television and language change – evidence from glasgow
DESCRIPTION
Jane Stuart-Smith Department of English Language, University of Glasgow. Television and language change – evidence from Glasgow. IPS Munich, Hauptseminar, Soziophonetik 28 May 2008. Television and language change – evidence from Glasgow. Quantitative sociolinguistics and language change - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Television and language change –evidence from Glasgow
Jane Stuart-Smith
Department of English Language, University of Glasgow
IPS Munich, Hauptseminar, Soziophonetik 28 May 2008
2
Television and language change – evidence from Glasgow
• Quantitative sociolinguistics and language change• TV and language change• Why consider TV?• The Glasgow media project• Results: the correlational study• Interpreting the results• Linguistic appropriation from TV – a working model• The next steps …
3
Recap: quantitative sociolinguisticsobserving sound change in progress
• classic sociolinguistic investigation of language variation and change was formulated by William Labov (e.g. Labov 1972), and pioneered in large cities, like New York City and Glasgow
• Linguistic variables (any aspect of language which shows a number of variants) are correlated with extra-linguistic variables (any aspect of society, e.g. social class, gender, age, ethnicity)
• Language change in progress observed through the comparison of patterns of variation across age groups/times, and explained with reference to social factors/processes
4
A (set of) social factor(s) –TV and language change?
traditional view of ‘variationist’/’quantitative’ sociolinguistics
• watching TV may affect vocabulary• but not core features of language, e.g. pronunciation,
grammar (e.g. Chambers, e.g. 1998, Trudgill, 1986)
‘at the deeper reaches of language change – sound changes and grammatical changes – the media have no significant effect at all’ (Chambers 1998: 124)
5
A (set of) social factor(s) –TV and language change?
traditional view of ‘variationist’/’quantitative’ sociolinguistics
• watching TV may affect vocabulary• but not core features of language, e.g. pronunciation,
grammar (e.g. Chambers, e.g. 1998, Trudgill, 1986)
• language change primarily takes place through accommodation during face-to-face interaction (dialect contact)
• assumption of strong media effects with ‘direct’ influence on behaviour
6
TV and language change?
• TV may – increase awareness of linguistic varieties– and/or affect attitudes towards other varieties
(e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1985)
• If core features of grammar are affected, this results from– voluntary orientation towards media– conscious copying from media models
(e.g. Trudgill 1986; Carvalho 2004)
7
Consonant changes in the UK
Certain consonant changes, typical of London accents (e.g. Cockney), are spreading rapidly across urbanaccents of British English
e.g. TH-fronting, [f] for // in e.g. think, toothe.g. Foulkes and Docherty (1999), Kerswill (2003)
In some accents, e.g. Glaswegian,these features are found exclusivelyin working-class adolescents withrelatively low social and geographical mobility (e.g. Stuart-Smith et al, 2007)
8
the media themselves are happy to blame
television
especially popular soap dramas set in London, such as EastEnders, apparently featuring Cockney dialect
9
Why linguists should consider TV (1)
• TV is exceptionally prevalent
• Some TV programmes constitute social phenomena, e.g. the London-based soap EastEnders (1985-)– screened 4 times/week plus weekend omnibus– regularly attracted 18 million viewers/episode (i.e. almost one-
third UK population)– viewing of key episodes have caused exceptional surges in
electricity demand (e.g. National Grid 2001)– viewers can be highly engaged (e.g. Buckingham 1987)
10
Why linguists should consider TV (2)
• Media are assumed to affect social behaviours (e.g. McQuail 2005)
BUT– TV is assumed to be a contributory factor, along with
other factors (Klapper 1960: 8)
– audience assumed to be active interpreters of media texts (e.g. Philo 1999)
– TV and para-social interaction (e.g. Abercrombie 1996)
11
Why linguists should consider TV (3)
• linguists are starting to include TV:– as possible cause of language change, in, e.g. German
(e.g. Lameli 2004; Muhr 2003)
– in accounts of language change e.g. Br. Portuguese (Naro 1981, Naro and Scherre 1996) Ur. Portuguese (Carvalho 2004)
• and to wonder about TV in these changes (e.g. Foulkes and Docherty 2000)
12
The Glasgow media project
Is TV a contributory factor in accent change in adolescents?(2002-5)
Economic and Social Research Council (R000239757)
Are the media a contributory factor in systemic language change under certain circumstances for certain individuals?
13
The Glasgow media project
Is TV a contributory factor in accent change in adolescents?(2002-5)
Economic and Social Research Council (R000239757)
Are the media a contributory factor in systemic language change under certain circumstances for certain individuals?
