Access to Electronic Thesis Author: Christopher Montgomery Thesis title: Northern English Dialects: A perceptual approach Qualification: PhD Date awarded: 02 April 2007 This electronic thesis is protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. No reproduction is permitted without consent of the author. It is also protected by the Creative Commons Licence allowing Attributions-Non-commercial-No derivatives. If this electronic thesis has been edited by the author it will be indicated as such on the title page and in the text. Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach Christopher Montgomery National Centre for English Cultural Tradition Submitted for the degree of PhD in December 2006 Abstract Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach Perceptual dialectology has the capacity to deliver a great many benefits to the study of language varieties. It also allows examination of the underlying factors in dialect use such as the „beliefs, attitudes and strategies‟ (Preston, 1999: xxiii) which make up language users‟ reactions to language varieties. In this way it has the potential to ask questions of identity and explore the reasons for dialect loyalty as well as complementing other research in the field of language variation and change. Using a perceptual framework, this research investigates the relationship between the north and south of England and gains access to some of the key concepts which affect informants‟ view of this important social, cultural and historical relationship. Perceptions of salient dialect areas are also assessed using informants from three locations in the north of England via the completion of a draw-a-map task (Preston, 1999: xxxiv). Many of the factors which impact on the perception of dialect areas are discussed, with phenomena of proximity and cultural salience demonstrating an important role. An analysis of informants‟ reactions to voice samples from across England is also undertaken using methods adapted from the fields of linguistics (Embleton & Wheeler, 1997, Giles & Powesland, 1975, Niedzielski & Preston, 2003) as well perceptual geography (Pocock, 1972). The link between map-based perception and reaction to voice samples is examined, with interesting conclusions. Four key research questions are addressed: 1. Do respondents have a linguistic „cognitive map‟ of a north of England, and do respondents recognise there to be internal boundaries within „their‟ north of England? 2. Does home-town location of informants affect the perception of dialect area? 3. What are informants‟ perceptions of the language varieties in the north of England? 4. Is there a relationship between perception and „reality‟ (production), and can respondents recognise the varieties they have identified? These questions will be addressed using the methods described above and the results accounted for through comparison with a wide range of previous studies in the fields of dialectology (Trudgill, 1999, Upton, Sanderson & Widdowson, 1987, Wells, 1982), social and cultural history (Wales, 2006), perceptual dialectology (Long & Preston, 2002), sociolinguistics (Giles & Powesland, 1975) and perceptual geography (Gould & White, 1986). Acknowledgements I would like to thank the many people and organisations who have assisted in the preparation of this thesis. Thanks must firstly go to the White Rose Centre for Enterprise and the Universities of Sheffield and Leeds, without whose funding this project would have been impossible. I would also like to thank my supervisors, Professor Joan Beal, Professor Katie Wales and her successor, Professor Clive Upton. Thanks are also due to my parents for financial support and understanding. Many thanks must also go to the students and pupils of North Cumbria Technology College, The Carlisle College, Wyke College, and South Cheshire College who provided the final data for this project. Thanks also to Bob Nicholls, Terry Jones, Ken Lowe, David Green, and Andrea Lewis for finding time in their busy teaching schedules for me to carry out my research in the above establishments. Undergraduate students at the University of Sheffield, along with students attending A-Level masterclasses at the University of Sheffield and Newcastle University must also be thanked for their roles in pilot studies of the final methodology. Processing my results would have been next to impossible without the help provided by Professor Daniel Long and Tokyo Metropolitan University, to whom thanks are also due. I would finally like to thank the excellent teachers who made me value education and learning: Liz Kirby, Derek Poulson, Peter Wood, Barrie Jenkins and Jo Manion, without whom I would not have been able to reach this stage. Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach List of figures i Map of pre 1996 county boundaries and major English rivers v 1. The north-south divide 1 1.1 Defining north and south: An overview 1 1.2 The historical north-south divide 5 1.2.1 Southern prosperity 5 1.2.2 Northern prosperity, Industrial Revolution and decline 9 1.2.3 The modern north-south divide 15 1.3 The Linguistic divide 22 1.3.1 Defining northern English 22 1.3.2 Historical perceptions of northern English 30 2. Methodology 35 2.1 Folk linguistics 35 2.2 Perceptual dialect study 39 2.3 Perceptual geography 43 2.4 Language attitude studies 45 2.5 Preston‟s methodology 48 2.6 Perceptual study in Great Britain 53 2.7 Development of methodology 55 2.8 Pilot studies 57 2.8.1 Draw-a-map task 57 2.8.2 Ranking and voice placement tasks 73 2.9 Final methodology 90 2.10 Computerised map calculation 92 3. Survey Locations and Informants 99 3.1 Brief history of survey locations 101 3.2 Survey locations in the modern day 109 3.3 Informants 114 4. Non-linguists’ placement of a north-south dividing line 116 4.1 Factors affecting the placement of a north-south line 116 4.1.1 A linguistic north-south line 117 4.1.2 A proximity north-south line 126 4.1.3 An exclusive northern area 129 4.1.4 A political-historical or physical north-south line 131 4.2 Introduction to results 141 4.2.1 North-south results 146 4.2.2 Northern-midlands-southern results 162 4.3 Discussion 173 5. Non-linguists’ placement and labelling of English dialect areas 176 5.1 Factors affecting the perception of dialect areas 177 5.1.1 Social factors 179 5.1.2 Linguistic factors 184 5.1.3 Interference factors 187 5.1.4 Locational/geographical factors 190 5.2 Introduction to Results 193 5.2.1 Frequently recognised dialect areas: Similarities and differences 196 5.2.2 Dialect area maps: Comparisons across survey location 199 5.2.3 Observations and composite maps 226 5.2.4 Dialect area characteristics 245 5.3 Discussion 253 6. Rating, recognition and placement of dialect areas and speech samples 256 6.1 Introduction to ratings task 256 6.2 Expectations and previous studies 264 6.3 Introduction to results 269 6.4 Voice sample placement and rating 271 6.4.1 Starburst Charts 275 6.4.2 Composite placement maps 297 6.4.3 Voice sample rating correlations 304 6.5 Dialect area ratings 308 6.6 Summary 329 7. Conclusions, evaluation and areas for further research 330 7.1 Conclusions 330 7.2 Evaluation 344 7.2.1 Problems encountered in design, administration and processing of research 345 7.2.2 Research successes 351 7.3 Recommendations for further research 352 Bibliography 355 Appendices – Fieldwork materials and data 1 Final draw-a-map task 2 Final ratings task 3 Dialect area calculation 4 Voice placement results 5 Voice placement ANOVA 6 Ratings results 7 Ratings ANOVA 8 Results of voice ratings Pearson product-moment tests List of figures Figure Title Page 1.1 The modern regions of England, showing the modern political north 4 1.2 How Londoners see the north, according to the Doncaster and District 16 Development Council 1.3 London’s increasing influence on the country: the widening north-south 19 divide 1.4 Ellis’ English dialect districts 24 1.5 Trudgill’s classification of the ‘traditional’ English dialects 26 1.6 Trudgill’s map of ‘traditional’ English dialects 27 1.7 Trudgill’s classification of the ‘modern’ English dialects 29 1.8 Trudgill’s map of the ‘modern’ English dialects 29 2.1 Preston’s three approaches to language data 36 2.2 Little arrow method drawn map showing reported similarities between 40 dialects in Holland 2.3 A hand-drawn map of United States dialect areas 49 2.4 Reduced version of the map given to informants in pilot study 58 2.5 Removal of outliers in order to reach 66% agreement 60 2.6 North-south lines drawn by all informants 62 2.7 Midlands area indicated by all informants 66 2.8 ‘Geordie’ area indicated by all informants 66 2.9 66% agreement level composite map 67 2.10 100% agreement level composite map 68 2.11 Major town and city location map 72 2.12 Reproduction of first page in area ratings and placement task 75 2.13 Reproduction of voice ratings sheet 76 2.14 Locations of voice samples in pilot study 77 2.15 Example of raw voice sample placement data 83 2.16 Lines drawn from origin of voice sample A (Barnsley) to informants’ 84 placement of voice 2.17 Starburst graph of informants’ placement of voice sample A (Barnsley) 85 2.18 Starburst graph of informants’ placement of voice sample E (Liverpool) 86 2.19 Starburst graph of 66% of informants’ (n=20) placement of voice sample 87 C (Warrington) 2.20 Informants’ placement of all voice samples (A-F) at 66% agreement 89 level superimposed over composite perceptual map (at 66% agreement) 2.21 Computer assisted generalisation of hand drawn maps 93 2.22 Computer assisted percentage shaded map of ‘Kansai’ dialect area in 93 Japan 2.23 Completed traced base map 94 2.24 Example of co-ordinate points generated with DIPL 95 2.25 Simplified percentage shaded map calculation 97 3.1 Survey locations and English Regions 100 4.1 STRUT-FOOT ‘split’ by SED location 120 4.2 STRUT-FOOT isogloss 120 4.3 Short ‘a’ SED location 121 4.4 Southern limit of short vowel [a] in ‘chaff’ 122 4.5 STRUT-FOOT (solid line) and TRAP-BATH (broken line) isoglosses 123 4.6 Dialectological north-south lines 125 i 4.7 Decay of information flows with distance plotted in standard co- 126 ordinates 4.8 Barrier-effect on decay of information flows 127 4.9 Western limit of Saxon settlement c.