investigating the effects of mobility on language variation and ...investigating the effects of...
TRANSCRIPT
Investigating the effects of mobility on language variation and change in Glaswegian
Jane Stuart-Smith and Claire Timmins
Department of English Language, University of Glasgow
Department of Language and Linguistics, Essex University
4 November 2004
Investigating the effects of mobility on language variation and change in Glaswegian
Paper overview
This paper tackles the question of dialect contact as an explanation for variation in consonantal variables in the Glasgow data. This paper presents the same profiling for mobility and contact as given atSociolinguistics Symposium 15, but includes data from spontaneous speech. The statistical analysis has now moved to multiple regression (backstep).
The profiling results remain, but the linguistic analysis, and in particular the multiple regression analyses have now been superceded. See most recently, our paper, “Investigating the effects of television on change in urban accents: The story so far”, presented at Lancaster, 15 March 2005.
JSS/CT 31/03/05
Investigating the effects of mobility on language variation and change in Glaswegian
• Mobility and contact in language change• New data from Glasgow - the media project• Research questions• Methodology• Indexing direct and mediated contact• Results - Contact and communication• Results - Linguistic variables• Results – Statistical analysis• Conclusions
Background
‘mobility causes people to speak and sound more like people from other places’
Chambers (2003: 73)
‘In each case, there will be local outcomes determined by local circumstances’
Britain (2002: 618)
Background
• dialect contact (Trudgill 1986; Trudgill and Britain in press)
• geographical and social mobility leads to dialect contact, and with it processes of linguistic changee.g. Milroy (2002): – linguistic consequences– language attitudes and ideologies– cognitive constraints
• impact on social networks
The Glasgow conundrum
• rapid linguistic change in least mobile, more closely-knit individuals (WC adolescents):– e.g. TH-fronting, L-vocalization, R-vocalization
• least change in more mobile more weakly tied individuals (MC)
• why?• dissolution of social networks through
destruction of inner city• active construction of specific local identity by
WC adolescents using all possible linguistic resources
linguistic diffusion in geographically less mobile speakersTrudgill (1986: 53f.)‘fifth columnists’‘language missionaries’Kerswill (2002: 681)‘identity projection model’
OR …
New data from Glasgowthe media project
Is TV a contributory factor in accent change?(ESRC R000239757)
Same working-class part of city as 19975 groups of adolescents; 12 adultsLongitudinal - tracks 2 age groups across 2 yearsRange of data –
spontaneous conversations, read speech, questionnaire, informal interviews, language experiment (quiz show), diaries
Research questions
• What patterns of direct (face to face) and mediated contact (speech and text-based) do our (adolescent) speakers show?
• What are their patterns of linguistic variation for a set of selected variables?
• Are there relationships between contact and communication and linguistic variation?
Methodology
• 36 speakers
• 3 age groups– Age group 1: 10-11 years– Age group 2: 12-13 years– Age group 3: 14-15 years
• male and female
• high quality digital (DAT recordings (read; conversational speech)
Linguistic variables
• (th) – realization of /th/ in e.g. think, tooth[th] [f] [h]
• (dh) – realization of /dh/ in e.g. that, brother [dh] [v] [r] [0]
• L-vocalization – realization of /l/ as vowel in e.g. milk, well, middle (Scots L-vocalization fitba’)[l] [V] [l/V]
• R-vocalization – realization of postvocalic /r/ as vowel in e.g. car, card[r] [V] [r/V]
Analysis
• auditory analysis of– all instances of variable in wordlists– first 35 tokens of variable in conversations
• descriptive indices of contact and communication
• multiple regression analysis on coded questionnaire data(logistic regression: backwards stepwise –exploratory: statistical adviser: G.Pryce)
Indexing contact and communication
Initial baseline criteria: born and raised in area (2.8% born in England, 2001 Census)
Substantial questionnaire yielded data on:• Location of family and friends• Direct (face to face) contact with family and
friends• Mediated (speech/text) contact with family and
friends• ‘active mobility’ in terms of visiting specific cities
Indexing contact and communication
Family and friends – location of family within and beyond Glasgow
Direct contact external – face to face contact with family beyond Glasgow (incl. frequency)
Mediated contact external – indirect contact with family beyond Glasgow (incl. frequency)
City visiting – place and amount
Indexing contact and communication
Direct contact internal – face to face contact with friends/bestfriend/boyfriend within Glasgow (incl. frequency
Mediated contact internal – indirect contact with friends/bestfriend/boyfriend within Glasgow (incl. frequency)
Mediated text contact external – email, chat, text with those outside Glasgow
Mediated text contact internal – email, chat, text with those within Glasgow
Contact/communication – beyond Glasgow
Most have a few relatives who have moved away from Glasgow. More mediated contact than face to face contact. Older informants have more mediated contact than younger ones.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7family/friendsdircon extmedcon ext
m fage group
m fage group 2
m fage group 3
City visiting (active mobility)
Most have visited at least one city (Edinburgh).No differences according to age and gender.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
m fage group 1
m fage group 2
m fage group 3
Contact/communication – within Glasgow
Most have friends in same area.More face to face interaction than mediated interaction.
