6.1 Introduction
The terms ‘Scots’ and ‘Scottish Standard English’ encompass a wide spectrum of varieties, from Broad Scots at one end and Scottish Standard English (SSE) – often thought of as Standard (or near Standard) English with a Scottish accent (Scobbie, Hewlett and Turk Reference Scobbie, Hewlett, Turk, Foulkes and Docherty1999) – at the other. This range of linguistic varieties and contextually determined styles is often described in terms of a bipolar sociolinguistic continuum (e.g. Aitken Reference Aitken, Aitken and Arthur1979, Reference Aitken and Trudgill1984a), though locating clearly defined boundaries between Scots and SSE (and even Anglo-English) in spoken language is often not straightforward. Many in Scotland have access to a number of varieties in their linguistic repertoire, allowing them to switch or drift up and down the continuum depending on context of use (Aitken Reference Aitken and Trudgill1984a; Rawsthorne Reference Rawsthorne2016; Smith and Holmes-Elliott Reference Smith, Holmes-Elliott, Christensen and Juel Jensen2022). Thus, a speaker may move from pervasive use of a Broad Scots feature in conversation with friends to much less use of definably Scots forms alongside more SSE features in more formal contexts. We also need to appreciate the extent to which Scots and SSE, and even the continuum itself, function as convenient, abstract and overly simplified constructs which enable analysis, but which may also obscure the fluid and ‘multidimensional sociolinguistic variation space’ which many Scottish speakers exploit and inhabit in their daily lives (Maguire Reference Maguire and Hickey2013:55).
The Scots–SSE linguistic continuum requires further specification in terms of geographical and social dimensions, which in turn rest on Scotland’s history. Macafee and Aitken (Reference Macafee and Aitken2002) present a detailed survey of the history of the ‘Older Scots’ period (from 1100 to 1700; see also Corbett, McClure and Stuart-Smith Reference Corbett, McClure, Stuart-Smith, Corbett, McClure and Stuart-Smith2003), during which Scots developed into a socially and politically high-status language. The decline of written Scots from the formal sphere to specific genres of comedy and satire was accelerated by key religious, social and political events, each pulling southern Standard English north: the Reformation (1560) with the English printed bible (1560), the movement of the Scottish court to London by James VI of Scotland/I of England, leading to a bilingual king and court, and the Act of Union of the Scottish and English parliaments in 1707. The ‘Modern Scots’ period (post 1700) saw an alternation between a form of Broad Scots and English in specific literary genres, through eighteenth-century middle-class writers like Burns and Ramsay, and the twentieth-century Lallans (‘lowlands’) revival (e.g. The Corpus of Modern Scots Writing: www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/cmsw/). Current works by Douglas Stuart and Chris McQueer amongst others show a significant renaissance in the use of a very ‘dense’ form of written Scots representing urban spoken vernaculars (see, for example, Gilmour’s 21st Century Scots Texts: https://chrisgilmour.substack.com/p/comparisons-of-englishishness-between). Social media has also expanded the domains for written Scots (e.g. Jamieson and Ryan Reference Jamieson and Ryan2019), with Scots forms such as didnae, aye, dug, fitba, weans, hame now commonplace across social media platforms (e.g. Shoemark et al. Reference Shoemark, Debnil, Shrimpton, Murray and Goldwater2017).
While written Scots has shown an uneven history, despite the rise of SSE as the ‘courtly’ variety and the ‘key to successful self-aggrandisement’ (McMahon Reference McMahon2000:142), spoken Scots has been more resilient, continuing in the rural Lowland Scots dialect areas identified by the Scottish National Dictionary, namely Southern/Border Scots, Northern Scots, and Insular Scots, which all retain substantial dialect diversity. Each area reflects its unique history in phonology, grammar, lexis and discourse features. For example, the distinct forms in Insular Scots spoken in the Orkney and Shetland Isles arose from contact with the Scandinavian language of Norn (see Smith and Durham, this volume), while the highly differentiated variety of Scots spoken in Aberdeen and the north-east (the ‘Doric’) is largely not the result of contact, but of long socio-cultural isolation (e.g. Smith Reference Smith2001b). In contrast, the spread of the English language in the Highlands and Western Isles is relatively new. Alongside a number of Gaelic/English calques and ‘Hebridean’ phonetic features (Clayton Reference Clayton2017; Shuken Reference Shuken and Trudgill1984), more recent work shows use of Scots morphosyntactic forms in this area traditionally not considered to be Scots-speaking (https://speakforyersel.ac.uk).