Does TV play a role in the appearance of Cockney accent features in the speech of Glaswegian adolescents?
14
The research team
• The Research Fellow Claire Timmins
• The Statistician (Prof) Gwilym Pryce
• The Media expert (Prof) Barrie Gunter
• a group of kids (and adults) from Maryhill in Glasgow
15
Method
• sample– 36 adolescents; 12 adults (working-class)
• data– speech: wordlist and spontaneous– Questionnaire; informal interviews
• design– Experiment; correlational study
• analysis– auditory transcription– all tokens of wordlist– first 30 tokens of spontaneous speech
16
Linguistic variables
• TH-fronting: [f] for /θ/ in e.g. think, both• DH-fronting: [v] for // in e.g. brother• L-vocalization: /l/ vocalized to high back (un)rounded
vowel e.g. people, milk, well
• typical of Cockney (working-class London) accent• unexpected in Glasgow English• reported informally since 1980s (Macafee 1983)
• confirmed as changes in 1997 (Stuart-Smith et al 2007)
17
Results I: Glaswegian is changing
• For all three variables, in wordlists and conversational speech
– apparent-time change: adolescents use more ‘new’ variants than adults
– real-time change: we find more ‘new’ variants in 2003 than in 1997
18
Change in progress: TH-fronting%
[f]
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
fraction variant
1997 conversation
1997 wordlist
conversations
wordlists
progress of change
19
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
fraction variant
1997 conversation
1997 wordlist
conversations
wordlists
% [V
]
progress of change
Change in progress: L-vocalization
20
Change in progress: DH-fronting
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
fraction variant
1997 wordlist
wordlist
conversation
% [v
]
progress of change
21
Why are these changes happening?
Correlational study– (th):[f], (dh):[v], (l):[V]
with– dialect contact (beyond and within Glasgow)– attitudes to accents – social practices/identity– music (incl. radio)– computers (incl. internet)– film (incl. video/DVD)– sport – TV
22
Why are these changes happening?
Correlational study– (th):[f], (dh);[v], (l):[V]
with– dialect contact (beyond and within Glasgow)– attitudes to accents – social practices/identity– music (incl. radio)– computers (incl. internet)– film (incl. video/DVD)– sport – TV
23
Statistical analysis
• logistic regression • ‘general-to-specific’ model
• create list for each category of social factors (e.g. dialect contact, attitudes, TV, etc.)
• run regressions on each category list • significant variables from each list + theoretically
interesting variables-> overall shortlist
• run regressions on list until only significant variables remain
24
Results II: Dialect contact
Initial baseline criteria: informants born and raised in area (2.8% born in England, 2001 Census)
Most have few relatives beyond Glasgow, whom they talk to more than they see. Main contact with friends and family within Glasgow.
• Some positive links with relatives and friends living in the South of England for four linguistic variables
• variance explained: 5-8%
25
Results II: Attitudes to accents
• speech samples of 7 accents– female speakers same age– reading same passage– beginning of questionnaire– also checked identification of accents
• ‘mental image’ of 8 urban accents (cf Preston 1999)– e.g. ‘what do you think of the accents in London?’– end of questionnaire
26
Results II: Attitudes to accents
• Glasgow kids like London accents but less than other accents
(less positive ……………... more positive)
average responses for all informants to speech samples
-1 0 1 2
Glasgow
MC Glasgow
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Manchester
London
RP
27
Results II: Attitudes to accents
• Some positive links for liking London accent, and/or being able to identify London accent correctly, but also scattered relationships with other accents.
• variance explained: 5-12%
28
Results II: Social practices
Our sample captures some existing groups and fragments of othersThe majority of the sample identify each other as ‘neds’, i.e. young urban delinquents“I’m a wee Glasgow person. I wouldnae say I’m a ned ’cause I don’t like go oot and start fights an’ aw that.” (2m3) http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk/
29
Results II: Social practices
• some positive links with more anti-school practices • variance explained: 2-18%
30
Results II: TV
Our informants report access to 3+ TV sets at home, and say that they watch TV every day, with average exposure of around 3 hours/day.
London-based programmes are rated highest for soap (EastEnders), comedy (Only Fools and Horses), and police drama (The Bill).
