Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/2, 2007: 221–260
‘Talkin’ Jockney’? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent1
Jane Stuart-Smith∗, Claire Timmins∗ and Fiona Tweedie† ∗ Department of English Language, University of Glasgow †School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh
This paper presents an analysis of language variation and change in a socially stratified corpus of Glaswegian collected in 1997. Eight consonantal variables in read and spontaneous speech from 32 speakers were analysed separately and then together using multivariate analysis. Our results show that middle-class speakers, with weaker network ties and more opportunities for mobility and contact with English English speakers, are maintaining traditional Scottish features. Working-class adolescents, with more limited mobility and belonging to close-knit networks, are changing their vernacular by using ‘non-local’ features such as TH-fronting and reducing expected Scottish features such as postvocalic /r/. We argue that local context is the key to understanding the findings. Mobility and network structures are involved, butmustbetakeninconjunctionwiththerecenthistoryofstructuralchanges to Glasgow and the resulting construction of local class-based language ideologies which continue to be relevant in the city today. KEYWORDS: Phonological variation, language variation and change, multivariate analysis, Scottish English, adolescents and vernacular, language ideology
1. INTRODUCTION Glaswegian teenagers are developing a southern drawl as traditional sounds like the ‘ch’ in loch disappear. And pronunciations such as ‘toof’ for tooth are becoming more common as youngsters are influenced by Frank Butcher and the other Cockneys in EastEnders. ‘“Talkin’ Jockney”: Scots youngsters’ language is changed by EastEnders’ Daily Record, 27 June 2000 In the late 1990s, preliminary results from a study of Glaswegian accent indicated that working-class adolescents, with few apparent opportunities for contact outsidethecity,werebothusingfeaturesusuallyassociatedwithsouthernEnglish (e.g. TH-fronting, the use of [f] for /θ/ in e.g. think), and at the same time, not showing expected ‘Scottish’ features (e.g. production of postvocalic /r/ in e.g. car). These findings led to a flurry of media reports which jokingly dubbed the
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA 222 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
‘new’ dialect ‘Jockney’ (‘Jock’ = Scot + ‘Cockney’), and which speculated that another possible cause for such patterns of variation was watching London-based TV soap operas, such as the popular show, EastEnders. This paper presents the first integrated account of the linguistic facts behind suchreports.Herewedescribethemainpatternsofvariationobservedinasocially stratified sample of Glaswegian collected in 1997, and we account for them in terms of evidence which directly relates to the corpus itself, the recent social history of Glasgow,and indications of local language ideologies constructed about this history. Using univariate and multivariate statistical analysis, we look at the use of a range of consonant variables in speakers from two neighbouring areas of Glasgow, representing distinct points on the sociolinguistic continuum of Glaswegian English. When compared against predictions from social network structure and personal mobility, our results seem odd: middle-class speakers with more opportunities for contact with English English speakers and weaker social networks are maintaining Scottish features, while less mobile, strongly-tied working-class speakers are losing some Scottish features and using innovative features the most. However, when we look more closely at the geographical and social restructuring of Glasgow over the twentieth century we find that mobility and changes in network structure are important factors for understanding these results.Butwealsoneedtotakeaccountofthecontextswithinwhichtheyoperate – Scotland and the city of Glasgow – and the extent to which these impact on the construction of local language ideologies. Our young innovators are using a consonantal system which in many respects is more similar to that of London English, but at the same time, they are exploiting ‘non-local’ variation in such a way that it is used, and feels to them to be, thoroughly local. This then provides further support for the notion that constructing identity through linguistic variation is crucially connected to the local context (e.g. Labov 1963; Eckert 2000; Dyer 2002; see also Meyerhoff and Niedzielski 2003).
1.1 The wider context: Accent change in the U.K. Recent research is revealing rapid accent change in urban accents across the U.K. (see e.g. the collection of papers in Foulkes and Docherty 1999a). Consonantal systems in particular are showing changes which together have been described as ‘homogenization’ (Foulkes and Docherty 1999b), such that resulting systems across dialects appear to be more similar. The linguistic reflexes of the changes are twofold: features are appearing in regional accents, for example, TH-fronting (Kerswill 2003), and local features are disappearing, for example, the reduction of the ‘reinforced’ glottal variants of /t/ typical of Tyneside English (e.g. Docherty et al. 1997). Describing the prime innovators in these changes, whose profile varies in different locations, is often made with reference to the social factors of age, social
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 223 class, and gender. In general adolescents seem to show more change, which is perhaps to be expected, given the particular development of social and linguistic identities that emerge during this life-stage (e.g. Kerswill 1996; Eckert 1997). Social class, at all times an awkward label, but which in these studies tends to refer to a broad range of differing socio-economic factors, may be a factor. For example, TH-fronting is commonly found in working-class speakers (e.g. Kerswill 2003). Similarly,gender, in conjunction with class, may also play a role, and TH-fronting has been observed more often in working-class males (e.g. Milroy 1996). Earlier discussion of accent change in British urban accents referred to social class (e.g. Trudgill 1974) and this is not surprising given the classic formulation of quantitative sociolinguistics in the work of Labov in New York (e.g. 1972). Theoretical modelling of the current changes now tends to refer to two complementary sociolinguistic models, social networks and dialect contact (e.g. Kerswill and Williams 2000). Social network theory, as applied to sociolinguistic data (e.g. Milroy 1987), has played an important role in extending our understanding of language change (e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1985; Milroy 1992).Networkscharacterisethesocialrelationscontractedbetweenindividuals, whose groupings may in turn be characterised in terms of strong or weak ties constitutingdenseorloosenetworks(MilroyandGordon2003:127ff.).Language change is linked to the nature of the networks such that dense social networks with strong ties promote conformity in social and linguistic norms and inhibit change, while loose networks with weak ties typically facilitate change. The foundations of a dialect contact model are found in Trudgill’s (1986: vii) proposalsforexplaining‘thosechangesthattakeplaceduringorasaconsequence of contacts between closely related varieties of a language’. A core assumption of Trudgill’s model is that such changes take place during face-to-face interaction between speakers through linguistic accommodation, or the social-psychological process of linguistic convergence during interaction; see also Kerswill (2002, 2003). That dialects are brought into contact presumes some kind of personal or group mobility, and we could identify here two possibilities: active mobility, when individuals move away to new dialect areas; and passive mobility, when individuals are brought into contact with other dialects as their communities experience in-migration. We also note that certain groups of the population may be less likely to be actively mobile than others, for example, adolescents (e.g. Britain 2002). Identifying the linguistic processes arising from dialect contact and mobility forms part of an emerging research agenda (see e.g. Milroy 2002). Another important task is the development of a framework for understanding the ideological consequences of mobility and dialect contact as speakers reposition themselves in social-psychological space using linguistic variation to symbolise particular orientations to real or perceived notions of affiliated and opposing groups (e.g. Milroy 2002). Clearly mobility and social networks are connected concepts, and so too their potential impact on language change (see e.g. Milroy and Gordon 2003: 130).
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 224 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Middle-class speakers who are more mobile are also likely to contract weaker ties and belong to looser networks and so be more susceptible to linguistic change. Conversely, less mobile individuals, more typical of traditional working-class communities, may also be more strongly tied and members of denser networks, and so more likely to resist change to linguistic norms. Kerswill and Williams (2000)testedthiscomplexofpredictionsonvoweldatafrommiddle-andworking- class speakers with differing profiles of mobility in Reading and Milton Keynes. Their results confirm that open networks may facilitate linguistic change, but they also show that for some speakers another factor, class-based language ideology,may prove more influential. Their highly-mobile, loosely-tied, working- class youngsters from Milton Keynes resisted language standardisation, whilst at the same time expressing ‘a difference in culture’ as evidenced in ‘strong statements ...against “posh” people’ (Kerswill and Williams 2000: 12). It seems then that social networks and mobility are factors which may interact, in complex ways, with each other and with the language ideologies constructed around them. Much discussion of these changes has assumed mobility and dialect contact as primary models. As a result, the linguistic reflexes are generally described using terms which presume that they are contact-induced changes. Thus in one of the initial discussions of TH-fronting, Trudgill (1986: 53ff.) treats the changeasaninstanceof‘diffusion’throughaccommodation,albeitaproblematic one. However, an apparent problem with the package of consonant changes – so TH-fronting, L-vocalisation, R-labialisation, T-glottalling2 – which are typically described as instances of diffusion in U.K. accents, is that the exploitation of these features seems to be difficult to explain solely in terms of dialect contact whentheyoccurinless-mobile,strongly-tied,working-classadolescents.Ifdialect contact is not a key factor, and there is always the possibility that individuals in communities may play a role (cf. Trudgill 1986: 56–57), then alternative explanations must be sought. One suggestion has been that they constitute ‘a set of youth norms originating from the south-east of England which has become relatively independent of physical place’ (Milroy and Gordon 2003: 134; Williams andKerswill1999;alsoFoulkesandDocherty2001),andwhichexistin‘cultural’ or ideological space, towards which speakers may orientate (cf. Anderson 2002 for similar ideas to account for southern variants in the speech of northern- born Detroit African American speakers). Preliminary results from a study trying to investigate the role of TV in such changes has demonstrated a relationship between television and TH-fronting (Stuart-Smith 2005), though more work is needed to investigate the extent to which these findings are consistent with the proposed youth norms. The changes are awkward to explain with reference to a single main factor for other reasons. Most already exist as potential variants within the consonant system of English since they occur as part of the continual peripheral variation for adults, and are typical variants in very young children’s speech (e.g. Foulkes and Docherty 2001). An external dialect source, while possible, is not essential.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 225
That these features are appearing in many places at a similar time in the U.K. does not necessarily have to be explained as the result of ‘external’ influences. See, for example, Meyerhoff and Niedzielzki (2003) who question the evidence for external, American and British, sources for the occurrence of flapped and glottal variants of (t) in New Zealand English. Furthermore, if dialect contact does play a role, and Kerswill (2003) argues the case for TH-fronting as an instance of geographical diffusion on the basis of the history of observed instances across the U.K., we may still need to distinguish between the introduction of socially functioning variants via individuals through dialect contact, and their exploitation within particular communities at particular times to index particular kinds of local identity and difference, as seems to be the case with these features.
