Philip Carr
London English and its influence on varieties of British English
Résumé
Dans cet article, je commence (section 1) avec une description de la phonétique et la
phonologie de l’accent dit London English, ou Cockney. Je présente, dans la seconde partie,
un éventail des caractéristiques de cet accent dans les accents britanniques contemporains.
Dans la partie finale, je considère brièvement les conséquences de ce phénomène sur les
questions sociolinguistiques concernant la variation et le changement linguistique.
1. London English (LE)
LE has its origins in the boroughs of the East End of London, north and south of the Thames,
boroughs such as Poplar, Wapping, Bow and Lewisham. These are traditionally working
class areas, and the accent has been associated with East End criminals, certain TV series
(notably East Enders and Only Fools and Horses), certain film stars (such as Michael Caine),
and stand-up comics and TV presenters (such as Paul Merton, Jonathon Ross and Linda
Smith). It has been represented in fiction, in the work of Dickens and George Bernard Shaw,
among others. Public awareness of LE speech often centres on Cockney rhyming slang,
exhibited by expressions such as apples and pears (stairs) and Would you Adam and Eve it?
(Would you believe it?). One also finds, in LE speech, common features of non-standard
syntax, such as He done it, I ain’t got none, and so on. Here, I focus only on the phonetic and
phonological aspects of LE speech. I begin with the vowels.
LE Vowels
It is perhaps best to begin by noting that LE, like RP, is non-rhotic. That is, [Ѣ] may appear
only in the onset of a syllable, as in run, or far away (syllabified fa.ra.way), but not in the
coda of a syllable, as in farm or far gone. Non-rhoticity has consequences for the vowel
system: non-rhotic accents have phonemic centring diphthongs (/eђ/, as in hair, /‫گ‬ђ/ and here,
/Ѩђ/ as in poor), as well as /ҷ:/ as in bird. Additionally, many words containing /ѐ:/, as in lore,
or /Ϫ:/ as in car stem from words which historically had a coda ‘r’. Non-rhotic accents often
have ‘Linking r’, as in far away (but not in far gone), and ‘Intrusive r’, as in Linda Anderson,
with an [Ѣ] in the onset of the first syllable of Anderson. LE possesses all of these features,
some of which I return to below.
Vowel Shifts
It is common to postulate that the vowel system of LE is exactly parallel to that of RP, but
with many major realisational differences, mostly of a 'vowel shift' nature, such as the
following:
/√/
realised as [a], as in [k‫ܒ‬aБ] (cut)
/æ/
realised as [E], as in [k‫ܒ‬EБ] (cat)
/E/
realised as [eI], as in [le‫گ‬ց] (leg)
/eI/
realised as [aI], as in [da‫( ]گ‬day)
/a‫گ‬/
/ѐ‫گ‬/
realised as [ѐ‫]گ‬, as in [bѐ‫( ]گ‬buy)
realised as [o‫]گ‬, as in [bo‫( ]گ‬boy)
It has been argued (Carr 1999) that the [a] realisation of /ѩ/ encroaches upon the /æ/ phoneme,
which is often realised closer to [E]. This pronunciation in turn encroaches on the /E/
phoneme, often realised as [e] or a diphthong close to [eI], which in turn encroaches on the
/eI/ phoneme. This latter may be realised as [aI], encroaching on the perceptual and
articulatory space of the /a‫گ‬/ phoneme, which is often realised as [ѐ‫]گ‬, thus encroaching on the
space of the /ѐ‫گ‬/ phoneme, often realised as [o‫]گ‬. The latter three shifts are referred to as the
'Diphthong Shift' by Wells (1982), although Wells also sees [Ii] realisations of the /i:/
phoneme (as in cuppa tea: [ka/p´tHIi]) as encroaching on /ei/, and thus implicated in the shift.
The idea is that the phonemic contrasts are maintained: no phonemic merger has taken place.
It should be borne in mind that the neat picture just given is an idealisation over a great deal
of variation. For instance, /e‫گ‬/ is frequently not shifted, and remains as [e‫]گ‬, and there is agebased variation in at least South East London English (see Tollfree 1999). Note too that,
parallel to the diphthongal realisations of /i:/, the /u:/ phoneme is often realised as [Uu], as in
through: [f®Uu]
/aѨ/, /ѩ/, /æ/
The /aѨ/ phoneme is often realised as [a:], as in sound ([sa:)nd]), distinct from the realisations
of both /ѩ/ (as in putt: [pat] ) and /æ/ (as in pat: [pϯt]). The distinctions between the three
phonemes are said to be preserved.
