1. “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

2. “Aye, I watch it but”: Individuals, television and language change
Paper overview
This 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

3. 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 man
L No’ saw it (inaudible)
R They two nearly got caught aff ay,
L Aye
R 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’s
R Mad Barry’s left in his cell man, pure makes, things for him an’ aw that. So he does, ‘s quite shockin’

4. 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)

5. The Glasgow media project
Is TV a contributory factor in accent change in adolescents? (2002-5)
ESRC R
Gwilym Pryce (statistics)
Barrie Gunter (media studies)

6. 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

7. 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

8. Change in progress: TH-fronting
% new variant
progress of change

9. Change in progress: L-vocalization
% new variant
progress of change

10. Change in progress: DH-fronting
% new variant
progress of change

11. Why? – the group Correlational study (logistic regression) with
(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

12. 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)

13. Interpreting the correlations
Language
Factors not
measured
Direct causal link
Attitudes TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact

14. 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)

15. Diffusion of innovations and individuals
adopter categories
Innovator
Early adopter
Early majority
Late majority
Laggard
Rogers (1995: 262)

16. 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)

17. Our sample - basic social relationships
1F1
1M2
1M3
3M2
3M1
3M6
3M3
1M1
1F3
1F2
1M4
1M5
3M5
3M4
1M6
1F4
1F6
2M7
2M1
3F1
3F5
2M5
2M6
1F5
In fact, despite needing 12 of each, and thinking that we wouldn’t have much coherence to groups, we do …
Five isolated groups … others well connected
2M3
2M4
3F6
3F2
2F1
3F3
3F4
Friends
2F3
2F5
2F6
Best friends
2F2
Related
2F4
Going out with

18. Our sample – adopter categories
1F1
1M2
1M3
3M2
3M1
3M6
3M3
1F3
1F2
1M1
1M4
1M5
3M5
3M4
1M6
1F4
1F6
2M1
2M7
3F1
3F5
2M5
2M6
1F5
In fact, despite needing 12 of each, and thinking that we wouldn’t have much coherence to groups, we do …
Five isolated groups … others well connected
2M3
2M4
3F6
3F2
2F1
3F4
Innovator
Early Adopter
Early Majority
Late Majority
Laggard
2F3
2F5
2F2
3F3
2F6
2F4

19. 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

20. DH-fronting and adopter category
% [v]
speaker

21. 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]

22. DH-fronting: adopter category/peer network
most [v]
contact N/S England
engagement with TV
3M2
3M3
3M6
3M4
3F5
3F1
3M5
3M1
3F6
3F2
high [v]
neglible contact
high engagement with TV
In fact, despite needing 12 of each, and thinking that we wouldn’t have much coherence to groups, we do …
Five isolated groups … others well connected
no [v]
high contact N/S England
engagement with TV

23. TH-fronting: spontaneous speech
[h]ink, [h]ing, [h]inking
% [f]
speaker

24. TH-fronting: wordlists
speaker

25. 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)

26. 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

27. 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?

28. 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?

29. 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

30. Causal pathways for change
Language
Factors not
measured TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact

31. 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)

32. Linguistic appropriation from TV – a working model
The bones
Perception (exemplars) appropriating
Appropriation at media
Sociolinguistic system
Production exploiting
Style in context
time

33. 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,
Chambers, J. (1998), ‘TV makes people sound the same’, in L. Bauer and P. Trudgill (eds), Language Myths, New York: Penguin,
Eckert, P. (2000), Linguistic Variation as Social Practice, Oxford: Blackwell
Holly, W., Püschel, U. and Bergmann, J. (eds), (2001), Die sprechende Zuschauer, Wiesbaden: WV
Kerswill, 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,
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,
Labov, W. (2001), Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors, Oxford: Blackwell
J. Milroy (1992), Linguistic Variation and Change, Oxford: Blackwell
L. Milroy (1987), Language and Social Networks, Second edition, Oxford: Blackwell
Rogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of innovations, Fourth edition, New York: Free Press
Stuart-Smith, J. (2005), Is TV a contributory factor is accent change in adolescents? Final Report on ESRC Grant No. R (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,
Trudgill, P. (1986), Dialects in Contact, Oxford: Blackwell