https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8437-7371
![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The study presented here is the first empirical investigation of attitudes towards Multicultural London English (MLE), the multiethnolect spoken in England’s main metropolis. An online questionnaire was used to gather data from 800 participants, including MLE speakers as well as non-MLE speakers from a wide variety of different backgrounds. The results indicate that the traditional dichotomy of status and solidarity as distinct evaluative dimensions does not manifest in attitudes towards MLE. We discuss the implications this would have for attitude theory, provided that this finding holds true for other multiethnolects.
The results also indicate that overall, attitudes towards MLE are affected by (1) individuals’ own variety of English, (2) their mother tongue(s), (3) their level of education, and (4) the frequency of their contact with MLE speakers. We interpret the effect of these variables to be due to (1) ingroup loyalty, (2) familiarity with social stereotypes, (3) enhanced reasoning skills, and (4) the reduction of stereotypes through intergroup contact. We discuss the implications these findings – should they generalise to the London population at large – would have for the development of effective language planning measures to promote social equality for multiethnolect speakers.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Leigh Oakes, Krista Byers-Heinlein, Yael Peled, and two anonymous JMMD reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on this research project and earlier versions of this manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. It should be noted that the term multiethnolect is not unproblematic. Some researchers prefer other labels, such as contemporary urban vernacular (see e.g. Rampton Citation2011). We are using the term multiethniolect here with due caution, in line with other researchers who have investigated Multicultural London English (see e.g. Cheshire et al. Citation2011; Kerswill Citation2014; Cheshire, Nortier, and Adger Citation2015; Cheshire, Hall, and Adger Citation2017).
2. There is some debate as to whether Multicultural Paris French (see e.g. Secova Citation2017) can also be conceptualised in the same way as other multiethnolects.
3. Similar associations persist regarding urban vernaculars elsewhere (see e.g. Doran Citation2007; Nortier and Dorleijn Citation2008; Quist Citation2008).
4. Again, this is not restricted to MLE, and instances of urban vernaculars being banned or discouraged can also be found elsewhere (see e.g. The Guardian, June 23, 2006; The Telegraph, July 19, 2008; The Express and Star, November 15, 2013).
5. The only other studies of attitudes towards multiethnolects that we know of are Bijvoet and Fraurud’s (Citation2010) research in Stockholm and Hyttel-Sørensen’s (Citation2011) work in Copenhagen. However, the former looks at issues such as variety labeling and localisation, while the latter investigates the effects of gender and grade (among school children). Neither focuses on the social consequences of attitudes.
6. This is no different from the code-switching that commonly occurs among speakers of traditional regional varieties when they find themselves in contexts that require use of the standard (see e.g. Labov Citation1966; Trudgill Citation1974).
7. Regrettably, the authors do not elaborate on this point other than noting that ‘[a]wareness of linguistic diversity and avoidance of unconscious discrimination on the basis of language is as important for social equality as awareness of the potential effects of gender, race, disability, religion or sexual orientation’ (Cheshire, Hall, and Adger Citation2017, 7).
8. As noted above, while known by many, the label Jafaican encapsulates the lay perception that this variety is spoken only by a particular ethnic group – which is incorrect. Moreover, it reflects the perceived inauthenticity of the variety and thus holds negative connotations. For these reasons, we felt that it would have been inappropriate to use this term in our questionnaire.
9. Furthermore, the differential salience of these feature types allows for conclusions to be drawn regarding the future spread of MLE (Fox and Kircher, CitationIn preparation).
10. In addition to the quantitative data elicited by means of these closed questions, open-ended questions were used to yield qualitative data. While discussing these here would go beyond the scope of this paper, they also support the overall findings outlined below (Kircher and Fox, CitationIn preparation).
11. Opinions vary regarding the point at which loadings become important to a factor, but many accept Comrey’s (Citation1973) notion that anything above .44 can be considered salient (see e.g. Acton et al. Citation2009). We thus decided to use .44 as a cut-off point as well.
12. Even if it were desirable to consider these two items jointly, this would not have been appropriate since they do not have good internal consistency (α = .497).
13. In a subsequent open-ended question, the participants were asked to indicate what peer groups they were referring to in their rating, and their answers were: friendship groups, peers at educational institutions, young people, people in their local area, family, people with shared origin and background, sports teammates, work colleagues, people on social media, their socio-economic group, and gangs.
14. In their development of Intergroup Contact Theory, Stephan and Stephan (Citation2000) posit that the nature and quality of contact play a key role in the determination of attitudes. To find out if this was the case for the present study, we ran a factor analysis for the different types of relationships our participants had with MLE speakers (see above). There were no significant differences between the different types of contacts and how they affected attitudes, and no meaningful patterns emerged. Further research is necessary to establish whether this holds true, and – if so – what the underlying reason for this might be.