Welcome to Regional and National Dialects of English
Hello and welcome! Whether you find linguistics fascinating or a bit overwhelming at times, these notes will guide you step-by-step through one of the most exciting areas of AQA A-Level English Language (7702): Regional and National Dialects.
This topic sits inside Paper 2 (Language Diversity and Change - 7702/2) under Section A: Diversity and Change. In the exam, Paper 2 lasts 2 hours and 30 minutes and accounts for \(40\%\) of your total A-Level (worth \(100\) marks total). In Section A, you will answer one evaluative discursive essay worth \(30\) marks testing your ability to analyze language concepts (AO1) and evaluate theories, studies, and attitudes (AO2).
Don't worry if all the linguistic terms feel like a new language right now. We will break down every single concept, feature, theorist, and case study into simple, bite-sized pieces with clear examples and memorable analogies.
1. The Core Building Blocks: Getting the Basics Right
Before exploring detailed studies, let's nail the fundamental terms. Mixing these up is one of the most common mistakes students make, so getting them clear right now gives you an instant advantage!
Accent vs. Dialect: What is the Difference?
Accent refers purely to pronunciation and the phonological features of spoken language. It tells us how a speaker sounds and indicates their regional or social background.
Analogy: Think of an accent like a musical instrument's tone or filter applied to sound.
Dialect refers to the distinctive lexis (words/vocabulary) and grammar (syntax and morphology) associated with a geographical area or social group.
Analogy: Think of dialect as the actual ingredients chosen to build a sentence.
Standard English and RP
Standard English (SE): This is the prestige, codifiable dialect of English used in formal education, law, government, and publishing. It is a dialect, not an accent. Standard English can be spoken in any regional accent (e.g., Geordie Standard English, Scouse Standard English, or Scottish Standard English).
Received Pronunciation (RP): This is a non-regional, socially defined accent historically associated with high socio-economic status, public school education, and institutional authority in the UK. While RP is frequently used alongside Standard English, RP is strictly an accent, whereas Standard English is a dialect.
Key Mapping and Change Concepts
Isogloss: A geographic boundary line drawn on a dialect map that marks the limit of where a specific linguistic feature (whether a sound, a word, or a grammatical structure) is used.
Dialect Levelling: A term highlighted by linguist Paul Kerswill describing the process where differences between regional dialects gradually decrease over time. Dialects become less distinct and more uniform across different regions.
Key Takeaway: Accent = sounds and pronunciation. Dialect = vocabulary and grammar. Standard English is a dialect; RP is an accent.
2. Regional Dialect Features: Phonology, Lexis, and Grammar
When analyzing regional variation in Section A, you need to support your evaluative arguments with precise linguistic evidence. Here are the core variables you should know:
Phonological Variables (Sounds & Pronunciation)
1. The BATH / TRAP Split:
Southern English varieties tend to use a long open back vowel \(/\text{ɑː}/\) in words such as bath, grass, and path. In contrast, Northern English varieties use a short front open vowel \([/\text{æ}/]\) or \([/\text{a}/]\) in these exact same words.
2. The FOOT / STRUT Split:
Southern varieties distinguish between the short rounded vowel \(/\text{ʊ}/\) in foot and the open-mid vowel \(/\text{ʌ}/\) in strut. Many Northern dialects do not have this split; both words share the same vowel sound \(/\text{ʊ}/\) (so strut rhymes with foot).
3. H-Dropping:
The omission of the initial voiceless glottal fricative \(/\text{h}/\) in words like house (pronounced 'ouse) or hospital (pronounced 'ospital). This feature is widely observed across non-standard urban UK accents.
4. Glottal Stopping:
Replacing the voiceless alveolar plosive \(/\text{t}/\) with a glottal stop sound, transcribed phonetically as [ʔ] (for example, saying bu[ʔ]er instead of butter or wa[ʔ]er instead of water).
5. TH-Fronting:
Replacing the dental fricatives \(/\text{θ}/\) and \(/\text{ð}/\) with labiodental fricatives \(/\text{f}/\) and \(/\text{v}/\) (e.g., pronouncing think as fink, or bother as bovver).
6. Rhoticity:
Pronouncing the post-vocalic \(/\text{r}/\) after a vowel in words like car, hard, and farm. Rhoticity is standard in Scottish English, General American, and traditional dialects of the South West and Lancashire, but is absent (non-rhotic) in standard modern Southern English and RP.
