Language Variation and Ethnicity in a Multicultural East London Secondary School Shivonne Marie Gates Queen Mary, University of London April 2019 Abstract Multicultural London English (MLE) has been described as a new multiethnolect borne out of indirect language contact among ethnically-diverse adolescent friendship groups (Cheshire et al. 2011). Evidence of ethnic stratification was also found: for example, “non-Anglo” boys were more likely to use innovative MLE diphthong variants than other (male and female) participants. However, the data analysed by Cheshire and colleagues has limited ethnographic information and as such the role that ethnicity plays in language change and variation in London remains unclear. This is not dissimilar to other work on multiethnolects, which presents an orientation to a multiethnic identity as more salient than different ethnic identities (e.g. Freywald et al. 2011). This thesis therefore examines language variation in a different MLE-speaking adolescent community to shed light on the dynamics of ethnicity in a multicultural context. Data were gathered through a 12-month ethnography of a Year Ten (14-15 years old) cohort at Riverton, a multi-ethnic secondary school in Newham, East London, and include field notes and interviews with 27 students (19 girls, 8 boys). A full multivariate analysis of the face and price vowels alongside a quantitative description of individual linguistic repertoires sheds light on MLE’s status as the new London vernacular. Building on the findings of Cheshire et al. (2011), the present study suggests that language variation by ethnicity can have social meaning in multi-ethnic communities. There are apparent ethnolinguistic repertoires: ethnic minority boys use more advanced vowel realisations alongside high rates of DH-stopping, and the more innovative was/were levelling system. By contrast, White British girls have a more “traditional” repertoire, including less innovative vowels and no DH-stopping. These repertoires index their social personae, which are intrinsically linked to gendered, classed, ethnic identities. This study’s insights about social meaning and indexical links assigned to different variables shed light on our understanding of social factors in sound change (Labov 2001). Queen Mary’s OPAL #39 Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics Acknowledgements First and foremost, this work would not have been possible without the help, support, and accommodation of all of the staffand students at Riverton Secondary School. I must give special thanks to students of Year Ten and the teachers in the English Department, who welcomed me with open arms and offered assistance at every turn. My fieldwork was the highlight of my PhD, and for that I am forever indebted to you all. This work would also not have been possible without the financial assistance provided by the Economic and Social Research Council, for which I am very grateful to have received. Throughout my academic career, I have been incredibly lucky to have a series of supportive mentors, and I most definitely would not be where I am today if it weren’t for them. Lorna, who will forever be Mrs Withey to me, gave me my first foray into linguistics during A level English language. Studying at Sheffield then brought me Emma Moore, who has been a valued mentor ever since. Thank you for always reminding me that being an academic doesn’t have to mean being work-a-holic or putting up with any bullshit. Your advice, realism, and just general inspiration is hugely appreciated. After Sheffield came NCSU. Being part of the wolfpack linguistics family was an incredible experience. Every member of that family helped create a supportive environment both during my Masters and long after I left, especially Erik who spent endless hours teaching me ToBI annotation and who always has the answers to my sociophonetics questions. Special thanks to Walt who makes every student feel supported and important. I am lucky to have been one of them. Being part of QMUL has made my PhD a fantastic experience. Our department has so many rock star linguists who are also lovely and supportive, and being part of this community has been so inspiring and fulfilling. And of course, being at QMUL has meant that I have had an amazing supervisory team. Jenny was always nice, which sounds like a small thing but makes a huge difference, especially when she was saying things I didn’t want to hear, pushing me to be more careful and rigorous with my ideas and critiques. And then there is Devyani, who has been endlessly supportive and understanding and who always found time for me in her insanely busy schedule. I had many personal challenges during my PhD, and having a supervisor that I could talk to made such a difference. Your kindness meant the world during those difficult times. You are the linguist and mentor that I can only hope to be someday. Of course, doing a PhD is as emotionally challenging as it is intellectually, and I could not have done it without support. One of the best parts about being at QMUL has been the ready- made support system of the Linguistics Lab. I have crossed paths with lots of linglabbers since being at QMUL, so I won’t name them all. But special thanks to Annette, for all the stats help, long chats, and being freely available on Whatsapp whenever you’re not asleep or playing rugby, and Danniella and Christian for the drinks, laughs, and karaoke. The advice and counselling service at QMUL is excellent, and provided another important support system for me as I have used it several times throughout my PhD. I saw two great counsellors who helped me get through periods of depression, but importantly gave me room to grow as a person and learn about myself. I am more resilient now than I ever was, and their support was a huge part in me being able to finish this project. Finally, I must thank my family. They have always kept me grounded and provided a sanctuary away from academia when it became too intense and overwhelming. I am forever grateful to have such a big, loving family and I will always cherish my visits home to Shropshire. Mum, you made me who I am. Thank you for your unconditional support and love. I am lucky to have you and I hope I make you proud. Page 4 Contents Statement of Originality 1 Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 Contents 4 List of figures 9 List of tables 12 1Introduction 15 2Ethnicityandadolescentidentities:languagevariationandchangeinLondon18 2.1 Language and ethnicity in British Sociolinguistics .................. 18 2.1.1 (Multi-)Ethnolects and ethnolinguistic repertoires .............. 20 2.2 Adolescent language and social meaning ....................... 21 2.2.1 Identity and language change ......................... 23 2.2.2 Levels of identity and intersectionality .................... 25 2.3 The emergence of Multicultural London English ................... 26 2.3.1 The socio-historical context of East London ................. 26 2.3.2 “The new Cockney” ............................... 28 2.3.3 The linguistic innovators and MLE projects ................. 31 3AnethnographyofRiverton,anEastLondonsecondaryschool 33 3.1 Overview ........................................ 33 3.2 Situating the methodological approach: the importance of mixed-methods .... 33 3.3 Field site location: the East London borough of Newham .............. 34 3.3.1 Field site selection and gaining access .................... 35 3.3.2 Riverton Secondary School .......................... 38 3.4 Ethnographic methods ................................. 45 3.4.1 Linguistic ethnography: what is it and why is it important? ........ 45 3.4.2 Participant observation and the role of the researcher ............ 47 3.5 Introducing Year Ten .................................. 50 3.5.1 Social organisation of Year Ten ........................ 53 3.5.2 Female Peer Groups .............................. 56 3.5.3 Male Peer Groups ............................... 62 3.6 The process of collecting speech data ......................... 66 3.6.1 Speech data ................................... 66 3.6.2 Stylistic variation ................................ 67 3.7 Summary ........................................ 67 CONTENTS 4Methodsforthequantitativeanalyses 73 4.1 Preparing the data for acoustic analysis ....................... 73 4.1.1 Transcription .................................. 73 4.1.2 Forced alignment ................................ 73 4.1.3 Token selection and coding criteria ...................... 75 4.1.4 Acoustic measurement of vowels ........................ 77 4.1.5 Selecting a method for vowel normalisation ................. 78 4.2 Statistical modelling .................................. 80 4.3 Social factors ...................................... 81 4.3.1 Gender ..................................... 83 4.3.2 Peer group ................................... 83 4.3.3 Race and ethnicity ............................... 84 4.3.4 Diversity of friendship networks ........................ 85 4.3.5 Length of residency ............................... 89 4.3.6 Stylistic variation ................................ 89 4.4 Internal factors ..................................... 91 4.4.1 Phonetic environment and word position ................... 91 4.4.2 Lexical category ................................ 92 4.4.3 Duration ..................................... 92 4.5 Testing for correlation ................................. 93 4.6 Summary ........................................ 95 5 Quantitative analysis of the face vowel 97 5.1 Chapter outline ....................................