TH-/DH-fronting and L-vocalization occur (variably) in ‘media-Cockney’
31
Two Glaswegian adolescent boys talking …
R have you been watchin’ EastEnders?L Phhhh, uuh.R Do you watch it?L Aye ah watch it but.R Brilliant manL No’ saw it (inaudible)R They two nearly got caught aff ay,L AyeR Sam was it?L Sam, an,R (laughs)L She hid behind the couch.R Aye. (laughs)L That’s the last one ah saw ah think.R Ah know she wants tae break it up now an’ he doesnae.L (laughs)R Pure shockin’ innit?L Aye, ‘cause he’sR Mad Barry’s left in his cell man, pure makes, things for him an’ aw that. So he does, ‘s
quite shockin’
32
Results II: TV
• Several factors are significant – positive correlations, mainly with engagement with
EastEnders– negative with simply watching TV, or engaging with
Scottish/Northern/US programmes – Fairly consistent pattern across the five variables
• variance explained: 4-13%
33
TH-fronting (wordlists) all categories
Reg 1: n = 715, r2 = 35; Reg 2: n = 715, r2 = 35
Variables tested:
linguistic
film
music
sport
computers
social
attitudes
dialect contact
TV
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
wdfina
l
reco
rd vi
deo
like a
nimati
on fil
ms
rent
comed
y
Real R
adio
supp
ort C
eltic
watch s
nook
er
watch F
ormula
1
compu
ter ga
mes al
one
chatr
ooms
intern
et oth
er
dislik
e sch
ool
like L
ondo
n sam
ple
see/t
alk re
l SNEng
land
watch T
V
% TV co
nv
watch C
or St
watch E
R
EE fav p
rog
ExpB
34
TH-fronting (conversations) all categories
Reg 1: n = 1327, r2 = 23; Reg 2: n = 1327, r2 = 23
Variables tested:
linguistic
film
music
sport
computers
social
dialect contact
TV
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
wordfinl
music
weeke
nd
% m
usic
inform
al
play f
ootball
watch F
ormula
1
chatr
ooms
intern
et oth
er
dislik
e sch
ool
out w
/end ni
ght
visit L
ondon
% TV co
nv
watch C
or S
t
watch E
R
fav ch
ar EE
ExpB
35
DH-fronting (wordlists) all categories
Reg 1: n = 644, r2 = 53; Reg 2: n = 662, r2 = 50
Variables tested:
linguistic
film
music
social
attitudes
dialect contact
TV
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
wordfinl
% fil
m conv
music
day w
/end
go w
/end n
ight
dislik
e sch
ool
identify
Londo
n sam
ple
see/t
alk rel
SEng
land
see/t
alk rel
Nen
gland
talk T
V films
identify
WC G
lasw
watch T
V
talk T
V inf
watch/lik
e CSt
watch/lik
e ER
watch/lik
e EE
ExpB
36
L-vocalization (wordlists) all categories
Variables tested:
linguistic
music
sport
computers
social
attitudes
dialect contact
TV
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
peop
le
Real R
adio
% mus
ic co
nv
do at
hletic
s
involv
ed sp
ort
intern
et ga
mes
intern
et oth
er
devia
te un
iform
like N
/c sa
mple
like L
ondo
n sam
ple
see/t
alk re
l Nen
g
see/t
alk re
l Sen
g
visit L
ondo
n
watch T
V
% TV co
nv
Lond
prog
conv
like C
St
like E
R
like E
E/critic
ise ch
ars
Exp
B
Reg 1: n = 876, r2 = 20; Reg 2: n = 876, r2 = 19
37
L-vocalization (conversations) all categories
Reg 1: n = 1015, r2 = 20; Reg 2: n = 1015, r2 = 19
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
peop
le
like c
omed
y film
s
supp
ort C
eltic
play s
nook
er
devia
te un
iform
older
activ
ities
like L
ondo
n sam
ple
frien
ds fro
m Glas
g
see/t
alk re
l NSEng
land
visit L
ondo
n
watch T
V
talk T
V films
% TV co
nv
watch C
St
watch E
R
EE fav p
rog/ch
ar
ExpB
Variables tested:
Linguistic
film
sport
computers
social
attitudes
dialect contact
TV
38
Correlational study – results
for all linguistic variables• satisfactory model only achieved when a range of social
factors entered together• A number of social factors are significant together
including– dialect contact– social practices– engagement with TV (EastEnders)
• How should these results be interpreted?
39
TVengagement
Languagee.g. (th):[f]
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
Social factors and language change
attitudes
40
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
Attitudes and language change?
attitudes
41
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
Dialect contact and language change?
42
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
Dialect contact and language change
Speech accommodation in face-to-face interaction
(e.g. Trudgill 1986)
43
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
Social practices and language change?
