexical and grammatical differences (Trudgill, 1974: 5).1 In this sense, Figure 1 below shows several examples of the pronunciation of the word home in different accents: Edinburgh Newcastle Liverpool Bradford
[he:m]
[hiem]
[oʊm]
[ɔ:m]
Dudley
Norwich
London
[wʊm]
[ʊm]
[ӕʊm]
[jem] Figure 1. Local-accent pronunciation of (Trudgill, 1974: 32).
In these cases, what the different variants reveal is where the speakers come from, being thus ‘powerful indicators of geographical identity’ (Wells, 1982: 8). Besides, apart from their origin, thanks to accents people provide clues about their sociolinguistic identity (Trudgill, 1974: 2). That means that the analysis of one's accent is directly associated with questions such as gender, ethnicity, social class, social context, age, etc. so their study has proven very useful in many fields of sociolinguistics. 2.1 Received Pronunciation, Cockney and Estuary English The term Received Pronunciation (RP henceforth) was first coined by Ellis (1869: quoted in Lillo, 1999), but it has been given many names throughout its history, such as BBC Pronunciation (Roach, 2011) or the Queen’s English (Collins and Mees, 2003: 4), even though her accent is said to have changed throughout time (Crystal, n.d.; Harrington et al, 2000). Nowadays, RP is also the standard variety used at schools in Europe in Second Language Teaching (Przedlacka and Dziubalska-Kołacyk, 2005: 2). According to Ellis (1896), RP stood for the accent of the upper-class, but Wells (1982), who uses the term 1
Yet, some linguists argue that there is no difference whatsoever between both terms (López Morales, 1989; quoted in Hernández-Campoy, 1993: 112).
2
Southern British Standard (Wells & Colson, 1971), opted for another definition: RP is the accent of the educated people in Britain2 and it is associated with the upper and uppermiddle classes. Therefore, as opposed to Ellis’ definition, RP can no longer be said to be the accent of a particular class (Ramsaran, 1990: 178) since its speakers are ‘just as likely to come from the upper as the middle class’ (Przedlacka and Dziubalska-Kołacyk, 2005: 8). As for Estuary English (EE henceforth), it is worth mentioning that it is a recent development whose denomination was first coined by Rosewarne (1984). He defined it as a variety of modified regional speech which contains both standard and local southeastern English features and which emerged from a continuum between RP and London speech. One of the reasons behind its diffusion could be the wish of both RP and Cockney speakers to disguise their speech by introducing features of the other accent so as to avoid being associated with the ideas and values both accents carry in themselves (Coggle, 1993: 24; quoted in Lillo, 1999: 4). As a result, ‘there is a confluence of two social trends: an upmarket movement of Cockney speakers, and a down market trend towards an ‘ordinary’ (as opposed to posh) speech by the middle class’ (Crystal, 1995: 327), as illustrated in Figure 2 below. It is in this confluence where EE speakers are to be found (Rosewarne, 1984). The mixture of this accent has led to little agreement on its properties or even its existence (Kamata, 2008: 11). For instance, Roach (2011: 29) states that such accent does not exist; Maidment (1994) saw it like a ‘down market RP’ or a ‘posh Cockney’, and if he were to name it, he would ironically use the term ‘Post-Modern English’. Wells (1999), on the other hand, defines it as a ‘Standard English spoken with the accent of the southeast of England’, which would entail that, unlike Cockney, it is a standard variety and, unlike RP, can be localised in the South East of England.
Figure 2. Graphic of the continuum according to Rosewarne (1984; adapted from Lillo, 1999: 5).
Cockney, on the other hand, stands for the basilectal speech of London’s working class (Cruttenden, 2001: 86; Wells, 1982). Apart from its unique phonology, it has got its
2
Yet, Wells (1982) states that there are many exceptions.
3
own grammar and vocabulary, including the famous rhyming slang (Cruttenden, 2001; Wells, 2004). That means that Cockney is a dialect, unlike RP or EE, which are accents.3 As for their geographical distribution, RP can be largely found in England (Trudgill, 1974: 7-8) so it cannot be linked to any particular geographical region, being thus a ‘regionally neutral’ accent (Przedlacka and Dziubalska-Kołacyk, 2005: 8). However, it is claimed that most of its speakers are to be found in the South of England (Roach, 2004). Cockney and EE can be located in the South as well; the former, for instance, is found in the East End of London (Wells, 1982: 302), that is, districts such as Bethnal Green, Stepney, Mile End, Hackney, Whitechapel, Shoreditch, Poplar or Bow. Yet, Fox (2007; quoted in Nødtvedt, 2011) claims that Cockney has spread significantly within London and now it cannot be limited to the innermost suburbs of the East of the capital as Wells stated. EE, as its name suggests, can be located by the banks of the river Thames (Rosewarne, 1984), although later studies have demonstrated the existence of EE features in towns far away from the Thames, such as Milton Keynes (Kerswill & Williams, 2002; quoted in Haenni, 1999). That is why Wells (1999) opts for the definition ‘Standard English spoken with the accent of the southeast of England’, which does not reveal many details about its geographical distribution. Regarding their social perception, the traditional association of RP to prestige and high class places it at the top of a sociolinguistic pyramid (Trudgill, 1974: 31), turning it into an acrolect, as illustrated in Figure 3 below. Hence, anywhere in England are found a vast range of accents extending from RP, the most prestigious form of speech, down to the broadest local accents, named basilects, like Cockney (Cruttenden, 2001: 86; Wells, 1982). Meanwhile, in the middle ground there are mesolects, such as EE (Rosewarne, 1984).
