Phonological resistance and innovation in the North-West of England

KEVIN WATSON

Liverpool: An accent that is holding its own

OVER THE past few decades, studies of dialect another is showing signs of moving not levelling have concluded that phonological towards a putative regional standard, but is in convergence amongst varieties of British Eng- fact diverging from phonological norms. lish is rife. This review attempts to demon- The notion of dialect levelling has been strate the opposite, in the variety of English around for almost a hundred years (cf. Watt & spoken in Liverpool. Despite various media Milroy 1999 for a succinct summary of the reports predicting the death of Liverpool Eng- development of the term), but it is only quite lish, evidence is provided here that the variety recently that the mechanisms of levelling are appears to be resisting the innovation of ‘T- being thoroughly investigated. Williams & Ker- glottalling’, a feature which is frequent else- swill (1999:149) provide the often cited defin- where, and instead shows signs of divergence ition of the phenomenon, as ‘a process whereby from any kind of supra-local regional norm. differences between regional varieties are reduced, features which make varieties distinc- tive disappear, and new features emerge and Introduction: dialect levelling in are adopted over a wide geographical area.’ the UK Strictly speaking, the above characterization One of the most frequently occurring themes in encompasses two closely related but distinct British variationist sociolinguistics in recent processes which Kerswill (2003:223), follow- years has concerned regional dialect levelling, ing Trudgill (1986) and Britain (2002), refers the process by which the particularly regional to as geographical diffusion and levelling respec- and potentially stigmatised phonological or tively. Geographical diffusion is the process grammatical features of a dialect gradually dis- whereby features spread out from a populous appear. These features are often replaced with and economically and culturally dominant cen- widespread supra-local norms, which reduces tre. Levelling, on the other hand, involves the the variability typically found between the reduction of marked variants. dialects of neighbouring geographical areas. Britain (2002:63) argues that ‘supra-local regi- olects’ are being created, which are fewer in KEVIN WATSON is a lecturer in English Phonetics number and larger in geographical size than in the Department of Linguistics and English regional dialects, and which are a result of Language at Lancaster University in the UK. While ‘increased intra-regional mobility’ over the lat- his research interests are in the fields of phonetics ter half of the 20th century. This article reports and phonology, he seeks to combine insights from a study of phonological variation and change these areas with variationist sociolinguistics. The in Liverpool, one of the larger urban centres in three fields are combined in his doctoral thesis, ‘The the north-west of England. It is argued that phonetics and phonology of plosive lenition in certain aspects of Liverpool English (‘Scouse’) Liverpool English’. email: pronunciation are resisting levelling, and that [email protected]

DOI: 10.1017/S0266078406002100 English Today 86, Vol. 22, No. 2 (April 2006). Printed in the United Kingdom © 2006 Cambridge University Press 55 Evidence for each of these mechanisms in spread of labiodental [] for /r/, the fronting of varieties of British English is plentiful, and has dental fricatives /θ, ð/ to [f, v], and the use of been noted in Newcastle (Watt & Milroy 1999, the glottal stop [ʔ] for /t/. Space constraints Watt 2002), Hull, Reading, Milton Keynes restrict detailed discussion of each of these (Williams and Kerswill 1999), Middlesbrough variables here, so we concentrate in the (Llamas 2000), Northamptonshire (Dyer remainder of this section on the geographical 2002), Norwich (Trudgill 1999), and else- diffusion just one of them – the glottal stop. As where – see also Britain (2002) and Kerswill we will see, this will be significant for the fol- (2003) for detailed summaries of these and lowing analysis of Liverpool English which similar studies. Before we move on to consider begins in the next section. processes of levelling in Liverpool English, we The presence of the glottal stop as a realisa- briefly