<<   2. Helen Lawton Smith Department of Management Birkbeck, University of London Oxfordshire Economic Observatory, Oxford University Presentation at Department of Planning Seminar Series, Oxford Brookes University, March 6 2014  >>
Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in
Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in
Or
Or
Innovation, levelling and diffusion
Innovation, levelling and diffusion
Interaction of internal and external factors
Interaction of internal and external factors
Drift
Drift
Finding a testing ground for the interaction of internal principles
Finding a testing ground for the interaction of internal principles
Dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of England
Dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of England
A problem with the gravity model
A problem with the gravity model
London and three South-east periphery towns
London and three South-east periphery towns
Regional dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of
Regional dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of
We will focus on
We will focus on
 four diphthong-shift vowels
four diphthong-shift vowels
 and two monophthongs undergoing change
and two monophthongs undergoing change
Diphthong shift (Wells 1982)
Diphthong shift (Wells 1982)
Drift in the diphthongs of early New Zealand English (Trudgill 2004)
Drift in the diphthongs of early New Zealand English (Trudgill 2004)
Reduced H-dropping in the South-east periphery and a northern English
Reduced H-dropping in the South-east periphery and a northern English
Changes in MOUTH and PRICE
Changes in MOUTH and PRICE
Percentage use of variants of /au/ (MOUTH), Reading Working Class,
Percentage use of variants of /au/ (MOUTH), Reading Working Class,
Percentage use of variants of /aU/ (MOUTH), Milton Keynes Working
Percentage use of variants of /aU/ (MOUTH), Milton Keynes Working
Percentage use of variants of /ai/ (PRICE), Reading Working Class,
Percentage use of variants of /ai/ (PRICE), Reading Working Class,
Percentage use of variants of (a
Percentage use of variants of (a
MOUTH and PRICE in the South-east
MOUTH and PRICE in the South-east
GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r
GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r
GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r
GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r
Phonological/phonetic change in London
Phonological/phonetic change in London
Research question: Is this city the origin of all these changes
Research question: Is this city the origin of all these changes
Are these the innovators
Are these the innovators
Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London (20047)
Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London (20047)
Research question 1: innovation
Research question 1: innovation
Research question 2: multilingualism
Research question 2: multilingualism
Research question 3: the innovators
Research question 3: the innovators
Research question 4: inner vs
Research question 4: inner vs
Research question 5: social factors
Research question 5: social factors
Havering
Havering
35
35
36
36
Languages spoken
Languages spoken
Population
Population
Project design
Project design
H-dropping
H-dropping
Monophthongs in Hackney  anticlockwise chain shift
Monophthongs in Hackney anticlockwise chain shift
Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney
Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney
Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes
Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes
Working-class white Londoner born 1938 (Hackney)
Working-class white Londoner born 1938 (Hackney)
Young speakers in Hackney
Young speakers in Hackney
Young Havering Anglo speakers
Young Havering Anglo speakers
Innovation, diffusion and levelling revisited
Innovation, diffusion and levelling revisited
Fronting of GOOSE Advanced in London, matching periphery GOOSE in
Fronting of GOOSE Advanced in London, matching periphery GOOSE in
GOAT (1) GOAT-fronting Prevalent among south-east periphery speakers
GOAT (1) GOAT-fronting Prevalent among south-east periphery speakers
PRICE Lowering across region  Diphthong Shift reversal But added
PRICE Lowering across region Diphthong Shift reversal But added
Monophthongisation of FACE, PRICE and GOAT is correlated with four
Monophthongisation of FACE, PRICE and GOAT is correlated with four
MOUTH In the south-east periphery, the RP-like realisation [a
MOUTH In the south-east periphery, the RP-like realisation [a
Contact, innovation, diffusion and levelling in dialectology
Contact, innovation, diffusion and levelling in dialectology
(2) Locus of contact in dialectology In modern metropolises new
(2) Locus of contact in dialectology In modern metropolises new
(3) Where does contact not count
(3) Where does contact not count
(4) We need to account for the spread of features by face-to-face
(4) We need to account for the spread of features by face-to-face
Contact, levelling and diffusion in relation to Neogrammarian change
Contact, levelling and diffusion in relation to Neogrammarian change
Innovation, levelling and diffusion revisited
Innovation, levelling and diffusion revisited
Consequences for dialectology
Consequences for dialectology
Bibliography
Bibliography
Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann (2000)
Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann (2000)

: Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis. : kerswill. : Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis.ppt. zip-: 8298 .

