‘Talkin’ Jockney’? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent · 2011. 8. 17. · EastEnders....

Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/2, 2007: 221–260

‘Talkin’ Jockney’? Variation and changein Glaswegian accent1

Jane Stuart-Smith∗, Claire Timmins∗ and Fiona Tweedie†∗Department of English Language, University of Glasgow

†School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh

This paper presents an analysis of language variation and change in asocially stratified corpus of Glaswegian collected in 1997. Eight consonantalvariables in read and spontaneous speech from 32 speakers were analysedseparately and then together using multivariate analysis. Our results showthat middle-class speakers, with weaker network ties and more opportunitiesfor mobility and contact with English English speakers, are maintainingtraditional Scottish features. Working-class adolescents, with more limitedmobility and belonging to close-knit networks, are changing their vernacularby using ‘non-local’ features such as TH-fronting and reducing expectedScottish features such as postvocalic /r/. We argue that local context is the keyto understanding the findings. Mobility and network structures are involved,but must be taken in conjunction with the recent history of structural changesto Glasgow and the resulting construction of local class-based languageideologies which continue to be relevant in the city today.

KEYWORDS: Phonological variation, language variation and change,multivariate analysis, Scottish English, adolescents and vernacular,language ideology

1. INTRODUCTION

Glaswegian teenagers are developing a southern drawl as traditional sounds like the‘ch’ in loch disappear. And pronunciations such as ‘toof’ for tooth are becoming morecommon as youngsters are influenced by Frank Butcher and the other Cockneys inEastEnders.

‘“Talkin’ Jockney”: Scots youngsters’ language is changed by EastEnders’Daily Record, 27 June 2000

In the late 1990s, preliminary results from a study of Glaswegian accent indicatedthat working-class adolescents, with few apparent opportunities for contactoutside the city, were both using features usually associated with southern English(e.g. TH-fronting, the use of [f] for /θ/ in e.g. think), and at the same time, notshowing expected ‘Scottish’ features (e.g. production of postvocalic /r/ in e.g.car). These findings led to a flurry of media reports which jokingly dubbed the

C© The authors 2007Journal compilation C© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 20079600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA

222 STUART-SMITH, TIMMINS AND TWEEDIE

‘new’ dialect ‘Jockney’ (‘Jock’ = Scot + ‘Cockney’), and which speculated thatanother possible cause for such patterns of variation was watching London-basedTV soap operas, such as the popular show, EastEnders.

This paper presents the first integrated account of the linguistic facts behindsuch reports. Here we describe the main patterns of variation observed in a sociallystratified sample of Glaswegian collected in 1997, and we account for them interms of evidence which directly relates to the corpus itself, the recent socialhistory of Glasgow, and indications of local language ideologies constructed aboutthis history. Using univariate and multivariate statistical analysis, we look atthe use of a range of consonant variables in speakers from two neighbouringareas of Glasgow, representing distinct points on the sociolinguistic continuumof Glaswegian English.

When compared against predictions from social network structure andpersonal mobility, our results seem odd: middle-class speakers with moreopportunities for contact with English English speakers and weaker socialnetworks are maintaining Scottish features, while less mobile, strongly-tiedworking-class speakers are losing some Scottish features and using innovativefeatures the most. However, when we look more closely at the geographical andsocial restructuring of Glasgow over the twentieth century we find that mobilityand changes in network structure are important factors for understanding theseresults. But we also need to take account of the contexts within which they operate– Scotland and the city of Glasgow – and the extent to which these impact on theconstruction of local language ideologies.

Our young innovators are using a consonantal system which in many respectsis more similar to that of London English, but at the same time, they areexploiting ‘non-local’ variation in such a way that it is used, and feels to themto be, thoroughly local. This then provides further support for the notion thatconstructing identity through linguistic variation is crucially connected to thelocal context (e.g. Labov 1963; Eckert 2000; Dyer 2002; see also Meyerhoff andNiedzielski 2003).

1.1 The wider context: Accent change in the U.K.

Recent research is revealing rapid accent change in urban accents across the U.K.(see e.g. the collection of papers in Foulkes and Docherty 1999a). Consonantalsystems in particular are showing changes which together have been describedas ‘homogenization’ (Foulkes and Docherty 1999b), such that resulting systemsacross dialects appear to be more similar. The linguistic reflexes of the changesare twofold: features are appearing in regional accents, for example, TH-fronting(Kerswill 2003), and local features are disappearing, for example, the reductionof the ‘reinforced’ glottal variants of /t/ typical of Tyneside English (e.g. Dochertyet al. 1997).

Describing the prime innovators in these changes, whose profile varies indifferent locations, is often made with reference to the social factors of age, social

C© The authors 2007Journal compilation C© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

TALKIN’ JOCKNEY? 223

class, and gender. In general adolescents seem to show more change, which isperhaps to be expected, given the particular development of social and linguisticidentities that emerge during this life-stage (e.g. Kerswill 1996; Eckert 1997).Social class, at all times an awkward label, but which in these studies tends to referto a broad range of differing socio-economic factors, may be a factor. For example,TH-fronting is commonly found in working-class speakers (e.g. Kerswill 2003).Similarly, gender, in conjunction with class, may also play a role, and TH-frontinghas been observed more often in working-class males (e.g. Milroy 1996).

Earlier discussion of accent change in British urban accents referred tosocial class (e.g. Trudgill 1974) and this is not surprising given the classicformulation of quantitative sociolinguistics in the work of Labov in New York(e.g. 1972). Theoretical modelling of the current changes now tends to referto two complementary sociolinguistic models, social networks and dialectcontact (e.g. Kerswill and Williams 2000). Social network theory, as applied tosociolinguistic data (e.g. Milroy 1987), has played an important role in extendingour understanding of language change (e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1985; Milroy1992). Networks characterise the social relations contracted between individuals,whose groupings may in turn be characterised in terms of strong or weak tiesconstituting dense or loose networks (Milroy and Gordon 2003: 127ff.). Languagechange is linked to the nature of the networks such that dense social networkswith strong ties promote conformity in social and linguistic norms and inhibitchange, while loose networks with weak ties typically facilitate change.

The foundations of a dialect contact model are found in Trudgill’s (1986: vii)proposals for explaining ‘those changes that take place during or as a consequenceof contacts between closely related varieties of a language’. A core assumption ofTrudgill’s model is that such changes take place during face-to-face interactionbetween speakers through linguistic accommodation, or the social-psychologicalprocess of linguistic convergence during interaction; see also Kerswill (2002,2003). That dialects are brought into contact presumes some kind of personalor group mobility, and we could identify here two possibilities: active mobility,when individuals move away to new dialect areas; and passive mobility, whenindividuals are brought into contact with other dialects as their communitiesexperience in-migration. We also note that certain groups of the population maybe less likely to be actively mobile than others, for example, adolescents (e.g.Britain 2002).

Identifying the linguistic processes arising from dialect contact and mobilityforms part of an emerging research agenda (see e.g. Milroy 2002). Anotherimportant task is the development of a framework for understanding theideological consequences of mobility and dialect contact as speakers repositionthemselves in social-psychological space using linguistic variation to symboliseparticular orientations to real or perceived notions of affiliated and opposinggroups (e.g. Milroy 2002).

Clearly mobility and social networks are connected concepts, and so too theirpotential impact on language change (see e.g. Milroy and Gordon 2003: 130).



Middle-class speakers who are more mobile are also likely to contract weaker tiesand belong to looser networks and so be more susceptible to linguistic change.Conversely, less mobile individuals, more typical of traditional working-classcommunities, may also be more strongly tied and members of denser networks,and so more likely to resist change to linguistic norms. Kerswill and Williams(2000) tested this complex of predictions on vowel data from middle- and working-class speakers with differing profiles of mobility in Reading and Milton Keynes.Their results confirm that open networks may facilitate linguistic change, butthey also show that for some speakers another factor, class-based languageideology, may prove more influential. Their highly-mobile, loosely-tied, working-class youngsters from Milton Keynes resisted language standardisation, whilstat the same time expressing ‘a difference in culture’ as evidenced in ‘strongstatements . . . against “posh” people’ (Kerswill and Williams 2000: 12). It seemsthen that social networks and mobility are factors which may interact, in complexways, with each other and with the language ideologies constructed aroundthem.

Much discussion of these changes has assumed mobility and dialect contactas primary models. As a result, the linguistic reflexes are generally describedusing terms which presume that they are contact-induced changes. Thus inone of the initial discussions of TH-fronting, Trudgill (1986: 53ff.) treats thechange as an instance of ‘diffusion’ through accommodation, albeit a problematicone. However, an apparent problem with the package of consonant changes – soTH-fronting, L-vocalisation, R-labialisation, T-glottalling2 – which are typicallydescribed as instances of diffusion in U.K. accents, is that the exploitation ofthese features seems to be difficult to explain solely in terms of dialect contactwhen they occur in less-mobile, strongly-tied, working-class adolescents. If dialectcontact is not a key factor, and there is always the possibility that individualsin communities may play a role (cf. Trudgill 1986: 56–57), then alternativeexplanations must be sought. One suggestion has been that they constitute ‘aset of youth norms originating from the south-east of England which has becomerelatively independent of physical place’ (Milroy and Gordon 2003: 134; Williamsand Kerswill 1999; also Foulkes and Docherty 2001), and which exist in ‘cultural’or ideological space, towards which speakers may orientate (cf. Anderson 2002for similar ideas to account for southern variants in the speech of northern-born Detroit African American speakers). Preliminary results from a study tryingto investigate the role of TV in such changes has demonstrated a relationshipbetween television and TH-fronting (Stuart-Smith 2005), though more work isneeded to investigate the extent to which these findings are consistent with theproposed youth norms.

The changes are awkward to explain with reference to a single main factorfor other reasons. Most already exist as potential variants within the consonantsystem of English since they occur as part of the continual peripheral variationfor adults, and are typical variants in very young children’s speech (e.g. Foulkesand Docherty 2001). An external dialect source, while possible, is not essential.



That these features are appearing in many places at a similar time in the U.K.does not necessarily have to be explained as the result of ‘external’ influences.See, for example, Meyerhoff and Niedzielzki (2003) who question the evidencefor external, American and British, sources for the occurrence of flapped andglottal variants of (t) in New Zealand English. Furthermore, if dialect contactdoes play a role, and Kerswill (2003) argues the case for TH-fronting as aninstance of geographical diffusion on the basis of the history of observed instancesacross the U.K., we may still need to distinguish between the introductionof socially functioning variants via individuals through dialect contact, andtheir exploitation within particular communities at particular times to indexparticular kinds of local identity and difference, as seems to be the case with thesefeatures.

1.2 The local context: Glasgow

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Scotland’s largest city was flourishing,with an industrial base and a well-established middle class living to the westof the city or in peripheral suburbs. Earlier parts of the old city, home to thepoorest section of the population, had been replaced by tenements in the 1860swhich were rapidly deteriorating into slums. The poor living conditions and theconnection between these and the tenement motivated a series of attempts to solvethe problem (e.g. Gibb 1983: 154ff.). Paradoxically, despite the appalling poverty,the physical structure of the tenement blocks provided a ‘unifying and cohesiveeffect’ on the city’s residents, so much so that one visitor described Glasgow as ‘thegreatest, closely-knit community in Great Britain’ (Morton 1929, in Reed 1999a:3). It is sadly ironic that the attempts of the civic authorities, largely motivatedby the best of intentions, led to the fracturing of these same communities on anunprecedented scale (Maver 2000: 252).