/ѐ:/ and /oѨ/
/ѐ:/ is typically realised as [ѐђ] in open syllables (as in war: [wѐђ]) and [oѨ] elsewhere (as in
short: [ЀoѨБ]. This means that one of the realisations of this phoneme encroaches upon the
space of the /oѨ/ phoneme, leading to the possibility of phonemic overlapping. That phoneme
in turn does not typically have an [oѨ] realisation; rather, it tends to be realised as [ѩѨ].
happY Tensing
Words belonging to the Wells (1982) lexical set ‘happY’, often spelled with a final <–y> or
<-ie> are often realised with [i]: Andy [E)ndi]. Wells refers to this as ‘happY Tensing’. This
term makes appeal to the idea that the distinction between /i:/ (as in fleece) and /‫گ‬/ (as in kit) is
a tense/lax difference, with the former being tense and the latter lax. Tense vowels are often
said to be more articulated in a more peripheral part of the vowel space than their lax
counterparts, but the validity of the tense/lax distinction has been subject to debate. Wells
(1982: 319) notes a range of diphthongal realisations of the ‘happY’ vowel such as [ђi] and
[‫گ‬i]. One can see in what sense these diphthongal realisations may be said to count as ‘tense’,
since they involve a transition from a less peripheral to a more peripheral articulation. These
diphthongal realisations are not attested in all varieties of LE: Tollfree (1999) found no
diphthongal realisations in her South East London survey. There is much variability in the
‘happY’ vowel in various British accents of English, and it is not clear that the term ‘tensing’
is appropriate for all of them. It seems to the present author that, in LE, there are [i]
realisations of the /‫گ‬/ phoneme in words belonging to Wells’ lexical set KIT, as in think:
[fi֊Б].
London English Consonants
LE differs from RP both in terms of the realisation of consonant phonemes and, arguably, in
terms of the consonant phoneme system.
Voiceless stop phonemes
The voiceless stop phonemes /p/, /t/, /k/ are often realised, before a primary-stressed vowel,
with heavy aspiration, and in the case of /t/ at least, often with affrication, as in cuppa tea:
[ka/p´tHsIi].
There are glottal stop realisations of voiceless stop phonemes (particularly /t/) in almost every
variety of English. The variation between accents concerns the places in which these can
occur. LE allows for glottal stop realisations of /p/, /t/ and /k/ in nasal-consonant clusters, as
in the words hump: [am/], hunt [an/], think [fIN/]/[fiN/]. These vary with voiceless stop
realisations. Another context for glottal stop realisations of /t/ is foot-internal intervocalic
position, as in matter: [»mE/å], but again, these vary with [t] realisations.
Vocalisation of /l/
LE /l/ is typically realised as [w] in the coda position of a syllable, as in hell, bottle: [bÅ/´w]
/T/ vs /f/ and /D/ vs /v/ in Cockney
It has often been noted that RP minimal pairs such as thin/fin are homophones for many LE
speakers, both being [fIn]. Whether the phoneme /T/ may be said to be entirely absent in LE
depends very much on whether [‫ ]ׯ‬is uttered in any contexts by LE speakers. It appears that
there is variability here. A similar situation arises with respect to the /v/ vs /ᾩ/ distinction:
pronunciations such as [brava] (brother) are common. However, word-initial /ᾩ/ does often
seem to be retained, as in that, this, etc.
/h/ in LE
Elision of the /h/ phoneme occurs in RP and most other accents of English, but mostly in
unstressed function words in non-utterance-initial position. In LE, it occurs in words of a
lexical category, and thus, for many LE speakers, pairs such as hair/air are often uttered as
homophones. The term ‘H Dropping’ tends to be reserved for this latter phenomenon.
Evidence that /h/ is simply absent in LE comes from two sources. Firstly, LE speakers often
select the [æn] (or [ђn]) alternant of the indefinite article with words exhibiting H Dropping,
as in an hair, an house (though Tollfree 1999 has noted ‘Intrusive r’ in such contexts).