1.2 The local context: Glasgow At the beginning of the twentieth century,Scotland’s largest city was flourishing, with an industrial base and a well-established middle class living to the west of the city or in peripheral suburbs. Earlier parts of the old city, home to the poorest section of the population, had been replaced by tenements in the 1860s which were rapidly deteriorating into slums. The poor living conditions and the connectionbetweentheseandthetenementmotivatedaseriesofattemptstosolve the problem (e.g. Gibb 1983: 154ff.). Paradoxically,despite the appalling poverty, the physical structure of the tenement blocks provided a ‘unifying and cohesive effect’ on the city’s residents, so much so that one visitor described Glasgow as ‘the greatest, closely-knit community in Great Britain’ (Morton 1929, in Reed 1999a: 3). It is sadly ironic that the attempts of the civic authorities, largely motivated by the best of intentions, led to the fracturing of these same communities on an unprecedented scale (Maver 2000: 252). The changes began after responsibility for housing was transferred to local authorities in 1919. The Glasgow Corporation ‘evolved a two-tier structure of building and allocations shaped by a complicated mixture of social and economic considerations’ (Horsey 1990: 12). The first tier constituted the construction of high rent cottages, built according to fashionable ‘garden city’ principles (Maver 2000: 259), and affordable only to skilled workers and professionals, who migrated to commuter suburbs just outside the city (Reed 1999b: 3). The second tier of building led to the construction of ‘rehousing’ schemes, estates of poor quality tenements with few amenities on the fringes of the city centre, which were specifically for the accommodation of those displaced by slum clearance (Pacione 1995: 159). Reduced government subsidies, lower housing standards, and the poverty of the new tenants, led to the creation of social ghettos (McKean 1999: 140), with an inevitable ‘social stigma attached ... to those cleared, and the housetype built’ (Butt 1983: 259). The short-term effects of the interwar building programme were to improve housing densities and provision, but the real effect was to shift the old slums further away from the city
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 226 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE centre, formalising social segregation through housing. The difference between the two types of interwar estate ‘could not have been greater’ (Pacione 1995: 159). Glasgow experienced industrial and economic decline after the Second World War and housing conditions continued to deteriorate (Maver 2000: 264). Two different, visionary plans were conceived to reduce Glasgow’s 1.2 million population.Oneaimedtokeepthecity’spopulationwithinthelimits,maintaining older property, building new high-rise housing, and reorganising transport routes. The other advocated decentralisation primarily through the building of new towns, but also through peripheral estates (Smith and Wannop 1985). The redevelopment programmes which emerged contained elements of both; the planned counter-urbanisation did take place, with selective filtering according to social class. Migration to the new towns tended to be the voluntary exodus of the middle classes, to the extent that by 1974, 25,000 individuals a year were leaving the city, mostly professionals or skilled and white-collar workers (Horsey 1990: 33; Maver 2000: 268). The decanting of the population to isolated, now notoriously deprived, peripheral estates such as Easterhouse and Castlemilk was limited to those who could least afford it: city residents whose housing had been demolished. WhilstGlasgow’spopulationwasbeingscatteredtotheedgesandbeyond,there were substantial movements within the city. The Comprehensive Development Plan, initiated in 1951, aimed to demolish 90,000 houses over 20 years and to remove and/or rehouse 60 percent of the population (Markus 1999: 152ff.). At firstthedemolitionmovedslowlytargetingspecificareas,butbythelate1960sthe clearance accelerated, with all houses in an area being destroyed, ‘obsolete, if only because of [their] age’ (Horsey 1990: 62). Affected communities were dispersed: some to the peripheral estates, others to new poor-quality buildings in situ, and still others to new high-rise blocks. Once again, there was social stratification in the programme: working-class areas were identified, middle-class areas were unaffected (Gibb 1983: 170). By 1974, the plan was halted as ‘the full social cost of the physical destruction was realised. ... [w]hole territorially-based communities with deep historical roots were destroyed as the massive Comprehensive Development Areas’(CDA) onslaught tore the heart out of the city’ (Gibb 1983: 170). Glasgow had lost over a quarter of its population. Large areas of the city were filled with new yet deteriorating housing schemes, or were simply laid waste; tower blocks dotted the landscape. Moreover, ‘[t]he urban quality in terms of identity and enclosure was severely damaged; social interaction, especially the celebrated web of extended family and neighbour relationships of the traditional close, was broken’ (Markus 1999: 161). From 1976 on regeneration began, and to a certain extent this repaired the fractured infrastructures (Reed 1999c). Nevertheless substantial portions of the city’s population remain deprived and increasingly immobile, as theopportunitiesforescapefrompoorcouncilhousingarelimited(Pacione1995: 160).
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 227
The following observations are relevant here: 1. Many Glaswegians have experienced geographical mobility, both voluntary, as the middle classes moved away from the centre of the city, and enforced, as the working classes were transplanted around or outwith the city. Middle- classareascontinuetoexperiencepassivemobilityfromthecontinualdriftout from the city,and from incomers from outside the city and Scotland. Working- class areas are characterised by relative immobility, and much lower rates of inward mobility. 2. Middle-class individuals tend to contract more weak ties, whilst working-class communities in Glasgow today typically show dense networks with strong ties. But as we have seen, the present network structure masks the earlier fragmentation of many working-class communities, substantially disrupting close-knit social networks, and with this their potential to function effectively as norm-enforcement mechanisms on all forms of social behaviour, including language(Macafee1983:16–17).Wethereforeneedtobeawareofadynamic network history for these speakers over the twentieth century, as we observe a shift from close-knit networks, through breaking and weakening of strong ties, back to close-knit networks once more. 3. Social class divisions became further entrenched in Glasgow by the changes in housing and counter-urbanisation during the twentieth century. These were enhanced by the high degree of social control exerted over the working class in the form of rigorous checks on public health, overcrowding, and ‘moralandphysicalwelfare’bycaretakers,ladyinspectorsandnurses’(Horsey 1990: 20). This and the lack of community consultation in the redevelopment programme caused understandable resentment on the part of the working classes (Macafee 1983: 16; Markus 1999: 147). Today the concept of social class is relevant for working and middle classes alike. Language plays a key role in these definitions.
1.3 The linguistic context: Scottish English Glasgow is a ‘traditional’ or ‘divergent’ dialect area (e.g. Wells 1982) such that a local dialect with a historical development distinct from standard English also exists as a dialect for a substantial proportion of the population (Stuart-Smith 2004). ‘Glaswegian’ here refers to a sociolinguistic continuum of Scottish English, ranging from Scottish Standard English (SSE) to Glaswegian Scots. Glasgow vernacular, historically derived from a form of West Central Scots, has undergone changes, including levelling towards Scottish Standard English, influence from Irish English and the development of its own distinctive cant and slang (Macafee 1994). Working-class Glaswegians tend towards the Scots end of this continuum, though many are able to drift up and down the continuum in response to social context (Aitken 1984; Stuart-Smith 2003). ScottishStandardEnglishisavarietyofstandardEnglishspokenwithaScottish accent, resulting from a process of erosion and anglicisation of Scots since the
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 228 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE sixteenth century, as the Scottish middle and upper classes looked towards the ‘more elegant and perfect’ English of the South (Aitken 1979: 92). Scottish Standard English is different from English English structurally and in terms of language ideology; the accent norms which are acceptable, promoted through overt correction, and found in educated speakers in Glasgow are those which are consistent with Scottish Standard English, and not an English English model such as RP,which is not relevant for the majority of speakers. Thus, car is typically /kar/ and white is /it/ (cf. Wells 1982: 34–36, for ‘standard’ accents). Furthermore, Scottish Standard English, like educated Irish English, has not been the subject of stigma historically (Milroy and Milroy 1999).
1.4 Research questions Glaswegian was the subject of attention as soon as quantitative methods crossed the Atlantic. Macaulay’s study of phonological variation and language attitudes carried out in the early 1970s (Macaulay 1977) has been widely disseminated, and ensured that sociolinguistic accounts include reference to the keen stratification in phonological variables which he observed in Glasgow. During the early 1980s Macafee collected a different kind of corpus which focused on working-class speech and language, and in particular, on the maintenance of Glaswegian vernacular lexis, with some analysis of Scots phonological variables (Macafee 1994). In 1997 a new socially stratified corpus of Glaswegian was collected and preliminary analyses were published in Stuart-Smith (1999a). On the basis of subsequent analysis of the same data, we consider the following research questions: 1. What is the nature of phonological variation and change (if any) in Glaswegian? 2. Howmayweaccountforthepatternsofvariationandchangethatweobserve? Our account focuses on quantitative analysis of the data. The spontaneous speech data consist of unprompted conversations between informants, not sociolinguisticinterviews,andtherewereonlyoccasionalspontaneousreferences to language. Nevertheless, when we consider these comments together with additional evidence, and in the context of Glasgow’s recent history, we can begin to understand the linguistic patterning in terms of local contrasting language ideologies, particularly on the part of working-class speakers, who are leading in innovation to maintain sociolinguistic distance from their ‘snobby’ neighbours.
2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Data collection The corpus for this investigation was collected during the spring and summer of 1997 mainly by second author (CT), a Scottish English speaker from Edinburgh.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 229
Table 1: Profile of informants in the 1997 Glasgow corpus
Speakers Adolescents (13–14 yrs) Adults (40+ yrs) working-class 44 (male) working-class 44 (female) middle-class 44 (male) middle-class 44 (female)
Criteria working-class born/raised/resident in area born/raised/resident in area (inner city) middle-class born/raised/resident in area long resident in area (suburban)
Spontaneous conversations of up to 45 minutes from same-sex self-selected pairs of speakers were recorded without the investigator present, and following these, informants read out a wordlist of around 180 words constructed to assess a wide range of consonant and vowel variables. Digital recordings were made onto DAT using wide-frequency response clip-on microphones from 32 individuals who were divided equally into the categories of male/female, younger (13/14 years) and older (40-60 years), and working- and middle-class; see Table 1, Milroy, Milroy and Docherty (1997). Following earlier studies on U.K. accents, including Glaswegian, our sample was constructed to investigate the potential effects of gender, age, and social class. We wanted to assess the extent to which Glaswegian adolescents might be exhibiting apparent-time change with respect to older speakers. Comparison with earlier – and later – studies would then confirm whether such inferences were appropriate. Social class was established as a factor in Glaswegian by Macaulay (1977), who worked with a graded sample of four class groups. We worked with two relative points on the social class continuum, giving us ‘snapshots’ of middle- and working-class patterns across an area to the north-west of the city centre. We identified two schools with different profiles in educational/social criteria (see Table 2), and then used their contiguous residential catchment areas to select adult participants. While such sampling of social class inevitably simplifies continuous sociolinguistic variation into two categories, we were unprepared for the extent and nature of the polarisation that emerged. The middle-class area, ‘Bearsden’, covers the northern suburbs of Bearsden, Milngavie, and Westerton. These have been the focus of middle-class migration from the city of Glasgow since the mid-nineteenth century, with largely private housing consisting of a mix of large sandstone villas, and estates of bungalows.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 230 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Table 2: Educational and socio-economic criteria used to determine the social class of the two participating schools. All figures are percentages
Criteria ‘Middle class’‘Working class’ Grades 1 and 2 in Standard 43 10 Grade1 School leavers going on to 58 18 full-time higher education1 Receipt of clothing grants2 543
1. Source: Examination results in Scottish Schools, HM Inspectors of Schools Audit Unit (1994–96) 2. Source: Clothing Grant to Secondary Schools, QA Unit, Strathclyde Regional Council, Department of Education (1989–90)
Bearsden falls outside the political limits of Glasgow, despite the fact that many residents are from Glasgow, and work in the city (Pacione 1995: 192). The area is characterised by a relatively loosely knit and mobile population, both actively in that individuals have moved into the area, and continue to travel about the country, and passively, in that the region also receives in-migration from those born outside Scotland, at present showing twice as many residents born in England than Glasgow overall (see Table 3). ‘Maryhill’, the working-class area, borders with ‘Bearsden’ at its northern end, and includes Maryhill proper, the Wyndford estate, Ruchill, and Possil towards the city centre. By the 1890s Maryhill had been built up with tenement blocks which helped ‘reinforce the growth of community identities’ (Gibb 1983: 121). Only seventy years later the same buildings were ‘deemed to have the largest proportionofhousesripeforredevelopmentinthewholeofGlasgow’(Reed1999c: 215). The CDA campaign of widespread demolition, population removal, and rehousing, left the area with gaps, scattered blocks of new,substandard, tenement housing, and the mixed low-rise/high-rise development of the Wyndford, served by poor transport connections and few social facilities (Rae 1974). Local close- knit networks were substantially disrupted in Maryhill, but this fragmentation is now effectively masked by attempts at regeneration which have helped to confirm community identities. The network history of the area over the last century has therefore moved from close-knit networks, through a period of disruption, to a new set of strongly-tied communities. It also shows relatively low active or passive mobility. Few move into the area from outside Scotland or from within the city
Table 3: Census results showing the percentage of residents born in England for our sample areas and for Glasgow overall
City of Glasgow Bearsden Maryhill Census 1991 4.34 8.10 2.68 Census 2001 4.24 7.12 2.63
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 231
(Possil is one of the least preferred destination areas for council transfer requests; Pacione 1995: 160).