consider a number of examples of the tion of /t/ is arguably one of the most common two different types of levelling mechanisms. phonological process in that it occurs in many One well-known example of levelling via the varieties of British English. Trudgill (1974) reduction of marked variants is the loss of describes how it was not until the middle of the rhotic /r/ in most varieties of English in Eng- 20th century that glottalling gained a foothold land over the last century. According to Britain in most of eastern England (though it was (2002) r-loss in words like car was evident attested in London, as well as Glasgow in Scot- even in the early 19th century and intensified land, earlier than this), but by then it had not and spread throughout the 20th. This spread of yet found its way to the north of England. Now, the loss of /r/, even in rural areas which were though, the glottal stop is well attested in traditionally its stronghold, is attributed to almost all British English varieties, from dialect contact induced by the ‘gentrification of Received Pronunciation (cf. Wells 1982, Crut- the countryside’ (Britain 2002:56). Such rural tenden 1994, Fabricius 2000) to too many locations have become desirable places to live, regional varieties to do justice to here. and have been subjected to influxes of people To gain an indication of the pervasiveness of who are non-rhotic. Connected to this, of the glottal stop, it is interesting to note that /t/ course, is the low prestige and stigma fre- → [ʔ] is evident to some degree in all of the quently associated in England with rhoticity. accents discussed in Foulkes & Docherty Another example of levelling can be found in (1999), which include Newcastle, Sheffield, certain phonological changes affecting the West Wirral, Norwich, Reading, Milton FACE vowel in Tyneside English (cf. Watt & Keynes, Hull, Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Milroy 1999, Watt 2002). The traditional and Dublin. This is despite the well-known Tyneside form of this vowel is /iə/, which is dif- observation that the glottal stop is (or, at the ferent from the RP-like closing diphthong /ei/, very least, once was) ‘one of the… most stig- and from the monophthongal /e/, which Watt matised features of British English’ (Milroy, (2002:47) terms the ‘mainstream northern Milroy, & Hartley 1994:4). The spread of the variant’. In modern Tyneside English, how- glottal stop is among the reasons for the recent ever, the traditional FACE vowel is used only newspaper reports claiming that all accents are by older speakers, with the young preferring becoming like Estuary English (e.g., ‘Much ado the mainstream northern variant. Younger about nuffin,’ Louisa Young, The Guardian, 2 Tynesiders, then, have adopted a supra-local June 1999). Interestingly, as far as our current northern variant over the standard variant and focus is concerned, other reports have claimed as a result are losing one of the features which there are similar changes going on in Liverpool marks them identifiably as hailing from the English (‘Scouse is threatened by rising tide of North East. Their desire, Watt (2002) points Estuary English’, Kathy Marks, The Indepen- out, is to sound like northerners, but modern dent, 1 June 1999). As always with such jour- northerners, who are aware of – and are nalistic reports, the claims made must be con- inclined to avoid – ‘old fashioned’ phonological sidered with caution. We will reserve further features. comment for now until we have reviewed the The other mechanism of levelling, geograph- linguistic evidence. ical diffusion, is most clearly evidenced by con- We have now seen the two mechanisms of sonantal, rather than vocalic, variables. Ker- levelling at work: (1) that which reduces the swill (2003) cites three such variables as the variants which are socially stereotyped and classic examples of geographical diffusion: the replaces them with some feature which is