Lexical & Grammatical Variables (Words & Structure)
1. Regional Lexis: Distinctive vocabulary tied to specific areas. Examples include:
• bairn (meaning child) in Geordie (Newcastle) and Scots.
• scran (meaning food) in Liverpool and the North West.
• marra (meaning friend/mate) in Cumbria and the North East.
2. Unmarked Plurality: Dropping the plural inflectional suffix -s when a noun follows a number (e.g., "I walked five mile" or "That cost ten pound").
3. Multiple Negation: Using two or more grammatical negatives within a single clause (e.g., "I didn't do nothing" or "I haven't got none"). While condemned by prescriptive grammar rules, multiple negation is historically rooted and common in many non-standard regional dialects.
4. Non-Standard Subject-Verb Agreement & Pronouns: Variations in pronoun syntax and verb agreement, such as:
• Non-standard past tense verb forms: "They was walking down the road."
• Regional pronoun usage: "Give it us" (meaning give it to me).
• Non-standard reflexive pronouns: themselfs or hisself instead of themselves and himself.
Key Takeaway: Strong essays balance phonology (accents, glottal stops, vowel splits) with syntax and lexis (multiple negation, unmarked plurality, regional nouns).
3. Key Studies, Linguists, and Theories
To score high marks in AO2, you must evaluate how linguists explain regional variation, social identity, and attitudes. Here are the five must-know studies for this chapter:
1. Peter Trudgill (1974) — Norwich Study
What he investigated: Trudgill studied how the suffix -ing was pronounced in Norwich (specifically looking at the non-standard velar nasal variation \(/\text{ɪn}/\) vs. \(/\text{ɪŋ}/\), such as walkin' versus walking) across different social classes and genders.
Key Findings:
• Non-standard forms (-in') were consistently higher among lower socio-economic working-class speakers.
• Across all social classes, men used more non-standard forms than women.
• Women tended to over-report their use of standard forms (aiming for prestige), while men often over-reported their use of non-standard forms.
Crucial Concepts to Use in Essays:
• Overt Prestige: Status and respect attached to speaking the standard, socially dominant variety (Standard English/RP).
• Covert Prestige: Status, solidarity, and 'street credibility' gained within a peer group by using non-standard, regional dialect forms.
2. Paul Kerswill — Milton Keynes Study & Dialect Levelling (1996/2000s)
What he investigated: Kerswill studied linguistic variation in the "new town" of Milton Keynes, where families had moved from many different regions (especially London and the South East), creating a melting pot of accents.
Key Findings:
• Older generations maintained their original localized accents, but children and teenagers developed a new, shared accent that levelled out extreme regional markers.
• Social and geographical mobility, along with urbanisation, drives dialect levelling.
• Broad regional features (such as vowel fronting) spread rapidly across regions, while hyper-local dialect words decline.
Estuary English Connection: Kerswill also analyzed the spread of Estuary English (a term originally coined by David Rosewarne in 1984). Estuary English acts as a bridge or middle-ground accent between RP and Cockney, featuring glottal stops and th-fronting, and has spread widely across the South East and beyond.
3. Howard Giles — Matched-Guise Technique & Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)
The Matched-Guise Studies (1970s):
Giles had the same speaker read the identical text in different accents to evaluate listeners' unconscious social attitudes.
Findings:
• RP consistently scored highest on status, intelligence, ambition, and competence.
• Regional Accents (such as Northern varieties or Brummie) scored higher on traits related to solidarity: warmth, honesty, friendliness, and reliability.
Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) (1970s):
Giles demonstrated that speakers actively adapt their language depending on who they are speaking to:
• Convergence: Moving speech patterns closer to the listener (e.g., toning down a strong regional accent in a formal interview) to decrease social distance and build rapport.
• Divergence: Emphasizing linguistic differences (e.g., using stronger regional dialect features) to assert a distinct group identity or create social distance.
4. William Labov (1963) — Martha's Vineyard Study
What he investigated: Labov studied vowel pronunciation (specifically the centralisation of diphthongs \(/\text{au}/\) and \(/\text{ai}/\)) on Martha's Vineyard, an island off Massachusetts, comparing permanent islanders with summer tourists.
Key Findings:
• Permanent residents, especially local fishermen, exaggerated their centralized regional vowels.
• They did this unconsciously to establish a distinct local identity, express solidarity, and resist the cultural and economic intrusion of wealthy summer visitors.
