Contemporary dialectology

Variationist research which probes convergence and divergence in 21^st century BrE dialects reveals complex patterns of supralocalisation, levelling and ethnolinguistic variation.

“Supralocalisation” involves linguistic features becoming more widely distributed at the expense of local dialect distinctiveness (see Beal 2010; Britain 2010). If the diffusion involves innovative linguistic features it is sometimes referred to as “innovation diffusion”

rather than supralocalisation (Britain 2010). The phenomenon is connected to increased contact between speakers who in the past have been relatively more socially and

geographically separated. Increasing transience provides opportunities for contact between speakers whose social networks are relatively loose (cf. Milroy & Milroy 1985; Milroy 2002).

The linguistic consequences of contemporary language and dialect contact have been investigated in several BrE varieties, e.g. London, Reading, Milton Keynes and Hull (Kerswill & Williams 2002b; Torgersen et al. 2006; Cheshire et al. 2011), East Anglia / the

“Fens” (i.e. Britain 1997, 2005), Middlesborough (Llamas 2000, 2007), Corby in the English Midlands (Dyer 2002, 2010), Leeds (Marsden 2006), Liverpool (Watson 2006), Newcastle (Docherty & Foulkes 1999; Watt 2002), see also chapters in Foulkes and Docherty (1999).

Similar sociolinguistic phenomena have been described for European and other language varieties (Britain 2010: 193 provides useful references, and see Gregersen et al. 2011). One

important question is whether or not local dialect differences are maintained despite supralocalisation.

Well-established London features which are diffusing into wider geographical areas of the southeast and more recently, into Northern cities as well, include /t/ glottalisation, /θ, ð/

replacement, /l/ vocalisation and labiodental /r/ (see Britain 2009). However, not all southern features are accommodated to (cf. Kerswill & Williams 2002a). Supralocalisation is not a case of wholesale levelling. Studies suggest that where the same variant diffuses across local varieties, it may not be socially (re)evaluated in the same way in each location (for examples see Llamas 2000; Watt 2002; Stuart-Smith et al. 2007; Britain 2009: 140; Dyer 2010).

Dyer (2002, 2010) describes the reallocation of social meaning to linguistic variables imported into an English Midlands town when Scottish English speakers migrated there.

Dyer‟s (2002) study shows that features which are markers of particular regional or social groups are not always avoided in dialect contact situations. Speakers in Corby have adopted variants which are salient markers of Scottish ethnicity, e.g. merged FOOT and GOOSE. Interestingly, Dyer (2010: 209) says that “the proportion of Scottish-born Corby inhabitants reached a maximum of around 30 per cent,” suggesting that the Scottish variants were also not the majority variants.

Dyer‟s study takes into account speakers‟ comments about language use. The discourse of the oldest speakers seems to reflect negotiation and conflict in relation to ethnolinguistic identity and illustrates ethnically based divisions within the town, e.g. “…the Scots

complained about their reception in the town by the English; the English complained that the Scots were taking over the town” (Dyer 2010: 214). The youngest speakers, maintaining the variants with Scottish English origins, deny the relevance of Scottish identity and instead contrast their local Corby identities with a neighbouring town.

Similarly, research in towns close to the Scottish-English border (e.g. Watt 2002; Llamas et al. 2009; Llamas 2010), shows that the effects of supralocalisation are shaped by local conditions. Llamas (2010) describe patterns of non-pre-vocalic /r/ in four towns, two on each side of the border in the east and west respectively. On the west side, they found convergence towards reduced use of /r/ in both the Scottish and English town, but on the east side, there is an increase in /r/ for the Scottish town only. Questionnaire data suggested that speakers‟

orientations towards Scottish versus English national identity influence the prestige that is assigned to the use of /r/. These studies demonstrate that attitudinal data provides useful insights into the links between regional dialects and speakers‟ perceptions.

Another component of contemporary dialectological research is that which focuses on multicultural linguistic variation in modern cities. Such studies have identified the emergence of English varieties which are associated with immigrant populations. Such varieties are only recently being described and it is not yet clear how they should be categorised, e.g. as youth speech styles or as ethnic dialects. These emerging dialects are only beginning to be named by linguists and lay persons, e.g. “Kiezdeutsch” [neighbourhood German] (cf. H. Wiese 2006); “Glaswasian” (Stuart-Smith et al. 2011). The variety that Cheshire et al. (2011: 164) describe is currently referred to as “black” speech by laypeople.

Cheshire et al. (2011, see also Torgersen et al. 2006), observe that these varieties are typically emerging in “group second language acquisition” scenarios within working class communities. Khan (2006) describes similar variation in Birmingham and Stuart-Smith et al.

(2011) in Glasgow. Cheshire et al. (2011) describe “non-Anglo” speakers with distinct linguistic backgrounds (Bangladeshi, Afro-Caribbean, Pakistan) in different locations (i.e.

North London, East London) converging on the same linguistic variants (and also in Birmingham, based on Khan‟s 2006 research).

Individual features of Multicultural London English (MLE) have potentially different sources. Some are diffusing more widely across BrE dialects (e.g. fronted variants of GOOSE) while others seem to have appeared under contact between speakers with typologically distinct linguistic heritage languages (e.g. certain variants of PRICE, MOUTH, GOAT, FOOT and a particular quotative marker using “this is + SPEAKER”).

Cheshire et al. (2011: 178) note that in this context of linguistic heterogeneity, salience may influence which features are selected from those available. They also make a distinction between a parcel of particular features which are diffusing widely across varieties via

relatively loose networks, and features which emerge within particular, more tightly bounded, social networks. A similar distinction is made by Milroy (2007) between “off the shelf” and

“under the counter” features. The former seem more susceptible to change and more readily accessible to different speaker groups, while acquisition of the latter appears to require a greater degree of exposure.

This section has drawn attention to complex relationships between speakers‟ identities, their conceptualisations of place and their linguistic choices. A common theme is the localised effects of dialect convergence and divergence. Meyerhoff and Niedzielski (2003) and Pennycook (2007) describe localisation also for linguistic variables which are transported across much wider geographical distances as a consequence of the globalisation of cultural practices in modern societies.

Britain (2010: 203) encourages researchers to “look more readily to spatial practices, wherein we will find differing intensities of local, supralocal and regional engagement.” A thorough investigation of regional linguistic variation must look at the nature of local identities as well as the linguistic variation itself.

In the next section I consider the implications of the above review for the emergence of new dialects in MNZE. I then consider the evidence from recent variationist findings in relation to regional variation in MNZE.