56 ENGLISH TODAY 86 April 2006 spread over a wider geographical region (for suprasegmental aspects of Liverpool English example, r-loss, and loss of the traditional phonology and features of the variety’s gram- Tyneside FACE vowel); (2) that which matical system, although Knowles points out increases the similarity of neighbouring accents that it is aspects of phonology, not syntax, by spreading features from one to another via which are most region-specific. Knowles com- geographical diffusion (for example, glot- ments that ‘the peculiarities of [Liverpool Eng- talling). In the next section, we begin to exam- lish] are almost entirely phonological. When ine the evidence for the operation of either of someone speaks, he produces a constant these mechanisms in Liverpool English. stream of prosodic patterns and segmental fea- tures which mark him unmistakably as a Liver- pudlian’ (1973:50). Liverpool English These ‘unmistakable’ features have been Decades of ‘Liverpudlian’ exports (including, in studied more recently from a number of differ- the 1960s, the Beatles and Cilla Black; in the ent perspectives. Sangster (2001) provides a 1980s and 90s, popular UK television shows detailed phonetic account of Liverpool English such as Brookside; and in the new millennium alveolar plosives, and Honeybone (2001) high-profile footballers) have helped Liverpool examines the voiceless alveolar and velar stops English to become one of the more well-recog- phonologically. A phonetic and phonological nised accents of the British Isles. Despite this analysis is combined in Watson (forthcoming), high profile, however, the accent has tradition- which investigates each of the six plosives in ally done badly in polls of ‘popular accents’ (cf. utterance-final position. However, whilst Giles & Trudgill 1978). Commentary about Knowles has provided a detailed investigation Liverpool English in the local and national of 1960s Liverpool English, and other studies press is undecided with regard to its prestige. have considered the contemporary linguistic In September 2000, a report in the Guardian system, no work has been carried out which suggested that the perception of the Liverpool attempts to compare the two in order to exam- accent as friendly and welcoming was the rea- ine issues of phonological change in the variety. son for the surge in telephone call centres in We are therefore as yet unable to consider the city (‘Scousers put the accent on success’ the Liverpool English phonological system in David Ward, The Guardian, 22 Sept 2000), but terms of the discussion of dialect levelling in December 2005, a report in the Independent above. This paper provides the necessary com- suggested the opposite, arguing that having a parison by examining the parallels between the Liverpool accent was detrimental to the speak- observations of Knowles (1973) and a new cor- ers’ employment prospects (‘How to make it in pus of data from 16 adolescents (collected in business: don’t have a regional accent’, Ian 2001). Before we consider the phonological Herbert Smith, The Independent, 29 Dec 05). features under discussion here, we end this Of course, this sort of popular commentary is section with a general illustration of the impor- regularly made of many British accents (Watt tant aspects of the Liverpool English phonolog- 2002 provides similar examples for Tyneside ical system. English), but as long as it is considered cau- As expected, given the geographical location tiously it can shed interesting light on issues of the city, Liverpool shares numerous phono- concerning the popular perception of the vari- logical features with other north-western cities. eties under scrutiny. Like other accents in the north, for example, the In terms of linguistic research that has con- STRUT and FOOT vowels are typically the same sidered it, Liverpool English has certainly not (i.e. [υ]), and the BATH vowel is the short [a]. been ignored. We are still some way from The START & PALM vowels are typically front knowing the full phonetic and phonological for working-class speakers (i.e. [a]) whereas facts, but much more consideration has been the middle class make a modification to an RP- paid to Liverpool English than, say, to Man- like [ɑ]. The middle class are also more likely chester English, or any variety of English spo- to have an RP-like distinction between the ken in Lancashire. The earliest study of Liver- NURSE and SQUARE lexical sets, using a cen- pool English, Knowles (1973), remains the tral [ ] and something like the fronter [ε] seminal work and is the investigation which respectively. Working-class speakers typically has examined the widest range of linguistic exhibit a lack of contrast in these sets, which details. These include both segmental and have merged to the front variant [ε].