3
Yet, Rosewarne (1994) and Crystal (1995) stated that they noticed some lexical differences within EE that do not happen in RP, like the use of cheers instead of thank you, although that is questioned by Wells (1994b).
4
Figure 3. Sociolinguistic Pyramid (Collins and Mees 2003: 3).
RP being at the top of the pyramid makes people perceive it as better on attributes such as ‘communicative effectiveness, social status and pleasant of sound’ over the rest of non-standard accents (Honey, 1989: 58), and it can even provide its speakers with social advantages (Giles et al., 1990). In addition, RP speakers tend to be associated to qualities such as competence, reliability or confidence but are also thought to be less friendly or honest than speakers with local accents (Giles, 1971); this may explain, for example, why there are so many villains in Hollywood speaking RP (Trudgill, 2001), such as Peter Cushing in Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope (1977). As for Cockney, it has traditionally been despised and rejected by the English-speaking world. For example, Trudgill and Giles (1978) carried out an experiment in which people rated 10 different British English accents on a pleasant-unpleasant dimension, and the results showed that people tended to regard RP as aesthetically more pleasant than the rest, as opposed to Cockney, which was at the bottom of the accents studied.4 Yet, there is evidence that some of the features Cockney possesses (like glottal stops or l-vocalisation) and that have made it to be highly stigmatised are spreading now into other accents, even the most conservative ones such as RP (Wells, 1994). Accordingly, this explains the trend towards final/prevocalic [i], t-glottaling, l-vocalisation, tapping or yodcoalescence in RP, which could be an omen of traditional vulgarisms becoming respectable (Wells, 1994: 3). It also shows that RP is constantly evolving (Przedlacka and DziubalskaKołacyk, 2005: 2). However, the incorporation of all these features does not necessarily 4
This is explained by the ‘inherent value’ hypothesis (Giles et al., 1979; quoted in Trudgill, 1974: 8), which states that some varieties are perceived as ‘more attractive and pleasant’ than others.
5
mean RP is disappearing or turning into another accent losing all its identity as some claim (Trudgill, 2001); for instance, Morrish (1999) stated that RP was even in danger of extinction as it was ‘rejected by his owners and threatened by rougher accents off the streets’. As for EE, Maidment (1994) states that a great part of the British public opinion rejected it saying, for example, that it was only lazy speaking or that its spreading was terrifying. However, it enjoys great popularity among youngsters because it has a ‘streetcred,’ which makes them sound more ordinary than they really are when speaking RP (Coggle, 1993). Besides, speaking EE would not link them to the ‘Establishment’ RP is associated with (Gimson, 1980: 86; quoted in Przedlacka and Dziubalska-Kołacyk, 2005: 9). As a whole, adolescents think that by speaking EE they cannot be associated to either the traditionally approved mainstream branch (RP) nor the rebellious non-mainstream one (Cockney), and there lies its popularity (Haenni, 1999: 51). 2.2 Received Pronunciation, Cockney and Estuary English Phonology As for the phonology of these British accents, the most noticeable differences between RP, Cockney and EE vowel system can be found in the realisation of the diphthongs in the FACE, PRICE, GOAT and MOUTH lexical sets (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994b). On the one hand, Cockney agrees with EE in the first three lexical sets, which would be pronounced [ʌɪ], [ɑɪ], [ʌʊ] instead of the RP forms /eɪ/, /aɪ/, /əʊ/ respectively (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994b). However, the three accents seem to differ in the realisation of the MOUTH lexical set: /aʊ/ in RP (Wells, 1982: 120) and [æʊ] in EE (Wells, 1994b), while in the broadest form of Cockney even the monophthong [æː] can be found (Wells, 1982: 309). Besides, there are also other Cockney vowel realisations which have been recently incorporated or are about to be so in RP (Wells, 1997a; 1994a). The most noticeable could probably be happy tensing, which also happens in EE. That entails that the final /ɪ/ in words such as happy, lucky or coffee acquires a closer quality: [i] or [i:] (Wells, 1982: 258). Another innovation in RP fostered by Cockney is the pronunciation of the diphthong [ɒʊ] instead of /əʊ/ before before dark /l/ ([ɫ]) (Wells, 1997a), so [gɒʊl] in goal could be found instead of /gəʊl/. Since in EE the realisation of /əʊ/ corresponds to the diphthong [ʌʊ], this change has not been incorporated to its system. Other RP vowels which are undergoing qualitative changes are those found in the GOOSE and FOOT lexical 6
sets, /u:/ and /ʊ/ respectively (Wells, 1997a). As a result, now it is possible to find words like spoon (traditionally /u:/) pronounced with a sound quite close to /ɪ/, or good /ˈgʊd/ with a schwa-like sound. Regarding the consonantal features these accents share, maybe the most obvious ones are t-glottaling and l-vocalisation (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994b). On the one hand, in RP more glottal stops [ʔ] can be found replacing [t] in word absolute final position, as in [raɪʔ] right or in final position even when the following word begins with a vowel, as in [kwaɪʔ ˈi:zi] quite easy (Wells, 1997). This phenomenon is said to happen in EE as well (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994b), and in Cockney it is extremely common (Hughes & Trudgill, 1996: 70). Actually, Cockney speakers even use [ʔ] in intervocalic positions (Wells, 1982: 324), so words like butter, water or better would be pronounced [ˈbʌʔə], [ˈwɒʔə] and [ˈbeʔə] respectively, while an EE or RP speaker would not use glottal stops in such environments (Coggle, 1993: 41; Wells, 1997a) unless his or her speech were very close to the Cockney end of the continuum (Crystal, 1995: 327). Cockney speakers also use glottal stops instead of [p] or [k] and also accompanying [p] between vowels, as in [ˈstɒʔpɪn], stopping (Hughes & Trudgill, 1996: 70). On the other hand, the next shared phenomenon is l-vocalisation, which consists in the vocalisation of dark /l/, [ɫ], into [o] or [ʊ], so words like milk, traditionally pronounced [mɪɫk] may in turn be uttered [mɪok] (Wells, 1997a), This recent phenomenon is responsible for the creation of new diphthongs, such as [ɪʊ] or [ɛʊ] (Wells, 1982: 259). However, the frequency of these features in speech in not the same, that is, an EE speaker is expected to use fewer glottal stops than a Cockney speaker (Rosewarne, 1994: 5), and the same would stand for l-vocalisation (Haenni, 1999: 18). On the other hand, RP shows a smaller amount of these variables in speech when compared to EE or Cockney (Przedlacka, 2001; 2002). Another variable the three accents have in common is yod-coalescence (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994b), which consists in the fusion of [d] and [j] or [t] and [j] to produce [dʒ] and [tʃ] respectively (Crystal, 2008: 82). This phenomenon, which had previously appeared in RP in unstressed syllables, is now being extended to stressed ones as well (as happens with Cockney and EE), so we may find [ˈtʃu:zdeɪ] and [dʒu:k] instead of the traditional forms [ˈtju:zdeɪ] and [dju:k] for Tuesday and duke (Wells, 1997a). Again, there are more occurrences of this variable in EE or Cockney than in RP (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994b).
