Ethnicity + MLE Theorists

Kerswill 2007
Cheshire 2011
Drummond 2012
Sharma 2011

Age, region, geographical mobility, social network type, identity, gender, ethnic diversity and ethnic diversity of friendship group

5 point scale
1 = all same ethnicity as self
5 = up to 80% different ethnicity

Phonological, lexical and grammatical choices affected by ethnicity, social network and ethnic diversity of friendship group
Less integrated into society (isolated) = more standard forms
More integrated into mainstream society = more MLE

Grammaticalisation of *be like*
Loss of h-dropping
Backing of *goat* instead of fronting
Pronoun *youse*

+ 110 hours of interview data

- Demand characteristics due to interview
- Tape recorder present

Features of MLE
What age is MLE acquired?
Is MLE vernacularised (localised to specific place)?
When did MLE emerge and how?

Pps devided into Anglos and non-Anglos
Conducted interviews then transcribes answers

New quotatives: this is them/her/him/me
Increased gender differentiation with age = Anglo females used less MLE vowel sounds than males

40 Polish adults living in Manchester
Analysed pronunciation of 1677 -ing forms from conversations

Acquired same linguistic patterns of native speakers (more in')
Planning to return to Poland = ing and ingk (Polish pronunciation) more likely
Females used in' more than ing, suggested due to jobs (work in café so more contact with natives than warehouse job)

Investigated English of:
- 1st generation Punjabi-speaking Indians
- Children of immigrants
Self-recordings

Older group = more British features in some contexts but lots of style shifting
Younger group = little style shifting and London/Asian blend of features

Older group have to make bigger effort to fit in and style shift due to on-going contact with home