Central Scots, spoken in the urbanised Central Belt, between Glasgow on the west and Edinburgh to the east, is thriving. This variety also experienced language and dialect contact as waves of migrants from the Highland Clearances, and later Ireland, moved to work in the flourishing industries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Macafee Reference Macafee1994, Reference Macafee and Jones1997). However, contemporary Urban Scots arguably owes as much, if not more, to the social pressures of industrialisation, since Central Scots speakers found themselves and their dialect occupying the ‘lower’ – working-class – end of a new class-based spectrum, for which language, alongside wealth, education and occupation, acted as an important vehicle. Specifically, the upper- and emerging middle-classes enthusiastically established and embraced their own written, but especially spoken, version of SSE for use in polite society over Scots, which linguistically presents an intriguing ‘compromise system between London and localised Scots norms’ (Johnston Reference Johnston and Britain2007:108–9; Corbett and Stuart-Smith Reference Corbett, Stuart-Smith and Hickey2012; Douglas Reference Douglas2009; Schützler Reference Schützler2015).
By the turn of the twentieth century, the poles of the spoken Scots–SSE continuum had developed the current range of strongly enregistered social meanings encoding ideologies of prestige and solidarity (e.g. Grant Reference Grant1913; McAllister Reference McAllister1938; Macaulay Reference Macaulay1977; Menzies Reference Menzies1991; Lawson Reference Lawson2014b). At the Scots end, distinctions are drawn between the ‘good’ Scots of traditional rural dialects and ‘bad’ Urban Scots, though rural dialects may also hold less prestigious associations of, for example, the unsophisticated farmer. On another dimension, social forces polarise ‘degenerate’ yet covertly cherished and admired Urban Scots (or ‘slang’) from ‘correct’, overtly prestigious, yet ‘posh’ and ‘pretentious’, SSE. And since World War II, and especially alongside the movements leading to political devolution and the revived Scottish Parliament in the late twentieth century, SSE has adjusted its relationship with southern English (Johnston Reference Johnston and Britain2007). Middle-class speakers are shifting SSE away from RP-like norms, instead becoming more overtly Scottish with occasional ‘emblematic’ use of Scots forms (Douglas Reference Douglas2009:45), whilst also ensuring strong linguistic divergence from Urban Scots (Johnston Reference Johnston and Gorlach1985; Stuart-Smith, Timmins and Tweedie Reference Stuart-Smith, José, Rathcke, Macdonald, Lawson, Montgomery and Moore2007).
The social history of Scotland implies that many more people speak Scots than SSE, though the 1872 Education Act meant that everyone in the country became exposed to SSE; most have receptive competence, and many can move partly or wholly into SSE as the context requires. Assuming that location and social indicators offer a rough guide, a large proportion of the 71 per cent of people living in ‘(larger) urban areas’ from Scotland’s now estimated 5.4 million population (National Records of Scotland 2014), probably also speak Scots to some degree in some or many domains; and many in rural areas will do, too. Seventy-five per cent of the 2011 Scottish Census respondents were assigned to occupation categories 3–9, consistent with lower-middle and working class, pointing in the same direction. Ascertaining Scots competence by self-report is difficult given the lack of accepted division between Scots and SSE in official discourse and public understanding, which probably arises from the blurred complexity of overlapping stylistic variability in everyday language use. Allowing people to respond to a more nuanced statement, ‘I probably do use Scots, but am not really aware of it’, elicited agreement from 67 per cent of respondents to a 2009 Scottish Government survey, and probably gives a closer approximation. Nevertheless, the first ever Scots language questions in the 2011 Census led 30 per cent of respondents to report some knowledge of Scots. As Sebba (Reference Sebba2019) points out, the questions themselves were likely an important step in (re‑)legitimising the social status of Scots.