7
However, in the broadest form of Cockney there are some variables not expected to happen in either RP or EE (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994a; 1994b). Maybe the most obvious one is the phenomenon known as th-fronting, that is the replacement of the dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ by labiodental fricative /f/ and /v/ respectively, creating pairs of homophones like thin and fin, both [fɪn] (Wells, 1982: 328). The contrast between /ð/ and /v/ is lost only word-medially, as in [təˈgevə] instead of [təˈgeðə] for together, and wordfinally, like in [bʌɪv] instead of [beɪð] in bathe. On the other hand, the contrast between /θ/ and /f/ is also lost word-initially, medially and finally, as in [fɪim] instead of [θiːm] for theme (Hughes & Trudgill, 1996: 71). Another variable restricted to Cockney is h-dropping in content words (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994a; 1994b), which consists in the replacement of word initial [h] by ∅ or [ʔ] which would create certain pairs of homophones such as hedge and edge [edʒ], heat and eat [ɪiʔ] or hall and all [oːl] (Wells, 1982: 253). In Cockney it is almost invariably absent, being however more likely to happen in stressed syllables (Hughes & Trudgill, 1996: 70). Besides, there is a tendency to replace the velar nasal /ŋ/ with /n/ in final position in words like loving, [ˈlʌvɪn] or coming, [ˈkʌmɪn], typically spelled with -in’: runnin’, comin’ (Wells, 1982: 262). Other words like nothing or something can be heard in Cockney ending in [ɪŋk] (Hughes & Trudgill, 1996: 71). Finally, in Cockney, voiceless plosives /p, t, k/ can be heavily aspirated word-initially ([pʰʌɪ] for pay), word-finally ([rɒkʰ] for rock) or in intervocalic environments ([ˈʌpʰə] for upper). They can also be affricated in the same environments ([tsɪi] for tea, [aːʔts] for art and [ˈbetsi] for Betty, respectively) and that happens with voiced plosives as well ([bædz] for bad) (Wells, 1982: 322-23). In addition, Rosewarne (1984; 1994) and Coggle (1993) discussed some other features which are said to be unique to EE, such as the realisation of /r/, where ‘the tip of the tongue is lowered and the central part raised to a position close to, but not touching, the soft palate’ (Rosewarne, 1984). Yet, as a whole, all the phonological characteristics of EE can be found in RP or Cockney, and those ones claimed to be exclusive to EE are very ‘dubious’ (Maidment, 1994). Once again, there is little consensus in its phonology (Kamata, 2008: 11) and in fact, the only variables linguists agree on are those of t-glottaling and l-vocalisation (Altendorf, 1999: 4).
8
3. Methodology This thesis consists in a study of the main accents spoken in the city of London by measuring the occurrence of three consonantal variables, namely, l-vocalisation, t-glottaling and th-fronting, which, depending on the accent, will appear with more or less frequency. Accordingly, we will explore whether these variables occur with more or less the same degree of frequency as has been described in the literature or if there have been any recent changes. So as to carry out such study, we will analyse the speech of three informants per accent.
3.1 Research Questions (Q) and Hypotheses (H) This study will consider the following questions and hypotheses: Q1: What variables can serve as boundary markers between each accent? Q2: Is EE closer to the RP or Cockney end of the continuum? Q3: Have features like t-glottaling or l-vocalisation become well-established within RP?
Regarding Q1: H1. The frequency in speech of l-vocalisation and t-glottaling will mark the boundaries between the three accents. Besides, th-fronting and intervocalic t-glottaling will mark the boundary between Cockney on the one hand and EE/RP on the other. More specifically, thfronting and intervocalic t-glottaling within the same word will only be found in Cockney (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994a; 1994b). Regarding Q2: H2. EE will fall in the middle of the linguistic contiunuum when it comes to the patterning of l-vocalisation or t-glottaling (Coggle, 1993; Rosewarne, 1984; 1994).
Regarding Q3: H3. L-vocalisation and t-glottaling will keep on making their way into RP (Cruttenden, 2001; Wells, 1994a; 1997a).