2.2 The recordings Recording sessions for adolescents were set up in a quiet room in each school; informants had volunteered to take part at the end of a presentation to their class about language attitudes. Adult informants were accessed via personal contacts in local networks in the two areas (parents, a teacher training college, a medical establishment, a women’s centre, and janitorial staff at the university), and recorded in a quiet room in a location convenient for them. All informants were asked to talk to each other about whatever they wanted until the fieldworker came back into the room and switched off the recorder. We assumed that there would be a trade-off between the quality of the speech dataandtheamountofpersonalinformationaskedoftheinformants.Intheevent we took only basic demographic details, not even forcing adults to reveal their precise age, within the range of 40 to 60 years, if they did not wish to. We felt that our absence from the recording situation would also help reduce the ever-present constraints of the Observer’s Paradox. The results suggest that our strategy paid off, since we gained good casual conversations which give us snapshots of the speakers’ current lives, their wishes, experiences, friends, and social practices. Working-class girls and women appeared to continue the conversations they were already having with each other (this is stated explicitly by the first two pairs of girls), punctuated by the odd acknowledgement to the presence of the microphone. Middle-class informants seemed to be less comfortable, but working- class boys found it hardest to find things to say; see Macaulay (2005) for further discussion.
2.3 Linguistic variables Macaulay’s study concentrated on vowels, with T-glottalling as the only consonantal variable. We focused on consonants for the following reasons: 1. Urban accents elsewhere in the U.K. are showing rapid changes to their consonantal systems apparently in the direction of southern English English models. We wanted to assess the extent to which Glaswegian, far away from the south of England, might be sharing in such changes. 2. Unlike other U.K. accents, a number of Glaswegian consonants show distinctive local non-standard variants, for example, [h] for /θ/, in think, allowing us to look at how incoming features compete with local variants as they become integrated into the system (Stuart-Smith et al. 2003). 3. Whilst vowel systems are often considered, it is less usual to look at a range of consonants. We wanted to see whether/how speakers would exploit complexity in consonantal variation, and the extent to which this would be systematic across consonantal variables. At the same time, we note that our
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 232 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
analysis, findings, and conclusions are necessarily constrained by our choice of variables. Weselectedeightvariables,allofwhichareknowntovarysociallyinGlasgow,and most of which have been reported to be changing (Macafee 1983; Stuart-Smith 1999a): (θ) The pronunciation of /θ/ in Glasgow is generally reported to be [θ], with a traditional vernacular variant, [h] (e.g. Macafee 1983: 33). TH-fronting, the use of [f] for /θ/, is associated with regional dialect levelling in other accents of English English but was not expected to be a consistent feature of Glaswegian, although Macafee (e.g. 1983: 34) noted sporadic instances in her data from the early 1980s. (ð) A long-noted feature of working-class Glaswegian is the use of an alveolar tap, [ɾ], intervocalically for /ð/ in words such as brother; so too is complete elision of the sound (Macafee 1983: 33). The use of a labial variant [v] for /ð/, here called DH-fronting to register the different processes entailed for /ð/ from those of TH-fronting, is not expected in Scottish English. (l) refers to L-vocalisation, and specifically to the process typical of Cockney English (e.g. Wells 1982: 259), which affects syllable-final /l/ and results in a high back (rounded/unrounded) vowel. Again Macafee (e.g. 1994: 29) reports sporadic instances in her data from the early 1980s. This kind of vocalisation is to be distinguished from an earlier process of ‘Scots’ L- vocalisation which affected Older Scots syllable-final /al, ol, ul/ in most environments,resultingincommonlexicalvariantssuchasa forall(Macafee 1983: 38). The two processes are different in their reflexes, the environments in which they operate(d), and by the fact that the latter process is no longer productive, though most speakers know that the Scots forms correspond to standard forms with /l/ through literacy; see Stuart-Smith, Timmins and Tweedie (2006). (t) Glasgow has been dubbed the original home of the glottal stop (Macafee 1997: 528), and T-glottalling, or the use of [ʔ] for /t/ in certain phonetic environments, mainly non-foot initial, is regarded as a primary charac- teristic of vernacular Glaswegian consonant pronunciation (Macaulay 1977). (s) Glaswegian vernacular is known to have a particular pronunciation of /s/ which sounds rather like /ʃ/, and whose articulation has been speculated as ‘apico-alveolar’, that is, produced with the tongue tip raised; Macafee (1983: 34). (x) The phoneme /x/ is not generally found in accents of English other than Scottish English (Wells 1982: 408). Glaswegian is assumed to show /x/, classically given as a voiceless velar fricative, though a range of dorsal
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 233
realisationsispossible.Recentdescriptionssuggestatendencyfor/x/tomerge with /k/ (e.g. Macafee 1983: 32). () Alongside /x/, // is the other ‘extra’ consonant phoneme in the Glaswegian consonant inventory. // is usually assumed to be a voiceless labial-velar fricative (e.g. Wells 1982: 408), though recent observations suggest that it may be merging with /w/ in younger speakers (e.g. Macafee 1983: 32). (r) Like other forms of Scottish English, Glaswegian is thought to be ‘rhotic’, that is, that written
2.4 Data analysis The wordlists were digitised into a Pentium PC running xwaves+ at 16,000 Hz/16 bits. Narrow auditory transcriptions were made from repeated listening to segmented word files through Panasonic headphones. Possible instances of every variable were identified in the orthographic transcripts of the conversations, and these were then transcribed auditorily from DAT tapes using a SONY desktop DAT player. About a third of the transcriptions were cross-transcribed. The large range of variation identified for each variable was grouped into variant categories (‘variants’) with representative labels in square brackets; so, for example, [θ] represents the range of dental fricative variants which were observed for (θ). Every variable yielded a very small number of odd/unusual variants which we grouped into a miscellaneous, or [m], category, and which are not discussed here. Acoustic analysis was carried out to corroborate the identification of auditorily ‘intermediate’ variants found for (x θl) (Stuart-Smith et al. (2003), and to investigate further variation in (s) (Stuart-Smith forthcoming). The auditory data were statistically analysed in two ways: separately for each variable, and then together. In both cases we used statistical methods
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 234 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
which allowed us to analyse all variants, not only ‘standard’/‘non-standard’. This was necessary, first, because in Glaswegian there may be more than one ‘non-standard’ option, and second, because sociolinguistic differentiation via consonants is attained by type and range of variation used. First, for each variable we conducted formal hypothesis testing of the validity of the pre-assumed categories (age, class, gender) using compositional data analysis and the application of log-ratio linear modelling. These techniques address the problems caused by data such as ours which comprise a number of variants for each sociolinguistic variable (Aitchison 1986; Tweedie and Frischer 1999). Subsequent testing with Bonferroni-corrected p-values was carried out to test differences across groups and within variants; results referred to here as significant showed a p-value of less than .05. The numbers reported in the tables result from the transformation of the variant raw scores by log-ratio linear modelling, and can be considered similar to percentages. Transformed data are presented for all variables bar (x) and () for read speech, for which raw scores are given, since the low numbers prevented statistical analysis. Following standard statistical practice, we present the data grouped according to the statistical effects observed. This avoids the possibility of seeing differences between groups which are not supported by the statistical analysis. Next, we used exploratory multivariate analysis to consider natural clustering of the data. Two techniques were used, cluster analysis and log-contrast principal components analysis (Aitchison 1983). Both kinds of analysis used all variants from all eight variables in order to capture similarities and differences between our informants which emerge exclusively from relationships between the data. This enabled us to assess the extent to which their linguistic behaviour supported our a priori social categorisation. Multivariate statistical analysis of this kind is relatively uncommon within quantitative sociolinguistics, though principal components analysis was used by Horvath (1985) to identify speaker groupings in Sydney, Australia.
