Advertisement

Language Change and Innovation in London: Multicultural London English

  • Sue Fox
  • Eivind Torgersen
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is about language change in London. Results from adolescent speakers in inner and outer locations of the capital were compared and it was found that while the outer London area, with a predominantly white British population, followed the patterns of the rest of the south-east, inner London diverged and displayed a great deal of innovation. A second investigation focused on innovations found in inner London, a multicultural area with a great deal of immigration. A complex sample included speakers of different ethnicities and different age groups, and the study identified what characterises individuals as ‘linguistic innovators’ by examining friendship networks. The chapter highlights a complex relationship between language, ethnicity and friendship networks.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights.

References

  1. Arvaniti, A. (2009). Rhythm, timing and the timing of rhythm. Phonetica, 66(1-2), 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaken, M. (1971). A study of phonological development in a primary school population of East London. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
  3. Britain, D. (2002a). Space and spatial diffusion. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 603–637). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Britain, D. (2002b). Diffusion, levelling, simplification and reallocation in past tense BE in the English Fens. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(1), 16–43.Google Scholar
  5. Chambers, J. K. (1995). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Cheshire, J. (2013). Grammaticalisation in social context: The emergence of a new English pronoun. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(5), 608–633.Google Scholar
  7. Cheshire, J., & Fox, S. (2009). Was/were variation: A perspective from London. Language Variation and Change, 21(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2005). Phonology, grammar and discourse in dialect convergence. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens, & P. Kerswill (Eds.), Dialect change: The convergence and divergence of dialects in contemporary societies (pp. 135–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cheshire, J., Fox, S., Kerswill, P., & Torgersen, E. (2008). Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London. Sociolinguistica, 22, 1–23.Google Scholar
  10. Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S., & Torgersen, E. (2011). Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2), 151–196.Google Scholar
  11. Cheshire, J., Adger, D., & Fox, S. (2013a). Relative who and the actuation problem. Lingua, 126, 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheshire, J., Fox, S., Kerswill, P., & Torgersen, E. (2013b). Language contact and language change in the multicultural metropolis. Revue Française De Linguistique Appliquée, 18, 63–76.Google Scholar
  13. Department for Education. (2015). Statistics: Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2015. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-school-and-pupil-numbers
  14. Deterding, D. (2001). The measurement of rhythm: A comparison of Singapore and British English. Journal of Phonetics, 29(2), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox, S. (2012). Performed narrative: The pragmatic function of this is + speaker and other quotatives in London adolescent speech. In I. van Alphen & I. Buchstaller (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 231–257). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox, S. (2015). The New Cockney: New ethnicities and adolescent speech in the traditional East End of London. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Gabrielatos, C., Torgersen, E., Hoffmann, S., & Fox, S. (2010). A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of indefinite article forms in London English. Journal of English Linguistics, 38(4), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grabe, E., & Low, E. L. (2002). Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology (Vol. 7, pp. 515–546). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Hewitt, R. (1986). White talk, black talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffmann, T. (2011). The black Kenyan English vowel system. English World-Wide, 32(2), 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurford, J. (1967). The speech of one family: A phonetic comparison of the speech of three generations in a family in East London. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
  22. Kerswill, P., & Torgersen, E. (2017). London’s Cockney in the twentieth century: Stability or cycles of contact-driven change? In R. Hickey (Ed.), Listening to the past (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2000). Creating a new town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society, 29(1), 65–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2005). New towns and koineisation: Linguistic and social correlates. Linguistics, 43(5), 1023–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kerswill, P., Cheshire, J., Fox, S., & Torgersen, E. (2007). Linguistic innovators: The English of adolescents in London. Final report on ESRC grant.Google Scholar
  26. Kerswill, P., Torgersen, E., & Fox, S. (2008). Reversing ‘drift’: Innovation and diffusion in the London diphthong system. Language Variation and Change, 20(3), 451–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kerswill, P., Cheshire, J., Fox, S., & Torgersen, E. (2013). English as a contact language: The role of children and adolescents. In D. Schreier & M. Hundt (Eds.), English as a contact language (pp. 258–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Labov, W. (2007). Transmission and diffusion. Language, 83(2), 344–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mufwene, S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nevalainen, T., & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2003). Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  32. Pichler, H. (2013). The structure of discourse-pragmatic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pichler, H. (2016). Uncovering discourse-pragmatic innovations: Innit in multicultural London English. In H. Pichler (Ed.), Discourse-pragmatic variation and change in English: New methods and insights (pp. 59–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sebba, M. (1993). London Jamaican. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  35. Sivertsen, E. (1960). Cockney phonology. Oslo: Oslo University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Szakay, A., & Torgersen, E. (2015). An acoustic analysis of voice quality in London English: The effect of gender, ethnicity and F0. Proceedings from the 18th international congress of phonetic sciences, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  37. Tagliamonte, S., & D’Arcy, A. (2009). Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation and language change. Language, 85(1), 58–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. The Migration Observatory. (2013). London: Census profile. Available online: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/london-census-profile
  39. Thomas, E. R. (2007). Phonological and phonetic characteristics of African American vernacular English. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 450–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas, E. R., & Carter, P. M. (2006). Prosodic rhythm and African American English. English World-Wide, 27(3), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tollfree, L. (1999). South East London English: Discrete versus continuous modelling of consonantal reduction. In P. Foulkes & G. Docherty (Eds.), Urban voices. Accent studies in the British Isles (pp. 163–184). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  42. Torgersen, E. (2012). A perceptual study of ethnicity and geographical location in London and Birmingham. In S. Hansen, C. Schwartz, P. Stoeckle, & T. Streck (Eds.), Dialectological and folk dialectological concepts of space (pp. 75–95). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. Torgersen, E., & Kerswill, P. (2004). Internal and external motivation in phonetic change: Dialect levelling outcomes for an English vowel shift. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 8(1), 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Torgersen, E., & Szakay, A. (2012). An investigation of speech rhythm in London English. Lingua, 122(7), 822–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Torgersen, E., Gabrielatos, C., Hoffmann, S., & Fox, S. (2011). A corpus-based study of pragmatic markers in London English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wassink, A. B. (2001). Theme and variation in Jamaican vowels. Language Variation and Change, 13(2), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wells, J. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Wolfson, N. (1978). A feature of performed narrative: The conversational historic present. Language in Society, 7(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sue Fox
    • 1
  • Eivind Torgersen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations