Some common features of the accent are:
1) /l/ vocalisation such as in 'milk' sounding like 'miwk'
2) /t/ glottaling in words like 'butter' pronounced 'buher'
3) Yod dropping such as 'new' pronounced 'noo'
4) /th/ fronting such as 'free' for 'three'
The aforementioned features were found in Joanna Przedlacka study Estuary English, in which she looked at the language of sixteen teenage speakers. Comparing what she found with data from the Survey of English Dialects, she concluded that:
- Glottaling (supposedly a distinctive feature of Estuary English) showed a pattern not dissimilar to that of fifty years ago, as shown in the SED data, but that
-L-vocalisation had increased.
She compared the Estuary English data and recordings of RP and Cockney speakers. This demonstrated that Estuary speakers were intermediate between RP and "Cockney" as regards the incidence of t-glottaling and l-vocalisation. She suggests that this may be an oversimplification of the issue: one should also consider factors such as geographical variation or idiosyncratic characteristics of the speakers.
The associations with Estuary English are beginning to shed the negative connotations as the frequency of use throughout the media today begins to override those of other dialects such as extreme RP. Jonathan Ross uses his accent as a way of differentiating himself from other presenters, frequently using the abbreviation 'ya' for 'you' as well as yod dropping. Even with the Queen as his Grandmother, Prince Harry is heard using the contraction 'ain't' in a recent interview: 'You ain't ever gonna find someone who's gonna jump in...' he even uses another common contraction 'gonna', something that would arouse upheaval if the Queen used. This acceptance from people who are in the public eye highlights how people are less constrained by RP norms.Could this be acceptance of a less rigid conformation to RP? And the curtains to RP?
This rapid spread of Estuary English throughout time can clearly be perceived by comparing the accents of the Princess of Wales, the Prince of Wales and the Queen. Diana would pronounce words like 'Tuesday' more like 'chewsday'. Professor Wells is carrying out a study into Estuary English overtaking Received Pronunciation. He says that "Compare her [Princess Diana] pronunciation with that of Prince Charles, which is much more conservative; and the Queen's, which is much more conservative than his." The 12 years difference in age between Prince Charles and his former wife indicated how rapidly "Estuary English" was establishing itself. "Diana still had an upper-class accent but it was different from Prince Charles's."
We're even seeing the rise of Estuary English being used within the political speeches of politicians like Tony Blair and Ed Miliband. Miliband can be heard frequently using glottal stops, many saying he mirrors that of previous Prime Minister Tony Blair. This use of faux-Estuary English could be an attempt to create a more relatable government, using the accent as a way of class reduction. This could perhaps make those who don't speak in RP feel more connected with what the members of parliament are saying. Something which is common with public figures is their flexibility of accent and dialect. Professor Wells said. "Your accent is a badge you wear, which tells people what sort of person you are. If you can be flexible, then you can fit in with many groups."
Estuary English today is deemed to be homogeneous and fake with famous role models such as Gordon Ramsay, Victoria Beckham and Katie Price using it. Critics of Estuary English argue that it is the accent of people who come from nowhere and that this may account for its spread far from the Thames, where it originated from.
Could this acceptance of Estuary English within the media industry, government and monarchy alike, begin to shed the remains of Received Pronunciation?
Could this acceptance of Estuary English within the media industry, government and monarchy alike, begin to shed the remains of Received Pronunciation?
Paul Coggle: To argue that EE would replace RP has always been an extreme position. Personally I think that EE would probably influence the speech of power-holders in the Greater London area, and indeed that some EE speakers would become power-holders. This is, I would argue, actually happening, though the research has not yet been done to prove it. But examples of EE power-holders do spring to mind (Greg Dyke, Jamie Shea). What we refer to as RP has of course changed greatly over the last 50 years, anyway. This process will continue.
ReplyDeletePaul Kerswill: I think that there is a levelling process, whereby the modern or urban dialects over time move closer to spoken standard English, while retaining their own distinctive forms. As RP speakers begin to adapt their speech when talking to those with accents closer to that of Estuary English, the same happens to those with almost Cockney accents in the opposite direction. This could level to become one united accent and dialect
ReplyDeletePeter Trudgill: There seem to be a number of reasons for the wrong but understandable misperception that RP is disappearing. First, non-RP accents are now found, as we have already noted, in situations from which they would have been excluded only a few decades ago. It is therefore easy to gain an impression that there are fewer RP speakers than formerly. Secondly, the kind of people who in earlier generations would have been speakers of adoptive RP no longer are, as we have already observed. So there actually are fewer RP speakers, though not necessarily fewer native speakers. Thirdly, RP itself, again as we have already seen, has changed.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that RP now admits certain types of /t/-glottaling which were formerly associated with local accents only - but that most certainly does not mean that it is Cockney. This perception resembles the belief now current in my own home city, Norwich, where older people frequently complain that the youngsters “talk like Londoners”. When I ask why they say this, they, in every case, reply: “Young people say fing instead of thing”. One noticable phonological feature can lead to utterly inaccurate stereotypical reports.