9
3.2 Informants The informants studied in this dissertation are white male adults aged 33 to 58 who were born in London or have been living in the city for a long time (case of S.2, S.4 and S.5). The accent of the S.1, S.2 and S.3 is described as RP by the phonetician John Christopher Wells (2008; 2011), and that is why they were chosen for this study. As for S.4, S.5, S.6, S.7, S.8 and S.9, they were chosen by the author of this dissertation after having listened to several audio samples and deciding they were representative of EE or Cockney. Their data are provided in Figure 4 below.
Accent
Received Pronunciation
Estuary English
Cockney
Speaker
Age
Interview
Place of Birth
S.1
49
2016
Inner-London (Marylebone)
S.2
51
2016
Manhattan
S.3
58
2014
London
S.4
54
2016
Reading
S.5
37
2014
Essex
S.6
50
2010
Central London (St. Pancras)
S.7
33
2014
East End of London (Stepney)
S.8
49
2011
East End of London (Whitechapel)
S.9
54
2011
East End of London (Hackney)
Figure 4. Speakers’ data
3.3 Data The data were collected from 5-minute audio samples and interviews which were found on the Internet in the form of TV or radio programmes (see References). As a whole, S.1, S.2, 10
S.3 and S.7 were interviewed in a formal context, while S.6 in a rather informal one. S.4, S.8 and S.9 were delivering comic monologues and S.5’s audio sample consists in an informal conversation with a partner.
3.4 Procedure Once the fragments were selected, they were transcribed in order to have a written reference throughout the whole analysis. Afterwards, the author selected those tokens (N) which could potentially have th-fronting, l-vocalisation or t-glottaling out of each transcript. After having carefully listened to the audios, the author wrote down those who presented those variables and those who did not and quantified them. The results were later on jotted down in tables so as to study the results and compare them. The accent of reference when analysing the data was RP all along. 3.5 The linguistic variables5 L-Vocalisation The tokens collected for this variable were those where we would expect the realisation of dark /l/, [ɫ]: in prepausal environments, as in a meal. or when followed by a consonant, as in still not. The analysis will consider either [ɫ] or its vocalised counterparts, [o] or [ʊ]. Th-Fronting For the analysis of this variable, the tokens selected were those spelled with
, which in RP would present realisations with /θ/ or /ð/. However, since the realisation of
as /v/ does not take place word-initially, those lexical items beginning in
and pronounced /ð/ (i.e. the) will not be considered. Other realisations (th-stopping or glottal stops) will not studied in this dissertation so all tokens will be analysed as either /θ/-/ð/ or [f]-[v]. T-Glottaling To study the patterning of this variable, the tokens collected were those where the use of a glottal stop [ʔ] instead of [t] would be expected: intervocalic positions as in better and word medially and finally, as in Gatwick or fight. Hence, the variables of this section will be analysed as either [t] or [ʔ].
5
The study of the linguistic variables follows the quantitative analysis which Nødtvedt (2011) carried out with his Cockney speakers.
11
4. Results and Discussion 4.1 L-Vocalisation The data on l-vocalisation for the different speakers and groups are shown down below in Table 1. Figure 5 below also shows the data per speaker and accent group. Finally, Table 2 shows the overall data for the three groups. To start with, as illustrated in Figure 5 below, l-vocalisation seems to be well established in the three accents, although its frequency varies depending on the accent. As expected, RP speakers do not vocalise dark /l/, [ɫ], as much as EE or Cockney speakers, who prefer the use of a vowel ([o] or [ʊ]) in the majority of cases (both groups vocalising over 56% of the cases). Finally, Cockney informants vocalised [ɫ] at the highest rate, scoring l-vocalisation in 92% of the cases.
Speaker
N
[o],[ʊ]
[ɫ]
L-vocalisation %
S.1
62
16
46
26%
S.2
38
6
32
16%
S.3
40
10
30
25%
S.4
64
36
28
56%
S.5
28
22
6
79%
S.6
31
21
10
68%
S.7
28
24
4
86%
S.8
36
32
4
89%
S.9
25
25
0
100%
22%
RP
68%
EE
92%
Cockney
Table 1. L-vocalisation for each speaker and accent.
12
Figure 5. Percentage score of l-vocalisation in each speaker.
Accent
N
[o],[ʊ]
[ɫ]
L-vocalisation %
RP
141
32
109
22%
EE
123
79
44
68%
Cockney
89
81
8
92%
Table 2. L-vocalisation: average scores for each accent.
