It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman despise him.
George Bernard Shaw
This survey was made at the Norwegian Study Centre (NSC) at the University of York in December 1995 as a project work for Andreas Hilmo Teig and Camilla Eliassen. Two important things to remember in that context are the facts that we were situated in Britain and that the survey was done at a university. Being concerned with accents and dialects there were two general assumptions that we wanted to look a bit further into. Firstly, that in British society the matter of (using the "correct") accent and dialect is very important if you want to be seen as serious and "socially acceptable"-and consequently that regional accents and dialects are seen as socially inferior. (For instance as regards fairly formal occasions such as job interviews and when appearing in public.) In connection with this, notice what the Irish satirist George Bernard Shaw said about this feature of the English in his Pygmalion of 1914 at the top of this paper. Secondly, we wanted to look into the assumption that universities generally tend to be institutions with a very formalising effect upon its members, and that this very much applies to use of accent and dialect. We also had heard in lectures on recent changes in English at the NSC that there is a tendency in Britain today to move towards greater acceptance of regional accents and dialects.
What we wanted to find out was if the traditional presumptions could be said to be true, or if a change in opinions is taking place, i.e. if students at the University of York feel they have to switch to a more standardised way of speaking in the university environment, and what they think about the use of regional and standard accents and dialects in Britain today. It is evident that there has to be some sort of connection between the conditions at the university and the conditions in British society in general, so we will try to draw some lines to the general situation, and maybe use our findings as an indicator of the present situation in Britain.
When commencing on this survey we had few expectations as to what the findings would be like. However, if we should have stated a clear-cut thesis what we would have come up with was that we expected a slight move towards greater acceptance of regional accents and dialects, although not to the same "free" situation as in Norway (where even the Chancellor of the Exchequer uses his original regional dialect).
In Britain there is a significant difference in meaning between the terms accent and dialect (a difference you won't find in Norway) which it is important for us to establish. We will see that some of our informants distinguish between an accent and a dialect. The properties of these terms can be shown in a table. As we can see from this table a dialect is the language variety of a group of
| DIALECT | ACCENT |
|---|---|
| pronunciation | pronunciation |
| vocabulary | -- intonation |
| grammar | -- accent |
| idiom |
speakers, and it takes all the features of an individual language into account. Whereas an accent only encapsulates the way in which a group of speakers pronounce words. So, whilst two accents can be different only in terms of pronunciation, two accents and dialects different dialects may employ different words, idioms and grammars in addition to the difference in pronunciation. Accent differences thus can be the different pronunciation of words like pub and hand in the north and south of England, whereas different dialects may use different grammars, some use I was, he was, they was, others use I were, he were, they were, while yet others use I was, weren't I ?, etc.; different words, to play,(=) to lake; and idiomatic differences, in the morning,(=) of a morning,(=) on a morning in addition to the difference in pronunciation. Two more things need to be said about pronunciation. A pronunciation has two distinguished features. One is intonation, or the "melody" of someone's speech. The other is what is (somewhat confusingly) termed accent. The accent is really the vowel inventory of a given dialect. That is what we conceive as the main difference in the word pub when pronounced by speakers from the north and south of England, respectively.
In order to undertake our study we had two main sources. For background knowledge and general reference in the field of linguistics we relied on a limited range of books. Our most important source, however, was a series of interviews that we made with students at the University of York, chosen at random among people in the different Colleges' canteens. All in all we made tape-recorded interviews of six people at the campus (all of them students). The reason why we made such a limited number of interviews was based on two grounds. Rather than a quantitative survey we wanted to make a qualitative survey, i.e. go more into detail on each informant, give more weight to interpretation of the material than calculation. In addition to that, given the very limited amount of time we had available it would be extremely difficult to make a large number of interviews of the kind we wanted to make and at the same time have enough time for interpretation.
Of course, since our survey is based on such a limited material (in number), we cannot so easily make bold statements about the results of our work. However, we think we are able to draw some broad lines as to what the general tendencies seem to be. And since many of the tendencies we found tie in nicely with work done earlier by well-known linguists, we think our 'case' to be a strong one.
The informants were asked a number of questions from a questionnaire which we had compiled in advance. We put the questions forward orally, and made tape recordings of the interviews so that we wouldn't have to take notes and thus disturb the informants. In creating the questionnaire we owe a lot to Peter Trudgill's survey of dialect differences in Norwich. It consists of four main parts: 1) The social and regional background of the informants, 2) The informants' attitudes to their own dialects/accents, 3) Attitudes other people have towards the dialects/accents of the informants, and 4) Attitudes to dialects/accents in general. I have listed the questions we used in the survey in the appendix. To give a clear impression of the answers we got I will try to structure them into two sections. First, I will go through the answers of the individual informants, then I will compare the answers, and point at certain interesting features. (Similarities/dissimilarities, resemblance with other findings, etc.)