More generally, Scots has seen promotion from top-down and bottom-up levels. The Scottish Government’s Scots Language Policy (www.gov.scot/publications/scots-language-policy-english/), launched in 2015, sets out to ‘promote and support Scots and encourage its respect and recognition in order that what for many is the language of the home can be used in other areas of Scottish life’ (i.e. to support the expansion of Scots to regain domains beyond vernacular speech and niche literature). It is thus not surprising to find that the focus of the Scots Language Policy encourages Scots in the classroom, including The Scots Language Award (www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/70056.html), which ‘provides opportunities for learners to study the history and development of the Scots language’ and helps ‘learners develop their ability to understand Scots and communicate in the Scots language’. However, the award remains optional, and take-up is somewhat patchy. There are also several publicly available resources, including the new digital resource Speak for Yersel (https://speakforyersel.ac.uk), which dynamically maps Scots forms – and social attitudes towards them – across Scotland.
Alongside top-down, government planning, non-governmental organisations also seek to promote Scots. For example, Oor Vyce (www.oorvyce.scot/) campaigns for the legal recognition of the Scots language, while Len Pennie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Pennie) promotes Scots through YouTube and TikTok. The increase in such activism reflects and promotes increasing discussion of Scots in the twenty-first century, which may in turn impact attitudes towards Scots. SSE accents have always been rated highly by other speakers (Coupland and Bishop Reference Coupland and Bishop2007), though not always within Scotland itself, and especially not (urban) Scots (e.g. Macaulay Reference Macaulay1977; though see Leslie Reference Leslie2020).
Scotland’s linguistic landscape also includes the country’s minority ethnic, multilingual communities (for Scottish Gaelic, see Nance, this volume). The 2011 Census estimated around 4 per cent of Scotland were from minority ethnic groups (National Records of Scotland 2014). Three per cent reported themselves as being ‘Asian’, ‘Asian Scottish’ or ‘Asian British’, belonging to mainly Muslim and Sikh faith communities established since the 1950s, with Punjabi and Urdu as home languages (0.9%). Just over 1 per cent recorded themselves as ‘White: Polish’, and a similar proportion said they spoke Polish at home, making the more recently arrived Polish community the most commonly spoken language group after English, Scots and Gaelic. The next largest language groupings were 0.3 per cent and 0.2 per cent for Chinese languages and British Sign Language respectively.
This linguistic diversity is mainly concentrated in urban areas, and especially Glasgow and Edinburgh (National Records of Scotland 2014), and contributes yet another – ethnic – dimension to the Scots–SSE ‘continuum’. ‘Glaswasian’ is the variety of Scots–SSE spoken by Glaswegians of South Asian heritage (Alam Reference Alam2015; Lambert, Alam and Stuart-Smith Reference Lambert, Alam and Stuart-Smith2007). Like other varieties of British Asian English (see Sharma, this volume), Glaswasian shows phonological variants with their roots in L1 transfer features (mainly Punjabi, Urdu and Hindi), but with subtle phonetic alterations and integration into Glaswegian phonology. Whilst Glaswasian sociophonetic variation can index inter-ethnic, ‘Asian’ vs. ‘non-Asian’, identities in the city, there is also systematic intra-ethnic differentiation in the speech of Glaswasians according to cultural, social and religious practices (Stuart-Smith, Timmins and Alam Reference Stuart-Smith, Timmins, Alam, Gregersen, Parrott and Quist2011; Alam and Stuart-Smith Reference Alam, Stuart-Smith, Hundt and Sharma2014). Scottish-Polish speakers also show distinctive phonological patterning in both Edinburgh (Meyerhoff and Schleef Reference Meyerhoff, Schleef and Lawson2014) and Glasgow (Ryan Reference Ryan2021).
In what follows, we provide an overview of the phonology and morphosyntax of Scots. For discussion of lexis, see Macafee (Reference Macafee1994), Millar, Barras and Bonnici (Reference Millar, Barras and Bonnici2014) and, most recently, Speak for Yersel (https://speakforyersel.ac.uk), which provides a comprehensive overview of lexical choice across Scotland.