3. RESULTS – QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 3.1 Single variables The following sections summarise the overall results for individual variables in read and spontaneous speech analysed without further subdivision according to factors such as phonological or prosodic environment; Table 4 summarises the statistical results. There is not sufficient space here to detail the full analysis which was carried out for each variable, and references to related publications are given at the end of each section; for further details, see also Timmins, Tweedie and Stuart-Smith (2004). (θ) Weidentifiedthefollowingvariants:[θ];[f];realisationssounding‘in-between’ dental and labiodental fricatives, such as labialised dental fricatives, here labelled[θ/f];[h];andlessfrequently,[t],and[s],arisingfromassimilationwith
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 235
Table 4: Statistical significance for social factors and their interactions in wordlists and spontaneous speech (asterisk indicates p value less than .05; - indicates no statistical analysis because data were too sparse)
age class gender age∗class age∗gender class∗gender age∗class∗gender Wordlists (θ) ∗∗ ∗ (ð) ∗∗ ∗ (l) (t) ∗∗ ∗ (s) ∗ (x) ------()------(r) ∗∗ Conversations (θ) ∗∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (ð) ∗∗ (l) ∗∗ ∗ (t) ∗ (s) ∗ (x) ------() ∗∗ ∗ (r) ∗∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
following /s/ in, for example maths. Across wordlists and spontaneous speech wefindsocialpolarisationintherangeandtypeofvariation,withmiddle-class adults using the least variants and working-class adolescents using the most (Table 5). An effect of gender, generally rare for these variables, was found in spontaneousspeech,andisexplainedbythepolarisationofworking-classgirls from all middle-class speakers. [h] is predominantly found in working-class speakers,andonlyinconversations.[f]isabsentfrommiddle-classspeech,and occurs mostly in working-class adolescents. Interestingly,unlike [h], [f] is not blocked in read speech, thus increasing the possible non-standard repertoire for these speakers. For discussion of the role of position in word and lexis in the integration of [f], see Stuart-Smith and Timmins (in press). (ð) The variants were: [ð]; [ɾ]; [v]; complete deletion, [ø], common intervocalically, and also found in word-initial position, for example [an aʔ] for and that; and a few instances of [h]. There is little variation other than [ð], but what does occur again shows a clear split between middle-class adults and working-class adolescents (Table 6). [ɾ] is found more often in working- class speakers. Working-class adolescents use [ɾ], and also [ø], [h] and [v], thoughthelatteronlyinreadspeechandpredominantlyinword-finalposition (e.g. smooth), where local non-standard [ɾ] is not possible. The lack of [v] in the conversations may also be explained by the complete absence of /ð/in
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 236 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Table 5: Distribution of (θ) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith- mically transformed data) (in this and the following tables the abbreviations are: MC = middle class, WC = working class, O = older speakers, Y = younger speakers, F = female, M = male. Group averages are presented in accordance with the results of the statistical analysis (see Table 4). A direct result of this is that male and female speakers tend not to be separated, since gender was not often a significant factor)
[θ] [f] [θ/f] [t] [s] [h] [m] total N Wordlists MCO 95.45 0 2.27 0 2.27 0 0 87 MCY 91.95 0 0 3.45 4.60 0 0 86 WCO 85.23 1.14 1.14 6.82 3.41 0 2.27 88 WCY 53.49 30.23 10.47 1.16 4.65 0 0 88 349 Conversations MCOF 98.40 0 0 0.80 0 0.27 0.53 301 MCOM 97.60 0 0 1.20 0 0.60 0.60 298 MCYF 93.33 0 0 0.89 0 5.78 0 188 MCYM 88.89 0 0 4.58 0 6.21 0.33 273 WCOF 81.68 0 0.26 0.26 0 16.54 1.27 385 WCOM 74.39 0 0.81 1.63 0 12.60 10.57 224 WCYF 21.21 32.90 0 0.43 0.43 44.59 0.43 240 WCYM 33.62 22.41 0.86 0.86 0 41.38 0.86 112 2021
word-final position in the entire corpus. For further discussion, see Stuart- Smith et al. (2003). (l) Three main variants were identified: apparent instances of articulated [l]; [V], the range of vocalised reflexes, mainly high back rounded, which resulted; and an in-between category,[l/V], which includes variants which sounded neither like articulated laterals with full alveolar contact, nor like vowels without contact/lateralisation. L-vocalisation was more frequent in read speech, and againoccurredmostofteninthespeechofworking-classadolescents(Table7). Subsequent analysis of Scots L-vocalisation showed that the same speakers also predominate in the use of lexical variants with previously vocalised /l/, for instance ba’ for ball (though only in spontaneous speech, this is blocked in reading). So working-class adolescents exploit both conservative and innovative types of L-vocalisation as part of their sociolinguistic identity (see Stuart-Smith, Timmins and Tweedie 2006). (t) Alongside released plosives, [t], and glottal stops, [ʔ], in read speech we found pre-aspirated, pre-glottalised, and affricated stops, [ht], [ʔt], and [ts ]; in spontaneous speech, there were odd instances of tapping, [ɾ], voiced stops
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 237
Table 6: Distribution of (ð) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith- mically transformed data)
[ð][ɾ] [v] [ø] [h] [m] total N Wordlists MCO1000000047 MCY 90.83 7.08 0 0 0 2.08 47 WCO 89.58 10.42 0000 47 WCY 65.42 15.42 15 2.08 0 2.08 47 188 Conversations MCO 99.09 0.39 0 0.39 0.13 0 772 MCY 93.33 3.34 0 2.98 0.36 0 374 WCO 91.44 3.74 0 2.14 2.67 0 839 WCY 79.71 7.06 0 9.12 3.82 0.29 340 2325
[t], and complete deletion, [ø]. Glottals are thriving in Glaswegian, and comparison with Macaulay’s data indicates a real-time increase in glottalling since the 1970s (Stuart-Smith 1999b). Middle-class adults are polarised from working-class adolescents in their variation in read speech, but there is a simple class divide in spontaneous speech (Table 8). Moreover, qualitative analysis according to phonetic environment has shown that working-class speakers not only use far more glottal stops (93%) than their middle- class counterparts, but that they also use them with a different pattern of
Table 7: Distribution of (l) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith- mically transformed data)
[l] [V] [l/V] [m] total N Wordlists MCO 81.55 13.69 4.76 0 165 MCY 79.39 13.94 6.67 0 157 WCO 84.34 12.05 3.61 0 168 WCY 46.50 47.13 5.73 0.64 166 656 Conversations MCO 99.61 0.10 0.20 0.10 633 MCY 99.53 0 0.47 0 589 WCO 96.78 0.42 0.17 2.62 1017 WCY 85.74 8.83 0.68 4.75 1181 3420
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 238 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Table 8: Distribution of (t) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith- mically transformed data)
[t] [ht] [ts] [ʔt] [t] [ɾ][ø][ʔ] total N Wordlists MCO 81.32 0 0 17.95 0 0 0 0.73 301 MCY 72.09 9.63 10.30 3.32 0 0 0 4.65 304 WCO 86.18 0 0 6.91 0 0 0 6.91 303 WCY 23.03 0.66 0 0 0 0 0 76.32 304 1212 Conversations MC 40.55 0 0 0 0.32 1.29 1.29 56.56 1243 WC 6.83 0 0 0 0.44 0.26 0 92.47 1142 2385
distribution, whose traces remain when they try to style-shift ‘up’, and which isnotsuccessfullyapproximatedbymiddle-classspeakerstryingtotalk ‘down’ (Stuart-Smith 1999b). (s) The auditory analysis revealed a small but statistically significant proportion of variants other than [s], to be conditioned by gender. Male speakers were more likely to use ‘retracted’ variants of /s/: apical (tip-raised) [s], palatalised [sj], whistled [sw], and postalveolar [ʃ]; Table 9. Subsequent acoustic analysis confirmed an overall difference between male and female speakers in terms of major area of fricative energy (characterised in terms of peak frequency and first moment/centroid/centre of gravity), but also provided evidence for gendered production of /s/ for all speakers, and most strikingly for working- class girls who cluster with male speakers, unlike other female speakers (Stuart-Smith forthcoming).
Table 9: Distribution of (s) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith- mically transformed data)
[s] [s] [sj] [sw] [ʃ] [m] total N Wordlists F 95.39 4.33 0.14 0.14 0 0 716 M 88.10 7.44 2.08 1.93 0 0.45 672 1388 Conversations F 98.48 0.38 0.53 0.23 0.30 0.08 1315 M 91.99 5.37 0.64 0.82 0.73 0.45 1099 2414
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 239
Table 10: Distribution of (x) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (raw scores)
[x] [k] [kx] [m] total Wordlists MCOF 8 0 0 0 8 MCOM 6 1 1 0 8 MCYF 2 3 3 0 8 MCYM 6 1 1 0 8 WCOF 4 1 3 0 8 WCOM 7 0 1 0 8 WCYF 5 3 0 0 8 WCYM 3 3 2 0 8 64 Conversations MCOF 1 0 3 1 5 MCOM 27 3 2 0 32 MCYF 1 1 0 1 3 MCYM 2 0 0 2 4 WCOF 27 0 0 0 27 WCOM 41 0 2 1 44 WCYF 0 6 0 1 7 WCYM 0 6 0 0 6 128
(x) The three variants identified were: [x], usually voiceless velar, occasionally uvular, fricatives; [k], voiceless velar stops; and – as for (l) (θ), and () – phonetically ‘intermediate’ variants, noted with the cover label [kx], which had the auditory,and acoustic, features of stops and fricatives simultaneously (see Lawson and Stuart-Smith 1999; Stuart-Smith et al. 2003). /x/ was too infrequent for statistical analysis (Table 10). Given its status as a shibboleth of Scottish speech, we might particularly expect to find [x] categorically in Glaswegian vernacular. In fact we found a fuzzier picture, with one aspect of clarity: working-class adolescents used [k] almost exclusively in spontaneous speech. () The variation for // also fell into three categories: [θ]; [w]; and then what we labelled [wh], which covers a separate ‘inbetween’ category of variants, both auditorily and acoustically,but which showed social stratification in acoustic patterning, and also statistical significance in distribution (more in working- class girls than working-class women). Like /x/, this sound is declining in working-class speakers, particularly adolescents (Table 11). Middle-class adolescents also used [w] unlike their adult counterparts. Again, like /x/, the intermediate variants suggest that the change from // to /w/ is not always a straightforward substitution of /w/ for //(Lawson and Stuart-Smith 1999; Stuart-Smith et al. 2003).
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 240 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Table 11: Distribution of () in wordlists (raw scores) and spontaneous speech (logarithmically transformed data)
[] [w] [wh] [m] total Wordlists MCOF 8 0 4 0 12 MCOM 11 0 1 0 12 MCYF 9 2 1 0 12 MCYM 11 0 1 0 12 WCOF 4 3 5 0 12 WCOM 6 2 4 0 12 WCYF 5 5 2 0 12 WCYM 4 4 3 0 11 95 Conversations MCOF 92.61 3.98 1.70 1.70 176 MCOM 96.61 1.69 1.69 0 177 MCYF 60.32 35.71 3.97 0 126 MCYM 75.40 23.81 0.79 0 126 WCOF 82.78 12.92 2.87 1.44 209 WCOM 44.74 44.36 6.77 4.14 266 WCYF 27.59 62.07 10.34 0 145 WCYM 22.33 72.82 4.85 0 103 1328
(r) Our auditory analysis led to the construction of five variants: [r], the range of articulated /r/ sounds; [V], the range of vowels which occurred without any secondary articulation/rhotacization; [r/V], a small number of tokens which fell auditorily between [V] and [r]; [V ], vowels with secondary velarisation/uvularisation/pharygealisation, or alternatively very weakly approximatedvelarisedoruvularisedpharyngeals;[Vr]rhoticisedvowelswith apical rhoticisation. The level of vocalisation that emerged, particularly in working-class adolescents, though it also occurs in working-class adults, was surprising (see Table 12). Our fine-grained analysis also demonstrates the phonetic complexity entailed in derhoticisation, which we are continuing to investigate acoustically(Stuart-SmithandLawson2006),andarticulatorily(e.g.Scobbie andStuart-Smith2006).Findingasatisfactorytermfortheprocessisdifficult. R-loss emphasises the outcome, valid for some variants/speakers, but not for others. We, like Johnston (1997: 510) prefer R-vocalisation, focusing on the process of ultimate loss via vocalisation. Like (θ), this variable was the only other apart from (s) to show a main effect of gender, arising from working class girls using more plain vowels than their male counterparts; for more discussion, see Stuart-Smith (2003).