44
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
Social practices and language change
Linguistic practices develop with social practices as part of identity construction
(e.g. Eckert 2000)
45
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
Social practices/TV and language change?
46
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
Social practices/TV and language change?
47
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
TV and language change?
Factors not measured
48
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
TV and language change?
Factors not measured
49
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
TV and language change?
Factors not measured
How?
50
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
TV and language change?
Factors not measured
Direct behavioural influence?
51
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
TV and language change?
Factors not measured
Awareness? Copying? (e.g. Trudgill 1986)
52
Awareness of ‘media-Cockney’?
• Explored using informal imitation task (boys only) given during informal interview (cf Preston 1992)– informants shown a set of picture cards– asked to pronounce words first in their own accent– shown a picture of a leading actor from EastEnders
– asked to talk about his accent and theirs– asked to say words again, but with the same accent as the actor
– Fine phonetic analysis of the pairs of words
53
Awareness of media-Cockney
All children thought the actor’s accent was different from theirs
• ‘he’s from a different place … just different’• ‘English’ ‘he’s fae England’ ‘s just … pure English, no?’• ‘English snobby’ ‘says it posher’
• ‘It’s like a sore throat accent … or … they took his tonsils oot or something’
• ‘Ah ‘hink they pronounce more’• ‘He changes the letters, if it was ‘f’ he’d use ‘v’’
• ‘he talks different’ ‘he talks more tough’• ‘It’s aw right … I wouldnae like to speak like it but’
54
Imitation of ‘media-Cockney’
• First impression: ‘Ah cannae talk like him’
• idiosyncratic, subtle, alteration of segments• more alteration to suprasegmentals• no apparent systematic alteration of (th dh l)• no evidence of awareness of these features as particular
features of this character’s speech
• Implication: variation in these speakers is not resulting from conscious copying
55
TVengagement
Language
Socialpractices
Dialect contact
TV and language change?
Factors not measured
How?
56
Rethinking the notion of TV ‘influence’
• ‘causality’ ≠ blanket transmission of linguistic features to passive speaker/viewer
– appropriation, i.e. what each speaker/viewer takes for themselves whilst engaging with the media, given their own particular experience of the world (Holly et al 2001)
– observations from interactional sociolinguistics that individuals appropriate media material for specific stylistic purposes (e.g. Androutsopoulos 2001)
– current ‘episodic’ models of speech perception/production assume at least short-term storage of incoming material – from all sources – as part of process of perceiving speech
57
Linguistic appropriation from TV – a working model
• the ‘bones’– perception appropriating– appropriation at media– sociolinguistic system‘systematic resonance’
– production exploiting– style/identity in context
– time
58
The next steps …
• Investigate ethnographically the kinds of phonetic variation that speakers exhibit whilst watching TV
• Investigate experimentally how people respond to speech experienced in different ways, e.g. through watching it pre-recorded on screen (like TV) or from talking to another speaker
59
The next steps …
• Investigate ethnographically the kinds of phonetic variation that speakers exhibit whilst watching TV
• Investigate experimentally how people respond to speech experienced in different ways, e.g. through watching it pre-recorded on screen (like TV) or from talking to another speaker
60
The next steps …
• Initial results from our first experiment (Stuart-Smith, Smith and Holmes 2008) suggest that– speakers do learn about accents other than their own from
interactive and ‘mediated’ speech
but that– the processes of learning are different for each source– linguistic structure is important – attention may play an important role for mediated speech
61
EXTRA SLIDES
62
1. TH-fronting
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1F 1M 2F 2M 3F 3M 4F 4M
[m]
[thf]
[f]
[th]
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1F 1M 2F 2M 3F 3M 4F 4M
[0]
[h]
[f]
[th]
wordlists (n = 951) conversations (n = 2519)
63
1. DH-fronting
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1F 1M 2F 2M 3F 3M 4F 4M
[m]
[dhv]
[r]
[v]
[dh]
wordlists (only) (n = 973)
64
1. L-vocalization
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1F 1M 2F 2M 3F 3M 4F 4M
[m]
[lV]
[V]
[l]
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1F 1M 2F 2M 3F 3M 4F 4M
[lV]
[V]
[l]
wordlists (n = 1165) conversations (n = 1429)
65
2. Results
• Linguistic– significant factor of specific position in word emerged
for each variable:– variance explained: around 12%
• regressions for age and gender consistently either failed to be significant, or to show sufficiently high explanation of variance
(cf Labov 2001: 272, n 16)
66
3c. TH-fronting and TV
two three more than three
How many television sets do you have in your house?