6.2 Phonology
6.2.1 Overview
Anyone hearing English in Scotland is presented with a range of accents which vary by location and social context. In peripheral areas, such as the Borders, the North East and the Northern Isles, it is usual to find strongly divergent accents, Broad Scots spoken by speakers of all ages and backgrounds, and SSE, with some speakers only really having command over one or the other. This polarised accent situation also occurs in some working-class Central Belt communities between those who use highly consistent Broad Urban Scots phonology (Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith, Corbett, McClure and Stuart-Smith2003) and educated, mainly professional, middle-class groups favouring more or less exclusively the accepted, ‘proper’, SSE accent (Abercrombie Reference Abercrombie, Aitken and McArthur1979; Johnston Reference Johnston and Gorlach1985). But within and between the large Edinburgh and Glaswegian conurbations, there are also very many, especially in upper-working and lower-middle-class areas, whose relative command of Scots and SSE phonology is overlapping and variable in daily use. Understanding Scottish English phonology is made easier by becoming comfortable with the notion of Scottish speech as a locus of similarity and difference at the same time (Maguire Reference Maguire and Hickey2013).
Standing back, the overall impression is that these accents are similarly ‘Scottish’, and this is because all share common phonological characteristics which bind them together and contrast them with other English accents. These include: a largely shared segmental inventory, rhoticity of some kind, a high degree of overlap in lexical selection, including one vowel phoneme (cat, boot, cot) where others show two, largely monophthongal face and goat vowels and, most distinctively, operation of the phonologically and morphologically induced durational patterns known as the Scottish Vowel Length Rule. According to this – largely synchronic – perspective, SSE can be considered as the outer rim of concentric spheres about a core of increasingly Scots accents.
At the same time, focusing in on any point immediately reveals systematic differences in terms of pockets of lexical incidence, interconnected prosody and patterns of segmental realisation, constituting urban/rural Scots and (regional) SSE accents, each carrying associations of identity, place and social class, especially in the Central Belt, and each continuing recognisably different historical developments. This more diachronic perspective accentuates a bipolar accent continuum (Aitken Reference Aitken and Trudgill1984b; Johnston Reference Johnston and Britain2007), effectively made up of overlapping spheres, with Scots larger in speaker numbers, accent diversity and time-depth, and SSE smaller, relatively less diverse and shallower. For purposes of accent description, the phonological constructs of Scots and SSE serve as useful abstractions.
Another key related phonological dimension is linguistically how accent can be ‘carried’. As for any traditional dialect (Wells Reference Wells1982), Broad Scots words and grammar must be pronounced with Scots phonology, whereas Standard English forms can show Scots or SSE phonology. This means that an impression of ‘broad’ Scots can be achieved in two ways: through a higher proportion of Scots lexis and grammar with remaining forms produced with Scots phonology (‘denser’ Scots), mainly but not exclusively found in rural areas; or less Scots forms and more Standard English forms, but all produced with Broad Scots phonology, typical of Central Lowland communities.
Our brief outline concentrates on Urban Scots in this latter situation, partly because we know most about it from sociophonetic research (e.g. Macafee Reference Macafee1994, Reference Macafee and Jones1997; Macaulay Reference Macaulay1977; Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith, Corbett, McClure and Stuart-Smith2003; Schützler Reference Schützler2015; Stuart-Smith et al. Reference Stuart-Smith, Lawson and Hickey2017), and because – alongside, and in variable use with SSE features – this kind of accent is typical of most Scottish English speakers. As we will show, the largely common ‘Scottish’ phonological core is cloaked by systematically divergent, yet intersecting, layers of Scots and SSE phonological variation (cf. Aitken Reference Aitken and Trudgill1984b:519f.; Aitken Reference Aitken and Trudgill1984a:94f.). We also draw on recent analysis of approximately 1,100 speakers from the eleven Scottish corpora from the Speech Across Dialects of English (SPADE) (https://spade.glasgow.ac.uk/); for more detail on regional Scots phonology, see Johnston (Reference Johnston and Jones1997, Reference Johnston and Britain2007).