By looking at the scores of RP, the low-rate results (vocalising [ɫ] in 22% of the tokens) suggest that l-vocalisation has not become a well-established change in RP yet. However, as Wells (1982: 259) predicted, it is starting to find its way into RP (see discussion in Cruttenden, 2001: 82; Wells, 1994a; 1997a). Actually, l-vocalisation was described in the literature as a feature that could be found in the speech of some RP speakers (Cruttenden, 2001; Wells, 1994a). For instance, in her study, Altendorf (1999) concluded that l-vocalisation could be found in the ‘realm of RP’. This innovation may be fostered by Cockney, which is believed to be ‘the most influential source of innovation in England’ (Wells, 1982: 301). Moreover, there are other studies carried out with younger RP informants that show a higher patterning of l-vocalisation in their speech (Altendorf, 1999; Przedlacka, 2001). Hence, since adolescents usually lead the age spectrum in sound change (Eckert, 1996), RP 13
is very likely to continue experiencing an increase in the use of this variable in future years (Altendorf, 1999). The results also resemble those obtained by Przedlacka (2001), where her RP speakers realised fewer tokens with vocalised [ɫ] than those ones believed to be EE speakers (34% and 77% of the cases, respectively). As for EE, the results suggest that l-vocalisation is a well-established consonantal feature as Rosewarne (1984) first noted. Besides, the scores of EE speakers correspond to the descriptions of Rosewarne (1984; 1994) and Coggle (1993), which state that, in the continuum between RP and Cockney, EE would fall in the middle. Accordingly, the EE informants of this study have obtained a higher score of [ɫ] as [o] or [ʊ] than those informants of RP (68% and 22% respectively), but, at the same time, lower than Cockney speakers (with a score of 92%). Interestingly, the data obtained also suggest that EE seems to be closer to the Cockney end of the continuum than to RP’s: EE speakers pronounce [o] or [ʊ] instead of [ɫ] double as much as the RP informants, while the gap between the EE and Cockney scores is not so significant. This resembles the results obtained by Altendorf (1999), where the gap between RP and EE was also quite significant when compared with the one between EE and Cockney. Finally, Cockney shows the highest scores in speech of this variable, with a 92% of the tokens pronounced with [o] or [ʊ], which is not surprising given that this consonantal feature is believed to be a traditional Cockney feature (Wells, 1982). As a whole, l-vocalisation can be thus seen in London as a boundary marker between RP, EE and Cockney. This is quite noticeable with RP speakers, who use the vocalised variable much less frequently than EE or Cockney speakers. At the same time, although the gap between EE and Cockney in terms of score is not so significant, it can still be used as a boundary marker between the two accents.
4.2 Th-fronting The data on th-fronting for the different speakers and groups are displayed below in Table 3. Figure 6 below also shows the data per speaker and accent group and Table 4 presents the overall data for the three groups. In this sense, Table 4 below suggests that this variable is non-existent in both RP and EE while in Cockney is widely found, giving an average score of 87%. This is in fact not surprising given that, according to the descriptions provided by the literature, EE should 14
agree with RP and differ from Cockney in lacking this feature (Crystal, 1995; Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1992; 1994b). The phenomenon of th-fronting is in fact a highly stigmatised consonantal feature, and it is mostly found in Cockney (Rosewarne, 1984; Wells, 1994b; quoted in Eriksen, 2015), so that could be the reason for which EE and RP speakers reject this variable in their speech.
Speaker
N
[θ] - [ð]
[f] - [v]
Th-fronting %
S.1
39
39
0
0%
S.2
25
25
0
0%
S.3
33
33
0
0%
S.4
19
19
0
0%
S.5
27
27
0
0%
S.6
27
27
0
0%
S.7
41
1
40
98%
S.8
26
5
21
81%
S.9
26
5
21
81%
0%
RP
0%
EE
87%
Cockney
Table 3. Th-fronting for each speaker and accent.
Figure 6. Percentage score of th-fronting in each speaker.
15
Accent
N
[θ] - [ð]
[f] - [v]
Th-fronting %
RP
97
97
0
0%
EE
73
73
0
0%
Cockney
93
11
82
87%
Table 4. Th-fronting: average scores for each accent.
Interestingly, Altendorf (1999) also obtained similar results when studying the data collected from her informants for th-fronting. At the end, she concluded that this variable was quite common with the working class and ‘extremely rare in other social accents’, although the data suggested that it could be making its way into EE. As a whole, the results suggest that th-fronting is a change firmly resisted by RP and EE, and can thus serve as a boundary marker between them and Cockney, whose speakers pronounced /f/ or /v/ in over 81% of the cases. Nevertheless, it cannot be used to distinguish RP speakers from EE’s, since both accents scored 0% in this study.
4.3 T-glottaling The data on t-glottaling for the different speakers and groups are presented below in Table 5. Figure 7 below also shows the data per speaker and accent group. Finally, Table 6 displays the overall data for the three groups. To begin with, as illustrated in Figure 7, this variable is present in the three accents, though its patterning can vary according to the speaker. Accordingly, RP speakers used fewer glottal stops than the EE informants, replacing [t] with [ʔ] in 21% and 33% of the cases, respectively. Finally, Cockney speakers glottalised /t/ at the highest rate, using [ʔ] in over 70% of the cases.
Speaker
N
[t]
[ʔ]
T-glottaling %
S.1
182
148
34
19%
S.2
149
111
38
26%
21%
RP
16
S.3
161
131
30
19%
S.4
148
91
57
39%
S.5
100
63
37
37%
S.6
126
97
29
23%
S.7
117
34
83
71%
S.8
151
41
110
73%
S.9
94
23
71
76%
33%
EE
73%
Cockney
Table 5. T-glottaling for each speaker and accent.
Figure 7. Percentage score of t-glottaling in each speaker.
Accent
N
[t]
[ʔ]
T-glottaling %
RP
492
390
102
21%
EE
374
251
123
33%
Cockney
362
98
264
73%
Table 8. T-Glottaling: average scores for each accent.