The changes began after responsibility for housing was transferred to localauthorities in 1919. The Glasgow Corporation ‘evolved a two-tier structure ofbuilding and allocations shaped by a complicated mixture of social and economicconsiderations’ (Horsey 1990: 12). The first tier constituted the constructionof high rent cottages, built according to fashionable ‘garden city’ principles(Maver 2000: 259), and affordable only to skilled workers and professionals,who migrated to commuter suburbs just outside the city (Reed 1999b: 3).The second tier of building led to the construction of ‘rehousing’ schemes,estates of poor quality tenements with few amenities on the fringes of the citycentre, which were specifically for the accommodation of those displaced by slumclearance (Pacione 1995: 159). Reduced government subsidies, lower housingstandards, and the poverty of the new tenants, led to the creation of socialghettos (McKean 1999: 140), with an inevitable ‘social stigma attached . . .

to those cleared, and the housetype built’ (Butt 1983: 259). The short-termeffects of the interwar building programme were to improve housing densities andprovision, but the real effect was to shift the old slums further away from the city



centre, formalising social segregation through housing. The difference betweenthe two types of interwar estate ‘could not have been greater’ (Pacione 1995:159).

Glasgow experienced industrial and economic decline after the Second WorldWar and housing conditions continued to deteriorate (Maver 2000: 264).Two different, visionary plans were conceived to reduce Glasgow’s 1.2 millionpopulation. One aimed to keep the city’s population within the limits, maintainingolder property, building new high-rise housing, and reorganising transportroutes. The other advocated decentralisation primarily through the buildingof new towns, but also through peripheral estates (Smith and Wannop 1985).The redevelopment programmes which emerged contained elements of both; theplanned counter-urbanisation did take place, with selective filtering accordingto social class. Migration to the new towns tended to be the voluntary exodus ofthe middle classes, to the extent that by 1974, 25,000 individuals a year wereleaving the city, mostly professionals or skilled and white-collar workers (Horsey1990: 33; Maver 2000: 268). The decanting of the population to isolated, nownotoriously deprived, peripheral estates such as Easterhouse and Castlemilk waslimited to those who could least afford it: city residents whose housing had beendemolished.

Whilst Glasgow’s population was being scattered to the edges and beyond, therewere substantial movements within the city. The Comprehensive DevelopmentPlan, initiated in 1951, aimed to demolish 90,000 houses over 20 years and toremove and/or rehouse 60 percent of the population (Markus 1999: 152ff.). Atfirst the demolition moved slowly targeting specific areas, but by the late 1960s theclearance accelerated, with all houses in an area being destroyed, ‘obsolete, if onlybecause of [their] age’ (Horsey 1990: 62). Affected communities were dispersed:some to the peripheral estates, others to new poor-quality buildings in situ, andstill others to new high-rise blocks. Once again, there was social stratificationin the programme: working-class areas were identified, middle-class areas wereunaffected (Gibb 1983: 170).

By 1974, the plan was halted as ‘the full social cost of the physical destructionwas realised. . . . [w]hole territorially-based communities with deep historicalroots were destroyed as the massive Comprehensive Development Areas’(CDA)onslaught tore the heart out of the city’ (Gibb 1983: 170). Glasgow had lostover a quarter of its population. Large areas of the city were filled with new yetdeteriorating housing schemes, or were simply laid waste; tower blocks dotted thelandscape. Moreover, ‘[t]he urban quality in terms of identity and enclosure wasseverely damaged; social interaction, especially the celebrated web of extendedfamily and neighbour relationships of the traditional close, was broken’ (Markus1999: 161). From 1976 on regeneration began, and to a certain extent thisrepaired the fractured infrastructures (Reed 1999c). Nevertheless substantialportions of the city’s population remain deprived and increasingly immobile, asthe opportunities for escape from poor council housing are limited (Pacione 1995:160).



The following observations are relevant here:

1. Many Glaswegians have experienced geographical mobility, both voluntary,as the middle classes moved away from the centre of the city, and enforced,as the working classes were transplanted around or outwith the city. Middle-class areas continue to experience passive mobility from the continual drift outfrom the city, and from incomers from outside the city and Scotland. Working-class areas are characterised by relative immobility, and much lower rates ofinward mobility.

2. Middle-class individuals tend to contract more weak ties, whilst working-classcommunities in Glasgow today typically show dense networks with strongties. But as we have seen, the present network structure masks the earlierfragmentation of many working-class communities, substantially disruptingclose-knit social networks, and with this their potential to function effectivelyas norm-enforcement mechanisms on all forms of social behaviour, includinglanguage (Macafee 1983: 16–17). We therefore need to be aware of a dynamicnetwork history for these speakers over the twentieth century, as we observea shift from close-knit networks, through breaking and weakening of strongties, back to close-knit networks once more.

3. Social class divisions became further entrenched in Glasgow by the changesin housing and counter-urbanisation during the twentieth century. Thesewere enhanced by the high degree of social control exerted over the workingclass in the form of rigorous checks on public health, overcrowding, and‘moralandphysicalwelfare’bycaretakers, ladyinspectorsandnurses’ (Horsey1990: 20). This and the lack of community consultation in the redevelopmentprogramme caused understandable resentment on the part of the workingclasses (Macafee 1983: 16; Markus 1999: 147). Today the concept of socialclass is relevant for working and middle classes alike. Language plays a keyrole in these definitions.

1.3 The linguistic context: Scottish English

Glasgow is a ‘traditional’ or ‘divergent’ dialect area (e.g. Wells 1982) such thata local dialect with a historical development distinct from standard English alsoexists as a dialect for a substantial proportion of the population (Stuart-Smith2004). ‘Glaswegian’ here refers to a sociolinguistic continuum of ScottishEnglish, ranging from Scottish Standard English (SSE) to Glaswegian Scots.Glasgow vernacular, historically derived from a form of West Central Scots,has undergone changes, including levelling towards Scottish Standard English,influence from Irish English and the development of its own distinctive cant andslang (Macafee 1994). Working-class Glaswegians tend towards the Scots end ofthis continuum, though many are able to drift up and down the continuum inresponse to social context (Aitken 1984; Stuart-Smith 2003).

Scottish Standard English is a variety of standard English spoken with a Scottishaccent, resulting from a process of erosion and anglicisation of Scots since the



sixteenth century, as the Scottish middle and upper classes looked towards the‘more elegant and perfect’ English of the South (Aitken 1979: 92). ScottishStandard English is different from English English structurally and in terms oflanguage ideology; the accent norms which are acceptable, promoted throughovert correction, and found in educated speakers in Glasgow are those which areconsistent with Scottish Standard English, and not an English English model suchas RP, which is not relevant for the majority of speakers. Thus, car is typically /kar/and white is /��it/ (cf. Wells 1982: 34–36, for ‘standard’ accents). Furthermore,Scottish Standard English, like educated Irish English, has not been the subject ofstigma historically (Milroy and Milroy 1999).

1.4 Research questions

Glaswegian was the subject of attention as soon as quantitative methodscrossed the Atlantic. Macaulay’s study of phonological variation and languageattitudes carried out in the early 1970s (Macaulay 1977) has been widelydisseminated, and ensured that sociolinguistic accounts include reference tothe keen stratification in phonological variables which he observed in Glasgow.During the early 1980s Macafee collected a different kind of corpus which focusedon working-class speech and language, and in particular, on the maintenance ofGlaswegian vernacular lexis, with some analysis of Scots phonological variables(Macafee 1994). In 1997 a new socially stratified corpus of Glaswegian wascollected and preliminary analyses were published in Stuart-Smith (1999a). Onthe basis of subsequent analysis of the same data, we consider the followingresearch questions:

1. What is the nature of phonological variation and change (if any) inGlaswegian?

2. How may we account for the patterns of variation and change that we observe?

Our account focuses on quantitative analysis of the data. The spontaneousspeech data consist of unprompted conversations between informants, notsociolinguistic interviews,andtherewereonlyoccasionalspontaneousreferencesto language. Nevertheless, when we consider these comments together withadditional evidence, and in the context of Glasgow’s recent history, we canbegin to understand the linguistic patterning in terms of local contrastinglanguage ideologies, particularly on the part of working-class speakers, who areleading in innovation to maintain sociolinguistic distance from their ‘snobby’neighbours.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Data collection

The corpus for this investigation was collected during the spring and summer of1997 mainly by second author (CT), a Scottish English speaker from Edinburgh.



Table 1: Profile of informants in the 1997 Glasgow corpus

Speakers Adolescents (13–14 yrs) Adults (40+ yrs)

working-class(male)

4 4

working-class(female)

4 4

middle-class(male)

4 4

middle-class(female)

4 4

Criteriaworking-class(inner city)

born/raised/resident in area born/raised/resident in area

middle-class(suburban)

born/raised/resident in area long resident in area

Spontaneous conversations of up to 45 minutes from same-sex self-selected pairsof speakers were recorded without the investigator present, and following these,informants read out a wordlist of around 180 words constructed to assess a widerange of consonant and vowel variables. Digital recordings were made onto DATusing wide-frequency response clip-on microphones from 32 individuals whowere divided equally into the categories of male/female, younger (13/14 years)and older (40-60 years), and working- and middle-class; see Table 1, Milroy,Milroy and Docherty (1997).

Following earlier studies on U.K. accents, including Glaswegian, our samplewas constructed to investigate the potential effects of gender, age, and socialclass. We wanted to assess the extent to which Glaswegian adolescents might beexhibiting apparent-time change with respect to older speakers. Comparison withearlier – and later – studies would then confirm whether such inferences wereappropriate. Social class was established as a factor in Glaswegian by Macaulay(1977), who worked with a graded sample of four class groups. We worked withtwo relative points on the social class continuum, giving us ‘snapshots’ of middle-and working-class patterns across an area to the north-west of the city centre.We identified two schools with different profiles in educational/social criteria(see Table 2), and then used their contiguous residential catchment areas toselect adult participants. While such sampling of social class inevitably simplifiescontinuous sociolinguistic variation into two categories, we were unprepared forthe extent and nature of the polarisation that emerged.

The middle-class area, ‘Bearsden’, covers the northern suburbs of Bearsden,Milngavie, and Westerton. These have been the focus of middle-class migrationfrom the city of Glasgow since the mid-nineteenth century, with largely privatehousing consisting of a mix of large sandstone villas, and estates of bungalows.



Table 2: Educational and socio-economic criteria used to determine the socialclass of the two participating schools. All figures are percentages

Criteria ‘Middle class’ ‘Working class’

Grades 1 and 2 in StandardGrade1

43 10

School leavers going on tofull-time higher education1

58 18

Receipt of clothing grants2 5 43

1. Source: Examination results in Scottish Schools, HM Inspectors of Schools Audit Unit (1994–96)2. Source: Clothing Grant to Secondary Schools, QA Unit, Strathclyde Regional Council, Departmentof Education (1989–90)

Bearsden falls outside the political limits of Glasgow, despite the fact that manyresidents are from Glasgow, and work in the city (Pacione 1995: 192). Thearea is characterised by a relatively loosely knit and mobile population, bothactively in that individuals have moved into the area, and continue to travelabout the country, and passively, in that the region also receives in-migrationfrom those born outside Scotland, at present showing twice as many residentsborn in England than Glasgow overall (see Table 3).