6.2.2 Vowels
Scots and SSE share the following vowels: /i ɪ e ɛ a o ɔ ʉ ʌ ɔi ae oe ʌʉ/. Table 6.1 shows how the vowels are lexically distributed for Scots (column 1) with broad phonetic realisations for Urban/Central, Southern and Northern Scots (columns 2–4), and broad phonetic realisations with lexical equivalents for SSE (columns 5 and 6). Comparison of Urban/Central with Southern and Northern Scots (columns 2–4) shows some of the dialectal diversity within Scots. Comparison of Urban/Central Scots and SSE vowel qualities (columns 2 and 5) illustrates how the ‘same’ vowel phonemes with similar lexical incidence show systematically different phonetic qualities across the Scottish English continuum. Table 6.1 also indicates some common lexically specified alternations for Urban/Central Scots (e.g. out with /ʉ/ or /ʌʉ/ for oot/out, hoose/house), though again, the quality of /ʌʉ/ is phonetically different in Scots and SSE (Eremeeva and Stuart-Smith Reference Eremeeva and Stuart-Smith2003). The salience of these socially stigmatised, alternating forms probably arises because they are vigorously maintained by younger working-class adolescents and because they are so lexically infrequent, which then increases their prominence. out is the most common alternating set, but Macafee showed that this only occurs to any extent in seven different words, and overall the number of possible tokens for the alternation comprised less than 2 per cent of her whole corpus (Macafee Reference Macafee1994; Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith, Corbett, McClure and Stuart-Smith2003, also for more alternations, e.g. heid/head, aff/off, etc.).
Table 6.1 Main lexical incidence and broad phonetic realisations for vowels in regional Scots and SSE (after Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith, Kortmann, Upton and Schneider2008; for details of variants, see Johnston Reference Johnston and Jones1997)
| Lexical sets (Johnston Reference Johnston and Jones1997) | Urban & Central Scots | Southern Scots | Northern Scots | Scottish Standard English | Lexical sets (after Wells Reference Wells1982) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| meet | i | i | i, ɪi | i | fleece |
| tree | i | i, ɛi | i, ɪi | i | fleece |
| beat | i | i | e, ɛi, i | i | fleece |
| mate | e | e | e, i | e | face |
| bait | e | ɪə, e | e | e | face |
| bit | ɛ̈ ~ ʌ̈ ~ ë ~ ɪ | ɛ̈ | ɛ̈, ɪ, ɜ | ɪ ~ ë, ɛ̈ | kit/never |
| bet | ɛ̝ | æ, a | e ~ ɛ | e, ɛ̈ | dress/never |
| cat | a, ɑ, ɒ | ɒ, ɑ, a | ɑ, ɒ, ɔ, a | a, ɑ | trap/bath/palm |
| cut | ʌ̈ | ʌ | ʌ, ɐ, ɜ, ɔ | ʌ | strut |
| caught | ɔ | ɑ, ɒ, ɔ | ɑ, ɒ, ɔ, a | ɔ̞ | thought |
| cot | o ↔ ɔ | o | ɔ, o | ɔ̞ | lot |
| coat | o | o, uə | o, ou | o | goat |
| boot | ɛ̈ ↔ ʉ | ɛ̈, ø | i, e | ʉ | goose/foot |
| do | e ↔ ʉ | e | i:, ɪi, e: | ʉ | goose/foot |
| out | ʉ ↔ ʌʉ | ʌʉ | u, ü, ʉ | ʌʉ | mouth |
| cow | ʉ ↔ ʌʉ | ʌʉ, u | ʊu, u | ʌʉ | mouth |
| new | jʉ | jʉ, iu, iʉ | jʉ, ju | jʉ | new |
| dew | jʉ | jʉ | ju | jʉ | dew |
| pay | əi ↔ e | əi, ɛ̈i | ʌi, ɛi, əi | e | face |
| bite | əi, ɛ̈i | əi, ɛi | ʌi, ɛi, əi | ʌi | price |
| try | ae | ae, ɐe | ɑe, ae ~ ɐe | ae | prize |
| loin | əi ↔ oe, ɛ̈i | oe | ʌi, ɛi, əi | oe | choice |
| voice | oe | oe | ʌi, ɛi, əi, oe, i | oe | choice |
| loup ‘jump’ | ʌʉ, əʉ, ʌu | əʉ | ɛʏ, əu, əʉ | ʌʉ | mouth |
Vowels separated by commas indicate different variants in some words, ~ indicates commonly observed phonetic variation, ↔ indicates lexically specified alternation.