Once again, the data match the descriptions provided by the literature. In the case of RP, the use of glottal stops instead of [t] in over 20% of the cases suggests that this change 17
is becoming (if it is not already) a well-established feature. For instance, some tokens such as it might, Britain or absolutely were pronounced as [ɪʔ ˈmaɪt], [ˈbɹɪʔn] and [ˈæbsəluːʔli], respectively6. Actually, t-glottaling is an innovation that already occurred in RP in the midtwentieth century7 (Wells, 1997a; see discussion in Collins and Mees, 1996) and its increasing use is probably fostered by Cockney, which is considered a source of phonological innovation in the whole English-speaking world (Hernández Campoy, 1999; Wells, 1994a; 1982). In fact, t-glottaling is considered a consonantal feature commonly found in RP (Honey, 1989; Ramsaran, 1990; Roach, 1983; quoted in Collins and Mees, 1993). Besides, recent studies carried out with younger RP informants like that of Altendorf (1999) show higher patternings of this variable in their speech, so this feature will probably spread to a greater extent within RP in future years. As for EE, its speakers used more glottal stops than the RP informants, and fewer than the Cockney speakers, which corresponds with the definitions of Rosewarne (1984; 1994) and Coggle (1993). Therefore, EE falls once more in the middle of the London’s accent continuum. Interestingly, and unlike with the patterning of l-vocalisation, the widest gap is found between EE and Cockney, not between RP and EE. Therefore EE is found closer to the RP end of the continuum when it comes to the patterning of t-glottaling, which was also suggested by Altendorf (1999). The results obtained by Przedlacka (2002) with teenager students also showed a similar patterning (32%) and it placed EE between RP and Cockney too. However, the slight difference in score between RP and EE (around 10%) can still be used as a boundary marker between the two accents. However, as illustrated in Figure 8 below, all EE speakers used at least one glottal stop in intervocalic position within a word, which contradicts what has been described in the literature (Altendorf, 1999; Coggle, 1993; Maidment, 1994; Rosewarne, 1984; Wells, 1992; 1994a; 1994b). This may be because these speakers were rather close to the Cockney end of the continuum (Crystal, 1995). However, with the exception of S.4, the frequency in speech of this feature in such environments would serve as a boundary marker between the two accents since it is not so great in EE as it is in Cockney, where these types of glottal stops are quite common (Cruttenden, 2001; Wells, 1982).
6
The use of glottal stops in such environments in RP is described by linguists like Wells (1982: 260) or Cruttenden (2001: 174). 7 Collins and Mees (1996: 185) state that it was already present by the latter half of the 19th century.
18
Figure 8. Percentage score of glottal stops in intervocalic position within a word in each speaker.
As for Cockney, it not surprising that its speakers used glottal stops in over 70% of the tokens, since t-glottaling is a well-known Cockney feature (Cruttenden, 2001; Hughes & Trudgill, 1996; Maidment, 1993; Roach, 2002; Wells, 1982). The results resemble those obtained by Nødtvedt (2011), whose adult informants also replaced [t] by a glottal stop at similar rates (70%). Besides, as illustrated in Figure 8 above, the scores for t-glottaling in intervocalic position within the same word were also very high (an average score of 89% of the cases realised with [ʔ]). This is in fact not surprising since the use of glottal stops in such environments is commonly found in Cockney (Cruttenden, 2001; Hughes and Trudgill, 1996; Wells, 1982). The other tokens that were not pronounced with [ʔ] in those positions were numbers such as thirty or eighty or words where they opted for an alveolar tap, as in [ˈgɒɾə] or [juːnɪˈvɜːsəɾi] for gotta and university. As it was suggested above when discussing the results for l-vocalisation, t-glottaling can also mark the boundaries between RP, EE and Cockney in London, but in this case, the widest gap is found between EE and Cockney, not between RP and EE. However, the slight difference in score between RP and EE can still be used as a boundary marker between the two accents.
4.4 Regarding the Research Questions (Q) and Hypotheses (H) Summing up, the hypothesis formulated for Q1 (‘i.e. What variables can serve as boundary markers between each accent?’) is partly confirmed. H1 predicted that the frequency in speech of l-vocalisation and t-glottaling would mark the boundaries between the three 19
varieties. Besides, it was said that th-fronting and intervocalic t-glottaling would mark the boundary between Cockney on the one hand and EE/RP on the other (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994a; 1994b). In this sense, Cockney showed the highest scores for both lvocalisation and t-glottaling, followed by EE and, finally, RP. Therefore, the frequency in speech of these variables can be said to be the boundary marker between the three accents. Furthermore, as described by the literature (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994a; 1994b), thfronting was only found in Cockney. Yet, H1 is rejected at the same time since the EE informants of this dissertation used glottal stops replacing [t] in intervocalic positions within the same word in almost 50% of the cases. This case is explained by Crystal (1995), who suggests that the use this feature by EE speakers in such environments would mean that they are really close to the Cockney end of the linguistic continuum. Moreover, as for Q2 (‘i.e. Is EE closer to the RP or Cockney end of the continuum?’), the hypothesis considered (H2) was that EE would fall in the middle when it comes to the patterning of either l-vocalisation or t-glottaling (Coggle, 1993; Rosewarne, 1984; 1994). Interestingly, EE speakers were found closer to the RP end in the scores of tglottaling (21% for RP and 33% for EE), and at the same time, closer to the Cockney end in the patterning of l-vocalisation (68% for EE and 92% for Cockney). Hence, H2 has been confirmed since EE in fact fell on the middle in both cases. Finally, regarding Q3 (‘i.e. Have features like t-glottaling or l-vocalisation become well-established within RP?’), H3 suggested that l-vocalisation or t-glottaling would be found in RP as a result of the spread of these consonantal variables into it throughout the last decades (Cruttenden, 2001; Wells, 1994a; 1997a). Accordingly, since the RP informants of this dissertation showed good scores for both variables (22% and 21% respectively), this hypothesis has been confirmed.
5. Conclusions The aim of this dissertation was to study the patterning of th-fronting, t-glottaling and lvocalisation in RP, EE and Cockney. With this, it was intended to measure the frequency in speech of these consonantal variables within each accent and to address some research questions (Q1, Q2, Q3). Besides, some hypotheses were considered so as to answer these questions (H1, H2, H3).