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
dircon intmedcon int
m fage group
m fage group 2
m fage group 3
Contact/communication - general
Those who have more contact/communication outside the city also have more within the city (and this is also linked with having relatives outside the city).
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
dircon ext dircon intmedcon ext medcon int
m fage group
m fage group 2
m fage group 3
Text-based communication (text, email, chat)
• Not all participate in text-based communication.• Link between communicating outside the city and within
the city.
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
medtxt extmedtxt int
m fage group 1
m fage group 2
m fage group 3
Contact/communication profile
• Majority have a few relatives beyond Glasgow, whom they talk to more than they see (when the relatives visit them).
• Most show a low degree of active mobility outside the city.
• Majority have face to face contact with friends (and family) within Glasgow.
• Those who communicate do so beyond and within the city.
• Those who use text-based communication do so beyond and within the city.
(th) – read speech
N = 756
No differences according to age or gender.More [f] than in 1997.More word-finally/internally than word-initially.
AGE
14-15yrs12-13yrs10-11yrs
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
TH/F
F
TH
(th) – individual variation – read speechGroup 1
Informant code
1F61F51F41F31F21F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
TH/F
F
TH
Informant code
1M61M51M41M31M21M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
TH/F
F
TH
Informant code
2F62F52F42F32F22F1%
of v
aria
nts
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
TH/F
F
TH
Informant code
2M72M62M52M42M32M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
TH/F
F
TH
Group 2 Group 3
Informant code
3F63F53F43F33F23F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
TH/F
F
TH
Informant code
3M63M53M43M33M23M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
TH/F
F
TH
female female
male male
(th) – conversations
N = 1031
Younger speakers use more [f]; no gender differences.More [f] than in 1997.More word-finally/initially than word-internally.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
age 10-11 age 12-13 age 14-15
Age
%
H
F
TH
(th) – individual variation – conversationsGroup 1 Group 2 Group 3
female female
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1F1 1F2 1F3 1F4 1F5 1F6
informant
%
H
F
TH
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2F1 2F2 2F3 2F4 2F5 2F6
informant
%
0
H
F
TH
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
3F1 3F2 3F3 3F4 3F5 3F6
informant
%
H
F
TH
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1M1 1M2 1M3 1M4 1M5 1M6
informant
%
H
F
TH
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2M1 2M3 2M4 2M5 2M6 2M7
informant
%
H
F
TH
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3M1 3M2 3M3 3M4 3M5 3M6
informant
%
0
H
F
TH
male male
(dh) – read speech
n = 720
No differences according to age and genderLess [v] than 1997, but more pervasive across speakers.[v] mainly in word-final position, but occurs word-internally.
AGE
14-15yrs12-13yrs10-11yrs
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
DH/V
R
V
DH
(dh) – individual variation – read speechGroup 3
Informant code
1F61F51F41F31F21F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
DH/V
R
V
DH
Informant code
1M61M51M41M31M21M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
DH/V
R
V
DH
Informant code
2F62F52F42F32F22F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
DH/V
R
V
DH
Informant code
2M72M62M52M42M32M1
% o
f var
iant
s100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
DH/V
R
V
DH
Group 1 Group 2
Informant code
3F63F53F43F33F23F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
DH/V
R
V
DH
Informant code
3M63M53M43M33M23M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
DH/V
R
V
DH
male male
female female
(dh) – conversations
n = 1257
No differences according to age and genderMore [0] than 1997, but more pervasive across speakers.[r] word-internally; [0] mainly word-initially.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
age 10-11 age 12-13 age 14-15
informant
%
Mis
0
RV
DH
(dh) – individual variation - conversationsGroup 3Group 1
female female
Group 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1f 1 1f 2 1f 3 1f 4 1f 5 1f 6
i nf or mant
Mis
0
R
V
DH
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2f1 2f2 2f3 2f4 2f5 2f6
inf o rmant
M is0RVDH
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3f 1 3f 2 3f 3 3f 4 3f 5 3f 6
i nf or ma nt
Mis
0
R
V
DH
male
male
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1m1 1m2 1m3 1m4 1m5 1m6
i nf or mant
Mis
0
R
V
DH
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2M1 2M3 2M4 2M5 2M6 2M7
i nf or mant
Mis
0
R
V
DH
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3M1 3M2 3M3 3M4 3M5 3M6
i nf or ma nt
0
R
V
DH
L-Vocalization – read speech
n = 900
No differences according to age and gender.More [V] than in 1997.More common in word-final, but most in syllabic position.