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis.ppt
1 Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in

London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis

Paul Kerswill, Eivind Torgersen and Sue Fox Lancaster University, Queen Mary, University of London

1

2 Or

Or

New contact varieties as the source of innovation in a highly levelled, and still levelling, dialect area

2

3 Innovation, levelling and diffusion

Innovation, levelling and diffusion

These are three basic mechanisms of change. Innovation: not predicated on contact endogenous in the sense of generated from within the speech community Levelling: dialect levelling and by extension accent levelling, a process whereby differences between regional varieties are reduced, features which make varieties distinctive disappear, and new features emerge and are adopted by speakers over a wide geographical area (Williams & Kerswill, 1999:149) by definition non-directional predicated on face-to-face contact (but not always) Diffusion the directional spread of a feature similarly predicated on face-to-face contact (again not always)

3

4 Interaction of internal and external factors

Interaction of internal and external factors

Neogrammarian change: slow, subconscious, in principle governed by internal factors Labovs Principles of Vowel Shifting are intended as universal, and govern Neogrammarian change for vowels: Principle I In chain shifts, long vowels rise. Principle II In chain shifts, short vowels fall. Principle IIa In chain shifts, the nuclei of upgliding diphthongs fall. Principle III In chain shifts, back vowels move to the front. (Labov, 1994:116)

4

5 Drift

Drift

Well look at an example of a set of Neogrammarian vowel shifts Such shifts seem to be susceptible to drift-like behaviour a shift process, once started, can continue in a new speech community even after separation What effect do non-internal (contact and non-linguistic) factors have on drift-like changes?

5

6 Finding a testing ground for the interaction of internal principles

Finding a testing ground for the interaction of internal principles

and external factors

Insight from dialectology: a metropolis is the supposed origin of change A Western metropolis is usually the location with most immigration and in-migration in its region Influence of non-internal effects likely to be high due to (i) language contact and (ii) complex intergroup relations Related to this is the likelihood of finding new L1 varieties of the language following contact with L2 varieties through individual bilingualism. These new varieties are contact dialects Possibility of innovation resulting from contact with these varieties

6

7 Dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of England

Dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of England

Reports of widespread homogenisation in the south-east (Kerswill & Williams 2000; Britain 2002) New features are assumed to originate in London, based on gravity model (diffusion) cf Wells (1982: 302): its working-class accent is today the most influential source of phonological innovation in England and perhaps in the whole English-speaking world. Hypothesis: the new, levelled features spread out from London

7

8 A problem with the gravity model

A problem with the gravity model

the gravity model assumes spread by diffusion, not levelling if we observe gradually increasing homogenisation with no directionality, then this cant be the result of diffusion (the partial exception would be where diffusion has run its course, leading to complete replacement but directionality should be visible while the diffusion is ongoing)

8

9 London and three South-east periphery towns

London and three South-east periphery towns

9

10 Regional dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of

Regional dialect levelling (supralocalisation) in the south-east of

England

Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing, bruvver) GOAT-fronting to [??] RP variant in MOUTH [??] Low-back onset of PRICE [??], lowered/unrounded from [???], [??] or [??] Raising of onset of FACE to [????] Fronting of GOOSE to [??] Fronting of FOOT to [??] or [?] Lowering and backing of TRAP to [??] Backing of STRUT to [??]

10

11 We will focus on

We will focus on

Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) GOAT-fronting to [??] RP variant in MOUTH [??] Low-back onset of PRICE [??], lowered/unrounded from [???], [??] or [??] Raising of onset of FACE to [????] Fronting of GOOSE to [??] Fronting of FOOT to [??] or [?] Lowering and backing of TRAP to [??] Backing of STRUT to [??]

11

12  four diphthong-shift vowels

four diphthong-shift vowels

Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) GOAT-fronting to [??] RP variant in MOUTH [??] Low-back onset of PRICE [??], lowered/unrounded from [???], [??] or [??] Raising of onset of FACE to [????] Fronting of GOOSE to [??] Fronting of FOOT to [??] or [?] Lowering and backing of TRAP to [??] Backing of STRUT to [??]

