Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2020 / Identifications of Speaker Ethnicity in South-East England: Multicultural London English as a Divisible Perceptual Variety

Identifications of Speaker Ethnicity in South-East England: Multicultural London English as a Divisible Perceptual Variety

Paper · 2020 · Amanda Cole

Summary

The paper asks whether ordinary listeners can tell the ethnicity of young speakers from South-East England by voice alone. It also tests whether this perception fits production research claiming that minority youth in London share one new variety, Multicultural London English (MLE). Through the citizen-science platform LanguageARC, as part of the project "From Cockney to the Queen", ten volunteers (five in the US, five in South-East England) heard lexically identical recordings from a corpus of 227 speakers aged 18–33. They sorted each speaker into White British, Black British or Asian British. The author expected two things: Black and Asian British speakers would be confused with each other, and local listeners would outperform the Americans. Neither held. Listeners were correct 80.7% of the time, with no significant difference between the two listener groups. Black British Londoners were identified most reliably. The author concludes that MLE is perceptually split by ethnicity and that these cues reach beyond London. This matters for annotation projects that ask untrained people to label speakers' social identity.

Key points

  • Data were crowdsourced via LanguageARC, from 10 participants (5 US, 5 South-East England), using recordings of 227 speakers aged 18–33 from South-East England.
  • The stimuli were lexically identical, so judgements had to rest on how speakers sounded rather than what they said.
  • Overall accuracy across the three ethnic categories was 80.7%, and the US and UK listener groups did not differ significantly.
  • Black British speakers from London were recognised 96% of the time, suggesting a distinct perceptual category.
  • Black British and Asian British speakers from outside London were still identified well above chance, at 80% and 60%.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Holding the words constant across all recordings isolates the one factor being tested (pronunciation) from content cues, a clean way to probe what a judge really relies on.
  • I2. The study compares near and distant listener groups to test for a proximity effect, rather than assuming that local annotators are better.
  • I3. The paper separates how lay people categorise variation from how variation objectively exists, and treats the two as possibly diverging.
  • I4. Social categories are used because the community treats them as meaningful, while the author openly flags them as scientifically shaky.
  • I5. Accuracy is reported per subgroup against chance level, not only as one overall number, which reveals where the categories are really separable.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (learn): Build negative-control sets where the lexical content is fixed and only one property varies, then check whether a parser or reader's decisions shift for the right reason.
  • I2 (learn): When silver labels come from several witness parsers or LLM teacher tiers, measure whether "closer" sources actually agree with gold better instead of weighting them by assumption.
  • I3 (world): Store a speaker's or narrator's perceived classification of an entity as a belief attached to that person, kept apart from the world-level fact.
  • I4 (world): Ontology entries drawn from public or official usage (e.g. Wikidata classes) could carry a marker that they are emic conventions, so reasoning does not treat them as natural kinds.
  • I5 (answer): Report school-test and QA results broken down by question type against a trivial baseline, so strong averages cannot hide weak categories.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of EssexColchester · United Kingdom34 works · 3,537 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 worksPsychology · 1,552 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 870 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,263 works

Cite

Cite as Amanda Cole. 2020. Identifications of Speaker Ethnicity in South-East England: Multicultural London English as a Divisible Perceptual Variety. Proceedings of the LREC 2020 Workshop on “Citizen Linguistics in Language Resource Development”.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{cole2020identifications,
  title = {{Identifications of Speaker Ethnicity in South-East England: Multicultural London English as a Divisible Perceptual Variety}},
  author = {Amanda Cole},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the LREC 2020 Workshop on “Citizen Linguistics in Language Resource Development”},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/2020.cllrd-1.7/}
}