0
5
10
15
20
Cou
nt
many have 3 or more TV sets
1-2 days a week 5-6 days a week every day
How often do you watch the television?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cou
nt
most watch TV every day
self-reported TV exposure of between 1 to 5 hours a day (av. 3hrs)How much TV do you watch on weekdays?
More than 5 hrs
Btw n 3 and up to 5 h
Btw n 2 and up to 3 h
Btw n 1 and up to 2 h
Less than 1 hr
Cou
nt
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
weekday
How much TV do you watch on weekend days?
More than 5 hrs
Btw n 3 and up to 5 h
Btw n 2 and up to 3 h
Btw n 1 and up to 2 h
Less than 1 hr
Cou
nt
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
weekend
67
3c. They watch and like EastEnders most
Coronation Street?
Crossroads?
Eastenders?
Emmerdale?
Family Affairs?
Hollyoaks?
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Mea
n
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Mea
n
likewatch
68
Extra-linguistic variables – TV
• correct identification of TV programmes (auditory accent stimulus)
• general TV exposure • exposure to soaps/dramas • favourite programme/character/accent• engagement with soaps/dramas • TV and socialising (watching TV; talking about TV;
engaging with TV)• additional mention of TV from project recordings
69
3c. TH-fronting occurs (variably) in EastEnders
All positions TH _ EastEnders
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%BI
LLY
PEG
GY
PHIL
LIT
TLE
PAU
L
PAT
IAN
SHAR
ON
SAM
RIC
KY
ALF
IE
NAT
ALIE
SON
IA
SPE
NC
ER
KAT
KEL
LY
Characters
%
0
f
th
70
4. Imitation of media-Cockney(phonetic alteration)
• our first impressions were that little had been changed• but narrow auditory transcription revealed that most children altered
at least something in response to the task• segments were altered
– in the ‘expected’ direction: e.g. [th] > [f]– also towards the standard: e.g. [f] > [th]
• changes in suprasegmental features were striking:– voice quality; length; pitch
e.g. face: 1M2: own imitated town: 1M1: own imitated brother: 3M4: own imitated
thinking: 2M5: own imitated
71
Imitation
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
mouth teeth thinking
different
same
(th)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
milk w heel bottle
different
same
(l)
72
Investigating media effects
• media effects research typically investigates the potential short-term effects of TV using two main approaches
(e.g. Gunter 2000)
• (longitudinal) correlational studiese.g. Lefkowitz et al (1972), agression/predict aggressive behaviour
• behavioural experimentse.g. Bandura et al (1963), direct imitation and/or generalized aggression
73
Results II: TV as ‘softening-up’ agent?
• Are positive attitudes towards Cockney the result of watching popular programmes set in London (i.e. Trudgill’s ‘softening-up’, 1988:44)?
• We tested this claim statistically using multiple regression analysis to find out which variables might be linked with holding positive attitudes to Cockney.
• The only significant result was in fact a negative link between liking the Cockney speech sample and watching EastEnders.
74
Results II: TV
two three more than three
How many television sets do you have in your house?
0
5
10
15
20
Cou
nt
many have 3 or more TV sets
1-2 days a week 5-6 days a week every day
How often do you watch the television?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cou
nt
most watch TV every day
self-reported TV exposure of between 1 to 5 hours a day (av. 3hrs)How much TV do you watch on weekdays?
More than 5 hrs
Btw n 3 and up to 5 h
Btw n 2 and up to 3 h
Btw n 1 and up to 2 h
Less than 1 hr
Cou
nt
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
weekday
How much TV do you watch on weekend days?
More than 5 hrs
Btw n 3 and up to 5 h
Btw n 2 and up to 3 h
Btw n 1 and up to 2 h
Less than 1 hr
Cou
nt
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
weekend
75
They watch and like EastEnders most
Coronation Street?
Crossroads?
Eastenders?
Emmerdale?
Family Affairs?
Hollyoaks?
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Mea
n
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Mea
n
likewatch
76
These features occur (variably) in EastEnders, e.g. TH-fronting
All positions TH _ EastEnders
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%BI
LLY
PEG
GY
PHIL
LIT
TLE
PAU
L
PAT
IAN
SHAR
ON
SAM
RIC
KY
ALF
IE
NAT
ALIE
SON
IA
SPE
NC
ER
KAT
KEL
LY
Characters
%
0
f
th