‘Maryhill’, the working-class area, borders with ‘Bearsden’ at its northern end,and includes Maryhill proper, the Wyndford estate, Ruchill, and Possil towardsthe city centre. By the 1890s Maryhill had been built up with tenement blockswhich helped ‘reinforce the growth of community identities’ (Gibb 1983: 121).Only seventy years later the same buildings were ‘deemed to have the largestproportion of houses ripe for redevelopment in the whole of Glasgow’ (Reed 1999c:215). The CDA campaign of widespread demolition, population removal, andrehousing, left the area with gaps, scattered blocks of new, substandard, tenementhousing, and the mixed low-rise/high-rise development of the Wyndford, servedby poor transport connections and few social facilities (Rae 1974). Local close-knit networks were substantially disrupted in Maryhill, but this fragmentation isnow effectively masked by attempts at regeneration which have helped to confirmcommunity identities. The network history of the area over the last century hastherefore moved from close-knit networks, through a period of disruption, to anew set of strongly-tied communities. It also shows relatively low active or passivemobility. Few move into the area from outside Scotland or from within the city

Table 3: Census results showing the percentage of residents born in Englandfor our sample areas and for Glasgow overall

City of Glasgow Bearsden Maryhill

Census 1991 4.34 8.10 2.68Census 2001 4.24 7.12 2.63



(Possil is one of the least preferred destination areas for council transfer requests;Pacione 1995: 160).

2.2 The recordings

Recording sessions for adolescents were set up in a quiet room in each school;informants had volunteered to take part at the end of a presentation to theirclass about language attitudes. Adult informants were accessed via personalcontacts in local networks in the two areas (parents, a teacher training college, amedical establishment, a women’s centre, and janitorial staff at the university),and recorded in a quiet room in a location convenient for them. All informantswere asked to talk to each other about whatever they wanted until the fieldworkercame back into the room and switched off the recorder.

We assumed that there would be a trade-off between the quality of the speechdata and the amount of personal information asked of the informants. In the eventwe took only basic demographic details, not even forcing adults to reveal theirprecise age, within the range of 40 to 60 years, if they did not wish to. We felt thatour absence from the recording situation would also help reduce the ever-presentconstraints of the Observer’s Paradox. The results suggest that our strategy paidoff, since we gained good casual conversations which give us snapshots of thespeakers’ current lives, their wishes, experiences, friends, and social practices.Working-class girls and women appeared to continue the conversations theywere already having with each other (this is stated explicitly by the first twopairs of girls), punctuated by the odd acknowledgement to the presence of themicrophone. Middle-class informants seemed to be less comfortable, but working-class boys found it hardest to find things to say; see Macaulay (2005) for furtherdiscussion.

2.3 Linguistic variables

Macaulay’s study concentrated on vowels, with T-glottalling as the onlyconsonantal variable. We focused on consonants for the following reasons:

1. Urban accents elsewhere in the U.K. are showing rapid changes to theirconsonantal systems apparently in the direction of southern English Englishmodels. We wanted to assess the extent to which Glaswegian, far away fromthe south of England, might be sharing in such changes.

2. Unlike other U.K. accents, a number of Glaswegian consonants showdistinctive local non-standard variants, for example, [h] for /θ/, in think,allowing us to look at how incoming features compete with local variantsas they become integrated into the system (Stuart-Smith et al. 2003).

3. Whilst vowel systems are often considered, it is less usual to look at arange of consonants. We wanted to see whether/how speakers would exploitcomplexity in consonantal variation, and the extent to which this would besystematic across consonantal variables. At the same time, we note that our



analysis, findings, and conclusions are necessarily constrained by our choiceof variables.

We selected eight variables, all of which are known to vary socially in Glasgow, andmost of which have been reported to be changing (Macafee 1983; Stuart-Smith1999a):

(θ) The pronunciation of /θ/ in Glasgow is generally reported to be [θ], with atraditional vernacular variant, [h] (e.g. Macafee 1983: 33). TH-fronting, theuse of [f] for /θ/, is associated with regional dialect levelling in other accentsof English English but was not expected to be a consistent feature ofGlaswegian, although Macafee (e.g. 1983: 34) noted sporadic instances inher data from the early 1980s.

(ð) A long-noted feature of working-class Glaswegian is the use of an alveolartap, [ɾ], intervocalically for /ð/ in words such as brother; so too is completeelision of the sound (Macafee 1983: 33). The use of a labial variant [v] for/ð/, here called DH-fronting to register the different processes entailed for /ð/from those of TH-fronting, is not expected in Scottish English.

(l) refers to L-vocalisation, and specifically to the process typical of CockneyEnglish (e.g. Wells 1982: 259), which affects syllable-final /l/ and resultsin a high back (rounded/unrounded) vowel. Again Macafee (e.g. 1994:29) reports sporadic instances in her data from the early 1980s. This kindof vocalisation is to be distinguished from an earlier process of ‘Scots’ L-vocalisation which affected Older Scots syllable-final /al, ol, ul/ in mostenvironments, resulting in common lexical variants such as a ′ for all (Macafee1983: 38). The two processes are different in their reflexes, the environmentsin which they operate(d), and by the fact that the latter process is no longerproductive, though most speakers know that the Scots forms correspond tostandard forms with /l/ through literacy; see Stuart-Smith, Timmins andTweedie (2006).

(t) Glasgow has been dubbed the original home of the glottal stop (Macafee1997: 528), and T-glottalling, or the use of [ʔ] for /t/ in certain phoneticenvironments, mainly non-foot initial, is regarded as a primary charac-teristic of vernacular Glaswegian consonant pronunciation (Macaulay1977).

(s) Glaswegian vernacular is known to have a particular pronunciation of /s/which sounds rather like /ʃ/, and whose articulation has been speculated as‘apico-alveolar’, that is, produced with the tongue tip raised; Macafee (1983:34).

(x) The phoneme /x/ is not generally found in accents of English other thanScottish English (Wells 1982: 408). Glaswegian is assumed to show /x/,classically given as a voiceless velar fricative, though a range of dorsal



realisations is possible. Recent descriptions suggest a tendency for /x/ to mergewith /k/ (e.g. Macafee 1983: 32).

(�) Alongside /x/, /�/ is the other ‘extra’ consonant phoneme in the Glaswegianconsonant inventory. /�/ is usually assumed to be a voiceless labial-velarfricative (e.g. Wells 1982: 408), though recent observations suggest that itmay be merging with /w/ in younger speakers (e.g. Macafee 1983: 32).

(r) Like other forms of Scottish English, Glaswegian is thought to be ‘rhotic’, thatis, that written <r> is pronounced postvocalically, in words like card and car.Loss of postvocalic /r/ was noted in working-class children in Edinburgh byRomaine (1978), with boys leading the change. Macafee (1983: 32) notedsimilar changes in ‘adult speakers in Glasgow’.

Our analysis of the potential stylistic variation in these variables was limited tospeech produced during two different activities, reading a wordlist and speakingto a friend (cf. Macaulay 1999). We anticipated that when reading the wordlists,our informants would produce consonantal variation more consistent with thatof the regional standard, Scottish Standard English. This is not only because wethought that informants might try to produce more ‘correct’ (and so less Scots)pronunciations in this situation, and be helped to do so by the orthography (cf.Milroy and Gordon 2003: 202), but also because in Scotland, literacy instructiontends to be through the medium of Scottish Standard English, which in turnentails a shift towards this variety – and so the suppression of Scots forms –when people are asked to read aloud. Interestingly, the working-class adolescentstended not to conform to this pattern, but treated the reading task in a differentway, which will become apparent when we consider the results.

2.4 Data analysis

The wordlists were digitised into a Pentium PC running xwaves+ at 16,000Hz/16 bits. Narrow auditory transcriptions were made from repeated listening tosegmented word files through Panasonic headphones. Possible instances of everyvariable were identified in the orthographic transcripts of the conversations, andthese were then transcribed auditorily from DAT tapes using a SONY desktop DATplayer. About a third of the transcriptions were cross-transcribed.

The large range of variation identified for each variable was grouped intovariant categories (‘variants’) with representative labels in square brackets; so, forexample, [θ] represents the range of dental fricative variants which were observedfor (θ). Every variable yielded a very small number of odd/unusual variantswhich we grouped into a miscellaneous, or [m], category, and which are notdiscussed here. Acoustic analysis was carried out to corroborate the identificationof auditorily ‘intermediate’ variants found for (x �θ l) (Stuart-Smith et al. (2003),and to investigate further variation in (s) (Stuart-Smith forthcoming).

The auditory data were statistically analysed in two ways: separately foreach variable, and then together. In both cases we used statistical methods



which allowed us to analyse all variants, not only ‘standard’/‘non-standard’.This was necessary, first, because in Glaswegian there may be more than one‘non-standard’ option, and second, because sociolinguistic differentiation viaconsonants is attained by type and range of variation used.

First, for each variable we conducted formal hypothesis testing of the validityof the pre-assumed categories (age, class, gender) using compositional dataanalysis and the application of log-ratio linear modelling. These techniquesaddress the problems caused by data such as ours which comprise a number ofvariants for each sociolinguistic variable (Aitchison 1986; Tweedie and Frischer1999). Subsequent testing with Bonferroni-corrected p-values was carried outto test differences across groups and within variants; results referred to hereas significant showed a p-value of less than .05. The numbers reported in thetables result from the transformation of the variant raw scores by log-ratio linearmodelling, and can be considered similar to percentages. Transformed data arepresented for all variables bar (x) and (�) for read speech, for which raw scores aregiven, since the low numbers prevented statistical analysis. Following standardstatistical practice, we present the data grouped according to the statistical effectsobserved. This avoids the possibility of seeing differences between groups whichare not supported by the statistical analysis.

Next, we used exploratory multivariate analysis to consider natural clusteringof the data. Two techniques were used, cluster analysis and log-contrast principalcomponents analysis (Aitchison 1983). Both kinds of analysis used all variantsfrom all eight variables in order to capture similarities and differences betweenour informants which emerge exclusively from relationships between the data.This enabled us to assess the extent to which their linguistic behaviour supportedour a priori social categorisation. Multivariate statistical analysis of this kindis relatively uncommon within quantitative sociolinguistics, though principalcomponents analysis was used by Horvath (1985) to identify speaker groupingsin Sydney, Australia.

3. RESULTS – QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

3.1 Single variables

The following sections summarise the overall results for individual variables inread and spontaneous speech analysed without further subdivision accordingto factors such as phonological or prosodic environment; Table 4 summarisesthe statistical results. There is not sufficient space here to detail the full analysiswhich was carried out for each variable, and references to related publicationsare given at the end of each section; for further details, see also Timmins, Tweedieand Stuart-Smith (2004).

(θ) We identified the following variants: [θ]; [f]; realisations sounding ‘in-between’dental and labiodental fricatives, such as labialised dental fricatives, herelabelled [θ/f]; [h]; and less frequently, [t], and [s], arising from assimilation with



Table 4: Statistical significance for social factors and their interactions inwordlists and spontaneous speech (asterisk indicates p value less than .05;- indicates no statistical analysis because data were too sparse)

age class gender age∗class age∗gender class∗gender age∗class∗gender

Wordlists(θ) ∗ ∗ ∗(ð) ∗ ∗ ∗(l)(t) ∗ ∗ ∗(s) ∗(x) - - - - - - -(�) - - - - - - -(r) ∗ ∗

Conversations(θ) ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗(ð) ∗ ∗(l) ∗ ∗ ∗(t) ∗(s) ∗(x) - - - - - - -(�) ∗ ∗ ∗(r) ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

following /s/ in, for example maths. Across wordlists and spontaneous speechwe find social polarisation in the range and type of variation, with middle-classadults using the least variants and working-class adolescents using the most(Table 5). An effect of gender, generally rare for these variables, was found inspontaneous speech, and is explained by the polarisation of working-class girlsfrom all middle-class speakers. [h] is predominantly found in working-classspeakers, and only in conversations. [f] is absent from middle-class speech, andoccurs mostly in working-class adolescents. Interestingly, unlike [h], [f] is notblocked in read speech, thus increasing the possible non-standard repertoirefor these speakers. For discussion of the role of position in word and lexis inthe integration of [f], see Stuart-Smith and Timmins (in press).