PHONOLOGICAL RESISTANCE AND INNOVATION IN THE NORTH-WEST OF ENGLAND 57 Words such as book, cook and look typically (1973) points out, although Watson (forth- have the long vowel of the GOOSE set rather coming) demonstrates that /b/ and /g/ lenite far than that of the FOOT set, like elsewhere in the less frequently than /d/ or any of the voiceless north. Perhaps the biggest difference between stops. It is, in fact, /t/ and /k/ which lenite most Liverpool English vowels and those of many frequently of all the stops, and it is unsurpris- other northern English varieties is that Liver- ing therefore that these segments have pool English has diphthongs where other attracted the attention of most modern northern varieties would use monophthongs. research (Sangster 2001, Honeybone 2001, The SQUARE lexical set mentioned above Honeybone & Watson 2001, Honeybone excepted, the other sets, including CHOICE, 2002). PRICE, FACE, GOAT and MOUTH have (rising) I will also focus here on one of these seg- diphthongs. ments, /t/, not only because it is a classic lenit- With the consonantal system, too, there are ing variable of Liverpool English phonology similarities with other northern Englishes, but, (and one of the features of the variety which is as we shall see, it is here that there are the great- most stereotypical and geographically est number of features more or less unique to restricted), but also because the glottalling of Liverpool. Like other varieties in the West and /t/ (as seen in the previous discussion) is one of North West of England, the [ ] in words such as the classic features of dialect levelling. Accord- thing and singer is maintained, e.g. [θiŋ , ingly, it is with respect to /t/ that the mecha- siŋ ε]. Knowles (1973:301) observes that, nisms of levelling should be visible, if indeed although reduplicated forms such as singing such mechanisms are at work in contemporary [siŋ iŋ ] are not common, they are attested. Liverpool English. However, before consider- The velar nasal/alveolar-nasal alternation ing whether this is indeed so, some more infor- found in other varieties is also attested, e.g. mation on the nature of Liverpool English /t/ in singing [siŋ in]. Liverpool English /r/ is tapped the 1960s is in order. in non-initial position, e.g. mirror [miɾε], Amer- ican [əmεɾikən], breath [bɾεθ], but red [ɹεd], Liverpool English /t/ in the 1960s right [ɹait]. A phonological feature of Liverpool English which is more geographically restricted As well as the phonological processes of than the features examined so far is the ‘stop- affrication and spirantisation outlined above, ping’ of the dental fricatives /θ, ð/. Knowles Knowles has observed an additional process he (1973:331) shows that whilst the middle class calls ‘/t/ elision’. This is not simply a product of typically favour the standard variants [θ] and coarticulation, but is tightly constrained by the [ð], the working class often use dentalised or Liverpool English linguistic system. He argues laminal alveolar stops in both initial, final and (1973:234), for example, that ‘there is a small intervocalic positions, e.g. the [də], brother class of words including get got bit what that it [bɾυdε], plinth [plint]. Knowles does not find not in which the final /t/ is pronounced before TH-fronting in the variety. another consonant but can be elided in The final set of consonantal variables to be absolute final position’. This is not the replace- discussed here are the most regionally ment of /t/ with a glottal stop, as Knowles notes restricted of all Liverpool English phonological that the glottal stop is rare in the variety. features, and contribute most strongly to the Instead, there is absence of both an oral ges- stereotype. This feature is the lenition of ture and a glottal closing gesture (elsewhere, I phonological plosives. Lenition is a cover term have called this process ‘t→h’ rather than ‘t-eli- for a set of phonological processes which are sion’ because there is an audible release of often glossed as the softening or weakening of breath, and I will retain that label here: see plosives to affricates and fricatives (see Watson Watson 2005 & Watson forthcoming for fur- forthcoming). As Hughes and Trudgill ther discussion). What is crucial for the follow- (1996:93) put it: Liverpool English ‘/p, t, k/ are ing analysis is that in 1960s Liverpool English, heavily aspirated or even affricated. Thus, can’t ‘t→h’ (that is, Knowles’ t-elision) was only [kxɑnt], straight [stɾeits], back [bakx]. In final attested in monosyllabic function words (and position, /p, t, k/ may be realised as fricatives high frequency ‘pseudo’ function words like get [φ s x].’ and got) with short vowels, in pre-pausal posi- The voiced plosives also lenite [that is, are tion. realised as affricates or fricatives], as Knowles The presence of ‘t→h’ is a classic potential