12

13  and two monophthongs undergoing change

and two monophthongs undergoing change

Reduced amount of H-dropping (ouse) Increased amount of TH-fronting (fing) GOAT-fronting to [??] RP variant in MOUTH [??] Low-back onset of PRICE [??], lowered/unrounded from [???], [??] or [??] Raising of onset of FACE to [????] Fronting of GOOSE to [??] Fronting of FOOT to [??] or [?] Lowering and backing of TRAP to [??] Backing of STRUT to [??]

13

14 Diphthong shift (Wells 1982)

Diphthong shift (Wells 1982)

But note that /u:/, or GOOSE, now falls outside the Diphthong Shift set

and this is allowed for by Wells

14

15 Drift in the diphthongs of early New Zealand English (Trudgill 2004)

Drift in the diphthongs of early New Zealand English (Trudgill 2004)

NZE has Cockney-like diphthongs today, but with more extreme shifts in MOUTH Trudgill finds evidence that diphthong shift got greater during the 19th century, and concludes that this is due to drift. Britain (2005) argues that the evidence for continued shifting is only likely for FACE Either way, diphthong shift clearly thrived and then stabilised, in the absence of the strong social sanctions against it in south-east England at the same time Research question: what is happening to drift in London today, a typologically very similar variety of English, but where the sociolinguistic set-up is extremely different from early and current NZE?

15

16 Reduced H-dropping in the South-east periphery and a northern English

Reduced H-dropping in the South-east periphery and a northern English

city

16

17 Changes in MOUTH and PRICE

Changes in MOUTH and PRICE

17

18 Percentage use of variants of /au/ (MOUTH), Reading Working Class,

Percentage use of variants of /au/ (MOUTH), Reading Working Class,

interview style (1995) (from Kerswill & Williams 2005).

?????

????

????

[a??]

????

????

Survey of English Dialects (SED) informants, 1950-60s

?

Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m)

53.5

38.1

3.3

0

4.1

0.7

Girls age 14 (n=8)

0

2.3

0

8.0

0

90.4

Boys age 14 (n=8)

3.8

3.2

0

5.7

0

87.1

18

19 Percentage use of variants of /aU/ (MOUTH), Milton Keynes Working

Percentage use of variants of /aU/ (MOUTH), Milton Keynes Working

Class, interview style (1995)

[EU+]

[EI]

[E?]

[a??]

[QU]

[aU]

SED informants, 1950-60s

?

Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m)

63.2

25.6

9.8

0

1.2

0

Girls age 14 (n=8)

0

0

0

5.9

4.7

88.8

Boys age 14 (n=8)

0

0

0

12.3

3.8

83.1

19

20 Percentage use of variants of /ai/ (PRICE), Reading Working Class,

Percentage use of variants of /ai/ (PRICE), Reading Working Class,

interview style

?????

?????

????

????

?????

????

Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m)

0

12.4

47.8

21.8

1.7

15.7

Girls age 14/15 (n=8)

2.8

21.2

45.1

21.1

4.3

5.1

Boys age 14/15 (n=8)

0.6

19.1

63.7

13.7

2.7

0

20

21 Percentage use of variants of (a

Percentage use of variants of (a

) (PRICE), Milton Keynes Working Class, interview style (1995)

[a=I]

[A+I]

[AI]

[?I]

[?+I]

[?I]

Elderly age 70-80 (2f, 2m)

0

0

24.4

56.6

15.3

3.4

Girls age 14/15 (n=8)

25.4

44.6

29.2

0.5

0

0

Boys age 14/15 (n=8)

1.0

38.0

60.0

0

0

0

21

22 MOUTH and PRICE in the South-east

MOUTH and PRICE in the South-east

MOUTH: simultaneous replacement of various regional forms through the south-east, both rural and urban, by [a?] very rare in south-eastern vernacular varieties very similar to traditional Received Pronunciation not a phonetically levelled form, i.e. not arrived at as either the survival of a majority form or the appearance of a phonetically intermediate form PRICE: the rise of [??], which is not RP, but is a phonetically intermediate variant good candidate for phonetic levelling and also geographical (non-directional) dialect levelling

22

23 GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r

GOAT: Male born 1915, Reading (r

1996).