(ð) The variants were: [ð]; [ɾ]; [v]; complete deletion, [ø], commonintervocalically, and also found in word-initial position, for example [an aʔ]for and that; and a few instances of [h]. There is little variation other than [ð],but what does occur again shows a clear split between middle-class adultsand working-class adolescents (Table 6). [ɾ] is found more often in working-class speakers. Working-class adolescents use [ɾ], and also [ø], [h] and [v],though the latter only in read speech and predominantly in word-final position(e.g. smooth), where local non-standard [ɾ] is not possible. The lack of [v] inthe conversations may also be explained by the complete absence of /ð/ in



Table 5: Distribution of (θ) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith-mically transformed data) (in this and the following tables the abbreviationsare: MC = middle class, WC = working class, O = older speakers, Y = youngerspeakers, F = female, M = male. Group averages are presented in accordancewith the results of the statistical analysis (see Table 4). A direct result of this isthat male and female speakers tend not to be separated, since gender was notoften a significant factor)

[θ] [f] [θ/f] [t] [s] [h] [m] total N

WordlistsMCO 95.45 0 2.27 0 2.27 0 0 87MCY 91.95 0 0 3.45 4.60 0 0 86WCO 85.23 1.14 1.14 6.82 3.41 0 2.27 88WCY 53.49 30.23 10.47 1.16 4.65 0 0 88

349ConversationsMCOF 98.40 0 0 0.80 0 0.27 0.53 301MCOM 97.60 0 0 1.20 0 0.60 0.60 298MCYF 93.33 0 0 0.89 0 5.78 0 188MCYM 88.89 0 0 4.58 0 6.21 0.33 273WCOF 81.68 0 0.26 0.26 0 16.54 1.27 385WCOM 74.39 0 0.81 1.63 0 12.60 10.57 224WCYF 21.21 32.90 0 0.43 0.43 44.59 0.43 240WCYM 33.62 22.41 0.86 0.86 0 41.38 0.86 112

2021

word-final position in the entire corpus. For further discussion, see Stuart-Smith et al. (2003).

(l) Three main variants were identified: apparent instances of articulated [l]; [V],the range of vocalised reflexes, mainly high back rounded, which resulted; andan in-between category, [l/V], which includes variants which sounded neitherlike articulated laterals with full alveolar contact, nor like vowels withoutcontact/lateralisation. L-vocalisation was more frequent in read speech, andagain occurred most often in the speech of working-class adolescents (Table 7).Subsequent analysis of Scots L-vocalisation showed that the same speakersalso predominate in the use of lexical variants with previously vocalised/l/, for instance ba’ for ball (though only in spontaneous speech, this isblocked in reading). So working-class adolescents exploit both conservativeand innovative types of L-vocalisation as part of their sociolinguistic identity(see Stuart-Smith, Timmins and Tweedie 2006).

(t) Alongside released plosives, [t], and glottal stops, [ʔ], in read speech wefound pre-aspirated, pre-glottalised, and affricated stops, [ht], [ʔt], and [ts ]; inspontaneous speech, there were odd instances of tapping, [ɾ], voiced stops



Table 6: Distribution of (ð) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith-mically transformed data)

[ð] [ɾ] [v] [ø] [h] [m] total N

WordlistsMCO 100 0 0 0 0 0 47MCY 90.83 7.08 0 0 0 2.08 47WCO 89.58 10.42 0 0 0 0 47WCY 65.42 15.42 15 2.08 0 2.08 47

188ConversationsMCO 99.09 0.39 0 0.39 0.13 0 772MCY 93.33 3.34 0 2.98 0.36 0 374WCO 91.44 3.74 0 2.14 2.67 0 839WCY 79.71 7.06 0 9.12 3.82 0.29 340

2325

[�t], and complete deletion, [ø]. Glottals are thriving in Glaswegian, andcomparison with Macaulay’s data indicates a real-time increase in glottallingsince the 1970s (Stuart-Smith 1999b). Middle-class adults are polarised fromworking-class adolescents in their variation in read speech, but there is asimple class divide in spontaneous speech (Table 8). Moreover, qualitativeanalysis according to phonetic environment has shown that working-classspeakers not only use far more glottal stops (93%) than their middle-class counterparts, but that they also use them with a different pattern of

Table 7: Distribution of (l) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith-mically transformed data)

[l] [V] [l/V] [m] total N

WordlistsMCO 81.55 13.69 4.76 0 165MCY 79.39 13.94 6.67 0 157WCO 84.34 12.05 3.61 0 168WCY 46.50 47.13 5.73 0.64 166

656ConversationsMCO 99.61 0.10 0.20 0.10 633MCY 99.53 0 0.47 0 589WCO 96.78 0.42 0.17 2.62 1017WCY 85.74 8.83 0.68 4.75 1181

3420



Table 8: Distribution of (t) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith-mically transformed data)

[t] [ht] [ts] [ʔt] [�t] [ɾ] [ø] [ʔ] total N

WordlistsMCO 81.32 0 0 17.95 0 0 0 0.73 301MCY 72.09 9.63 10.30 3.32 0 0 0 4.65 304WCO 86.18 0 0 6.91 0 0 0 6.91 303WCY 23.03 0.66 0 0 0 0 0 76.32 304

1212ConversationsMC 40.55 0 0 0 0.32 1.29 1.29 56.56 1243WC 6.83 0 0 0 0.44 0.26 0 92.47 1142

2385

distribution, whose traces remain when they try to style-shift ‘up’, and whichis not successfully approximated by middle-class speakers trying to talk ‘down’(Stuart-Smith 1999b).

(s) The auditory analysis revealed a small but statistically significant proportionof variants other than [s], to be conditioned by gender. Male speakers weremore likely to use ‘retracted’ variants of /s/: apical (tip-raised) [�s], palatalised[sj], whistled [sw], and postalveolar [ʃ]; Table 9. Subsequent acoustic analysisconfirmed an overall difference between male and female speakers in termsof major area of fricative energy (characterised in terms of peak frequencyand first moment/centroid/centre of gravity), but also provided evidence forgendered production of /s/ for all speakers, and most strikingly for working-class girls who cluster with male speakers, unlike other female speakers(Stuart-Smith forthcoming).

Table 9: Distribution of (s) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith-mically transformed data)

[s] [�s] [sj] [sw] [ʃ] [m] total N

WordlistsF 95.39 4.33 0.14 0.14 0 0 716M 88.10 7.44 2.08 1.93 0 0.45 672

1388ConversationsF 98.48 0.38 0.53 0.23 0.30 0.08 1315M 91.99 5.37 0.64 0.82 0.73 0.45 1099

2414



Table 10: Distribution of (x) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (rawscores)

[x] [k] [kx] [m] total

WordlistsMCOF 8 0 0 0 8MCOM 6 1 1 0 8MCYF 2 3 3 0 8MCYM 6 1 1 0 8WCOF 4 1 3 0 8WCOM 7 0 1 0 8WCYF 5 3 0 0 8WCYM 3 3 2 0 8

64ConversationsMCOF 1 0 3 1 5MCOM 27 3 2 0 32MCYF 1 1 0 1 3MCYM 2 0 0 2 4WCOF 27 0 0 0 27WCOM 41 0 2 1 44WCYF 0 6 0 1 7WCYM 0 6 0 0 6

128

(x) The three variants identified were: [x], usually voiceless velar, occasionallyuvular, fricatives; [k], voiceless velar stops; and – as for (l) (θ), and (�) –phonetically ‘intermediate’ variants, noted with the cover label [kx], whichhad the auditory, and acoustic, features of stops and fricatives simultaneously(see Lawson and Stuart-Smith 1999; Stuart-Smith et al. 2003). /x/ was tooinfrequent for statistical analysis (Table 10). Given its status as a shibbolethof Scottish speech, we might particularly expect to find [x] categorically inGlaswegian vernacular. In fact we found a fuzzier picture, with one aspect ofclarity: working-class adolescents used [k] almost exclusively in spontaneousspeech.

(�) The variation for /�/ also fell into three categories: [θ]; [w]; and then what welabelled [wh], which covers a separate ‘inbetween’ category of variants, bothauditorily and acoustically, but which showed social stratification in acousticpatterning, and also statistical significance in distribution (more in working-class girls than working-class women). Like /x/, this sound is decliningin working-class speakers, particularly adolescents (Table 11). Middle-classadolescents also used [w] unlike their adult counterparts. Again, like /x/, theintermediate variants suggest that the change from /�/ to /w/ is not always astraightforward substitution of /w/ for /�/(Lawson and Stuart-Smith 1999;Stuart-Smith et al. 2003).



Table 11: Distribution of (�) in wordlists (raw scores) and spontaneous speech(logarithmically transformed data)

[�] [w] [wh] [m] total

WordlistsMCOF 8 0 4 0 12MCOM 11 0 1 0 12MCYF 9 2 1 0 12MCYM 11 0 1 0 12WCOF 4 3 5 0 12WCOM 6 2 4 0 12WCYF 5 5 2 0 12WCYM 4 4 3 0 11

95ConversationsMCOF 92.61 3.98 1.70 1.70 176MCOM 96.61 1.69 1.69 0 177MCYF 60.32 35.71 3.97 0 126MCYM 75.40 23.81 0.79 0 126WCOF 82.78 12.92 2.87 1.44 209WCOM 44.74 44.36 6.77 4.14 266WCYF 27.59 62.07 10.34 0 145WCYM 22.33 72.82 4.85 0 103

1328

(r) Our auditory analysis led to the construction of five variants: [r], the rangeof articulated /r/ sounds; [V], the range of vowels which occurred withoutany secondary articulation/rhotacization; [r/V], a small number of tokenswhich fell auditorily between [V] and [r]; [V�], vowels with secondaryvelarisation/uvularisation/pharygealisation, or alternatively very weaklyapproximated velarised or uvularised pharyngeals; [Vr] rhoticised vowels withapical rhoticisation.

The level of vocalisation that emerged, particularly in working-classadolescents, though it also occurs in working-class adults, was surprising(see Table 12). Our fine-grained analysis also demonstrates the phoneticcomplexity entailed in derhoticisation, which we are continuing to investigateacoustically (Stuart-Smith and Lawson 2006), and articulatorily (e.g. Scobbieand Stuart-Smith 2006). Finding a satisfactory term for the process is difficult.R-loss emphasises the outcome, valid for some variants/speakers, but not forothers. We, like Johnston (1997: 510) prefer R-vocalisation, focusing on theprocess of ultimate loss via vocalisation. Like (θ), this variable was the onlyother apart from (s) to show a main effect of gender, arising from workingclass girls using more plain vowels than their male counterparts; for morediscussion, see Stuart-Smith (2003).



