“Aye, I watch it but”: Individuals, television and language change

Jane Stuart-Smith and Claire Timmins

University of Glasgow; Queen Margaret University Edinburgh

UKLVC 6, Lancaster University,11-13 September 2007

“Aye, I watch it but”: Individuals, television and language change

Paper overviewThis paper represents a shift in position. After summarizing the key correlational results, we consider the possible interpretations for TV in terms of causality based on the regression models. The fact that the TV factors may be entered alongside those from social practices (and others) demonstrates a degree of independence. It is not possible to assume that the TV links are indirectly related via social practices (though there may be factors involved, such as covert attitudes, Kristiansen pc). Whilst it is awkward, we must seriously entertain the possibility that TV is a direct causal factor in these changes. However, this does not mean that we must assume blanket transmission of features to passive viewers. Analysis of individual speakers, as opposed to just group measures, emphasises: (1) the different possible profiles, and so the individuality of each speaker (2) the role of personality (here dealt with in terms of ‘innovativeness’) in modelling these changes.We conclude by presenting the bones of our model of linguistic appropriation from the media, which requires several key components, and in particular reference to speech perception, appopriation, stylistic variation, and time.

JSS/CT 22/12/07

Two Glaswegian adolescent boys talking about EastEnders …

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’

Context

• Debate concerning influence of broadcast media, especially TV, on speech– e.g. Trudgill (1986); Chambers (1998); Stuart-Smith

(2006)

• Specifically with reference to consonant changes in UK accents– e.g. TH-fronting, DH-fronting, L-vocalization

(e.g. Foulkes and Docherty 1999)

The Glasgow media project

Is TV a contributory factor in accent change in adolescents? (2002-5)

ESRC R000239757

• Gwilym Pryce (statistics)• Barrie Gunter (media studies)

Methodology

• 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

Linguistic variables

• TH-fronting: [f] for [] 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

• all unexpected in Glasgow English• reported informally since 1950s; formally since 1980s;

Macafee 1983• confirmed as changes in 1997, and argued to be part of

sociolinguistic construction of identity distinguishing WC adolescents from MC speakers in the city

Stuart-Smith et al 2007

Change in progress: TH-fronting%

new

va

riant

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

fraction variant

1997 conversation

1997 wordlist

conversations

wordlists

progress of change

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

fraction variant

1997 conversation

1997 wordlist

conversations

wordlists

% n

ew v

aria

nt

progress of change

Change in progress: L-vocalization

Change in progress: DH-fronting

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

fraction variant

1997 wordlist

wordlist

conversation

% n

ew v

aria

nt

progress of change

Why? – the group

Correlational study (logistic regression)– (th):[f], (dh):[v], l:[V]

with– dialect contact (beyond and within Glasgow)– attitudes to accents – social practices– TV– music – Computers/internet– Film/video/DVD– sport

Results of correlational study

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)

TVengagement

Language

Socialpractices

Dialect contact

Attitudes

Dire

ct c

ausa

l lin

k

Interpreting the correlations

Factors notmeasured

Why? – the individual

• Individuals have always been important in discussions of language variation and change– e.g. L.Milroy (1987), J.Milroy (1992)– e.g. Labov (2001)– e.g. Eckert (2000)

Diffusion of innovations and individuals

adopter categories

Innovator

Early adopter

Early majority

Late majority

Laggard

Rogers (1995: 262)

Adopter categories and the media

‘Mass media channels are relatively more important than interpersonal channels for earlier adopters than for later adopters’ Rogers (1995: 197)

2F4

Our sample - basic social relationships

1F3

2M72M1

2M5 2M6

2F5

2F6

2F1

2F2

2F3

2M42M3

3M13M2

3M33M6

3F3

3F4

1M1

1M2 1M3

1M6

1F1

1F2

1F4

1F5

1F6

1M4 1M53M4

3F53F1

3F6

3M5

3F2

Best friends

Friends

Related

Going out with

2F4

Our sample – adopter categories

1F3

2M72M1

2M5 2M6

2F5

2F6

2F1

2F2

2F3

2M42M3

3M13M2

3M33M6

3F3

3F4

1M1

1M2 1M3

1M6

1F1

1F2

1F4

1F5

1F6

1M4 1M53M4

3F53F1

3F6

3M5

3F2

Innovator

Early Adopter

Early Majority

Late Majority

Laggard

• Does adopter category relate to change in progress?

• And/or to social factors such as dialect contact or engagement with TV?

– DH-fronting– TH-fronting

DH-fronting and adopter category

% [

v]

speaker

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1F5

1M5

2F6

2M7

1F1

2M5

1F3

2M6

1F4

1F2

2F3

2M3

3F4

3M1

3M6

1M3

2M4

3F2

3M2

2F2

3F3

1M2

3F6

3F5

3M5

1M6

2F1

3M4

1M1

2F4

3F1

3M3

2F5

2M1

1F6

1M4

DH-fronting - Innovator

1M4 - highest [v]• no dialect contact• Goth (skateboarder)• TV engagement:

‘mmm … Buffy.

Simpsons, EastEnders, sometimes Coronation Street’

‘Walford … he’s fae England.