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 241
Table 12: Distribution of (r) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith- mically transformed data) [r] [V] [r/V] [V ] [Vr] total N Wordlists MCO 88.21 1.43 0.36 1.43 8.57 280 MCY 81.41 6.32 0 5.58 6.69 269 WCO 62.91 17.45 2.55 9.82 7.27 275 WCY 17.56 50.54 2.15 25.81 3.94 279 1103 Conversations MCOF 94.33 4.12 0.14 0.07 1.35 1481 MCOM 92.02 3.71 0 2.23 2.04 1078 MCYF 93.03 2.92 0.16 0 3.89 617 MCYM 89.39 4.22 0.22 4.65 1.52 924 WCOF 69.07 22.45 0.86 2.42 5.20 1403 WCOM 75.38 12.94 0.51 6.85 4.32 1182 WCYF 5.82 76.33 1.50 15.15 1.20 997 WCYM 22.13 50.50 2.21 17.51 7.65 497 8179
Four key findings emerge from considering the results of the individual variables: 1. There is consistent sociolinguistic polarisation of working-class adolescents from middle-class adults, for all variables bar (s). The variation used by middle-class speakers is generally consistent with the regional standard. Younger working-class speakers show non-standard variants which include: maintenance of local features, e.g. [h] for (θ); inclusion of non-local features, e.g. [f] and [v] for (θ) and (ð) respectively; and loss of local standard features, e.g. vocalisation of postvocalic /r/. 2. We infer apparent-time change in the speech of working-class adolescents for most variables: (θ), (ð) and (l) with the inclusion of non-local variants [f], [v] and L-vocalisation at the expense of standard [θ], [ð] and [l]; (), (r) with loss of [], [r], and increasing [w] and R-vocalisation respectively. The results are less clear for (x), though [k] also appears to be more common in spontaneous speech. (t) only shows more glottals in wordlists (they are almost categorical in spontaneous speech). 3. Gender makes far fewer appearances than we might expect from Macaulay’s earlier results for Glasgow, with only (s) showing a clearly gendered distribution. 4. There are clear differences in style. We find that, as expected, most informants reduced and suppressed non-standard variants when reading the wordlists. But working-class adolescents show a different pattern. They reduce some
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 242 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Figure 1: Output plot from cluster analysis of 36 variants for eight variables for wordlists. The left-hand group is solely working-class speakers (NK...), including all the working-class adolescents. The two working-class men in the dashed box are a conversational pair
local non-standard variants ([h] for (θ); [ø] for (ð)), but T-glottalling is not subject to the same restrictions. Nor are the non-local non-standard variants, [f], [v], and L-vocalisation for (θ), (ð), and (l), which are used to the same degree as in spontaneous speech, or even more in the case of L-vocalisation.
3.2 Multivariate analysis Two types of multivariate analysis, cluster and principal components analysis, were conducted. Since the results were similar for both styles, we present here only those for read speech (for spontaneous speech, see Stuart-Smith and Tweedie 2000). Both kinds of analysis group the speakers numerically, though differently for each procedure. The statistical output for each is a visual representation of these numerical relationships in the form of plots showing individual speakers in a two-dimensional space. Clusteranalysisconsidersallvariantusageforallspeakerstogether,andgroups speakers on the basis of decreasing degrees of similarity of shared patterns of
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 243 variant usage. The resulting plot, a dendrogram, or tree diagram, represents the groupings in terms of a branching tree. Branching indicates groups of speakers who share overall patterns of variation. (There is no significance to the left/right orientation of the branches.) Depth on the plot represents the closeness of the relationships between speakers, as they are grouped through shared patterns of variation. Absolute depth, as indicated by the left-hand scale is not relevant here; what is important is relative depth, such that splits at the top of the tree represent major differences in variation whereas fine clusters at the bottom of the tree represent those speakers showing the closest relationships in terms of their variation. The annotated results for the cluster analysis for wordlist data are shown in Figure 1.3 Moving down from the top, we find a main split in the grouping of the speakers, with the branch to the left of the plot consisting solely of working-class speakers, and all the working-class adolescents. The right branch has all middle-class speakers, and four working-class adults. Within the working-class cluster, the working-class adolescents exist in two subclusters, three to the right and five to the left of a central group of four working-class adults. If we look at the tips of the branches, we find a number of pairs of speakers. These tend to be from the same class/age group; one pair only is a conversational pair (two working-class men). What this shows is that most working-class speakers pattern together in terms of their overall variation for these variables, and moreover, that they are more like each other than the middle-class speakers. The variant usage of working-class adolescents also leads to their being grouped roughly together, and then into two discrete subgroups. Thus this confirms our original category of social class; age is apparent in the grouping of the working-class adolescents, but is less clear for other speakers, and gender seems to be even less important in governing the composition of the clusters. In Principal Components Analysis (PCA) the variation for all speakers for all variables is linked together, and a set of overall patterns is presented in the form of a series of ‘Principal Components’. The first Principal Component is that which describes the pattern of variation which is used most often, the second which is used most often after the first, and so on. It is usual to look at the first two Principal Components, and in particular, to consider the grouping of data points (here our informants) as they are represented in the space constructed between the two Principal Components. Figure 2 gives the annotated output plot from the PCA for wordlist data. It is immediately clear that the first Principal Component on the horizontal axis relates to our factors of ‘age’ and ‘class’. Working-class adolescents are clustered and isolated to the far left of the plot; middle-class adults are generally to the far right. Working-class adults and middle-class adolescents lie in between. The second Principal Component, plotted vertically, does not appear to correlate with any of the three social factors identified by us, or with other social factors. Explanation of the variance is good with the first Principal Component accounting for 26 percent of the variance.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 244 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Figure 2: Output plot from Principal Components Analysis of the 36 variants for eight variables in the wordlists. Working-class adolescents (NKY...) are grouped to the left, whilst middle-class adults (BO...) are grouped to the right
The results of the PCA were subjected to two further analyses. Figure 3 shows the percentage of variance in PCA scores. This characterises the scatter of the groupings in the output plots from the PCA, by showing the numerical variability of the positioning of our informants on the plots. The lower the figure, the closer the speakers are to each other on the plot and hence the more cohesive the group in terms of their adherence to the patterns found by the first two Principal Components. The higher the variance in the scores, the more spread out the
40
35
30
25 MCO MCY 20 WCO 15
Variance WCY
10
5
0 Wordlists
Figure 3: Percentage of variance in PCA scores for wordlists. The closer the score is to zero, the tighter the clustering of data plots on the PCA plot
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 245 speakers are, and so the less cohesive the members of the group are in their use of variation. Here we can see that working-class adolescents show the lowest variability, and hence are the most consistent group in terms of their overall pattern of variation across the eight variables, but note that middle-class adults are also relatively consistent. Less cohesion in variation is found in middle-class adolescents and working-class adults. The second analysis resulted in a ‘loadings’ plot (see Figure 4), showing the relative contribution of the input variants to the positioning of the speakers from the PCA in Figure 2. We are interested in the horizontal spread of variants, which indicates the variants responsible for the positioning of speakers along the first Principal Component, which for us corresponds to ‘age’ and ‘class’. Variants to the far right of the plot are those which contribute most to the position of middle-class adults – (θ):[θ], (ð):[ð], (l):[l], (t):[t], (t):[ʔt], (x): [x], ():[], (r):[r] – a groupofvariantsentirelyconsistentwiththeregionalstandard,ScottishStandard English. The variants to the far left of the plot account most for the position of the working-class adolescents. These are (across both styles): (θ):[h][f], (ð):[v] [ø], (l):[V], (t):[ʔ], (x):[k], ():[w][wh], (r):[V][V ]. This is a group of variants which together do not occur as part of the regional standard, but which can be described as typically non-standard variants, both local and non-local. The cluster analysis provides confirmation of our initial categorisation of informants according to social class. Principal Components Analysis provides three further findings: 1. Two socially polarised groups of speakers emerge which turn out to coincide with our predetermined categories of working-class adolescents and middle- class adults. 2. These two groups show a high degree of consistency in their variation. 3. Thevariantsresponsibleforpositioningthemiddle-classadultsconformtothe regional standard, those for the working-class adolescents are non-standard, local and ‘non-local’.