58 ENGLISH TODAY 86 April 2006 Table 1

Monosyllabic Monosyllabic Polysyllabic words Polysyllabic words function words functions words with a final weak with primary or with short vowels with long vowels syllable secondary stress on and ‘pseudo-’ the final syllable function words at, it, not, that, what, bet, cat, eat, aggregate, biscuit, acrobat, boycott, bit, get (v), got get(n), height, hot, bucket, certificate, cigarette, forgot, knot, light, lot, net, chocolate, delicate, internet, jackpot, out, pet, pit, delicate, maggot, reset, teapot, tonight pot, right, shot, merit, Robert, target, shout, wait, watt, ticket weight, wrote, yet candidate to be lost via either levelling or geo- pausal /t/. The target words are presented in graphical diffusion. First, ‘t→h’ occurs almost Table 1, sorted according to their segmental uniquely in Liverpool English (although see and prosodic patterning. Those words in col- Hickey 1999 for a discussion of Dublin Eng- umn A represent the only words that would lish), and is a salient marker of the stereotype. allow ‘t→h’ in 1960s Liverpool English. Liverpool is surrounded by accent varieties During the analysis, spectrograms were which do not exhibit this process. In addition examined and phonological stops were cate- to this, the environment for ‘t→h’ is exactly the gorised according to whether there was an oral environment where we might expect glottal gesture or not. That is, no distinction was replacement to occur – the process that is made between ‘aspirate’, ‘affricate’ or ‘fricative’ spreading throughout almost all British Eng- tokens and all were classified as ‘oral’. If no lish varieties. oral gesture was detected, the glottal gesture Given the above, two questions arise. The was further classified as either a glottal frica- first is: Does ‘t→h’ still occur in contemporary tive or a glottal stop. Liverpool English, and if so, does it occur in the same tightly constrained environments? The Contemporary Liverpool English /t/ second is: Has the glottal stop, which was rare in the 1960s, made any inroads to try to sup- Table 2 presents the percentage of tokens in plant this particularly Liverpudlian feature? which /t/ was articulated with an oral gesture. Some light on these issues emerges from a con- The greater the percentage, the more times /t/ sideration of new data. was realised either as an aspirate, an affricate, or a fricative, but not [ʔ] or [h]. In fact, of all 945 tokens of pre-pausal /t/, there was not a The new data single case of a glottal stop. Therefore, in Table The data on which the following remarks are 2, the lower the word in the table, the higher based was collected in 2001 from 16 adoles- the frequency of ‘t→h’. cent speakers of Liverpool English. All speak- It is clear that the presence of ‘t(h’ is still ers, who were born and raised in the electoral robust in monosyllabic function words with ward of Vauxhall as in Knowles’ previous work, short vowels. For example, all the words in were asked to complete two elicitation tasks. which ‘t→h’ never occurs are lexical items, The first required them to rearrange the order except one, out, and [h] is prohibited here by of words in a series of sentences to make them virtue of the long vowel. The monosyllabic grammatical. Each sentence for this task was words in which ‘t→h’ occurs most consistently written so that the only possible correct answer are indeed function words with short vowels. placed the target word in pre-pausal position. For example, /t/ is realised as [h] over 70% of The second task involved role-playing dialogue the time in that, what, not, and at. Other between a pair of speakers. As with the first monosyllabic lexical words (e.g. bet, cat, eat, task, each target word here was also pre- get, pot, shot, net) have an oral gesture for /t/ pausal. The tasks generated 945 tokens of pre- 100% of the time. The importance of the dis-