Figure 6.1a shows the ‘loveheart’ pattern of Scottish acoustic vowel quality, which results from close, front fleece, the balanced mean qualities of close face and goat, and dress and cot, boot clearly grouped with the front vowels, retracted kit, centralised strut, and the single central low cat vowel. Figure 6.1b shows the onset qualities of the diphthongs, choice aligning with cot, mouth more central than price, and much more open prize. Figure 6.2 breaks down Scottish acoustic vowel quality by geographical and social background (not including minority ethnolects), revealing cross-accent variability for all monophthongs.
Figure 6.1 Lobanov-normalised acoustic quality by lexical keywords for (a) monophthongs (799,845 tokens from 1,159 speakers), and (b) diphthong onsets with fleece, cat, and cot for reference (447,656 tokens from 829 speakers), represented as means with token variation, from the Scottish SPADE corpora.
Figure 6.2 Mean Lobanov-normalised values by lexical keywords for SSE and regional Scots (1,159 speakers) from the Scottish SPADE corpora.
Scottish vowels in general do not show the centring diphthongs in near and square, for example, found in other English accents, because of the general retention of underlying rhoticity, though there is some variability in vowel quality before /r/. For example, SSE typically shows /ɚ/ alongside Urban Scots birth, berth, worth with up to three vowels, /ɪ ɛ ʌ/, respectively (Lawson, Scobbie and Stuart-Smith Reference Lawson, Scobbie and Stuart-Smith2013). Another feature common to Scottish vowels is the characteristic patterning of vowel duration known as the Scottish Vowel Length Rule (SVLR: Aitken Reference Aitken, Benskin and Samuels1981). This now specifies that stressed /i/ and /ʉ/ are short unless followed by phonological /r/, a voiced fricative, or a morpheme boundary; so, for example, /i/ is short in beer, breathe, please, bees, bee, agree, agreed, and – unlike other English accents – is also short in beat, bead, beam, bean, peel, for example (i.e. also before voiced consonants) (Scobbie et al. Reference Scobbie, Hewlett, Turk, Foulkes and Docherty1999). In contemporary Scottish accents the SVLR continues a historical feature of Scots which once applied historically to most monophthongs, with traces still apparent in the north-east (Stuart-Smith and Macdonald, Reference Stuart-Smith, Macdonald and Hickeyin press). In the east, there is evidence of erosion towards the Anglo-English Voicing Effect (Hewlett, Matthews and Scobbie Reference Hewlett, Matthews and Scobbie1999), whilst in the west, the short/long patterning is being maintained, but the longer vowels are becoming shorter over time (Rathcke and Stuart-Smith Reference Rathcke and Stuart-Smith2016; Stuart-Smith et al. Reference Stuart-Smith, Lawson and Hickey2017). The vowel /ai/ also participates in the SVLR, but the difference is mainly carried by onset quality; contrast price and prize in Figure 6.1b (Scobbie and Stuart-Smith Reference Scobbie, Stuart-Smith, Cohn, Fougeron and Huffman2012).
Scottish vowel quality is stratified by social class, gender and age (e.g. Glasgow boot, cat, kit: Macaulay Reference Macaulay1977), social practices (Glasgow cat: Lawson Reference Lawson2011), ethnicity (Glaswasian fleece, face, cat, cot, goat, boot: Alam Reference Alam2015), and political identity (cat in Scottish politicians: Hall-Lew, Friskney and Scobbie Reference Hall-Lew, Friskney and Scobbie2017). There is also evidence of a pull-chain affecting the Glaswegian back vowels: after the already fronted boot had further fronted and lowered, coat and cot have both raised respectively (Stuart-Smith et al. Reference Stuart-Smith, Lawson and Hickey2017). Whilst we might expect shifts towards Anglo-English norms in SSE speakers in Edinburgh, given three times more English-born residents than in Glasgow, Schützler (Reference Schützler2015) found little evidence of diphthongisation in face and goat.