4. DISCUSSION – GLASWEGIAN IS CHANGING There is clear evidence to answer our first research question, in that we find socially stratified variation, at least with respect to class and age; gender is less well attested. The sociolinguistic polarisation that we observe may,in part, be due to our original sampling from a sociolinguistic continuum (cf. Macaulay 1977). Brato’s (2004) data from working-class and lower-middle-class adolescents from the south side of Glasgow show TH-fronting and L-vocalisation in middle-class speakers, though he acknowledges that some of these were in fact from more deprived areas further south (Pollok, Nitshill). However, what is interesting is the extreme degree of polarisation between social groups demographically adjacent,andthewaythatthispolarisationisdisplayedforthesevariables.Middle- class (adults) show little divergence from the regional standard. Working-class
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 246 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE Schematised version of loadings plot for PCA for variation in wordlists (for original plot, see Stuart-Smith and Tweedie2000).TheplotindicatesthevariantswhichareresponsibleforthepositioningofthespeakersinthecorrespondingPrincipal Components plot (Figure 2). The ovalof to the the working-class left adolescents lists along the the mainof group first the of Principal variants middle-class Component, which that adults. contribute to to Theeither the the axis central position right, box those contains responsible for variants the which location do not contribute to the location of speakers along Figure 4:
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 247 adolescents are exploiting non-standard variation, both local and non-local, and in so doing are changing Glaswegian vernacular. Comparison with other results allows us to assert more confidently that these patterns of variation do reflect changes in progress, though we expect a degree of age-grading to be present at the same time (cf. Sankoff 2006). An analysis of T-glottalling with respect to Macaulay’s findings from 1973 indicates a real-time increaseinglottals(Stuart-Smith1999b).Readandspontaneousspeechcollected in 2003/04 from adults and adolescents (aged ten to 15) from the same area also give real-time confirmation of increases in TH- and DH-fronting, L-vocalisation, and derhoticisation; the use of [w] for () was almost categorical (see Stuart- Smith 2005; Stuart-Smith and Timmins in press). Moreover, Torrance’s (2002) similar findings in the speech of young adults from the nearby housing scheme, Drumchapel, shows that the innovations are not restricted to adolescents, but are being carried with them into their next life stage. Thevariableswhicharechangingshowcomplexityinvariation,suchthateach shows several variant categories with specific social and stylistic distributions. This is caused by the existing local non-standard variation (for (θ) and (ð)), and by the apparent phonetic complexity entailed in other changes (for (x) () (l) (r)). The stylistic range exhibited by the working-class adolescents when reading the wordlist adds a further dimension. In terms of the consonantal variables considered here, we find an interesting array.Certain local non-standard variants are suppressed, such that there are no instances of [h] for (θ), and almost no [ø] for (ð), though there may also be prosodic constraints at work here, especially given that both variants occur in spontaneous speech predominantly in word-initial position within an utterance (e.g. [a hŋk] for I think), whereas in a word-list word-initial position is also utterance initial). But at the same time, there is little attempt to reduce T-glottalling, and alongside this, there is good evidence for L- and R-vocalisation and TH-/DH-fronting. Thus for these variables we seem to have a stylistic choice not to conform to regional standard norms, even when reading a wordlist (cf. Brian B’s use of the vernacular variant for (th) in the Belfast wordlists; Milroy and Gordon 2003: 202). In fact, these findings coincide with the fieldworker’s impressions at the time of the recordings: that the teenagers treated the task as an opportunity to display to her instances of ‘their’ speech, and one can hear them laughing and playing up to the microphone as they read through the list. While this might seem to be an instance of dialect ‘stylisation’ as defined in Coupland (2001a), it may perhaps be more a case of conscious speech styling (cf. Coupland 2001b). The adolescents are certainly speaking in a ‘voice’, but it is one which seems to be representing their own group, or at least a possible version of their own group’s repertoire for that particular context, as opposed to speaking in altera persona (Coupland 2001a: 349). What is interesting is that the non-local non-standard variants are selected for this particular stylistic repertoire. The use of new features and the reduction of traditional features means that the constellation of consonant variants used by working-class adolescents looks
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 248 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE increasingly similar to the non-standard consonant system of (Southern) English English. Taking Glaswegian in the overall U.K. context, we might think that this is dialect levelling in its broadest sense (Kerswill 2003), and in time, this may be the outcome. But there are also important differences, both in the ideological processes involved (see below) and linguistically, for example, in the healthy retention of local non-standard variants. Vowels are not considered, but initial analysis of Scots lexical variation as represented by Scots // in the OUT set (oot for out), also reveals strong maintenance of the vernacular in the same speakers (Stuart-Smith 2003), and we suspect that similar results could follow from analysis of further vowels (see Eremeeva and Stuart-Smith 2003 for BIT and OUT). If we turn to the second question, accounting for the patterns that we have found, we note that simple predictions of mobility/network/class on language change do not seem to work in either direction. More weakly tied, mobile, middle- class speakers do not seem to show language change, maintaining local regional standard variants, whilst more strongly tied, less mobile, working-class speakers are changing their speech, using more non-standard variants, both local and ‘non-local’. But if we look more closely at the social embedding of the variation, we find that the factors of mobility, social networks and social class are involved, but that what links them together are the language ideologies which speakers construct to make sense of social and linguistic practices in Glasgow.
5. CONSTRUCTING GLASWEGIAN Milroy (2004b) sets out the ideas behind an ideological analysis of language in terms of a model of language and indexicality which draws on the work of Silverstein. The indexing of language and social identities can be characterised in terms of a basic link by individuals between some aspect of language and some socially meaningful category (first order indexicality), and the ideology around the link, or the meta-awareness by speakers of social- linguistic indexing which is overtly displayed in ‘noticing, discussion, and rationalisation of first order indexicality’ (second order indexicality): ‘It is these secondorderindexicalprocesseswhichemergeasideologies’(Milroy2004b:167). Importantly, the development of such language ideologies is intrinsically shaped and determined by each individual, and set of individuals, who in turn act in response to their immediate and local context. Moreover, the idea of language ideology to understand linguistic variation and change is not new, but occurs, albeit differently expressed, in one of the first classic works of quantitative sociolinguistics, Labov’s (1963) study of language change and identity in Martha’s Vineyard.4 Our collection of unprompted conversations between friends provided us with sparse evidence for individuals’ orientation towards language and language ideology, particularly from middle-class speakers. We are therefore forced to piece together the fragments with care and some necessary speculation.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 249
Nevertheless, what becomes apparent are contrasting class-based language ideologies differentiating working-class informants from the middle-classes.
5.1 Middle-class adults: ‘You’ve got to try and monitor your own speech’ We began with the notion of Glaswegian middle-class individuals as more weakly tied and relatively mobile, and if not actively mobile, recipients of substantial passive mobility in the form of contact with those born outside Glasgow and particularly in England. The conversations from our eight informants confirm active and regular mobility for several of our informants, and particularly for one middle-class woman whose sister lives in Cornwall, and the pair of middle-class professionals who vie with each other to produce the most exotic location where they have enjoyed water sports. Thesespeakersareconsistentintheirvariationacrosstheeightvariables,andat the same time, adhere to variants which are typical of Scottish Standard English. There is no indication of any kind of reduction of Scottish features, so [x] [] and postvocalic [r] are maintained in these speakers despite actual contact with English English speakers within their local community. This kind of linguistic behaviour points to a potentially divergent response to dialect contact, either through the strengthening of such features during face-to-face interaction (cf. Glauser 1974 for increased lexical differentiation at the Scottish/English political border), or simply by the maintenance of Scottish features. Interestingly, when we consider these results within the overall historical development of Scottish Standard English, we seem to be witnessing some kind of brake on the gradual drift in the direction of English English. However, we suspect that explanations involving contact with English English speakers give us only a small part of the story. Anecdotally we can report that discussions with middle-class Glaswegian friends and colleagues reveal the existence of language ideologies which serve to distinguish the middle classes from the working classes, and which lead to the strong rejection of vernacular linguisticfeatures,particularlybyrecentarrivals.Johnston(1983:11)tooisclear about social climbing in Scotland and the North of England through the deletion of vernacular features. We suggest that at the same time, middle-class adults are actively constructing linguistic codes that eliminate the vernacular and maintain the regional standard.
5.2 Middle-class adolescents: ‘We’re not exactly Glaswegian, are we?’ The situation seems to be similar, though not quite so strict, for our younger middle-class informants. These speakers largely maintain Scottish regional standard norms ([x], [] postvocalic [r]) but at the same time show no instances of TH- or DH-fronting, only low L-vocalisation, and moderate rates of T-glottalling. Their patterning as a group of speakers is more diverse. Like middle-class adults, they are in constant contact with English English speakers. We suggest
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 250 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE that for them, as for our middle-class adults, such contact may also help maintain Scottish features as opposed to reducing them by levelling through accommodation. The topics of discussion in their conversations give insight into their social practices – going out with friends, going to the school dance, looking after pets, teachers, boys, computer games, going on holiday – but little information about their views on language. But there is one exchange which is revealing, between the second pair of girls (Extract 1): Extract 1 Eilidh: I don’t, I don’t exactly know why she picked us for Glaswegian, cos we’re not exactly Glaswegian, are we? Lorna: Hmm. We’re Bearsdenish, Bearsdenwegian. Interestingly, the girls reject themselves as speakers of Glaswegian, since (we assume), their notion of ‘Glaswegian’ rests on stereotypes of Glaswegian vernacular, which they know they do not speak.
5.3 Working-class adults: ‘That was a different world’ Like the middle-class adolescents, the working-class adults linguistically showed more diversity.In spontaneous speech vernacular variants such as [h] and [ɾ] for (θ) and (ð) were typical, though not as frequent as in younger speakers. There was also an unexpected finding for these speakers in the moderate use of [w] for (), and the occurrence of vocalised variants for postvocalic (r). The high usage of the latter variants by younger working-class speakers is anticipated in the speech of the older generation. Maryhill shows low inward migration, and the conversations of our informants do not allude to much active mobility beyond odd references to holidays, and relations in Canada. The women’s talk is largely narratives of recent personal events, such as nights out, shopping, looking after children. The men’s talk is rather different since both pairs talk mostly about the local area, and the first pair talk at length about the physical changes imposed on the area during their lifetime, and in particular, about widespread demolition of buildings – houses, shops, factories, business – which left a landscape utterly changed. The two men struggle to reconstruct how it was before the changes, and frequently express dismay and sadness at the destruction. Milroy (1987: 87) discusses the demolition of the Hammer in Belfast, and the consequentdisruptionofsocialnetworksandtheirimpactonsociallifeinthearea. The distress resulting from the loss of long-standing ties that she describes there could be imagined in Glasgow: people rehoused next to those they did not know, cut off from those they did, and bereft of their old communities. Macafee (1983) draws on Milroy to observe that the radical restructuring of Glasgow would have led to the similar disruption of social networks, which in turn would have reduced their ability to maintain traditional social and linguistic (vernacular) norms.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 251
We suspect that precisely this explains the reduction in expected Scots [] and postvocalic [r] in the speech of the working-class adults, who would have been in their teens during the crucial period of redevelopment. Wherever [w] and the vocalised variants originated, and they would have occurred peripherally in the phonetic variation of most speakers, they became available as further elements in the phonological array for expressing their form of local identity.We also suspect that speakers themselves would not necessarily have been aware that the new variants were not local since they were swiftly reassigned local status, possibly as part of an active differentiation from middle-class speakers who retained them, and who were seen as responsible for the physical and social disruption. Evidence for such a view is found in some comments about the other Scots variable (x) undergoing reduction in our younger working-class speakers, which were made during a brief ‘vox pop’ interview filmed on the Maryhill Road to accompany a BBC news report on our results (Reporting Scotland 19 July 2000): Extract 2 [Young male reporter with southern English accent asks a female Glaswegian speaker in her mid-thirties to read the word loch] Woman: loch[k] Reporter: now you say lock Woman: yep Reporter: do you know it’s supposed to be loch[x]? Woman: uh hmm. ‘ch’ pronounced (laugh) Reporter: why do you pronounce it loch[k]? Woman: (shakes head slowly) Glaswegian. It’s just the way it’s spoken. It is clear that for this woman [k] is ‘local’ and is part of her vernacular, whereas [x] is not, and is associated with literacy, and educated norms. Her ideology now includes and maintains this variant as typical of Glaswegian vernacular, despite the fact that [x] once occupied this function for (x). Thus this linguistic change, here the effective reduction of a local traditional feature, is accompanied by an ideological shift which establishes the new variant as both indexical of the local community and able to differentiate from the other, the educated folk.
