Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T15:23:48.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Social meaning in archival interaction: a mixed-methods analysis of variation in rhoticity and past tense be in Oldham

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2022

HOLLY DANN
Affiliation:
Department of Languages, Information and Communication Manchester Metropolitan University 5.21, Grosvenor East, Cavendish St Manchester M15 6BG United Kingdom h.dann@mmu.ac.uk r.drummond@mmu.ac.uk
SADIE DURKACZ RYAN
Affiliation:
School of Education University of Glasgow St Andrew's Building 11 Eldon Street Glasgow G3 6NH United Kingdom sadie.ryan@glasgow.ac.uk
ROB DRUMMOND
Affiliation:
Department of Languages, Information and Communication Manchester Metropolitan University 5.21, Grosvenor East, Cavendish St Manchester M15 6BG United Kingdom h.dann@mmu.ac.uk r.drummond@mmu.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article uses a mixed-methods approach to investigate the indexical fields of two variables, one phonological (rhoticity) and one morphosyntactic (past tense be), in oral history interviews with speakers from Oldham (Greater Manchester, UK), born between 1907 and 1929. In a quantitative analysis of the variation, we account for a range of linguistic constraints, and find some evidence suggesting that rhoticity does not tend to cooccur with nonstandard past tense be. To investigate this further, we employ a modified version of the Lectal Focusing in Interaction method (Sharma & Rampton 2015; Sharma 2018), allowing us to track the speakers’ variation in interaction. Using this method, we explore the indexical fields of the variables, which we suggest are potentially in conflict, perhaps explaining the observed pattern of non-cooccurrence. Overall, our analysis demonstrates how the status of rhoticity and past tense be in relation to prescribed standard English, as well as shifting and stable variables, influences their indexical potential in interaction.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Demographic details of speaker sample

Figure 1

Figure 1. Boxplot showing normalised minimum F3 measurements for each speaker, coloured according to the auditory code

Figure 2

Figure 2. Chart showing the proportion of S vs NS tokens of was/were for each speaker according to grammatical subject type

Figure 3

Figure 3. Conditional inference trees of past tense be variation, with singular grammatical subjects on the left, and plural grammatical subjects on the right

Figure 4

Figure 4. Conditional inference tree of normalised minimum F3 in were/weren't

Figure 5

Figure 5. Time series plot showing changes in Arthur's normalised F3 minimum and variation in past tense be over the course of his interview, with moments of particular interest marked

Figure 6

Figure 6. Time series plot showing changes in George's normalised F3 minimum and variation in past tense be over the course of his interview, with moments of particular interest marked

Figure 7

Figure 7. Time series plot showing changes in Eugene's normalised F3 minimum and variation in past tense be over the course of his interview, with moments of particular interest marked

Figure 8

Figure 8. Proposed indexical field for rhoticity

Figure 9

Figure 9. Proposed indexical field for nonstandard past tense be

Figure 10

Figure 10. Proposed indexical fields for rhoticity and past tense be