20
In order to do so, a group of nine white male adults aged 33 to 58 and thought to be representative of either RP, EE or Cockney was selected. From each speaker, a 5 minuteaudio sample collected from TV programs or radio podcasts was then obtained. This was later transcribed so as to have a written reference throughout the whole process. Once that had been done, the audio samples were listened to and those cases where the variables were used were jotted down and transferred to charts. As for the results, the data obtained showed that RP, EE and Cockney agreed in having t-glottaling and l-vocalisation even though its patterning varied according to the accent. In this way, Cockney presented the highest scores for t-glottaling and l-vocalisation, followed by the EE and, lastly, RP. Accordingly, the frequency in speech of both variables could be used to mark the boundaries between each accent, which would answer Q1 (‘i.e. What variables can serve as boundary markers between each accent?’). Since th-fronting was only used by the Cockney informants, it could just mark the boundaries between Cockney and EE or RP, but not distinguish between the last two (H1). Interestingly, it was noticed that EE was closer to the Cockney end of the continuum when it came to the patterning of l-vocalisation, whereas with t-glottaling EE appeared to be closer to the RP end, which answered Q2 (‘i.e. Is EE closer to the RP or Cockney end of the continuum?’). The data also suggested that, even though l-vocalisation and t-glottaling keep on finding their way into the realm of RP (around 20% of cases where t-glottaling was used), they have not become well-established features in RP just yet, which addresses Q3 (‘i.e. Have features like t-glottaling or l-vocalisation become well-established within RP?’). As for the Hypotheses (H1, H2, H3) considered at the beginning of this study, it was demonstrated that EE would fall in the middle when it comes to the patterning of lvocalisation or t-glottaling (H2) as suggested by Coggle (1993) and Rosewarne (1984; 1994). Besides, the fact that the RP speakers of this dissertation used l-vocalisation and tglottaling in over 20% of the cases confirmed that these consonantal features keep on making their way into RP (H3) as previously stated by linguists like Wells (1994a; 1997a) or Cruttenden (2001). This could be read as traditional Cockney features finally starting to lose the stigma attached to them. Accordingly, in the long run, it is predicted that these feature will happen more frequently in their speech. This also means that, like every accent, RP is constantly evolving (Przedlacka, 2005) and it is incorporating more and more new features (see Wells, 1994a), so it needs to be updated in the literature from time to time, as stated by Wells (1999). However, th-fronting was only heard in the speech of the Cockney 21
speakers, suggesting that it is still confined to Cockney (H1) (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994a; 1994b). Interestingly, the fact that the EE informants of this study used glottal stops in intervocalic position within the same word partly rejected H1 (‘i.e. th-fronting and intervocalic t-glottaling will mark the boundary between Cockney on the one hand and EE/RP on the other. More specifically, th-fronting and intervocalic t-glottaling within the same word will only be found in Cockney’) and thus contradicted what has been described in the literature (Maidment, 1994; Wells, 1994a; 1994b). This could have happened because of the proximity of these speakers to the Cockney end of the continuum (Crystal, 1995), but that cannot the case since, regarding the scores for t-glottaling, EE was closer to the RP end of the continuum. In this sense, this study suggested that t-glottaling in such environments has spread into EE. Whether this feature will continue to make its way into EE is an issue which only future studies will confirm or reject. Actually, given the limited scope of this dissertation, a more in-depth and extensive research would be necessary to accurately measure the patterning of these variables. For instance, this study only considered data from (nine) male adults, leaving aside youngsters and women. Besides, only a five-minute fragment from each speaker was analysed, which does not comprise a large sample and cannot thus be considered representative of the speech of that person. Hence, even though the results discussed in this dissertation seem logical and correspond with many of the descriptions provided by the literature, it should not be taken for granted that what they suggest is representative of the speech of London.
22
References
Altendorf, U. (1999). Estuary English: is English going Cockney? Moderna Språk, 93(1), 1-11. Chambers, J. K., & Trudgill, P. (1980). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coggle, P. (1993). Do you speak Estuary? The new standard English. London: Bloomsbury. Collins, B. & Mees, I.M. (1996). Spreading everywhere? How recent a phenomenon is glottalisation in Received Pronunciation? English World-Wide, 17, 175-187. Collins, B., & Mees, I. M. (2003). Practical phonetics and phonology: a resource book for students. London: Routledge. Cruttenden, A. (2001). Gimson's pronunciation of English. London: Arnold. Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell. Crystal, D. (n.d.). The Queen and us. Retrieved December 11, 2015, from Eckert, P. (1996). Age as a sociolinguistic variable. The handbook of sociolinguistics, ed. Florian
Culmas,
151-167.
Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ellis, A. (1869). On early English pronunciation. London: The Early English Text Society. Fox, S. (2007). The demise of Cockneys? Language change in London’s traditional East End. PhD dissertation. University of Essex. Giles, H. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in reactions to RP, South Welsh and Somerset accented speech. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(3), 280-1. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. & Davies, A. (1979). Prestige speech styles: the imposed norm and inherent-value hypotheses. In McCormack, W.C. & Wurm, S. A. (eds.), Language and society: anthropological issues, 589-596. The Hague: Mouton. Giles, H., Coupland, N., Henwood, K., Harriman, J. & Coupland, J. (1990). The social meaning of RP: an intergenerational perspective. In Ramsaran, S. (ed.) Studies in
23
the Pronunciation of English: A Commemorative Volume in Honour of A. C. Gimson, 191-211. London: Routledge. Gimson, A. C. (1980). An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: E. Arnold. Haenni, R. (1999). The case of Estuary English: supposed evidence and a perceptual approach.
MA
thesis.