6.2.3 Consonants
Scots and SSE largely share the following consonants: /p b t d k g f θ v ð s z ʃ ʒ x ʍ tʃ dʒ r l m n ŋ j w/. Lexical incidence also leads to some restricted but salient alternations, for example stigmatised Urban Scots wi’/with (θ ↔ ∅), staun/stand (nd ↔ n). Urban Scots has experienced a number of consonantal changes over the twentieth century, including erosion and/or change in traditional Scots features such as rhoticity, and since the 1980s, the appearance of variants more typical of southern English (e.g. TH-fronting; see Stuart-Smith et al. Reference Stuart-Smith, Pryce, Timmins and Gunter2013). Whilst an atomistic analysis might suggest radical supralocal consonantal levelling, the resulting Scots phonology is more, rather than less, distinctive, from other Anglo-English accents, and more importantly, from middle-class SSE, which is the relevant social point of contrast in the Central Belt.
Scots voiceless and voiced stops show generally less aspiration and more voicing respectively than SSE and Anglo-English, though Johnston’s (Reference Johnston and Jones1997:505) observation of a gradual shift towards a more aspiration-based voicing contrast during the twentieth century has now been evidenced for Glaswegian (Sonderegger et al. Reference Sonderegger, Stuart-Smith, Macdonald, Knowles and Rathcke2020). T-glottalling, or use of [ʔ] for non-initial /t/ in butter, bottle, for example, is stereotypically stigmatised in Urban Scots, where it has increased since World War II (Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith1999b), and is also vigorous in the north-east, where it can even occur in word-initial position (Smith and Holmes-Elliott Reference Smith and Holmes-Elliott2018). SSE also shows T-glottalling, as do many contemporary Anglo-Englishes (Foulkes and Docherty Reference Foulkes and Docherty1999), though with different phonotactic constraints (Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith1999b). A more recent change is the use of ejectives for voiceless stops, most frequently word-final /k/ in, for example, back, in Glaswegian (McCarthy and Stuart-Smith Reference McCarthy and Stuart-Smith2013).
SSE /θ ð/ are typically realised as dental fricatives. Urban Scots has lexically restricted [h] for /θ/ in [h]ink, for example, and intervocalic lenition of /ð/ to a tap or even full deletion in brother, for example. [f] for /θ/ in [f]ink, en[f]usiasm is now well advanced in Urban Scots, with [v] for intervocalic and final /ð/ in bro[v]er, wi[v], for example (Lawson Reference Lawson2014a; Stuart-Smith and Timmins Reference Stuart-Smith, Timmins, Caie, Hough and Wotherspoon2006). Urban Scots /s/ shows gendered variation, with auditorily retracted variants showing lowered spectral frequency in men and working-class girls (Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith, Cole and Hualde2007); both /s/ and /ʃ/ show subtle acoustic real-time change reflecting articulatory differences, led by working-class boys (Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith2020). Both /x/ and /ʍ/ show merger with /k w/ respectively, so loch ‘lake’ = lock, whine = wine, in Urban Scots.
Scots and SSE /l/ tends to be dark (velarised/pharyngealised) in all positions of the word, though Braber and Butterfint (Reference Braber and Butterfint2008) found clearer word-initial /l/ in SSE, and Highland English and Glaswasian generally have clearer laterals (Johnston Reference Johnston and Jones1997:510; Stuart-Smith et al. Reference Stuart-Smith, Timmins, Alam, Gregersen, Parrott and Quist2011). Scots L-vocalisation (e.g. fitba’/football (l ↔ ∅)) is another lexically restricted but vigorous alternation, which occurs alongside productive ‘southern English’ vocalisation to a high back (un)rounded vowel in tell, milk, for example (Stuart-Smith, Timmins and Tweedie Reference Stuart-Smith, Timmins and Tweedie2006).
Rhoticity, the articulation of postvocalic /r/ in words like car, card (Wells Reference Wells1982:10–11), demarcates Scots and SSE together from other English accents (Maguire et al. Reference Maguire, McMahon, Heggarty and Dediu2010). This is still the case despite long-term derhoticisation in Urban Scots, at least since the early twentieth century (Stuart-Smith and Lawson Reference Stuart-Smith, Lawson and Hickey2017). R-weakening, which is more advanced in Glasgow than Edinburgh, results from articulatory changes giving a uvularised rhotic with weak, delayed (or no) tongue-tip gesture, which contrasts phonetically, and socially, with the audibly ‘strong’, early bunched-tongue gestures of SSE (Dickson and Hall-Lew Reference Dickson and Hall-Lew2017; Lawson, Stuart-Smith and Scobbie Reference Lawson, Stuart-Smith and Scobbie2018; Stuart-Smith, Lawson and Scobbie Reference Stuart-Smith, Lawson, Scobbie, Celata and Calamai2014). There is substantial phonetic variation in the realisation of /r/, with apical taps and post-alveolar approximants typical in Scots and approximants, post-alveolar and bunched more usual in SSE, alongside variable rhoticity; trills are stereotypically Scottish, but are very rare (Jauriberry Reference Jauriberry2021; Meer et al. Reference Meer, Fuchs, Gerfer, Gut and Li2021).