23

24 GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r

GOAT: Male born 1981, Reading (r

1996).

24

25 Phonological/phonetic change in London

Phonological/phonetic change in London

the fate of h-dropping MOUTH PRICE GOAT FACE

25

26 Research question: Is this city the origin of all these changes

Research question: Is this city the origin of all these changes

26

27 Are these the innovators

Are these the innovators

Roll Deep Crew (East London hip-hop crew)

27

28 Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London (20047)

Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London (20047)

Multicultural London English: the emergence, acquisition and diffusion of a new variety (200710)

E S R C ECONOMIC & S O C I A L RESEARCH C O U N C I L

Investigators: Paul Kerswill (Lancaster University) Jenny Cheshire (Queen Mary, University of London) Research Associates: Sue Fox, Arfaan Khan, (Queen Mary, University of London) Eivind Torgersen (Lancaster University)

Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/278/ www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/539/

28

29 Research question 1: innovation

Research question 1: innovation

What evidence is there that phonological and grammatical innovations start in London and spread out from there?

29

30 Research question 2: multilingualism

Research question 2: multilingualism

One-third of Londons primary school children in 2001 had a first language other than English. Does this degree of multilingualism have any long-term impact on mainstream English? Reinterpreted in terms of the current spoken English of the capital, this becomes: Does the use of a putative Multicultural London English by adolescents lead to language change?

30

31 Research question 3: the innovators

Research question 3: the innovators

Which types of Londoners, socially (including ethnically) defined, innovate linguistically?

31

32 Research question 4: inner vs

Research question 4: inner vs

outer London as sources of change

Inner and outer London boroughs differ in: ethnic profile proportion of recent migrants non-first language English speakers socio-economic class Is there evidence that different linguistic features, including innovations, are characteristic of inner London vs. outer London?

32

33 Research question 5: social factors

Research question 5: social factors

What social mechanisms facilitate (1) innovation and (2) diffusion? social network ethnicity gender identity Operationalisation of these social factors

33

34 Havering

Havering

34

Hackney

35 35

35

36 36

36

37 Languages spoken

Languages spoken

Hackney

Turkish 10.61%

Yoruba 6.79%

Bengali + Sylheti 5.41%

Havering

Panjabi 0.36%

Hindi/Urdu 0.32%

Gujarati 0.09%

37

38 Population

Population

Hackney: 208,365 Havering: 224,248

38

39 Project design

Project design

16 elderly Londoners 105 17 year old Londoners from inner London (Hackney) and outer London (Havering) female, male Anglo and non-Anglo Free interviews in pairs 1.4m words transcribed orthographically, stored in a database time-aligned at turn level

39

40 H-dropping

H-dropping

Percent dropped H in lexical words (interviews)

MK & Reading elderly (1995)

MK 14 year olds (1995)

Reading 14 year olds (1995)

Hackney 17 year olds (2005)

Havering 17 year olds (2005)

92%

14%

35%

9%

32%

1. Correspondence between MK and Hackney is very surprising, because MK is highly mobile with a very levelled accent, while Hackney is not mobile with an accent with many innovations.

2. Correspondence between Reading and Havering less surprising: both are areas with fairly mobile populations and somewhat levelled accents

40

41 Monophthongs in Hackney  anticlockwise chain shift

Monophthongs in Hackney anticlockwise chain shift

Elderly speakers (circles), Young speakers (diamonds)

41

42 Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney

Monophthongs: groups of speakers in Hackney

Non-Anglos

Anglos with non-Anglo network

Anglos with Anglo network

FOOT is relatively back compared to Havering see next slide!

Elderly speakers (circles), non-Anglo speakers (inverted triangles), Anglo speakers with non-Anglo networks (triangles), Anglo speakers with Anglo networks (squares)

42

43 Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes

Monophthongs in Hackney and Havering: the extremes

Non-Anglo Youth, Hackney

Anglo Youth, Havering

FOOT

GOOSE

FOOT

GOOSE

?

?