Table 12: Distribution of (r) in wordlists and spontaneous speech (logarith-mically transformed data)

[r] [V] [r/V] [V�] [Vr] total N

WordlistsMCO 88.21 1.43 0.36 1.43 8.57 280MCY 81.41 6.32 0 5.58 6.69 269WCO 62.91 17.45 2.55 9.82 7.27 275WCY 17.56 50.54 2.15 25.81 3.94 279

1103ConversationsMCOF 94.33 4.12 0.14 0.07 1.35 1481MCOM 92.02 3.71 0 2.23 2.04 1078MCYF 93.03 2.92 0.16 0 3.89 617MCYM 89.39 4.22 0.22 4.65 1.52 924WCOF 69.07 22.45 0.86 2.42 5.20 1403WCOM 75.38 12.94 0.51 6.85 4.32 1182WCYF 5.82 76.33 1.50 15.15 1.20 997WCYM 22.13 50.50 2.21 17.51 7.65 497

8179

Four key findings emerge from considering the results of the individualvariables:

1. There is consistent sociolinguistic polarisation of working-class adolescentsfrom middle-class adults, for all variables bar (s). The variation used bymiddle-class speakers is generally consistent with the regional standard.Younger working-class speakers show non-standard variants which include:maintenance of local features, e.g. [h] for (θ); inclusion of non-local features,e.g. [f] and [v] for (θ) and (ð) respectively; and loss of local standard features,e.g. vocalisation of postvocalic /r/.

2. We infer apparent-time change in the speech of working-class adolescents formost variables: (θ), (ð) and (l) with the inclusion of non-local variants [f], [v]and L-vocalisation at the expense of standard [θ], [ð] and [l]; (�), (r) with lossof [�], [r], and increasing [w] and R-vocalisation respectively. The results areless clear for (x), though [k] also appears to be more common in spontaneousspeech. (t) only shows more glottals in wordlists (they are almost categoricalin spontaneous speech).

3. Gender makes far fewer appearances than we might expect from Macaulay’searlier results for Glasgow, with only (s) showing a clearly gendereddistribution.

4. There are clear differences in style. We find that, as expected, most informantsreduced and suppressed non-standard variants when reading the wordlists.But working-class adolescents show a different pattern. They reduce some



Figure 1: Output plot from cluster analysis of 36 variants for eight variablesfor wordlists. The left-hand group is solely working-class speakers (NK. . .),including all the working-class adolescents. The two working-class men in thedashed box are a conversational pair

local non-standard variants ([h] for (θ); [ø] for (ð)), but T-glottalling is notsubject to the same restrictions. Nor are the non-local non-standard variants,[f], [v], and L-vocalisation for (θ), (ð), and (l), which are used to the samedegree as in spontaneous speech, or even more in the case of L-vocalisation.

3.2 Multivariate analysis

Two types of multivariate analysis, cluster and principal components analysis,were conducted. Since the results were similar for both styles, we presenthere only those for read speech (for spontaneous speech, see Stuart-Smith andTweedie 2000). Both kinds of analysis group the speakers numerically, thoughdifferently for each procedure. The statistical output for each is a visualrepresentation of these numerical relationships in the form of plots showingindividual speakers in a two-dimensional space.

Cluster analysis considers all variant usage for all speakers together, and groupsspeakers on the basis of decreasing degrees of similarity of shared patterns of



variant usage. The resulting plot, a dendrogram, or tree diagram, represents thegroupings in terms of a branching tree. Branching indicates groups of speakerswho share overall patterns of variation. (There is no significance to the left/rightorientation of the branches.) Depth on the plot represents the closeness of therelationships between speakers, as they are grouped through shared patternsof variation. Absolute depth, as indicated by the left-hand scale is not relevanthere; what is important is relative depth, such that splits at the top of the treerepresent major differences in variation whereas fine clusters at the bottom ofthe tree represent those speakers showing the closest relationships in terms oftheir variation. The annotated results for the cluster analysis for wordlist data areshown in Figure 1.3

Moving down from the top, we find a main split in the grouping of the speakers,with the branch to the left of the plot consisting solely of working-class speakers,and all the working-class adolescents. The right branch has all middle-classspeakers, and four working-class adults. Within the working-class cluster, theworking-class adolescents exist in two subclusters, three to the right and five tothe left of a central group of four working-class adults. If we look at the tips of thebranches, we find a number of pairs of speakers. These tend to be from the sameclass/age group; one pair only is a conversational pair (two working-class men).What this shows is that most working-class speakers pattern together in terms oftheir overall variation for these variables, and moreover, that they are more likeeach other than the middle-class speakers. The variant usage of working-classadolescents also leads to their being grouped roughly together, and then intotwo discrete subgroups. Thus this confirms our original category of social class;age is apparent in the grouping of the working-class adolescents, but is less clearfor other speakers, and gender seems to be even less important in governing thecomposition of the clusters.

In Principal Components Analysis (PCA) the variation for all speakers forall variables is linked together, and a set of overall patterns is presented inthe form of a series of ‘Principal Components’. The first Principal Componentis that which describes the pattern of variation which is used most often,the second which is used most often after the first, and so on. It is usual tolook at the first two Principal Components, and in particular, to consider thegrouping of data points (here our informants) as they are represented in thespace constructed between the two Principal Components. Figure 2 gives theannotated output plot from the PCA for wordlist data. It is immediately clear thatthe first Principal Component on the horizontal axis relates to our factors of ‘age’and ‘class’. Working-class adolescents are clustered and isolated to the far left ofthe plot; middle-class adults are generally to the far right. Working-class adultsand middle-class adolescents lie in between. The second Principal Component,plotted vertically, does not appear to correlate with any of the three socialfactors identified by us, or with other social factors. Explanation of the varianceis good with the first Principal Component accounting for 26 percent of thevariance.



Figure 2: Output plot from Principal Components Analysis of the 36 variantsfor eight variables in the wordlists. Working-class adolescents (NKY. . .) aregrouped to the left, whilst middle-class adults (BO. . .) are grouped to theright

The results of the PCA were subjected to two further analyses. Figure 3 showsthe percentage of variance in PCA scores. This characterises the scatter of thegroupings in the output plots from the PCA, by showing the numerical variabilityof the positioning of our informants on the plots. The lower the figure, the closerthe speakers are to each other on the plot and hence the more cohesive thegroup in terms of their adherence to the patterns found by the first two PrincipalComponents. The higher the variance in the scores, the more spread out the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Wordlists

Var

ian

ce MCO

MCY

WCO

WCY

Figure 3: Percentage of variance in PCA scores for wordlists. The closer thescore is to zero, the tighter the clustering of data plots on the PCA plot



speakers are, and so the less cohesive the members of the group are in their useof variation. Here we can see that working-class adolescents show the lowestvariability, and hence are the most consistent group in terms of their overallpattern of variation across the eight variables, but note that middle-class adultsare also relatively consistent. Less cohesion in variation is found in middle-classadolescents and working-class adults.

The second analysis resulted in a ‘loadings’ plot (see Figure 4), showing therelative contribution of the input variants to the positioning of the speakers fromthe PCA in Figure 2. We are interested in the horizontal spread of variants, whichindicates the variants responsible for the positioning of speakers along the firstPrincipal Component, which for us corresponds to ‘age’ and ‘class’. Variantsto the far right of the plot are those which contribute most to the position ofmiddle-class adults – (θ):[θ], (ð):[ð], (l):[l], (t):[t], (t):[ʔt], (x): [x], (�):[�], (r):[r] – agroupofvariantsentirelyconsistentwiththeregionalstandard,ScottishStandardEnglish. The variants to the far left of the plot account most for the position of theworking-class adolescents. These are (across both styles): (θ):[h][f], (ð):[v] [ø],(l):[V], (t):[ʔ], (x):[k], (�):[w][wh], (r):[V][V�]. This is a group of variants whichtogether do not occur as part of the regional standard, but which can be describedas typically non-standard variants, both local and non-local.

The cluster analysis provides confirmation of our initial categorisation ofinformants according to social class. Principal Components Analysis providesthree further findings:

1. Two socially polarised groups of speakers emerge which turn out to coincidewith our predetermined categories of working-class adolescents and middle-class adults.

2. These two groups show a high degree of consistency in their variation.3. The variants responsible for positioning the middle-class adults conform to the

regional standard, those for the working-class adolescents are non-standard,local and ‘non-local’.

4. DISCUSSION – GLASWEGIAN IS CHANGING

There is clear evidence to answer our first research question, in that we findsocially stratified variation, at least with respect to class and age; gender is lesswell attested. The sociolinguistic polarisation that we observe may, in part, be dueto our original sampling from a sociolinguistic continuum (cf. Macaulay 1977).Brato’s (2004) data from working-class and lower-middle-class adolescents fromthe south side of Glasgow show TH-fronting and L-vocalisation in middle-classspeakers, though he acknowledges that some of these were in fact from moredeprived areas further south (Pollok, Nitshill). However, what is interestingis the extreme degree of polarisation between social groups demographicallyadjacent, and the way that this polarisation is displayed for these variables. Middle-class (adults) show little divergence from the regional standard. Working-class



Figu

re4

:Sc

hem

atis

edve

rsio

nof

load

ings

plot

for

PCA

for

vari

atio

nin

wor

dlis

ts(f

oror

igin

alpl

ot,s

eeSt

uar

t-Sm

ith

and

Tw

eedi

e20

00

).T

hep

loti

ndi

cate

sth

evar

ian

tsw

hic

har

eres

pon

sibl

efor

thep

osit

ion

ing

ofth

espe

aker

sin

thec

orre

spon

din

gP

rin

cipa

lCom

pon

ents

plot

(Fig

ure

2).

Th

eov

alto

the

left

lists

the

mai

ngr

oup

ofva

rian

tsw

hic

hco

ntr

ibu

teto

the

posi

tion

ofth

ew

orki

ng-

clas

sad

oles

cen

tsal

ong

the

first

Pri

nci

palC

ompo

nen

t,th

atto

the

righ

t,th

ose

resp

onsi

ble

for

the

loca

tion

ofth

em

iddl

e-cl

ass

adu

lts.

Th

ece

ntr

albo

xco

nta

ins

vari

ants

wh

ich

don

otco

ntr

ibu

teto

the

loca

tion

ofsp

eake

rsal

ong

eith

erax

is



adolescents are exploiting non-standard variation, both local and non-local, andin so doing are changing Glaswegian vernacular.

Comparison with other results allows us to assert more confidently that thesepatterns of variation do reflect changes in progress, though we expect a degreeof age-grading to be present at the same time (cf. Sankoff 2006). An analysis ofT-glottalling with respect to Macaulay’s findings from 1973 indicates a real-timeincrease in glottals (Stuart-Smith 1999b). Read and spontaneous speech collectedin 2003/04 from adults and adolescents (aged ten to 15) from the same area alsogive real-time confirmation of increases in TH- and DH-fronting, L-vocalisation,and derhoticisation; the use of [w] for (�) was almost categorical (see Stuart-Smith 2005; Stuart-Smith and Timmins in press). Moreover, Torrance’s (2002)similar findings in the speech of young adults from the nearby housing scheme,Drumchapel, shows that the innovations are not restricted to adolescents, butare being carried with them into their next life stage.