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age/sex | 21/m | 24/m | 21/f | 37/f | 19/f | 31/m |
| Where from | Teignmouth, Devon | Newcastle-upon-Tyne | Atherstone, near Birmingham | Scarborough, N. Yorks | Harpenden, Harts. | Mining village near Swansea, Glamorgan |
| Parents' jobs | dad: no reply
mum: care assistant |
dad: assistant director
mum: market research manager |
dad: Inland revenue employee
mum: housewife |
dad: semi-skilled labourer
mum: no reply |
dad: lectures on car safety
mum: civil servant |
dad: coalminer
mum: secretary, domestic service, shop assistant, etc. |
| Subject, aim of studies | studying to become a teacher | Computer science and pedagogics | Maths | History | Politics and Philosophy | Philosophy and English |
Note: If you are reading a computer version of the paper and your computer has facilities for playing sound items, you will, in the future, be able to hear samples of the individual informants' accents by double-clicking the links below. Compare the samples to what they say about their accents themselves!
said he had no accent, except for some dialect words, and said he was satisfied with that. It was of great importance to him that people could understand what he said, and he stated that he thought it right to moderate ones speech in public, or wherever required. (In this connection he mentioned job interviews.) He said he had been criticised for using colloquialisms to a too large extent, but that otherwise nobody, as far as he knew, had problems with understanding what he said. Generally, he said he was positive towards use of regional dialects and accents. Nevertheless he repeated that one should try to moderate a strong accent in certain circumstances. He thought Standard English should be used in broadcasting and other cases of public appearance. He said the fact that he was going to become a teacher made him aware of use of language. He said he frequently recognised incorrect use of language. When we asked him to indicate what sort of mistakes he noticed, he mentioned the use of abbreviated forms (like don't you know? instead of do you not know?) and dialect words.
said he essentially had two ways of speaking. One "fast", normal mode which he used when talking to people he knew in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and another more moderate, slow-going mode, more easily understandable to most other people. When using the first mode he didn't have to worry, he said. For this informant it was important to use his own dialect. He emphasised the need and the importance of being able to show where you come from through your dialect or accent. He said he felt proud of the way he speaks. However he had encountered difficulties in York. He said there exists a stereotypical view among Southerners of people from the North, particularly people from Newcastle, that they are very common, or working class. He felt this applied to him too. In addition, people had difficulties understanding him. He meant dialects may be used in all situations, as long as they are understandable. He also made a point that politicians who speak too 'proper' can be difficult to trust. Personally, he said he could understand most dialects, but that he had certain preferences. He said he hadn't thought about use of dialects/accents in public, but that in principle he was positive towards dialect use in any situations.
said she "speaks normally", with no accent at all. And she was satisfied that she didn't have a dialect, especially the dialect of her own area (Birmingham area), as she didn't like that one at all. She didn't identify with the sort of people living her district [the local stereotypes]. She, as well as (1), strongly assessed the importance of being understood. She said she received positive responses to her accent. Most people, she said, agreed that she had no accent. Since moving to the university, she had changed her accent slightly, she said, to sound more intellectual or more intelligent. Her general view of accents and dialects seemed to be that they are OK as long as they are understandable. She said she had recognised incorrect use of language, like grammatical mistakes, for instance mistakes involving tenses. She said there are many dialects she can't understand. She didn't have any special remarks to using a dialect in public, but said it is OK.
said her accent was "fairly broad" and "not so polished". But she said that it was not too broad either, and she felt she could easily be understood. This woman said - like (1) - that your accent and dialect are important for your identity; they are important markers, showing where you come from. Anyhow, she said that she tries to speak 'proper' when she finds it necessary. She also does try to teach her children to talk in a more proper way, not so 'lazy', dropping H's for instance, not using too much slang. She said she hadn't recognised any hostile or negative attitudes against her dialect among people at the university. ("There are quite a lot of people from the North here, anyway"). She could remember schoolteachers nagging on her because of her language, though. When she started at the university, she said, her children had said she used "longer words". This could be an indication that her language had been more academic, she said. Generally, she was positive towards use of regional dialects/accents, because they create some sort of identity and pride of one's region and origins. Nevertheless she felt that excessive use of slang was wrong as well. Newsreaders should moderate themselves, she said, but talking too proper was not good either. It could give you a feeling of being patronised. She thought there has been a change in use of regional accents/dialects in public lately, perhaps towards the better: More accents are accepted and some slang has crept in. She said she had difficulties in understanding some dialects particularly Scottish ones, like Glaswegian.