AGE
14-15yrs12-13yrs10-11yrs
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
L/V
V
L
L-vocalization – individual – read speechGroup 1
Informant code
1F61F51F41F31F21F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
L/V
V
L
Informant code
1M61M51M41M31M21M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
L/V
V
L
Informant code
2F62F52F42F32F22F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
L/V
V
L
Informant code
2M72M62M52M42M32M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
L/V
V
L
Informant code
3F63F53F43F33F23F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
L/V
V
L
Informant code
3M63M53M43M33M23M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
L/V
V
L
Group 2
malemale
femalefemale
Group 3
L-Vocalization – conversations
n = 886
No differences according to age and gender.Less [V] than in 1997.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
age 10-11 age 12-13 age 14-15
informant
%
L/VVL
L-vocalization – individual – conversationsGroup 1 Group 2 Group 3
femalefemale
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1F1 1F2 1F3 1F4 1F5 1F6
informant
%
L/V
V
L
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2F1 2F2 2F3 2F4 2F5 2F6
i nf or ma nt
L/ V
V
L
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3F1 3F2 3F3 3F4 3F5 3F6
i nf or ma nt
L/ V
V
L
malemale
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1M1 1M2 1M3 1M4 1M5 1M6
informant
%
L/V
V
L
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2M1 2M3 2M4 2M5 2M6 2M7
informant
%
L/V
V
L
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3M1 3M2 3M3 3M4 3M5 3M6
informant
%
L/V
V
L
R-vocalization – read speech
n = 1476
No differences according to age and gender.Less [V] than 1997, but more [r/V].
AGE
14-15yrs12-13yrs10-11yrs
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
R/V
V
R
R-vocalization – individual – read speech
Informant code
1F61F51F41F31F21F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
R/V
V
R
Informant code
2F62F52F42F32F22F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
R/V
V
R
Informant code
2M72M62M52M42M32M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
R/V
V
R
Informant code
1M61M51M41M31M21M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
R/V
V
R
Group 1 Group 2
Informant code
3F63F53F43F33F23F1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
R/V
V
R
Informant code
3M63M53M43M33M23M1
% o
f var
iant
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
MISC
R/V
V
R
Group 3
malemale
femalefemale
R-vocalization – conversations
n = 1282
Younger group use more [V]; no gender difference.Less [V] than 1997.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
age 10-11 age 12-13 age 14-15
informant
%
R/V
V
R
R-vocalization – individual – conversations
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
femalefemale
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1F1 1F2 1F3 1F4 1F5 1F6
i nf or ma nt
R/ V
V
R
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2F1 2F2 2F3 2F4 2F5 2F6
informant
%
R/V
V
R
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3F1 3F2 3F3 3F4 3F5 3F6
i nf or ma nt
R/ V
V
R
malemale
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1m1 1m2 1m3 1m4 1m5 1m6
informant
%
R/V
V
R
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2m1 2m3 2m4 2m5 2m6 2m7
informant
%
R/V
V
R
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
3m1 3m2 3m3 3m4 3m5 3m6
i nf or ma nt
R/ V
V
R
linguistic variables - summary
• no gender effects• age: younger speakers sometimes use more
vernacular (th):[f], (r) :[V]• more vernacular in read speech • individual variation
• real time?more (th):[f], (dh):[0]; less (l):[V], (r): [V]
(more L-voc/R-voc in read speech)
statistical results
• substantial collinearity between independent variables (direct/mediated contact with family/friends)
• 3 variables consistently emerged across all variants for all variables in all conditions– number of people in household– number of relatives living elsewhere in Scotland– number of relatives living in N England
• several variants showed no relationships, and (dh) none at all
statistical results
number of people in householdpositive link (th): [th] read speech
(r ): [r] read speech
negative link (th):[f] read and conv. speech(l):[V] read speech
… closer ties inhibit diffusion?
statistical results
number of relatives living elsewhere in Scotlandpositive link (th):[f] read speech
negative link (th):[th] read speech(r ):[r] read speech
local contact promotes diffusion ?extended locality/identity reduces local ‘standard’?
statistical results
number of relatives living in Northern Englandpositive link (th):[f] conv. speech
(r ):[r] read speech
negative link (th):[h] conv. speech
contact inhibits local variant … levelling?contact promotes supralocal variant – diffusion(but also local ‘standard’ variant ?)
summary
Our speakers vary in their contact/communication profiles (as determined by these – gross – indices).
Evidence of continued diffusion (th), but also stabilization (dh l r)
Few statistical links with explanatory contact variables, but a few intriguing correlations do show
Concluding remarks
Not much empirical evidence for contact affecting variation, but a few tantalizing hints
- will these persist once other categories of variables are included:- social practices- attitudes to accents- engagement with sport, music, film- engagement with television
- what about vowels?