The variables which are changing show complexity in variation, such that eachshows several variant categories with specific social and stylistic distributions.This is caused by the existing local non-standard variation (for (θ) and (ð)), andby the apparent phonetic complexity entailed in other changes (for (x) (�) (l)(r)). The stylistic range exhibited by the working-class adolescents when readingthe wordlist adds a further dimension. In terms of the consonantal variablesconsidered here, we find an interesting array. Certain local non-standard variantsare suppressed, such that there are no instances of [h] for (θ), and almost no [ø] for(ð), though there may also be prosodic constraints at work here, especially giventhat both variants occur in spontaneous speech predominantly in word-initialposition within an utterance (e.g. [a �hŋk] for I think), whereas in a word-listword-initial position is also utterance initial). But at the same time, there is littleattempt to reduce T-glottalling, and alongside this, there is good evidence forL- and R-vocalisation and TH-/DH-fronting. Thus for these variables we seemto have a stylistic choice not to conform to regional standard norms, even whenreading a wordlist (cf. Brian B’s use of the vernacular variant for (th) in the Belfastwordlists; Milroy and Gordon 2003: 202). In fact, these findings coincide withthe fieldworker’s impressions at the time of the recordings: that the teenagerstreated the task as an opportunity to display to her instances of ‘their’ speech,and one can hear them laughing and playing up to the microphone as they readthrough the list. While this might seem to be an instance of dialect ‘stylisation’as defined in Coupland (2001a), it may perhaps be more a case of consciousspeech styling (cf. Coupland 2001b). The adolescents are certainly speaking in a‘voice’, but it is one which seems to be representing their own group, or at leasta possible version of their own group’s repertoire for that particular context, asopposed to speaking in altera persona (Coupland 2001a: 349). What is interestingis that the non-local non-standard variants are selected for this particular stylisticrepertoire.

The use of new features and the reduction of traditional features means thatthe constellation of consonant variants used by working-class adolescents looks



increasingly similar to the non-standard consonant system of (Southern) EnglishEnglish. Taking Glaswegian in the overall U.K. context, we might think that thisis dialect levelling in its broadest sense (Kerswill 2003), and in time, this may bethe outcome. But there are also important differences, both in the ideologicalprocesses involved (see below) and linguistically, for example, in the healthyretention of local non-standard variants. Vowels are not considered, but initialanalysis of Scots lexical variation as represented by Scots /�/ in the OUT set(oot for out), also reveals strong maintenance of the vernacular in the samespeakers (Stuart-Smith 2003), and we suspect that similar results could followfrom analysis of further vowels (see Eremeeva and Stuart-Smith 2003 for BIT andOUT).

If we turn to the second question, accounting for the patterns that we havefound, we note that simple predictions of mobility/network/class on languagechange do not seem to work in either direction. More weakly tied, mobile, middle-class speakers do not seem to show language change, maintaining local regionalstandard variants, whilst more strongly tied, less mobile, working-class speakersare changing their speech, using more non-standard variants, both local and‘non-local’. But if we look more closely at the social embedding of the variation,we find that the factors of mobility, social networks and social class are involved,but that what links them together are the language ideologies which speakersconstruct to make sense of social and linguistic practices in Glasgow.

5. CONSTRUCTING GLASWEGIAN

Milroy (2004b) sets out the ideas behind an ideological analysis of languagein terms of a model of language and indexicality which draws on thework of Silverstein. The indexing of language and social identities can becharacterised in terms of a basic link by individuals between some aspect oflanguage and some socially meaningful category (first order indexicality), andthe ideology around the link, or the meta-awareness by speakers of social-linguistic indexing which is overtly displayed in ‘noticing, discussion, andrationalisation of first order indexicality’ (second order indexicality): ‘It is thesesecondorderindexicalprocesseswhichemergeasideologies’ (Milroy2004b:167).Importantly, the development of such language ideologies is intrinsically shapedand determined by each individual, and set of individuals, who in turn act inresponse to their immediate and local context. Moreover, the idea of languageideology to understand linguistic variation and change is not new, but occurs,albeit differently expressed, in one of the first classic works of quantitativesociolinguistics, Labov’s (1963) study of language change and identity inMartha’s Vineyard.4

Our collection of unprompted conversations between friends provided us withsparse evidence for individuals’ orientation towards language and languageideology, particularly from middle-class speakers. We are therefore forcedto piece together the fragments with care and some necessary speculation.



Nevertheless, what becomes apparent are contrasting class-based languageideologies differentiating working-class informants from the middle-classes.

5.1 Middle-class adults: ‘You’ve got to try and monitor your own speech’

We began with the notion of Glaswegian middle-class individuals as more weaklytied and relatively mobile, and if not actively mobile, recipients of substantialpassive mobility in the form of contact with those born outside Glasgow andparticularly in England. The conversations from our eight informants confirmactive and regular mobility for several of our informants, and particularly for onemiddle-class woman whose sister lives in Cornwall, and the pair of middle-classprofessionals who vie with each other to produce the most exotic location wherethey have enjoyed water sports.

These speakers are consistent in their variation across the eight variables, and atthe same time, adhere to variants which are typical of Scottish Standard English.There is no indication of any kind of reduction of Scottish features, so [x] [�]and postvocalic [r] are maintained in these speakers despite actual contact withEnglish English speakers within their local community. This kind of linguisticbehaviour points to a potentially divergent response to dialect contact, eitherthrough the strengthening of such features during face-to-face interaction (cf.Glauser 1974 for increased lexical differentiation at the Scottish/English politicalborder), or simply by the maintenance of Scottish features. Interestingly, whenwe consider these results within the overall historical development of ScottishStandard English, we seem to be witnessing some kind of brake on the gradualdrift in the direction of English English.

However, we suspect that explanations involving contact with English Englishspeakers give us only a small part of the story. Anecdotally we can reportthat discussions with middle-class Glaswegian friends and colleagues reveal theexistence of language ideologies which serve to distinguish the middle classesfrom the working classes, and which lead to the strong rejection of vernacularlinguistic features, particularly by recent arrivals. Johnston (1983: 11) too is clearabout social climbing in Scotland and the North of England through the deletionof vernacular features. We suggest that at the same time, middle-class adults areactively constructing linguistic codes that eliminate the vernacular and maintainthe regional standard.

5.2 Middle-class adolescents: ‘We’re not exactly Glaswegian, are we?’

The situation seems to be similar, though not quite so strict, for our youngermiddle-class informants. These speakers largely maintain Scottish regionalstandard norms ([x], [�] postvocalic [r]) but at the same time show no instances ofTH- or DH-fronting, only low L-vocalisation, and moderate rates of T-glottalling.Their patterning as a group of speakers is more diverse. Like middle-classadults, they are in constant contact with English English speakers. We suggest



that for them, as for our middle-class adults, such contact may also helpmaintain Scottish features as opposed to reducing them by levelling throughaccommodation.

The topics of discussion in their conversations give insight into their socialpractices – going out with friends, going to the school dance, looking after pets,teachers, boys, computer games, going on holiday – but little information abouttheir views on language. But there is one exchange which is revealing, betweenthe second pair of girls (Extract 1):Extract 1

Eilidh: I don’t, I don’t exactly know why she picked us for Glaswegian,cos we’re not exactly Glaswegian, are we?

Lorna: Hmm. We’re Bearsdenish, Bearsdenwegian.

Interestingly, the girls reject themselves as speakers of Glaswegian, since(we assume), their notion of ‘Glaswegian’ rests on stereotypes of Glaswegianvernacular, which they know they do not speak.

5.3 Working-class adults: ‘That was a different world’

Like the middle-class adolescents, the working-class adults linguistically showedmore diversity. In spontaneous speech vernacular variants such as [h] and [ɾ] for(θ) and (ð) were typical, though not as frequent as in younger speakers. Therewas also an unexpected finding for these speakers in the moderate use of [w] for(�), and the occurrence of vocalised variants for postvocalic (r). The high usage ofthe latter variants by younger working-class speakers is anticipated in the speechof the older generation.

Maryhill shows low inward migration, and the conversations of our informantsdo not allude to much active mobility beyond odd references to holidays, andrelations in Canada. The women’s talk is largely narratives of recent personalevents, such as nights out, shopping, looking after children. The men’s talk israther different since both pairs talk mostly about the local area, and the firstpair talk at length about the physical changes imposed on the area during theirlifetime, and in particular, about widespread demolition of buildings – houses,shops, factories, business – which left a landscape utterly changed. The two menstruggle to reconstruct how it was before the changes, and frequently expressdismay and sadness at the destruction.

Milroy (1987: 87) discusses the demolition of the Hammer in Belfast, and theconsequent disruption of social networks and their impact on social life in the area.The distress resulting from the loss of long-standing ties that she describes therecould be imagined in Glasgow: people rehoused next to those they did not know,cut off from those they did, and bereft of their old communities. Macafee (1983)draws on Milroy to observe that the radical restructuring of Glasgow would haveled to the similar disruption of social networks, which in turn would have reducedtheir ability to maintain traditional social and linguistic (vernacular) norms.



We suspect that precisely this explains the reduction in expected Scots [�]and postvocalic [r] in the speech of the working-class adults, who would havebeen in their teens during the crucial period of redevelopment. Wherever [w] andthe vocalised variants originated, and they would have occurred peripherallyin the phonetic variation of most speakers, they became available as furtherelements in the phonological array for expressing their form of local identity. Wealso suspect that speakers themselves would not necessarily have been awarethat the new variants were not local since they were swiftly reassigned localstatus, possibly as part of an active differentiation from middle-class speakerswho retained them, and who were seen as responsible for the physical and socialdisruption.

Evidence for such a view is found in some comments about the other Scotsvariable (x) undergoing reduction in our younger working-class speakers, whichwere made during a brief ‘vox pop’ interview filmed on the Maryhill Road toaccompany a BBC news report on our results (Reporting Scotland 19 July 2000):Extract 2

[Young male reporter with southern English accent asks a female Glaswegianspeaker in her mid-thirties to read the word loch]

Woman: loch[k]Reporter: now you say lockWoman: yepReporter: do you know it’s supposed to be loch[x]?Woman: uh hmm. ‘ch’ pronounced (laugh)Reporter: why do you pronounce it loch[k]?Woman: (shakes head slowly) Glaswegian. It’s just the way it’s spoken.

It is clear that for this woman [k] is ‘local’ and is part of her vernacular, whereas[x] is not, and is associated with literacy, and educated norms. Her ideology nowincludes and maintains this variant as typical of Glaswegian vernacular, despitethe fact that [x] once occupied this function for (x). Thus this linguistic change,here the effective reduction of a local traditional feature, is accompanied by anideological shift which establishes the new variant as both indexical of the localcommunity and able to differentiate from the other, the educated folk.

5.4 Working-class adolescents: ‘You can tell you come from Possil, man’

We come finally to the leaders of change in our sample, and the group whoare furthest away from the middle-class adults in terms of linguistic variation.These speakers seem to be using all possible linguistic resources to constructidentities which are as anti-middle-class, and anti-establishment as possible. Theirconversations give tiny windows onto social practices, many of which are anti-social or even illegal, and most of which are conducted within a short radius ofthe school, that is thoroughly local (cf. Moore 2003: 214 on the Townies’ localorientation): friends, ‘nipping’ (getting off with) people, fighting for local gangs,hanging out on the streets, breaking and entering, stealing, brushes with the polis



(/�pɔls/, ‘police’), and so on. It is possible that these accounts are exaggerated inthe boys’ talk, since there are other aspects of the interaction which suggest someawareness of their interaction during the recordings, such as commentating andchanged voices (undoubtedly instances of stylisation), and singing and so on. Thegirls’ discourse is much less self-conscious, but recounts similar practices.