said she did not think she has an accent, except perhaps some features of the South. It would not be a strong one, anyhow. She felt that it had become a bit more marked since she moved to York, though, especially when it comes to vocabulary and tonality. She said she didn't think you could tell where she came from, which according to her was one of the nice things of "having an accent". And she thought there was no reason to disguise one's dialect, for the same reason. She felt she was well understood, and said that sometimes people would make fun of a strong accent, but not of hers. She had no objections to using a regional dialect at any occasion, as long as they were understandable. She said she could see no reason why you should have to change your accent/dialect. But she admitted that she found some dialects/accents more troublesome than others. She had no negative preferences, though. She did not recognise incorrect use of language, but admitted that she probably makes quite a few mistakes herself. Politicians, she said, sounded false if they tried to formalise their accents. She said MPs using their own accent show who they are and who they are elected to represent, and, maybe, gain more respect.
said he didn't feel that he had a strong accent, but he was told so. He didn't find accents a problem unless they created problems for the user by making communication more difficult. He said he had no allegiance towards his dialect/accent, and that he was quite utilitarian that way. If his dialect created difficulties of understanding he would alter it. So he didn't think it was important to use a regional dialect/accent. On the whole, he said, people seemed to understand what he said, but he would be ready to change if they didn't. He said he felt that some people thought his accent was quaint in the worst sense of the word. He said he hasn't had to change his accent, but that it probably had altered, anyway-without him being conscious of it. Seminar classes were typical occasions where he felt he appeared more formal than usual. And he told us his friends and relations at home had recognised some changes after he moved. Generally he found dialects and accents more to be a problem than an advantage if people couldn't understand what you said. He also said that it was showing people respect to alter your accent so that it would be comprehensible to them. Nevertheless, he said a more widespread use of regional dialects and accent on the public arena was to the better. In politics he said he could detect some links between political wing and use of regional dialects/accents. The left tended to use regional accents more frequently than the right. He also found that there existed a sense of "reverse snobbery" among certain groups-that it was "better" to use a regional accent than a standard variety like RP. This informant was the only one not to say that he had noticed incorrect use of language. He said he used to think he noticed mistakes, but that now he recognised them as being merely differences between dialects, not actual mistakes.
Looking at the individual informants there are some things we would like to point out as being important. We have three informants, (1), (3) and (5), from Southern England and three informants, (2), (4) and (6), from the North or Wales, more remote parts of Britain. There are certain features which these groups of informants have in common. The three informants from the South all say they speak "normal", i.e. they say they have no accent. And it seems as if they are happy with that. They are generally-although with some variation-positive towards use of dialects and accents, but happy not to use one themselves. To a varying degree they also say one ought to restrict one's use of dialect-especially if it is difficult to understand. The three informants from the North/Wales all admit that they have a certain number of regional features in their dialect/accent. All of them, except (6), seem to be proud of their accents. And except for (2) all of them say that they feel they can be easily understood by other people when they use their "native" accent. It can seem as if users of a non-standard variety feel they have to conform; if not necessarily with the standard variety, at least in a manner so that they will be understood.
All our informants seem to think that comprehension is crucial. Everybody mention the importance of being understood. Everybody say it is important to alter your accent if you aren't understood. And almost all of them say that one has to moderate oneself when appearing in public. One interesting thing in this context is that the only one who says he will allow use of any regional dialect at any occasion-as long as it is generally understood, of course-is the same person who says he can understand all dialects, viz. (2), who is the informant with the most non-standard variety. He also assesses quite strongly the importance of using your own dialect, an opinion also held by (4), who is also from the North. It may seem as if the ability to understand dialects other than your own is connected to the variety you use yourself; if you are a standard variety speaker it is less likely that you are able to understand a wide range of non-standard dialects than if you are using a non-standard variety.
Why is this? There can be two possible reasons for this. Firstly, someone using a non-standard dialect will be more used to hearing and having to understand dialects other their own, especially since the arrival of broadcasting, dominated by standard dialect speakers. So, to speakers of a non-standard variety it may become more of a necessity and more of a habit to understand different dialects than what is the case with standard variety speakers. Secondly, speakers of a standard variety are more used to being understood wherever they go, and as if by convention, speakers of a non-standard dialect were formerly often expected to conform with the standard norm. It is also appropriate to mention the dichotomy between the north and the south of England, where the people and the culture of the North-dialects included-traditionally has been associated with the working class. That may be a reason why people with standard (south of England) dialects find non-standard varieties hard to understand; these dialects are stigmatised, so to speak. Moreover, two of our informants mention these stereotypes. (2) says people from the South often think of his accent as common or working class, while (3) emphasises the fact that she is glad not to have a regional accent because of the features associated with them. So, there may be a question of willingness-culturally and probably unconsciously decided-to be taken into account as well.