5.4 Working-class adolescents: ‘You can tell you come from Possil, man’ We come finally to the leaders of change in our sample, and the group who are furthest away from the middle-class adults in terms of linguistic variation. These speakers seem to be using all possible linguistic resources to construct identitieswhichareasanti-middle-class,andanti-establishmentaspossible.Their conversations give tiny windows onto social practices, many of which are anti- social or even illegal, and most of which are conducted within a short radius of the school, that is thoroughly local (cf. Moore 2003: 214 on the Townies’ local orientation): friends, ‘nipping’ (getting off with) people, fighting for local gangs, hanging out on the streets, breaking and entering, stealing, brushes with the polis
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 252 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
(/pɔls/, ‘police’), and so on. It is possible that these accounts are exaggerated in the boys’ talk, since there are other aspects of the interaction which suggest some awareness of their interaction during the recordings, such as commentating and changed voices (undoubtedly instances of stylisation), and singing and so on. The girls’ discourse is much less self-conscious, but recounts similar practices. That these identities, and the individuals involved in creating them, also align with what is termed ‘working-class’, is not surprising. Eckert (2000: 16) begins her section on ‘Class and the Linguistic Market’ by stating: ‘The jock burnout opposition that dominates social discourse at Belten High foregrounds conflict models of social class.’ Here we have only one side of the opposition, but we would certainly assert that it is the result of ‘passionate and concerted work’. Indeed, this is reflected in their approach to reading the wordlists, which still elicited non-standard variants, in what appears to have been a direct response to the person, accent, and role of the University fieldworker. We also have a further piece of evidence, this time external to the corpus, but from the same area, which corroborates our interpretation. Again, it is the form of some filming that was made to support a brief feature on the Glasgow results which was included in the BBC4 series, Blimey, broadcast in February 2002. This time a small film crew drove round Maryhill with CT as their interviewer, looking for children to interview on the street. The result was a short series of interviews in Possil, with a group of young teenagers attending the same school as our own. The children, three boys and two girls, were first asked to read some words from cards in order to illustrate features of interest: loch, brother, butter, and think elicited [k], [ɾ], [ʔ] and [f] respectively, thus demonstrating similar variation to our own informants. In the group interview that followed, the children said they had strong Glaswegian accents, which they thought were different from those of English speakers, and which they liked. The girls thought that there were several different Glaswegian accents (Extract 3): Extract 3 first girl: cos some people don’t talk pure slang an’ that, an’ some people do second girl: some people talk posh All the children located the posh speakers in and north of Bearsden. The conversation with the two girls continues (Extract 4): Extract 4 second girl: posh people are pure poofs [slang = gay] CT: Do you like a posh Glasgow accent? both girls: No first girl: They talk like that ‘my name is (pause) Samantha’ [high pitched voice, stands to full height, pats chest with a flourish] (laughter) all: (laughter; comments) first girl: They think we’re junkies, heavy junkies [slang = drug addicts]
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 253
CT: You don’t like the posh accent? both girls: No CT: But you like your accent? both girls: Aye CT: yeah, so why do you like your accent? second girl: Cos everybody talks like us so CT: Who’s ‘everybody’? second girl: Like everybody round here, an’ everybody at school first girl: I know second girl: an’ then if you don’t talk like that you get a doing, an’ you get bullied for the rest of your wee, your life These comments confirm our suggestions of class-based language ideologies which relate to processes of sociolinguistic differentiation relating to the immediate local context. They also confirm active maintenance of norms by close peer networks. Later on the children were asked to read the cards again, and this time CT asked them about (x) (Extract 5): Extract 5 CT: (shows card with loch) all: loch [k] CT: You know how it’s really meant to sound? all: loch [x] CT: And so why don’t you say it that way? all at once: that’s pure gay you need to be poofs cos we’re not poofs pure Bearsden pure daft [and other similar comments for several seconds] Thisisyetanothercoincidental,yetrelevant,instanceofsecondorderindexicality, which substantiates our earlier conclusion that [x] is associated with middle-class speech and not local vernacular, and that the ideology around this association is thoroughly negative.5 Interestingly for us, Bearsden, the closest neighbouring middle-class area, where our middle-class informants are from, is one of the pejorative labels applied to [x]. This seems to be sufficient evidence to indicate local construction of linguistic identities accompanied by locally derived, class- based ideologies of linguistic differentiation.
5.5 Summary We are now in a better position to answer the second research question. The sociolinguistic polarisation is underscored by class-based language ideologies which serve to differentiate. Furthermore, the early indications of reduction of traditional local variants in working-class adults can also be interpreted as part of a symbolic system of sociolinguistic differentiation which was at least partly
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 254 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE motivated in response to the widespread changes sustained to the local area during their own adolescence.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS This paper presents a new picture of variation and change in Glaswegian. The long-term history of English in Scotland has seen substantial changes to the varieties of Scots spoken by middle-class speakers, as they orientated towards English English models, resulting in Scottish Standard English, whilst working-class Scots has tended to be more conservative. Our results show a different pattern. Middle-class speakers are not showing changes that would take their consonant system even closer to that of English English. Rather working- class adolescents are innovating and changing their form of Scots, as they polarise themselves linguistically and ideologically from middle-class speakers. It is now time to consider briefly the sources of the extensive repertoire of our innovators. First, it is clear from the history of Glaswegian, and the variation exhibited by the working-class adults, that the traditional non-standard variants, such as (θ):[h] and (ð):[ɾ] have been available for a long time. Second, it would also seem that use of the variants, (x):[k], ():[w], and vocalised /r/, is foreshadowed by such variants in the speech of the earlier generation. And indeed this makes sense if we remember that Macafee (1983) reports instances of both [k] and [w] as possibilities, albeit in younger speakers, and occasional R-vocalisation in adults. Thus it seems likely that these variants too have been acquired from within the community. This leaves us with the troublesome ‘non-local’ variants, [f], [v] and vocalised /l/. It is not possible here to solve the question of the ultimate source of these variants, since it is clear that all three have been present in Glaswegian since at least the early eighties, given the comments in Macafee (1983). In fact, Seamus Simpson (pc) has informed us that [f] may have been in Glasgow substantially earlier. During his period of National Service training in 1956, Simpson was sent to Lanark, the headquarters of the Scottish Rifles. Most of his fellow recruits were from the Gorbals before they were demolished, and many knew others who had been in prison or who were still there. One such recruit was known as ‘Miff’, for ‘Smith’. Simpson has hazy memories of think as [fŋk] and possibly also [k] and [w] for /x/ and //. He speculates about the role of prison, and prison slang, as a conduit for English English features, and hence a dialect contact route for such features to enter Glaswegian with symbolic function. Prison is also mentioned as the speculative source of [f] in another smaller- scale Glaswegian study (Torrance 2002), but this time in a 40-year-old informant who had spent time in prison. Torrance looked at (θ) (l) () (r) in working-class speakers from Drumchapel aged 18–25 and 30–50. Her younger informants showed categorical [w] and clear instances of TH-fronting, L-vocalisation and R-vocalisation. Her informants were not only older, but also showed more active mobility. Her young adults showed strong affiliation to Glasgow but at the same
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 255 time the highest incidence of phonological innovation. Thus use of these variants must be seen in terms of using all possible linguistic resources to signal strongly local identities. This kind of evidence also suggests that theoretically we may have to specify more clearly the points at which dialect contact may or may not play a role in language change. Here it seems that dialect contact may have facilitated (?and continues to facilitate) introduction of variants into the system, but that other mechanisms increase their usage by particular groups of individuals, here our working-class adolescents. It now seems likely that all of their non-standard variants were already available in Urban Scots with symbolic social functions. What we have found which is special is the amplification or exploitation of this variation by these speakers which is at least partly to be explained in terms of the construction of specific, locally situated identities which simultaneously signal their own identity and differentiate them from ‘posh’ people (cf. Kerswill and Williams 2000). In almost all cases, the consonant changes that we are observing are not phonetically exceptional, and as such, external sources need not necessarily be invoked. In fact, there seems no good reason to presume that there must be only a single source for such variation. Note that we do not have to assume that dialect contact must be involved at all stages of the changes for all speakers. Our information for working-class adolescents reduces the likelihood of dialect contact as a direct factor in the exploitation of these consonant changes. The evidence points to changes which are interpreted as local and Glaswegian, as opposed to any indications that these features are perceived as supra-local. Even if the variants did originate in England, the ideologies that make them useful for our speakers locate them firmly in Glasgow. Finally, it is clear from our account that several theoretical models – social networks, mobility,dialect contact, and language ideology – are needed together, and in conjunction with an appreciation of local socio-spatial history,to account for these intriguing data. Are our kids ‘talkin’ Jockney’? Descriptively they are using a mixed consonantal system, with local and non-local features. Whether they intend this repertoire to sound mixed, or anything other than ‘pure Glaswegian’, seems unlikely, though that in itself does not rule out interaction with television or the media as additional contributory factors in these changes. But that is another story altogether.
NOTES 1. This paper has been in progress for a long time. There are two main reasons for this: (1) the arrival of two delightful little boys, Alexander and Max Fruh,¨ in 1999 and 2001 respectively; and (2) the need to analyse and interpret each variable separately before being able to understand how they function together as a whole system. This process is now almost complete. We are grateful to the Leverhulme Trust and the
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 256 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Arts and Humanities Research Board for financial assistance for the analysis and writing up of these data respectively. Audiences at the Sociolinguistic Symposium 2000, the English Language seminar, Newcastle, the Edinburgh Linguistic Circle, the OED Forum, Aberdeen School of English Research seminar, and the Leeds and Sheffield Dialectology Reading Group gave us valued criticism and input. We are also grateful to: Paul Foulkes, Caroline Macafee, Emma Moore, Ronald Macaulay, Lesley Milroy, Jim Scobbie, the two anonymous reviewers, and Nikolas Coupland, for their time and comments; to Max Cowan at Development and Regeneration Services, Glasgow City Council for providing us with Rae (1974); and to Andy Biggart, Department of Sociology, University of Glasgow, for passing on the Clothing Grant data. And finally, but most importantly, we are grateful to Joan Beal for a shove – and patience – at just the right time. 2. These changes may belong to a wider group of changes characterised recently by Milroy (2004) as ‘supralocal/off the shelf’ changes, which are more generally accessible. 3. The plots use an earlier coding of our informants which had ‘B’ for Bearsden, to indicate middle-class informants, and ‘NK’ (North Kelvin) to indicate working-class informants, with O for older, Y for younger, and M and F for male and female respectively. 4. In using such theoretical machinery we do not intend to suggest that we may achieve a complete account of the processes behind the development of these language ideologies. The importance of ethnographically conducted research which works from the observation of social practice to the construction of meaning, both social and linguistic, such as that carried out by Eckert (e.g. 2000), and now in the U.K. by Moore (2003), is both obvious and essential if we are to understand the mechanisms which are as if frozen in our results and our explanation; this is now being tackled for Glaswegian by Lawson’s ethnographic research into urban youth and linguistic practices (e.g. Lawson 2006). 5. This evidence also makes it difficult to consider [k] an instance of ‘levelling’, except in the most limited sense of the term, as a reduction of potential variation within the system.