That these identities, and the individuals involved in creating them, also alignwith what is termed ‘working-class’, is not surprising. Eckert (2000: 16) beginsher section on ‘Class and the Linguistic Market’ by stating: ‘The jock burnoutopposition that dominates social discourse at Belten High foregrounds conflictmodels of social class.’ Here we have only one side of the opposition, but we wouldcertainly assert that it is the result of ‘passionate and concerted work’. Indeed,this is reflected in their approach to reading the wordlists, which still elicitednon-standard variants, in what appears to have been a direct response to theperson, accent, and role of the University fieldworker.

We also have a further piece of evidence, this time external to the corpus, butfrom the same area, which corroborates our interpretation. Again, it is the formof some filming that was made to support a brief feature on the Glasgow resultswhich was included in the BBC4 series, Blimey, broadcast in February 2002. Thistime a small film crew drove round Maryhill with CT as their interviewer, lookingfor children to interview on the street. The result was a short series of interviewsin Possil, with a group of young teenagers attending the same school as our own.

The children, three boys and two girls, were first asked to read some wordsfrom cards in order to illustrate features of interest: loch, brother, butter, and thinkelicited [k], [ɾ], [ʔ] and [f] respectively, thus demonstrating similar variation toour own informants. In the group interview that followed, the children said theyhad strong Glaswegian accents, which they thought were different from those ofEnglish speakers, and which they liked. The girls thought that there were severaldifferent Glaswegian accents (Extract 3):Extract 3

first girl: cos some people don’t talk pure slang an’ that, an’ some people dosecond girl: some people talk posh

All the children located the posh speakers in and north of Bearsden.The conversation with the two girls continues (Extract 4):Extract 4

second girl: posh people are pure poofs [slang = gay]CT: Do you like a posh Glasgow accent?both girls: Nofirst girl: They talk like that ‘my name is (pause) Samantha’

[high pitched voice, stands to full height, pats chest with a flourish](laughter)

all: (laughter; comments)first girl: They think we’re junkies, heavy junkies

[slang = drug addicts]



CT: You don’t like the posh accent?both girls: NoCT: But you like your accent?both girls: AyeCT: yeah, so why do you like your accent?second girl: Cos everybody talks like us soCT: Who’s ‘everybody’?second girl: Like everybody round here, an’ everybody at schoolfirst girl: I knowsecond girl: an’ then if you don’t talk like that you get a doing, an’ you get bullied

for the rest of your wee, your life

These comments confirm our suggestions of class-based language ideologieswhich relate to processes of sociolinguistic differentiation relating to theimmediate local context. They also confirm active maintenance of norms by closepeer networks.

Later on the children were asked to read the cards again, and this time CT askedthem about (x) (Extract 5):Extract 5

CT: (shows card with loch)all: loch [k]CT: You know how it’s really meant to sound?all: loch [x]CT: And so why don’t you say it that way?all at once: that’s pure gay

you need to be poofscos we’re not poofspure Bearsdenpure daft[and other similar comments for several seconds]

This is yet another coincidental, yet relevant, instance of second order indexicality,which substantiates our earlier conclusion that [x] is associated with middle-classspeech and not local vernacular, and that the ideology around this associationis thoroughly negative.5 Interestingly for us, Bearsden, the closest neighbouringmiddle-class area, where our middle-class informants are from, is one of thepejorative labels applied to [x]. This seems to be sufficient evidence to indicatelocal construction of linguistic identities accompanied by locally derived, class-based ideologies of linguistic differentiation.

5.5 Summary

We are now in a better position to answer the second research question. Thesociolinguistic polarisation is underscored by class-based language ideologieswhich serve to differentiate. Furthermore, the early indications of reduction oftraditional local variants in working-class adults can also be interpreted as partof a symbolic system of sociolinguistic differentiation which was at least partly



motivated in response to the widespread changes sustained to the local areaduring their own adolescence.

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper presents a new picture of variation and change in Glaswegian.The long-term history of English in Scotland has seen substantial changesto the varieties of Scots spoken by middle-class speakers, as they orientatedtowards English English models, resulting in Scottish Standard English, whilstworking-class Scots has tended to be more conservative. Our results show adifferent pattern. Middle-class speakers are not showing changes that would taketheir consonant system even closer to that of English English. Rather working-class adolescents are innovating and changing their form of Scots, as theypolarise themselves linguistically and ideologically from middle-class speakers.

It is now time to consider briefly the sources of the extensive repertoire ofour innovators. First, it is clear from the history of Glaswegian, and the variationexhibited by the working-class adults, that the traditional non-standard variants,such as (θ):[h] and (ð):[ɾ] have been available for a long time. Second, it would alsoseem that use of the variants, (x):[k], (�):[w], and vocalised /r/, is foreshadowedby such variants in the speech of the earlier generation. And indeed this makessense if we remember that Macafee (1983) reports instances of both [k] and [w] aspossibilities, albeit in younger speakers, and occasional R-vocalisation in adults.Thus it seems likely that these variants too have been acquired from within thecommunity.

This leaves us with the troublesome ‘non-local’ variants, [f], [v] and vocalised/l/. It is not possible here to solve the question of the ultimate source of thesevariants, since it is clear that all three have been present in Glaswegian since atleast the early eighties, given the comments in Macafee (1983). In fact, SeamusSimpson (pc) has informed us that [f] may have been in Glasgow substantiallyearlier. During his period of National Service training in 1956, Simpson was sentto Lanark, the headquarters of the Scottish Rifles. Most of his fellow recruits werefrom the Gorbals before they were demolished, and many knew others who hadbeen in prison or who were still there. One such recruit was known as ‘Miff’, for‘Smith’. Simpson has hazy memories of think as [fŋk] and possibly also [k] and[w] for /x/ and /�/. He speculates about the role of prison, and prison slang, as aconduit for English English features, and hence a dialect contact route for suchfeatures to enter Glaswegian with symbolic function.

Prison is also mentioned as the speculative source of [f] in another smaller-scale Glaswegian study (Torrance 2002), but this time in a 40-year-old informantwho had spent time in prison. Torrance looked at (θ) (l) (�) (r) in working-classspeakers from Drumchapel aged 18–25 and 30–50. Her younger informantsshowed categorical [w] and clear instances of TH-fronting, L-vocalisation andR-vocalisation. Her informants were not only older, but also showed more activemobility. Her young adults showed strong affiliation to Glasgow but at the same



time the highest incidence of phonological innovation. Thus use of these variantsmust be seen in terms of using all possible linguistic resources to signal stronglylocal identities.

This kind of evidence also suggests that theoretically we may have to specifymore clearly the points at which dialect contact may or may not play a role inlanguage change. Here it seems that dialect contact may have facilitated (?andcontinues to facilitate) introduction of variants into the system, but that othermechanisms increase their usage by particular groups of individuals, here ourworking-class adolescents. It now seems likely that all of their non-standardvariants were already available in Urban Scots with symbolic social functions.What we have found which is special is the amplification or exploitation of thisvariation by these speakers which is at least partly to be explained in terms of theconstruction of specific, locally situated identities which simultaneously signaltheir own identity and differentiate them from ‘posh’ people (cf. Kerswill andWilliams 2000).

In almost all cases, the consonant changes that we are observing are notphonetically exceptional, and as such, external sources need not necessarily beinvoked. In fact, there seems no good reason to presume that there must be onlya single source for such variation. Note that we do not have to assume thatdialect contact must be involved at all stages of the changes for all speakers.Our information for working-class adolescents reduces the likelihood of dialectcontact as a direct factor in the exploitation of these consonant changes. Theevidence points to changes which are interpreted as local and Glaswegian, asopposed to any indications that these features are perceived as supra-local. Evenif the variants did originate in England, the ideologies that make them useful forour speakers locate them firmly in Glasgow.

Finally, it is clear from our account that several theoretical models – socialnetworks, mobility, dialect contact, and language ideology – are needed together,and in conjunction with an appreciation of local socio-spatial history, to accountfor these intriguing data. Are our kids ‘talkin’ Jockney’? Descriptively they areusing a mixed consonantal system, with local and non-local features. Whetherthey intend this repertoire to sound mixed, or anything other than ‘pureGlaswegian’, seems unlikely, though that in itself does not rule out interactionwith television or the media as additional contributory factors in these changes.But that is another story altogether.

NOTES

1. This paper has been in progress for a long time. There are two main reasons for this:(1) the arrival of two delightful little boys, Alexander and Max Fruh, in 1999 and2001 respectively; and (2) the need to analyse and interpret each variable separatelybefore being able to understand how they function together as a whole system. Thisprocess is now almost complete. We are grateful to the Leverhulme Trust and the



Arts and Humanities Research Board for financial assistance for the analysis andwriting up of these data respectively. Audiences at the Sociolinguistic Symposium2000, the English Language seminar, Newcastle, the Edinburgh Linguistic Circle,the OED Forum, Aberdeen School of English Research seminar, and the Leeds andSheffield Dialectology Reading Group gave us valued criticism and input. We arealso grateful to: Paul Foulkes, Caroline Macafee, Emma Moore, Ronald Macaulay,Lesley Milroy, Jim Scobbie, the two anonymous reviewers, and Nikolas Coupland,for their time and comments; to Max Cowan at Development and RegenerationServices, Glasgow City Council for providing us with Rae (1974); and to Andy Biggart,Department of Sociology, University of Glasgow, for passing on the Clothing Grantdata. And finally, but most importantly, we are grateful to Joan Beal for a shove – andpatience – at just the right time.

2. These changes may belong to a wider group of changes characterised recentlyby Milroy (2004) as ‘supralocal/off the shelf’ changes, which are more generallyaccessible.

3. The plots use an earlier coding of our informants which had ‘B’ for Bearsden, toindicate middle-class informants, and ‘NK’ (North Kelvin) to indicate working-classinformants, with O for older, Y for younger, and M and F for male and femalerespectively.

4. In using such theoretical machinery we do not intend to suggest that we may achievea complete account of the processes behind the development of these languageideologies. The importance of ethnographically conducted research which worksfrom the observation of social practice to the construction of meaning, both socialand linguistic, such as that carried out by Eckert (e.g. 2000), and now in the U.K. byMoore (2003), is both obvious and essential if we are to understand the mechanismswhich are as if frozen in our results and our explanation; this is now being tackledfor Glaswegian by Lawson’s ethnographic research into urban youth and linguisticpractices (e.g. Lawson 2006).

5. This evidence also makes it difficult to consider [k] an instance of ‘levelling’, exceptin the most limited sense of the term, as a reduction of potential variation within thesystem.

REFERENCES

Aitchison, John. 1983. Principal components analysis of compositional data.Biometrika 70: 57–65.

Aitchison, John. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. London: Chapmanand Hall

Aitken, Adam J. 1979. Scottish speech: A historical view with special reference tothe Standard English of Scotland. In Adam J. Aitken and Tom McArthur (eds) TheLanguages of Scotland. Edinburgh, U.K.: Chambers. 85–119.

Aitken, A. J. 1984. Scots and English in Scotland. In Peter Trudgill (ed.) Language in theBritish Isles. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 517–532.

Anderson, Bridget. 2002. Dialect leveling and /ai/ monophthongization amongAfrican American Detroiters. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 86–98.

Brato, Thorsten. 2004. Current trends in the English of adolescents in Glasgow.Unpublished Masters dissertation. Duisburg, Germany: University of Duisburg-Essen.