Even more interesting is the fact that (5) shows a very open attitude towards use of dialects. She is from the South, and daughter of fairly well-to-do parents, it seems. (She told us she had gone to a convent school, probably an independent one.) If we compare these two informants [(2)&(5)] regarding social background it seems as if they are the two informants from the highest social class. (Cf. their parents' occupations.) This may suggest that people from the "professional classes" are more tolerant towards dialect/accent use. And this is not very surprising, as it is a frequently mentioned fact that members of the higher social classes often seem to be more tolerant than the group called the petite-bourgeoisie, the lower middle class. This is sometimes said to stem from the fact that the upper layers of society are more confident of themselves and feel that they are relatively secure, compared to the middle and lower middle class, which has, allegedly, traditionally felt to been more on the verge of the working class, and thus been more restrictive in their attitudes towards those beneath them on the social ladder. The aim of this survey is not to evaluate the social background of our informants, nor to give an extensive account of the British social structures, so I will leave this theme here. Nevertheless, I think it was important to include this observation as well, since it can be some sort of explanation for the similarities between informants (2) and (5).
All of the informants say they are-generally-positive towards use of regional dialects. But the sincerity of this attitude can be questioned. At least among some of them. One may ask whether this positive attitude is an instance of political correctness, or if there has been substantial movement in people's attitudes towards these issues. In recent years there has been a tendency towards greater acceptance of regional dialects in public, particularly in broadcasting. People with regional accents are increasingly being heard on national broadcasting. However this involves among other things the employment of regional accents in TV advertisements or in comedy series, for comical purposes, playing on the traditional stereotypes. There is a question of whether this development has to do with a change in attitudes or with a continuation of the traditional bias against non-standard dialects, but this is not within the scope of this paper.
Among our informants there are three male and three female students. We thought we could detect a slight difference in their attitudes towards dialects in general. The women seem to have more objections to universal use of regional dialects than the men. We also feel that these objections are somewhat different form those of the men. While the men (especially (1) and (6)) stress how important it is to be understood, the women (particularly (3) and (4) ) show a concern for matters of correctness as well. (4) says that she tries to make her children speak "properly", and (3) claims that she has changed her dialect slightly since she moved to the university in order to sound more "intellectual". This illustrates what sociolinguists have found to be an inherent feature of any language community with a standard variety; women are more likely to adopt a more standardised variety, whereas men more usually hold on to a non-standard dialect. It seems as if women are more concerned with correctness than men, and this can be said to be true also of our informants. We feel that our material is too limited to make any resolute statements, but we are of the opinion that the general trend seems to be a characteristic of our informants as well.
What emerges from this survey is that the single most important feature of attitudes towards accents and dialects at the University of York-and thus perhaps also generally in Britain today-is the issue of comprehension. The importance of being understood is an issue which is raised by all of our informants. This could be said to be an instance of the (stereo)typical British pragmatism; if you cannot be understood you will have to change your dialect. However this is an unsatisfactory conclusion and it may rather be implied that the weight given to the issue of comprehension is an indication of the endurance of the traditional approach to dialects (as well as language in general): the prescription approach. Also, the idea that you may use your dialect on whatever occasion you prefer is inferior to the notion that you must make yourself understood. One may ask why comprehension is an issue at all. Two reasons may be suggested. Either it may actually be true that dialects of English are very different from each other, or it may be that the general attitude among British people moves in the direction of less inclination to try to understand difficult dialects. It is difficult to say with absolute certainty which of these reasons is most likely to be true. If we compare the British situation to that of Norway, we may imply that the dialects of English are at least not more diverse than those of Norway, considering the topography of the two countries. Thus the second alternative remains.
Nevertheless, it is evident that the situation we encountered at the University of York is not similar to the scenario implied in the introduction; that students at the university feel they have to conform with the standard variety. It is clear that there has been a development towards a much more relaxed attitude towards accents and dialects. The emphasis on the identity you convey through your accent was mentioned by a number of informants, and also the general positive attitude-whether politically correct or not-underlines this development, and contradicts any attempt to state that a "proper" accent is required at the universities.
Thus, we may conclude by saying that NO, the traditional presumptions that university environments impose their own standard accent on their members can not said to be true any more, at least not at the University of York. AND, although there is still a feeling that there should be a certain degree of restraint on the use of regional dialects, particularly among users of a less non-standard variety, the situation can be said to have altered quite substantially over the years, and the condition implied by Shaw quoted at the beginning of this paper can be said to be totally passé.
andtei@james.stud.no, 22 May 1996. Back to my home page