43

44 Working-class white Londoner born 1938 (Hackney)

Working-class white Londoner born 1938 (Hackney)

GOAT

CHOICE

FACE

PRICE

MOUTH

START

TRAP

STRUT

44

45 Young speakers in Hackney

Young speakers in Hackney

Laura, Anglo

Alan, Kuwait

Grace, Nigeria

Jack, Anglo

45

46 Young Havering Anglo speakers

Young Havering Anglo speakers

Donna

Ian

46

47 Innovation, diffusion and levelling revisited

Innovation, diffusion and levelling revisited

Loss of H-dropping London matches London periphery in loss of H-dropping unexpected match between inner-city non-Anglos and high-contact south-east periphery Anglos in Milton Keynes (a New Town) same feature different social embedding in south-east periphery, high mobility may lead to susceptibility to overt norms (h-fulness) in London, may be a result of high contact with L2 varieties of English (which may be h-ful)

47

48 Fronting of GOOSE Advanced in London, matching periphery GOOSE in

Fronting of GOOSE Advanced in London, matching periphery GOOSE in

London is rarely diphthongal in our data, so falls outside Diphthong Shift unexpectedly, most advanced among non-Anglo Londoners and Anglos with non-Anglo networks as with loss of H-dropping, the same feature has different social embedding in inner London and south-east periphery extreme fronting among inner city non-Anglos is innovatory levelling in periphery Fronting of FOOT Less advanced in London than in periphery in London, more advanced in Havering (outer city), in line with the Anglos in the periphery lack of fronting in inner city is conservative, matching Caribbean Englishes levelling in periphery

48

49 GOAT (1) GOAT-fronting Prevalent among south-east periphery speakers

GOAT (1) GOAT-fronting Prevalent among south-east periphery speakers

levelling (shared innovation). Agnostic as to Diphthong Shift reversal Absent in most inner-London speakers of both sexes and all ethnicities, present in outer-city girls Instead, (2) GOAT-monophthongisation highly correlated with ethnicity (Afro-Caribbean, Black African) and multi-ethnic network (for Anglos) monophthongisation: a result of innovation in the inner city, resulting from contact with British Caribbean English and L2 Englishes. No general diffusion except to minority ethnic speakers outside the inner city looks like Diphthong Shift reversal

49

50 PRICE Lowering across region  Diphthong Shift reversal But added

PRICE Lowering across region Diphthong Shift reversal But added

fronting is greater in London than south-east periphery fronting and monophthongisation correlated with ethnicity strongest among non-Anglos seems to be a geographically directional and diachronically gradual process The change (from approximately [??]) involves lowering of the onset and as such is a reversal of Diphthong Shift interpretable as a London innovation with diffusion to periphery

50

51 Monophthongisation of FACE, PRICE and GOAT is correlated with four

Monophthongisation of FACE, PRICE and GOAT is correlated with four

interacting scales: 1. Non-Anglo > Anglo 2. Non-Anglo network > Anglo network 3. Male > female 4. Inner London > outer London > South-east periphery (Milton Keynes, Reading, Ashford) The nature of the interaction is not yet clear

51

52 MOUTH In the south-east periphery, the RP-like realisation [a

MOUTH In the south-east periphery, the RP-like realisation [a

] has made inroads In London, [a:] is the norm Additionally, [??] is used by some non-Anglos, especially girls, in the inner city RP-like [a?] is not the result of levelling in the sense of the selection of a majority or phonetically intermediate form, but may be seen as socially more unmarked But the outcomes suggest three different changes: (1) south-east periphery [a?] (2) inner-city [a:] (3) inner-city non-Anglo [??]

52

53 Contact, innovation, diffusion and levelling in dialectology

Contact, innovation, diffusion and levelling in dialectology

(1) Overall patterns: divergence/innovation in inner London non-Anglos and Anglos with non-Anglo networks in the lead in innovation some evidence of diffusion to south-east periphery but also levelling in periphery, without involvement of inner London Havering lies between inner London and periphery

53

54 (2) Locus of contact in dialectology In modern metropolises new

(2) Locus of contact in dialectology In modern metropolises new

contact varieties result from language contact following large-scale concentrated immigration Transmission of innovations through social networks can be demonstrated quantitatively (harder to show in individual cases!) Contact varieties have the potential to spearhead language change, given the right social relations and favourable identity factors