REFERENCES Aitchison, John. 1983. Principal components analysis of compositional data. Biometrika 70: 57–65. Aitchison, John. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. London: Chapman and Hall Aitken, Adam J. 1979. Scottish speech: A historical view with special reference to the Standard English of Scotland. In Adam J. Aitken and Tom McArthur (eds) The Languages of Scotland. Edinburgh, U.K.: Chambers. 85–119. Aitken, A. J. 1984. Scots and English in Scotland. In Peter Trudgill (ed.) Language in the British Isles. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 517–532. Anderson, Bridget. 2002. Dialect leveling and /ai/ monophthongization among African American Detroiters. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 86–98. Brato, Thorsten. 2004. Current trends in the English of adolescents in Glasgow. Unpublished Masters dissertation. Duisburg, Germany: University of Duisburg- Essen.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 257
Britain, David 2002. Space and spatial diffusion. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.) The Handbook of Variation and Change. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 603–637. Butt, J. 1983. Working-class housing in the Scottish cities, 1900–1950. In George Gordon and Brian Dicks (eds.) Scottish Urban History. Aberdeen, U.K.: Aberdeen University Press. 233–267. Coupland, Nikolas. 2001a. Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society 30: 345–375. Coupland, Nikolas 2001b. Language, situation, and the relational self: Theorizing dialect-style in sociolinguistics. In Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford (eds.) Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press. 185–210. Docherty,GerryandPaulFoulkes.1999.DerbyandNewcastle:Instrumentalphonetics and variationist studies. In Paul Foulkes and Gerry Docherty (eds.) Urban Voices: Variation and change in British Accents. London: Arnold. 47–71. Docherty, Gerry, Paul Foulkes, James Milroy Lesley Milroy and David Walshaw. 1997. Descriptive adequacy in phonology: A variationist perspective. Journal of Linguistics 33: 275–310. Dyer, Judy 2002. ‘We all speak the same round here’: Dialect levelling in a Scottish- English community. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 99–116. Eckert, Penelope. 1997. Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In Florian Coulmas (ed.) Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 151–167. Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Eremeeva, Viktoria and Jane Stuart-Smith 2003. A sociophonetic investigation of the vowels OUT and BIT in Glaswegian. In Maria-Josep Sole, Daniel Recasens and Joaquin Romero (eds.) The Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Autonoma` de Barcelona. 1205–1208. Foulkes, Paul and Gerry Docherty (eds). 1999a. Urban Voices: Variation and Change in British Accents. London: Arnold. Foulkes, Paul and Gerry Docherty 1999b. Urban voices – overview. In Paul Foulkes and Gerry Docherty (eds.) Urban Voices: Variation and Change in British Accents. London: Arnold 1–24. Foulkes, Paul and Gerry Docherty. 2001. Variation and change in British English (r). In Hans Van der Velde and Rouland van Hout (eds.) r-atics: Sociolinguistic, Phonetic and Phonological Characteristics of /r/. Brussels, Belgium: ILVP. 173–184. Gibb, Andrew. 1983. Glasgow: The Making of a City. London: Croom Helm. Glauser, Beat. 1974. The Scottish-English Linguistic Border: Lexical Aspects. Bern, Switzerland: Franke. Horsey, Miles. 1990. Tenements and Towers: Glasgow Working-class Housing 1890– 1990. Edinburgh: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Horvath, Barbara. 1985. Variation in Australian English. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Johnston, Paul. 1983. Irregular style variation patterns in Edinburgh speech. Scottish Language 2: 1–19. Johnston, Paul. 1997. Regional variation. In Charles Jones (ed.) The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University press. 433–513. Jones, Charles (ed.). 1997. The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. Kerswill, Paul. 1996. Children, adolescents and language change. Language, Variation and Change 8: 177–202.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 258 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Kerswill, Paul. 2002. Koineization and accommodation. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.) The Handbook of Variation and Change. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 669–701. Kerswill, Paul. 2003. Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In David Britain and Jenny Cheshire (eds.) Social Dialectology: In Honour of Peter Trudgill. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins. 223–243. Kerswill, Paul and Ann Williams. 2000. Mobility versus social class in dialect levelling: Evidence from new and old towns in England. In Klaus Mattheier (ed.) Dialect and Migration in a Changing Europe. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. 1–13. Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19: 273– 309. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Lawson, Eleanor and Jane Stuart-Smith. 1999. A sociophonetic investigation of the ‘Scottish’ consonants (/x/ and /hw/) in the speech of Glaswegian children. In John Ohala (ed.) The Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Science. Berkeley, California: University of California 2541–2544. Lawson, Robert. 2006. ‘I’d be worried if I was called a ned’: Sociolinguistic construc- tions of identity in a Glasgow high school. Poster presentation at Sociolinguistics Symposium 16, University of Limerick, Ireland. 6–8 July. Markus, Thomas. 1999. Comprehensive development and housing, 1945–1975. In Peter Reed (ed.) The Forming of the City. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 147–165. McKean, Charles. 1999. Between the wars. In Peter Reed (ed.) The Forming of the City. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 130–145. Macafee, Caroline. 1983. Varieties of English around the World: Glasgow. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamin. Macafee, Caroline. 1994. Traditional Dialect in the Modern World: A Glasgow Case Study. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang. Macafee, Caroline. 1997. Ongoing Change in Modern Scots: The social dimension.In Charles Jones (ed.) The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 514–548. Macaulay, Ronald. 1977. Language, Social Class and Education: A Glasgow Study. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. Macaulay, Ronald. 1999. Is sociolinguistics lacking in style? Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa 8: 9–33. Macaulay, Ronald. 2005. Talk that Counts: Age, Gender, and Social Class Differences in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. Maver, Irene. 2000. Glasgow. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. Meyerhoff, Miriam and Nancy Niedzielski. 2003. The globalization of vernacular variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 534–555. Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Milroy, James. 1996. A current change in British English: Variation in (th) in Derby. Durham and Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 187–196. Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy. 1985. Linguistic change, social network, and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384. Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy. 1999. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge. 150–160. Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Milroy, Lesley. 2002. Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change – working with contemporary speech communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 3–15.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 259
Milroy, Lesley. 2004a. The accents of the valiant: Why are some sound changes more accessible than others? Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, University of Newcastle, U.K.. 1–4 April. Milroy, Lesley. 2004b. Language ideologies and linguistic change. In Carmen Fought (ed.) Critical Reflections on Sociolinguistic Variation. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. 161–177. Milroy, Lesley and Matthew Gordon. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Milroy, Lesley and James Milroy. 1992. Social network and social class: Towards an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society 21: 1–26. Milroy, Lesley, James Milroy and Gerry Docherty. 1997. Phonological Variation and Change in Contemporary Spoken British English. Final report on ESRC R000234892. Moore, Emma. 2003. Learning style and identity: A sociolinguistic analysis of a Bolton High School. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Manchester, U.K.: University of Manchester. Pacione, Michael. 1995. Glasgow: The Socio-spatial Development of the City. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley. Rae, J. 1974. Maryhill Corridor District Study. Report to Glasgow District Council. Reed, Peter (ed.). 1999a. Glasgow: The Forming of the City. Edinburgh, U.K. : Edinburgh University Press. Reed, Peter. 1999b. The forming of the city. In Peter Reed (ed.) The Forming of the City. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 1–8. Reed, Peter. 1999c. Beyond the centre. In Peter Reed (ed.) The Forming of the City. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 202–223. Reid,Euan.1978.Socialandstylisticvariationinthespeechofchildren:Someevidence from Edinburgh. In Peter Trudgill (ed.) Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London: Edward Arnold. 158–171. Romaine, Suzanne. 1978. Postvocalic /r/ in Scottish English: Sound change in progress? In Peter Trudgill (ed.) Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London: Edward Arnold. 144–157. Sankoff, Gillian. 2006. Age: Apparent time and real time. In Keith Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier. Scobbie, James and Jane Stuart-Smith 2006. Covert articulation of Scottish English /r/: Now you see and hear it, now you don’t. Paper presented at 14th Manchester Phonology Meeting. Manchester, U.K.: University of Manchester. 25–27 May. Smith, Roger and Urlan Wannop (eds.). 1985. Strategic Planning in Action: The Impact of the Clyde Valley Regional Plan, 1946–1982. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower. Stuart-Smith, Jane. 1999a. Glasgow: Accent and voice quality. In Paul Foulkes and Gerry Docherty (eds.) Urban Voices: Variation and Change in British Accents. London: Arnold. 203–222. Stuart-Smith, Jane. 1999b. Glottals past and present: A study of T-glottalling in Glaswegian. Leeds Studies in English 30: 181–204. Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2003. The phonology of Modern Urban Scots. In John Corbett, Derrick McClure and Jane Stuart-Smith (eds.) The Edinburgh Companion to Scots. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 110–137. Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2004. The phonology of Scottish English. In Clive Upton (ed.) Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 47– 67. Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2005. Is TV a Contributory Factor in Accent Change in Adolescents? Final Report to the Economic and Social Research Council. Grant No. R000239757.
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 260 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE
Stuart-Smith, Jane. Forthcoming. Empirical evidence for gendered speech production: /s/ in Glaswegian. To appear in Jennifer Cole and Jose-Igacio Hualde (eds.) Change in Phonology: Papers in Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stuart-Smith, Jane and Robert Lawson. 2006. An acoustic investigation of postvocalic /r/ in Glaswegian adolescents. Poster presented at the Colloquium of the British Academic Association of Phonetics. Edinburgh, U.K.: Queen Margaret University College, 10–12 April. Stuart-Smith, Jane and Claire Timmins. In press. ‘Tell her to shut her moof’: The role of the lexicon in TH-fronting in Glaswegian. To appear in Graham Caie, Carole Hough and Irene Wotherspoon (eds.) The Power of Words. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi. Stuart-Smith, Jane, Claire Timmins, Eleanor Lawson and Fiona Tweedie. 2003. Changing consonants: Insights from a contemporary Glaswegian corpus. Paper presented to the Philological Society, University of Manchester, U.K.: 21 November. Stuart-Smith, Jane, Claire Timmins and Fiona Tweedie 2006. Conservation and innovation in a traditional dialect: L-vocalization in Glaswegian. English World Wide 27: 71–87. Stuart-Smith, Jane and Fiona Tweedie. 2000. Accent Change in Glaswegian: A Sociophonetic Investigation. Final Report to the Leverhulme Trust. Grant No. F/179/AX. Available http//www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESL1/EngLang/research/accent/accent1.htm Timmins, Claire, Fiona Tweedie and Jane Stuart-Smith 2004. Accent Change in Glaswegian (1997 corpus): Results for Consonant Variables. Glasgow, U.K.: Department of English Language, University of Glasgow. http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/EngLang/research/accent/results 070904.pdf Torrance, Karen. 2002. Language attitudes and language change in Glaswegian Speech. Unpublished MPhil dissertation. Department of English Language, University of Glasgow. Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, Peter (ed.). 1984. Language in the British Isles. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Tweedie, Fiona and Bernard Frischer. 1999. Analysis of Classical Greek and Latin compositional word-order data. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 6: 85–97. Wells, John. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Williams, Ann and Paul Kerswill. 1999. Dialect levelling: Change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Paul Foulkes and Gerry Docherty (eds.) Urban Voices: Variation and Change in British Accents. London: Arnold. 141–162.
Address correspondence to: Jane Stuart-Smith Department of English Language University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ United Kingdom [email protected]
C The authors 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007