Exam Application: Use Labov to prove that regional dialects do not just change randomly; they are active tools of identity, loyalty, and resistance against outside pressure.
5. Malcolm Petyt (1985) — Bradford Study
What he investigated: Petyt examined the rate of H-dropping across different socio-economic classes in Bradford, West Yorkshire.
Key Findings:
• Lower working-class speakers dropped their \(/\text{h}/\) in \(93\%\) of possible instances.
• Upper middle-class speakers dropped their \(/\text{h}/\) in only \(12\%\) of instances.
• Petyt demonstrated a clear social gradient: as speakers move up the social ladder or aspire to social mobility, they modify their regional phonology closer to standard prestige norms.
Key Takeaway: Use Giles to explain listener attitudes, Trudgill and Petyt to connect region with social class and gender, Kerswill to discuss levelling and modern change, and Labov to prove identity and resistance.
4. The Big Debate: Are Regional Dialects Dying Out?
A classic exam question will ask you to evaluate whether regional dialects are disappearing or whether they remain strong markers of identity. Here is how to structure both sides of the argument:
Arguments Supporting Dialect Levelling (Homogenisation)
1. Geographical & Social Mobility: Increased commuting, relocation for university and work, and suburban expansion (as demonstrated by Kerswill in Milton Keynes) break down isolated speech communities, smoothing out local dialect quirks.
2. Spread of Estuary English: As identified by Rosewarne and Kerswill, modified regional varieties are replacing traditional localized accents across the South and Midlands.
3. Mass Media & Technology: Constant exposure to standard or leveled speech varieties encourages convergence over broad geographic areas.
Arguments Against Levelling (Dialect Resilience & Innovation)
1. Covert Prestige & Identity: Dialect variation is a powerful badge of regional pride and belonging. As shown by Labov on Martha's Vineyard and Trudgill in Norwich, speakers consciously or subconsciously retain non-standard forms to assert loyalty to their community.
2. Bidialectal Flexibility: Modern speakers are often multidialectal/bidialectal. Through Giles's concept of convergence and divergence, people code-switch depending on the situation: using Standard English at work or school, and returning to deep regional dialect with friends and family.
3. New Regional Hybrid Varieties: Dialects are not simply vanishing; they are evolving. Dynamic new varieties such as Multicultural London English (MLE) demonstrate that urban dialects continually reinvent themselves through cultural diversity and youth interaction.
5. Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
Examiners frequently highlight repeating mistakes in Section A essays. Keep these tips in mind to protect your marks:
Mistake 1: Confusing Accent with Dialect
The Error: Writing an entire essay on regional "dialect" while only mentioning pronunciation features like glottal stops or \(/\text{h}/\)-dropping.
The Fix: Always include grammatical structures (e.g., multiple negation, unmarked plurality) and lexical items alongside accent features.
Mistake 2: The "Theory Dump"
The Error: Writing a biographical paragraph summarizing everything Giles or Trudgill ever did without linking it back to the exam prompt.
The Fix: Always follow the PEEL structure: make a Point about the question, provide linguistic Evidence/feature, Explain the study, and Link directly back to evaluating the statement.
Mistake 3: Prescriptivist Value Judgements
The Error: Describing regional grammar as "incorrect", "bad English", or "lazy pronunciation".
The Fix: Maintain a strictly descriptivist linguistic stance. Refer to features as non-standard, rule-governed, or socially marked, never "wrong" or "poor".
Mistake 4: Treating Dialects as Static or Monolithic
The Error: Assuming everyone from a specific city speaks exactly the same way at all times.
The Fix: Emphasize individual variation, social class differences (Petyt, Trudgill), and contextual code-switching (Giles).
6. Quick Exam Checklist
Before stepping into Paper 2 Section A, make sure you can:
• Clearly distinguish between Accent, Dialect, Standard English, and RP.
• Give named examples of phonological variables (e.g., BATH/TRAP split, glottal stops [ʔ], rhoticity).
• Give named examples of grammatical and lexical variables (e.g., unmarked plurality, multiple negation, scran, bairn).
• Evaluate Trudgill (Norwich), Kerswill (Milton Keynes & Levelling), Giles (Matched-Guise & CAT), Labov (Martha's Vineyard), and Petyt (Bradford).
• Formulate a balanced, descriptivist argument addressing both dialect levelling and regional resilience/identity.