Britain, David 2002. Space and spatial diffusion. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgilland Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.) The Handbook of Variation and Change. Oxford, U.K.:Blackwell. 603–637.

Butt, J. 1983. Working-class housing in the Scottish cities, 1900–1950. In GeorgeGordon and Brian Dicks (eds.) Scottish Urban History. Aberdeen, U.K.: AberdeenUniversity Press. 233–267.

Coupland, Nikolas. 2001a. Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society 30:345–375.

Coupland, Nikolas 2001b. Language, situation, and the relational self: Theorizingdialect-style in sociolinguistics. In Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford (eds.) Styleand Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 185–210.

Docherty, Gerry and Paul Foulkes. 1999. Derby and Newcastle: Instrumental phoneticsand variationist studies. In Paul Foulkes and Gerry Docherty (eds.) Urban Voices:Variation and change in British Accents. London: Arnold. 47–71.

Docherty, Gerry, Paul Foulkes, James Milroy Lesley Milroy and David Walshaw. 1997.Descriptive adequacy in phonology: A variationist perspective. Journal of Linguistics33: 275–310.

Dyer, Judy 2002. ‘We all speak the same round here’: Dialect levelling in a Scottish-English community. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 99–116.

Eckert, Penelope. 1997. Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In Florian Coulmas (ed.)Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 151–167.

Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Eremeeva, Viktoria and Jane Stuart-Smith 2003. A sociophonetic investigation of

the vowels OUT and BIT in Glaswegian. In Maria-Josep Sole, Daniel Recasens andJoaquin Romero (eds.) The Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of PhoneticSciences. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. 1205–1208.

Foulkes, Paul and Gerry Docherty (eds). 1999a. Urban Voices: Variation and Change inBritish Accents. London: Arnold.

Foulkes, Paul and Gerry Docherty 1999b. Urban voices – overview. In Paul Foulkes andGerry Docherty (eds.) Urban Voices: Variation and Change in British Accents. London:Arnold 1–24.

Foulkes, Paul and Gerry Docherty. 2001. Variation and change in British English (r).In Hans Van der Velde and Rouland van Hout (eds.) r-atics: Sociolinguistic, Phoneticand Phonological Characteristics of /r/. Brussels, Belgium: ILVP. 173–184.

Gibb, Andrew. 1983. Glasgow: The Making of a City. London: Croom Helm.Glauser, Beat. 1974. The Scottish-English Linguistic Border: Lexical Aspects. Bern,

Switzerland: Franke.Horsey, Miles. 1990. Tenements and Towers: Glasgow Working-class Housing 1890–

1990. Edinburgh: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monumentsof Scotland.

Horvath, Barbara. 1985. Variation in Australian English. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Johnston, Paul. 1983. Irregular style variation patterns in Edinburgh speech. ScottishLanguage 2: 1–19.

Johnston, Paul. 1997. Regional variation. In Charles Jones (ed.) The Edinburgh Historyof the Scots Language. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University press. 433–513.

Jones, Charles (ed.). 1997. The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh, U.K.:Edinburgh University Press.

Kerswill, Paul. 1996. Children, adolescents and language change. Language, Variationand Change 8: 177–202.



Kerswill, Paul. 2002. Koineization and accommodation. In J. K. Chambers, PeterTrudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.) The Handbook of Variation and Change.Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. 669–701.

Kerswill, Paul. 2003. Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. InDavid Britain and Jenny Cheshire (eds.) Social Dialectology: In Honour of Peter Trudgill.Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins. 223–243.

Kerswill, Paul and Ann Williams. 2000. Mobility versus social class in dialect levelling:Evidence from new and old towns in England. In Klaus Mattheier (ed.) Dialect andMigration in a Changing Europe. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. 1–13.

Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19: 273–309.

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Lawson, Eleanor and Jane Stuart-Smith. 1999. A sociophonetic investigation of the

‘Scottish’ consonants (/x/ and /hw/) in the speech of Glaswegian children. In JohnOhala (ed.) The Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Science.Berkeley, California: University of California 2541–2544.

Lawson, Robert. 2006. ‘I’d be worried if I was called a ned’: Sociolinguistic construc-tions of identity in a Glasgow high school. Poster presentation at SociolinguisticsSymposium 16, University of Limerick, Ireland. 6–8 July.

Markus, Thomas. 1999. Comprehensive development and housing, 1945–1975. InPeter Reed (ed.) The Forming of the City. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press.147–165.

McKean, Charles. 1999. Between the wars. In Peter Reed (ed.) The Forming of the City.Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 130–145.

Macafee, Caroline. 1983. Varieties of English around the World: Glasgow. Amsterdam,The Netherlands: Benjamin.

Macafee, Caroline. 1994. Traditional Dialect in the Modern World: A Glasgow Case Study.Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.

Macafee, Caroline. 1997. Ongoing Change in Modern Scots: The social dimension. InCharles Jones (ed.) The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh, U.K.:Edinburgh University Press. 514–548.

Macaulay, Ronald. 1977. Language, Social Class and Education: A Glasgow Study.Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press.

Macaulay, Ronald. 1999. Is sociolinguistics lacking in style? Cuadernos de FilologiaInglesa 8: 9–33.

Macaulay, Ronald. 2005. Talk that Counts: Age, Gender, and Social Class Differences inDiscourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Maver, Irene. 2000. Glasgow. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press.Meyerhoff, Miriam and Nancy Niedzielski. 2003. The globalization of vernacular

variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 534–555.Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Milroy, James. 1996. A current change in British English: Variation in (th) in Derby.

Durham and Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 187–196.Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy. 1985. Linguistic change, social network, and speaker

innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384.Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy. 1999. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard

English. London: Routledge. 150–160.Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Milroy, Lesley. 2002. Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change – working

with contemporary speech communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 3–15.



Milroy, Lesley. 2004a. The accents of the valiant: Why are some sound changesmore accessible than others? Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15,University of Newcastle, U.K.. 1–4 April.

Milroy, Lesley. 2004b. Language ideologies and linguistic change. In Carmen Fought(ed.) Critical Reflections on Sociolinguistic Variation. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford UniversityPress. 161–177.

Milroy, Lesley and Matthew Gordon. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation.Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Milroy, Lesley and James Milroy. 1992. Social network and social class: Towards anintegrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society 21: 1–26.

Milroy, Lesley, James Milroy and Gerry Docherty. 1997. Phonological Variation andChange in Contemporary Spoken British English. Final report on ESRC R000234892.

Moore, Emma. 2003. Learning style and identity: A sociolinguistic analysis of aBolton High School. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Manchester, U.K.: Universityof Manchester.

Pacione, Michael. 1995. Glasgow: The Socio-spatial Development of the City. Chichester,U.K.: Wiley.

Rae, J. 1974. Maryhill Corridor District Study. Report to Glasgow District Council.Reed, Peter (ed.). 1999a. Glasgow: The Forming of the City. Edinburgh, U.K. : Edinburgh

University Press.Reed, Peter. 1999b. The forming of the city. In Peter Reed (ed.) The Forming of the City.

Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 1–8.Reed, Peter. 1999c. Beyond the centre. In Peter Reed (ed.) The Forming of the City.

Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 202–223.Reid, Euan. 1978. Social and stylistic variation in the speech of children: Some evidence

from Edinburgh. In Peter Trudgill (ed.) Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English.London: Edward Arnold. 158–171.

Romaine, Suzanne. 1978. Postvocalic /r/ in Scottish English: Sound change inprogress? In Peter Trudgill (ed.) Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London:Edward Arnold. 144–157.

Sankoff, Gillian. 2006. Age: Apparent time and real time. In Keith Brown (ed.)Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.

Scobbie, James and Jane Stuart-Smith 2006. Covert articulation of Scottish English/r/: Now you see and hear it, now you don’t. Paper presented at 14th ManchesterPhonology Meeting. Manchester, U.K.: University of Manchester. 25–27 May.

Smith, Roger and Urlan Wannop (eds.). 1985. Strategic Planning in Action: The Impactof the Clyde Valley Regional Plan, 1946–1982. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower.

Stuart-Smith, Jane. 1999a. Glasgow: Accent and voice quality. In Paul Foulkes andGerry Docherty (eds.) Urban Voices: Variation and Change in British Accents. London:Arnold. 203–222.

Stuart-Smith, Jane. 1999b. Glottals past and present: A study of T-glottalling inGlaswegian. Leeds Studies in English 30: 181–204.

Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2003. The phonology of Modern Urban Scots. In John Corbett,Derrick McClure and Jane Stuart-Smith (eds.) The Edinburgh Companion to Scots.Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press. 110–137.

Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2004. The phonology of Scottish English. In Clive Upton(ed.) Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 47–67.

Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2005. Is TV a Contributory Factor in Accent Change in Adolescents?Final Report to the Economic and Social Research Council. Grant No. R000239757.



Stuart-Smith, Jane. Forthcoming. Empirical evidence for gendered speech production:/s/ in Glaswegian. To appear in Jennifer Cole and Jose-Igacio Hualde (eds.) Change inPhonology: Papers in Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Stuart-Smith, Jane and Robert Lawson. 2006. An acoustic investigation of postvocalic/r/ in Glaswegian adolescents. Poster presented at the Colloquium of the BritishAcademic Association of Phonetics. Edinburgh, U.K.: Queen Margaret UniversityCollege, 10–12 April.

Stuart-Smith, Jane and Claire Timmins. In press. ‘Tell her to shut her moof’: The role ofthe lexicon in TH-fronting in Glaswegian. To appear in Graham Caie, Carole Houghand Irene Wotherspoon (eds.) The Power of Words. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Rodopi.

Stuart-Smith, Jane, Claire Timmins, Eleanor Lawson and Fiona Tweedie. 2003.Changing consonants: Insights from a contemporary Glaswegian corpus. Paperpresented to the Philological Society, University of Manchester, U.K.: 21 November.

Stuart-Smith, Jane, Claire Timmins and Fiona Tweedie 2006. Conservation andinnovation in a traditional dialect: L-vocalization in Glaswegian. English World Wide27: 71–87.

Stuart-Smith, Jane and Fiona Tweedie. 2000. Accent Change in Glaswegian: ASociophonetic Investigation. Final Report to the Leverhulme Trust. Grant No.F/179/AX. Availablehttp//www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESL1/EngLang/research/accent/accent1.htm

Timmins, Claire, Fiona Tweedie and Jane Stuart-Smith 2004. AccentChange in Glaswegian (1997 corpus): Results for Consonant Variables.Glasgow, U.K.: Department of English Language, University of Glasgow.http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/EngLang/research/accent/results 070904.pdf

Torrance, Karen. 2002. Language attitudes and language change in GlaswegianSpeech. Unpublished MPhil dissertation. Department of English Language,University of Glasgow.

Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press.

Trudgill, Peter (ed.). 1984. Language in the British Isles. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Tweedie, Fiona and Bernard Frischer. 1999. Analysis of Classical Greek and Latin

compositional word-order data. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 6: 85–97.Wells, John. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Williams, Ann and Paul Kerswill. 1999. Dialect levelling: Change and continuity in

Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Paul Foulkes and Gerry Docherty (eds.) UrbanVoices: Variation and Change in British Accents. London: Arnold. 141–162.

Address correspondence to:

Jane Stuart-SmithDepartment of English Language

University of GlasgowGlasgow G12 8QQ

United Kingdom

[email protected]


‘Talkin’ Jockney’? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent · 2011. 8. 17. · EastEnders....

Documents

Transcript of ‘Talkin’ Jockney’? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent · 2011. 8. 17. · EastEnders....