References

47 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Bates, D. Maechler, M. Bolker, B. and Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1):1-48. ↗
  2. Becker, K. (2014). Linguistic repertoire and ethnic identity in New York City. In L. Hall-Lew and M. Yaeger-Dror (Eds.) New Perspectives on Linguistic Variation and Ethnic Identity in North America. Special issue of Language and Communication 35:43-54. ↗
  3. Biressi, A. and Nunn, H. (2013). Essex: Class, Aspiration and Social Mobility. In A. Biressi & H. Nunn (Eds.), Class and Contemporary British Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 23-43. ↗
  4. Butler, T. and Hamnett, C. (2011). Ethnicity, class and aspiration: understanding London's new East End. Policy Press. ↗
  5. Carrie, E. and McKenzie, R. M. (2018). American or British? L2 speakers’ recognition and evaluations of accent features in English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(4):313-328. find
  6. Cheshire, J., Fox, S., Kerswill, P. and Torgersen, E. (2008). Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: linguistic innovation in London. Sociolinguistica, 22(1):1–23. ↗
  7. Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S. and Torgersen, E., (2011). Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: the emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2):151–196. ↗
  8. Cieri, C., Fiumara, J., Liberman, M., Callison-Burch, C., and Wright, J. (2018). Introducing NIEUW: Novel Incentives and Workflows for Eliciting Linguistic Data Proceedings of the 11th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2018). Pages 151-155, Miyazaki, May 7-12. find
  9. Cieri, C., Write, J., Fiumara, J., Shelmire, A. and Liberman, M. (2019). LanguageARC: Using Citizen Science to Augment Sociolinguistic Data Collection and Coding NWAV48: New Ways of Analyzing Variation Eugene, October 10-12. find
  10. Clopper, C. G. and Pisoni, D. B. (2007). Free classification of regional dialects of American English. Journal of phonetics, 35(3):421-438. ↗
  11. Clyne, M. (2000). Lingua franca and ethnolects in Europe and beyond. Sociolinguistica, 14(1):83–89. ↗
  12. Cohen, P. (2013). On the Wrong Side of the Track? East London and the Post Olympics. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Cole, A. Under Review. Perceived linguistic variation by class, ethnicity and geography in Southeast England: the digitalisation of the perceptual dialectology paradigm. Cole, A. and Evans, B. (In Revision). Phonetic variation and change in the Cockney Diaspora: the role of place, gender and identity Cole, A. and Strycharczuk, P. (2019). The PRICE-MOUTH crossover in the ‘Cockney diaspora’. In S.Calhoun, P. Escudero, M.Tabain & P.Warren (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), pages 602-606, Melbourne, Australia 2019. find
  13. Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. Teachers college press. find
  14. Eckert, P. (2008a). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics, 12(4):453-476. find
  15. Eckert, P. (2008b). Where do ethnolects stop?. International Journal of Bilingualism, 12(1-2):25-42. ↗
  16. Eckert, P. and Labov, W. (2017). Phonetics, phonology and social meaning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(4):467-496. ↗
  17. Fox, S. (2015). The new Cockney: New ethnicities and adolescent speech in the traditional East End of London. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. find
  18. Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational review, 22(3):211-227. ↗
  19. Hall-Lew, L. and Yaeger-Dror, M. (2014). New perspectives on linguistic variation and ethnic identity in North America. Language & Communication, 35:1-8. ↗
  20. Kendall, T. and Fridland, V. (2010). Mapping production and perception in regional vowel shifts. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16(2):101:112 find
  21. Kerswill, P. Torgersen, E. and Fox, S. (2008). Reversing “drift”: Innovation and Diffusion in the London Diphthong System. Language Variation and Change. 20(3):451–491. ↗
  22. Kerswill, P. and Torgersen, E. (2017). London’s Cockney in the twentieth century: Stability or cycles of contact-driven change? In R.Hickey (Ed.), Listening to the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.85-113 ↗
  23. Kircher, R. and Fox, S. (2019). Multicultural London English and its speakers: a corpus-informed discourse study of standard language ideology and social stereotypes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-19. ↗
  24. Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2(2):205-254 ↗
  25. Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Blackwell. find
  26. Leach, H., Watson, K. and Gnevsheva, K. (2016). Perceptual dialectology in northern England: Accent recognition, geographical proximity and cultural prominence. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(2):192-211. ↗
  27. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. (2014). The Becontree Estate Information Sheet. find
  28. McKenzie, R. M. (2015). The sociolinguistics of variety identification and categorisation: Free classification of varieties of spoken English amongst non-linguist listeners. Language Awareness, 24(2):150-168. ↗
  29. Milroy, L. (2001). Britain and the United States: Two nations divided by the same language (and different language ideologies). Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 10(1):56-89. ↗
  30. Montgomery, C. (2012). The effect of proximity in perceptual dialectology. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(5):638-668. ↗
  31. Montgomery, C. and Beal, J. (2011). Perceptual Dialectology. Cambridge University Press. find
  32. Mott, B. L. (2012). Traditional Cockney and popular London speech. Dialectologia, 9:69-94. find
  33. Office for National Statistics. (2011). find
  34. Preston, D. (1989). Perceptual Dialectology. Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics. Foris, Dordrecht, Providence. find
  35. Preston, D. (2010). Language, people, salience, space: perceptual dialectology and language regard. Dialectologia, (5):87-131. find
  36. Rosewarne, D. (1994). Estuary English: tomorrow's RP?. English today, 10(1):3-8. ↗
  37. Shaw, J. A., Best, C. T., Docherty, G. J., Evans, B. G., Foulkes, P., Hay, J. and Mulak, K. (2018). Resilience of English vowel perception across regional accent variation. Laboratory Phonology, 9(1):1-36 ↗
  38. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3-4):193-229. find
  39. Todd, R. (2011a). Identifications of speaker-ethnicity: Attribution accuracy in changeable settings. In Fourth ISCA Workshop on Experimental Linguistics. pp.135-138. ↗
  40. Todd, R., (2011b). Ethnic Group Attribution: Is Our Reliability Constrained by Time Spent with Others? In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), pages 1998-2001, Hong Kong 2011. find
  41. Watt, P. Millington, G. and Huq, R. (2014). East London Mobilities: The ‘Cockney Diaspora’ and the Remaking of the Essex Ethnoscape. In P.Watt & P.Smets, (Eds.) Mobilities and Neighbourhood Belonging in Cities and Suburbs, Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 121-144. find
  42. Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  43. Wells, J. C. (1992). Estuary English?!?. BAAP Colloquium, Cambridge. find
  44. Wells, J. C. (1997). What is Estuary English. English Teaching Professional, 3:46-47. find
  45. Wolck, W. (2002). Ethnolects – between bilingualism and urban dialect. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.) Opportunities and Challenges of Bilingualism. Pages 157-170, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. ↗
  46. Woolard, K. A. (2008). Why dat now?: Linguistic‐ anthropological contributions to the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4):432-452. find
  47. Young, M. and Willmott, P. (1957) Family and Kinship in East London. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/cole-2020-identifications-speaker-ethnicity-south-east/