University
of
Basel
Harrington, J., Palethorpe, S. & Watson, C. I. (2000). Does the Queen speak the Queen’s English? Nature, 408, 927-928. Hernández-Campoy, J. M. (1999). Geolinguistic models of analysis of the spatial diffusion of sociolinguistic innovations. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 34, 7-42. Honey, J. (1989). Does accent matter? The Pygmalion factor. London: Faber and Faber. Kamata, M. (2008). An acoustic sociophonetic study of three London vowels. PhD dissertation. University of Leeds. Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2002). Dialect recognition and speech community focusing in new and old towns in England: the effects of dialect levelling, demography and social networks. In Long and Preston (eds.) Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, 2, 175-206. Lillo, A. (1999). El inglés del estuario y las innovaciones fonéticas del habla londinense. Atlantis, 21, 59-77. López-Morales, H. (1989). Sociolingüística. Madrid: Gredos. Maidment, J. (1994). Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype? A paper presented at the 4th New Zealand Conference on Language & Society, Lincoln Univ., Christchurch, NZ., August 1994. Morrish, J. (1999). The accent that dare not speak its name. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from Nødtvedt, H. O. (2011). Phonological variation and change in London Cockney English: a sociolinguistic
study.
MA
thesis.
University
of
Bergen.
Przedlacka, J. (2001). Estuary English and RP: some recent findings. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 36: 35-50. Przedlacka, J. (2002). Estuary English? A sociophonetic study of teenage speech in the Home Counties. Bern: Peter Lang. 24
Przedlacka, J. & Dziubalska-Kołacyk, K. (eds.) (2005). Models and myth. English pronunciation
models:
a
changing
scene.
Bern:
Peter
Lang,
17–36.
Ramsaran, S. (1990). RP: fact and fiction. In Ramsaran, S. (ed.) Studies in the pronunciation of English: a commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson. London: Routledge, 178-190. Roach, P. (1983). English phonetics and phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roach, P. (2004). British English: Received Pronunciation. Journal of international phonetic association, 34(2), 239-245. Roach, P. (2011). A little encyclopedia of phonetics. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Rosewarne, D. (1984). Estuary English. Times educational supplement, 19-10- 84, 29. Rosewarne, D. (1994). Estuary English: tomorrow’s RP? English today, 37 (10.1), 3-8. Santipolo M. (2003). On the opposite sides of the continuum: standard British English and Cockney. A historical outline of the parallel developments of the two varieties. Studi linguistici e filologici online. Rivista telematica del dipartimento di linguistica dell’Università di Pisa, 1, 403-441. Trudgill, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics: an introduction to language and society. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Trudgill, P. (2001). Sociolinguistic variation and change: Chapter 16. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University
Press
Trudgill, P. & Giles, H. (1978). Sociolinguistics and linguistic value judgments: correctness, adequacy, and aesthetics. In Coppieters, F. & Goyvaerts, D. L. (eds), Functional studies in language and literature, 167-190. Ghent: Story-Scientia. Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, J. C. (1992). Estuary English?!? Handout for a talk at BAAP symposium. Retrieved January
30,
2016,
from
25
Wells, J. C. (1994a). The cockneyfication of RP?. In Melchers, G., & Johannesson, N. L. (eds). Nonstandard varieties of language, 198-205. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Wells, J. C. (1994b). Transcribing Estuary English: a discussion document. Speech Hearing and Language: UCL Work in Progress, 8, 259-267. Wells, J. C (1997a). Whatever happened to Received Pronunciation? In Medina & Soto (eds.),
II
Jornadas
de
Estudios
Ingleses,
19-28.
Wells, J. C. (1997b). What is Estuary English? English teaching professional. 3, 46-47. Wells, J. C. (1999) Questions and answers about Estuary English. Answers from John Wells, UCL. Wells, J. C. (2004). Handout on Cockney (i). Retrieved January 30, 2016, from Wells, J. C. (2008). RP back in fashion? Retrieved February 20, 2016 from Wells, J. C. (2011). The evidence of the vows. Retrieved February 20, 2016 from Wells, J. C., & Colson, G. (1971). Practical phonetics. London: Pitman.
RP transcripts retrieved from: The Andrew Marr Show: Transcripts. (2016). Retrieved February 8, 2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3hshxFhHM4dKd3px6Q3NzRF/transc ripts
The phonetic transcriptions Wells, J. C. (2008). The Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
26
Audio Samples Speaker 1: [liarpoliticians2]. (2016, February 21). MarrShow: David Cameron on in/out EU referendum
campaign
(21Feb16)
[Video
File].
Retrieved
from
Speaker 2: [liarpoliticians2]. (2016, March 6). MarrShow: Full Boris Johnson interview on possible
Brexit
(06Mar16).
[Video
File].
Retrieved
from
Speaker 3: [liarpoliticians]. (2014, July 13). MarrShow: Archbishop Of Canterbury interview
(13July14).
[Video
File].
Retrieved
from
Speaker 4: [NBC]. (2016, January 10). Ricky Gervais opens the 2016 Golden Globes. [Video File]. Retrieved from Speaker 5: [JesusLovesYou]. (2013, March 26). Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross Prank Call Andrew Sachs (Part 1) and Give abuse. [Video File]. Retrieved from Speaker 6: [MusicMediaWhore]. (2010, March 5). Lady Gaga - Jonathan Ross Interview Part
1
2010.
[Video
File].
Retrieved
from
Speaker 7: [AS Roma]. (2014, July 14). Ashley Cole’s first Roma interview. [Video File]. Retrieved from Speaker 8: Micky Flanagan Live - The Out Out Tour. (2011). [DVD] Directed by Brian Klein. Speaker 9: Thompson, L. (2011). 67. Cockney / London Accent. Luke’s ENGLISH podcast Learn British English with Luke Thompson. [Audio File]. Retrieved from