PHONOLOGICAL RESISTANCE AND INNOVATION IN THE NORTH-WEST OF ENGLAND 59 Table 2 Table 3 The presence of ‘t→h’ in polysyllabic words %age Words containing ‘t→h’ No ‘t→h’ oral gesture aggregate acrobat 100 acrobat, bet, boycott, cat, biscuit cigarette cigarette, eat, get (n), height, bucket internet hot, internet, knot, jackpot, certificate jackpot light, net, out, pit, pot, pet, chocolate reset right, reset, shot, shout, teapot, delicate teapot tonight, watt, wrote, weight, forgot tonight wait maggot ticket 70–99 yet target 50–69 lot Robert 30–49 merit, get, bit, aggregate 1–29 delicate, at, got, it, not, certificate, forgot, maggot, polysyllabic words which never exhibit it. ticket, target, Robert, that, what These include acrobat, internet, cigarette, reset, 0 biscuit, bucket, chocolate teapot, and tonight. Table 3 lists the polysyl- labic words in which ‘t→h’ is and is not attested. The No ‘t→h’ column in the table indi- cates that /t/ is always realised with an oral ges- tinction between lexical words and function ture. The ‘t→h’ column includes words in words can be seen clearly in the following com- which /t/ is sometimes realised as [h]. It should parisons: be noted that in the ‘t→h’ column the word in /t/ [h] Do you want one or not? (‘t→h’ = 73%) which is realised as least often is aggre- /t/ Did you tie that string in a knot? (‘t→h’ = 0%) gate, and even here has no oral gesture 58% of the time. → He said what? (‘t h’ = 89%) This time, the conditioning environment for The sixty watt? (‘t→h’ = 0%) polysyllabic words is phonological. Almost all In each of the above pairs, the lexical items words in which ‘t→h’ occurs have unstressed never exhibit ‘t→h’, but the grammatical words final syllables, and so, in each case, the final /t/ have [h] very consistently. is preceded by a weak vowel. Every word in However, to account for the presence of which ‘t→h’ is prohibited has final syllable ‘t→h’ with a generalisation such as ‘t→h’ can stress (tonight, cigarette) or secondary stress occur in monosyllabic function words with short on the final syllable (acrobat, internet), and so vowels, is no longer sufficient, and it is here ends in a full, non-weak vowel. The only word that the current data differs most significantly in the data set which does not follow this pat- from previous work on the phenomenon. It is tern, that is, which is stressed on the final syl- clear that, as well as being frequent in mono- lable yet still allows ‘t→h’ is forgot. One expla- syllabic function words with short vowels, nation for this may be that the speakers have ‘t→h’ is now also common in polysyllabic generalised by analogy from got, which Table 2 words. Indeed, the three words in which ‘t→h’ showed also allowed ‘t→h’. In fact, we can con- occurs most frequently (100% of the time) are sider the relationship between pot and jackpot, polysyllabic: biscuit, bucket and chocolate. and net and internet in this regard. The poly- Other polysyllabic words in which ‘t→h’ occurs syllabic word forgot allows ‘t→h’ despite its frequently include maggot, Robert, target, and final syllable stress arguably because the high ticket (over 80% of the time) and merit frequency monosyllabic word got exhibits it. (around 70% of the time). It is not restricted to The words pot and net, on the other hand, do bisyllabic words, as the frequent presence of not exhibit ‘t→h’ at all, and so the polysyllabic ‘t→h’ in aggregate (58%), certificate (85%) and words jackpot and internet, do not allow ‘t→h’ delicate (73%) demonstrates. either. This explanation can only be tentative, The presence of ‘t→h’ is not random here but it seems at least plausible. because as with monosyllabic words, there are In summary, then, the lexical and phonolog-

60 ENGLISH TODAY 86 April 2006 ical environments in which ‘t→h’ occurs have adequacy and aesthetics.’ Reprinted in Trudgill, extended since Knowles’ (1973) consideration Peter. 1983. On dialect: social and geographical → perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 201–25. of the phenomenon; ‘t h’ is not completely Hickey, Raymond. 1999. ‘Dublin English: current unrestricted, but its domain of application is changes and their motivation.’ In Foulkes & much wider. The process has spread from Docherty, eds. occurring solely in monosyllabic words with Honeybone, Patrick. 2001. ‘Lenition inhibition in short vowels to polysyllabic words which end Liverpool English.’ In English Language and Linguistics 5, pp. 213–249. in a syllable with a weak vowel. —. 2002. ‘Germanic obstruent lenition: some mutual implications of theoretical and historical phonology.’ In B. Blake & K. Burridge, Historical Linguistics 2001, Conclusion: divergence pp. 181–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. — & Kevin Watson. 2005. ‘Liverpool English: Earlier in this article, we saw how Liverpool linguistics meets history, society and culture.’ Talk at English ‘t→h’ was a strong potential candidate the conference for the Centre of Liverpool and to be lost via either geographical diffusion Merseyside Studies. (because of the rapid spread of the glottal stop) Hughes, Arthur, & Peter Trudgill. 1996. English Accents or levelling (because it is one of the features of and Dialects. 3rd edition. London: Arnold. Kerswill, Paul. 2003. ‘Dialect levelling and the variety which is socially marked). How- geographical diffusion in British English.’ In David ever, there is no evidence of this in the new Britain, & Jenny Cheshire, eds, Social Dialectology: data. First, the glottal stop is not spreading to In honour of Peter Trudgill, pp. 223–243. utterance-final position, where ‘t→h’ still Amsterdam: Benjamins. Knowles, Gerry. 1973. ‘Scouse: The urban dialect of occurs. As well as this, the phonological and Liverpool.’ Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of lexical constraints on ‘t→h’ have extended, so Leeds. that ‘t→h’ now occurs in a wider range of Llamas, Carmen. 2000. ‘Middlesbrough English: words than before. convergent and divergent trends in a part of It has been observed that phonological diver- England with no identity.’ In Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 8. gence among accents of British English has not Milroy, James, Lesley Milroy, & Sue Hartley. 1994. been frequently documented (Kerswill 2003). ‘Local and supra-local change in British English: the However, it seems that in resisting the spread case of glottalization.’ In English World Wide 15, pp. of the glottal stop, Liverpool English is resisting 1–33. Sangster, Catherine. 2001. ‘Lenition of alveolar stops in one of the processes of supralocalisation which Liverpool English.’ In the Journal of Sociolinguistics is widely attested elsewhere in Britain. In addi- 5/3, pp. 401–412. tion, the extension of ‘t→h’ provides evidence Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The sociolinguistic differentiation that Liverpool English is not, as the popular of English in Norwich. Cambridge: University Press. press would have us believe, losing its region- Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell. ality but is instead moving in the opposite —. 1999. ‘Norwich: endogenous and exogenous direction and diverging from supra-local linguistic change.’ In Foulkes & Docherty, eds. norms. Watt, Dominic. 2002. ‘I don’t speak with a Geordie accent, I speak, like, the Northern accent: contact induced levelling in the Tyneside vowel system.’ In References the Journal of Sociolinguistics 6/1, pp. 44–63. Britain, David. 2002. ‘Phoenix from the ashes?: the — & Lesley Milroy. 1999. ‘Patterns of variation and death, contact and birth of dialects in England.’ In change in three Newcastle vowels: is this dialect Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 41:42–73. levelling?’ In Foulkes & Docherty, eds. Cruttenden, Alan. 1994. Gimson’s pronunciation of Watson, Kevin. Forthcoming. ‘The Phonetics and English. London: Arnold. Phonology of Plosive Lenition in Liverpool English.’ Dyer, Judy. 2002. ‘We all speak the same round here: Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University, Edge Dialect levelling in a Scottish-English community.’ In Hill College. the Journal of Sociolinguistics 6/1 99–116. —. 2005. ‘Phonological convergence and divergence in Fabricius, Anne. 2000. ‘T-glottalling: between stigma Liverpool English.’ A paper presented at the 5th UK and prestige: a sociolinguistic study of modern RP.’ Language Variation and Change conference, Unpublished PhD dissertation. Copenhagen Business University of Aberdeen. School. Wells, John. 1982. Accents of English (3 volumes). Foulkes, Paul, & Gerard Docherty, eds. 1999. Urban Cambridge: University Press. Voices: Accent studies in the British Isles. London: Williams, Anne & Kerswill, Paul. 1999. ‘Dialect Arnold. levelling: change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Giles, Howard, & Peter Trudgill. 1978. ‘Sociolinguistics Reading & Hull.’ In Foulkes & Docherty, eds. and linguistic value judgements: correctness,

PHONOLOGICAL RESISTANCE AND INNOVATION IN THE NORTH-WEST OF ENGLAND 61