Secondly, some LE speakers exhibit the same kind of hyper-correction as French speakers,
hypercorrecting words such as air to [heђ]. H Dropping is connected with the phenomenon of
Linking r: if H Dropping has occurred, the word in question begins with a vowel, and so
Linking r is possible, since LE is non-rhotic. An example is Me fathe [Ѣ] hoped to go, where
H Dropping in hoped leads to the /r/ of father being realised in the following onset position.
This also happens with Intrusive r, so that Ida Handel and Ida Randall may be homophonous.
2. The spread of features of LE in Britain
In the South East of England, features of LE have spread beyond the boroughs of the East
End, often resulting in a mix between LE and RP, known as Estuary English. More strikingly,
features of LE have been attested in the speech of working class adolescents in cities as
geographically diverse as Derby, Hull, Newcastle Upon Tyne and Glasgow. Work by Jane
Stuart-Smith and colleagues (2001) on the speech of working class adolescents in an inner
city estate in Glasgow checked for the following variables: (a) the presence or variable
absence of the contrasts between /f/ and /‫ׯ‬/ and between /v/ and /ᾩ/; (b) the presence or
variable absence of the contrast between /k/ vs /x/ (see Durand, this volume, for details of
Scottish English); (c) the presence or variable absence of the contrast between /w/ and /Ѫ/
(again, see Durand, this volume); (d) the occurrence of glottal stop intervocalically in footinternal position (a feature common to both LE and many Scottish varieties of English); (e)
vocalisation of /l/; (f) the possible emergence of non-rhoticity (see Pukli, this volume on nonrhoticity in younger Ayrshire speakers). They found that some Scottish variables are losing
ground to LE variables. For instance, there is diffusion of [f] for /‫ׯ‬/ and [v] for /ᾩ/, /l/
vocalisation and probable loss of the distinction between /k/ vs /x/ and the distinction between
/w/ and /Ѫ/. However, Stuart Smith and colleagues also found that local working class
features were increasingly being used. What is absent altogether is an influence from middle
class Glasgow speech.
3. Implications for sociolinguistics
Early work by Labov (1966) in modern urban sociolinguistics used a variety of field methods,
some of which are still in use on the PAC project (see Carr, Durand & Pukli this volume and
Durand & Pukli, this volume). In his work in New York City, Labov used word lists and
interviews. Labov also used random sampling in recruiting informants. Later work by Lesley
Milroy (1980) in Belfast abandoned random sampling in favour of an approach based on
social networks: her informants formed social networks of acquaintances. One of Milroy’s
hypotheses was that people who were geographically and socially mobile and who had weak
social links to a social network were likely to be innovators of change. One of the important
aspects of Stuart-Smith’s work in Glasgow is that it challenges this idea: the adolescents in
question are neither socially nor geographically mobile, an have strong links within their
social networks. Yet they are clearly the instigators of change.
Another issue here is whether television plays a role in accent change. It had traditionally
been believed that this was not the case, but Stuart-Smith’s Glasgow findings suggest that
television may be playing a role, since these adolescents do not appear to spend time in
London and are not, apparently, being exposed to LE speakers in their daily lives. The issue
remains open, but we can conclude one thing: the South East of England continues to be the
economically most powerful area of Britain, and features of South Eastern speech continue to
have a considerable influence on the speech of those living elsewhere in Britain.
REFERENCES
Carr, Philip (1999). English phonetics and phonology: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carr, Philip, Jacques Durand & Monika Pukli (this volume). The PAC project: principles and
methods.
Durand, Jacques (this volume). English in early 21st century Scotland: a phonological
perspective.
Durand, Jacques & Monika Pukli (this volume). How to construct a phonological corpus:
PRAAT and the PAC project.
Labov, William (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington,
D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Milroy, Lesley (1987). Language and social networks (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Pukli, Monika (this volume). Scottish English and the Scottish Vowel Length Rule – an
empirical study of Ayrshire Speakers.
Stuart-Smith, Jane (2001). Accent change in Glaswegian: a sociophonetic investigation. Final
report to the Leverhulme Trust.
http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/EngLang/research/accent/Report.htm
Tollfree, Laura (1999). South East London English: discrete versus continuous modelling of
consonantal reduction. In Docherty, G. & Foulkes, P. (Eds.) Urban Voices: accent
studies in the British Isles. London, Arnold: 163-184