54

55 (3) Where does contact not count

(3) Where does contact not count

Transmission is said to be dependent on face-to-face contact But there is evidence that this is not necessary: th-fronting in Great Britain (? ? f; ? ? v) up to about 1980 was geographically gradual and very slow (250+ years) Since then it has spread in a manner that cannot be explained by face-to-face contact and is no longer geographically gradual becoming increasingly mainstream in North of England and Scotland simultaneously in about 1980 (Kerswill 2003) spreading to low-contact working-class speakers first (Stuart-Smith et al. 2007) the spread of [a?] in the south-east periphery is rapid and simultaneous, and is not a typical automatic result of levelling as predicted by Trudgill (majority and/or intermediate form wins out)

55

56 (4) We need to account for the spread of features by face-to-face

(4) We need to account for the spread of features by face-to-face

contact and absence of contact Milroy (2004; 2007) suggests an accessibility hierarchy, with a number of features being available off the shelf. th-fronting is one of them Observation suggests that some of the new vowel features are adopted outside London, but mainly by minority ethnic speakers is this because of Trudgill-style levelling, or are the identities they signal not (yet) available to Anglo youth outside London?

56

57 Contact, levelling and diffusion in relation to Neogrammarian change

Contact, levelling and diffusion in relation to Neogrammarian change

Briefly: taking the long view, we can see that the Diphthong Shift reversal we have observed is consistent and regular, even partly mirroring the order in which it is thought to have progressed in the first place But the social and phonetic detail is extremely messy

57

58 Innovation, levelling and diffusion revisited

Innovation, levelling and diffusion revisited

Little that we have discovered flatly contradicts the predictions of the gravity model, provided that: We recognise that different features have different social values (social indexation) We recognise some salience-like concept (not discussed here!) We recognise that ideology and identity must be added to face-to-face contact

58

59 Consequences for dialectology

Consequences for dialectology

Sources of innovation must today be sought in minority-ethnic metropolitan varieties and: need to recognise a more complex diffusion and levelling model

59

60 Bibliography

Bibliography

Britain, David (2002). Phoenix from the ashes?: The death, contact, and birth of dialects in England. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 41: 42-73 Britain, David (2005). Where did New Zealand English come from? In A. Bell, R. Harlow & D. Starks (eds.), Languages of New Zealand. Wellington: Victoria University Press. 156-193. Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue, Kerswill, Paul & Torgersen, Eivind (in press) Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: linguistic innovation in London. Sociolinguistica 22, Special Issue on Dialect Sociology, edited by Alexandra N. Lenz and Klaus J. Mattheier. Kerswill, Paul (2003). Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In D. Britain & J. Cheshire (eds.), Social dialectology. In honour of Peter Trudgill. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 223-243. Kerswill, Paul, Torgersen, Eivind & Fox, Sue (2008fc) Reversing drift: Innovation and diffusion in the London diphthong system. Language Variation and Change 8(3).

60

61 Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann (2000)

Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann (2000)

Creating a new town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29:65-115. Kerswill, Paul, & Williams, Ann (2005). New towns and koineization: Linguistic and social correlates. Linguistics 43:1023-1048. Meyerhoff, M. & Niedzielski, N. (2003). The globalisation of vernacular variation, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4): 534-555. Milroy, L. (2004). The accents of the valiant. Why are some sound changes more accessible than others? Plenary lecture given at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Stuart-Smith, Jane, Timmins, Claire & Tweedie, Fiona (2007). Talkin' Jockney? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (2), 221260. Torgersen, Eivind, & Kerswill, Paul (2004). Internal and external motivation in phonetic change: Dialect levelling outcomes for an English vowel shift. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8:23-53. Trudgill, Peter (2004). New-dialect formation: The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wells, John C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

61

Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis
http://900igr.net/prezentacija/anglijskij-jazyk/oxford-graduate-seminar-12th-november-2007-phonological-innovation-in-london-teenage-speech-ethnicity-as-the-driver-of-change-in-a-metropolis-62501.html
c

29
900igr.net > > > Oxford Graduate Seminar, 12th November 2007 Phonological innovation in London teenage speech: ethnicity as the driver of change in a metropolis