Walford or … is it Walford?

Yeah, it’s Walford. I’m from Glasgow.’[Walford = fictional location of EastEnders]

DH-fronting: adopter category/peer network

3M2

3M33M6

3M4

3F53F1

3M5

3M1

3F6 3F2

most [v]

contact N/S England

engagement with TV

no [v]

high contact N/S England

engagement with TV

high [v]

neglible contact

high engagement with TV

TH-fronting: spontaneous speech

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1M5

2F6

1F5

2M7

1F1

1F4

2M6

1F3

2M5

2F2

2M4

3F2

3M1

2F1

3F4

3F6

3M6

2F3

3M2

2M3

3F3

1M2

1M3

3F1

1F2

3M5

3M3

2F4

1M1

3F5

1M6

2F5

3M4

1M4

2M1

1F6

% [

f]

speaker

[h]ink, [h]ing, [h]inking

TH-fronting: wordlists

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1F

5

1M

5

2F

6

2M

7

1F

1

1F

4

2M

6

2M

5

1F

3

3M

1

2M

3

2M

4

3F

4

2F

2

3F

2

2F

3

3M

6

3F

6

3F

3

1M

2

1M

3

2F

1

3M

2

1F

2

3F

1

3F

5

3M

5

1M

6

1M

1

2F

4

3M

3

2F

5

3M

4

1F

6

1M

4

2M

1

% [

f]

speaker

TH-fronting - Innovators

1F6 – most [f]• neglible dialect contact• very engaged with EastEnders

2M1 – second most [f]• Some contact with N England• engages with TV, e.g. Extreme Sport; cartoons

(not EastEnders)

TH-fronting – Early Adopters

2F4 – high [f]• Contact with S England

‘Em, I like the way the English people talk. … I like that. … Don’t know, just like the ways that my dad’s girlfriend talks, and I just sort of listen to her talking.’

• Some engagement with EastEnders

TH-fronting - Laggards

2F6 – low [f]‘I like to talk nice’

• no dialect contact• very engaged with EastEnders

‘Oh my God!’What?‘Mark tries to kill hisel’!’

• Talks to 2F5 (low [f]) – does this help reduce her own usage?

TH-fronting - Laggards

1F5 – high [f]• no dialect contact • high engagement with EastEnders, and other

soaps

‘So what did you watch last night?’

‘Aw, did you watch Easte… did you watch Coronation Street last night?’

Talks to 1F6 (highest [f]) - pulls usage up?

Summary

• Adopter category seems to pattern for DH-fronting

• Adopter category/peer networks may facilitate spread (but not necessarily)

• There seem to be different causal pathways, and combinations of pathways, for different speakers

TVengagement

Language

Socialpractices

Dialect contact

Causal pathways for change

Factors notmeasured

How?

These results highlight:– stylistic variation in these changes– the differing sociolinguistic profiles of

individual speaker/viewers

Modelling the mechanism for TV ‘influence’:– perception/production (episodic model)– appropriation, i.e. what each speaker/viewer

takes for him/herself whilst engaging with the media, given their own particular experience of the world (Holly et al 2001)

Linguistic appropriation from TV – a working model

• The bones– Perception (exemplars)

appropriating– Appropriation at media– Sociolinguistic system– Production exploiting– Style in context

– time

Select Bibliography

Carvalho, A.M. (2004), ‘I speak like the guys on TV: Palatalization and the urbanization of Uruguayan Portuguese’, Language, Variation and Change, 16, 127-51

Chambers, J. (1998), ‘TV makes people sound the same’, in L. Bauer and P. Trudgill (eds), Language Myths, New York: Penguin, 123-31

Eckert, P. (2000), Linguistic Variation as Social Practice, Oxford: BlackwellHolly, W., Püschel, U. and Bergmann, J. (eds), (2001), Die sprechende Zuschauer,

Wiesbaden: WVKerswill, P. (2003), 'Models of linguistic change and diffusion: new evidence from dialect

levelling in British English', in D. Britain and J. Cheshire (eds), Social Dialectology. In honour of Peter Trudgill, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 223-243

Kristiansen, T. (2003), ‘The youth and the gatekeepers: Reproduction and change in language norm and variation’, in J. Androustopoulos and A. Georgakopoulou, Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 279-302

Labov, W. (2001), Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors, Oxford: BlackwellJ. Milroy (1992), Linguistic Variation and Change, Oxford: BlackwellL. Milroy (1987), Language and Social Networks, Second edition, Oxford: BlackwellRogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of innovations, Fourth edition, New York: Free PressStuart-Smith, J. (2005), Is TV a contributory factor is accent change in adolescents? Final

Report on ESRC Grant No. R000239757 (available from Economic and Social Research Council website)

Stuart-Smith, J. (2006), ‘The influence of media on language’, in C. Llamas, P. Stockwell and L. Mullany (eds), The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics, London: Routledge

Stuart-Smith, J., Timmins, C. and Tweedie, F. (2007), ‘”Talkin’ Jockney?”: Accent change in Glaswegian’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11, 221-61.

Trudgill, P. (1986), Dialects in Contact, Oxford: Blackwell