6.2.4 Suprasegmentals
Speech timing, rhythm and voice quality (Laver Reference Laver1991), along with other features of spoken interaction, such as conversational clicks (Moreno Reference Moreno2019), provide an overall ‘prosodic frame’ within which segmental phonetics and phonology are integrated. Despite some of their structural phonological similarities, Scots and SSE accents are noticeably different from each other in their prosody, which helps contribute to additional phonetic and phonological distinctiveness. Scots and SSE voice quality differ in both Edinburgh (Esling Reference Esling1978) and Glasgow (Stuart-Smith Reference Stuart-Smith, Foulkes and Docherty1999a): working-class speakers on the east show more whispery and harsh voice, with tongue blade articulation, pharyngealisation and protruded jaw, whereas – and some twenty years later – on the west, there is less evidence of stereotypical harshness and pharyngealisation, but more open jaw, raised and backed tongue body with intermittent tongue root retraction; middle-class voice quality is characterised by the absence of these traits. We also now have evidence that changes in voice quality around the time of World War I provided the likely trigger for the phonologisation of R-weakening in Glasgow (Soskuthy and Stuart-Smith Reference Soskuthy and Stuart-Smith2020).
Scottish intonation remains surprisingly under-researched. Declarative statements are usually rising in Glasgow and the west (with the distinctive ‘rise-plateau-slump’), but falling in Edinburgh and on the east (Cruttenden Reference Cruttenden1997:137; Ladd Reference Ladd2008). The intonational diglossia observed by Cruttenden (Reference Cruttenden2007) between rises in spontaneous speech and falls in reading aloud by a western Central Belt Scottish English speaker suggests that the historical introduction of literacy through southern English, for example for biblical reading and recitation, also entailed distinctive intonation patterns (Stuart-Smith and Lawson Reference Stuart-Smith, Lawson and Hickey2017). Rhythmical properties of Scottish English also need more exploration, though impressionistically there are differences between Scots and SSE (Abercrombie Reference Abercrombie, Aitken and McArthur1979), and SSE shows less accentual lengthening than southern Standard English (Smith and Rathcke Reference Smith and Rathcke2020).
6.3 Morphosyntax
While Scots phonetic variation has received considerable attention, morphosyntactic variation is less studied. In what follows, we bring together empirical research which has been conducted over the past few decades, with many examples from the recently launched Scots Syntax Atlas (SCOSYA: https://scotssyntaxatlas.ac.uk/), a digital resource which provides the most comprehensive overview of contemporary Scots morphosyntax across Scotland. Examples not from SCOSYA are labelled accordingly.
We include forms which are used throughout Scotland, those which are circumscribed to particular areas only, and some more recent innovations which may be spreading from focal areas to more outlying ones (although these are by no means exhaustive). The forms are described across three broad levels of grammar: clausal, verbal and nominal, although overlap exists in many cases, as is the case with negation, which is treated separately.
6.3.1 Clausal Forms
6.3.1.1 Gonnae
A now iconic form heard in and around Glasgow is the use of gonnae (going to) (1a) in so-called exhortative clauses (e.g. Sailor and Thoms Reference Sailor and Thoms2019).
(1)
a. Gonnae gies it. (SCOSYA, Paisley)
Wantae (want to) (1b) is also used, but is said to have weaker exhortative strength (Sailor and Thoms Reference Sailor and Thoms2019):
| b. | Phoning my mum like ‘Wantae just bring the wean home like the morn’ (SCOSYA, Kilmarnock) |
Gonnae can also appear with an overt subject you (1c) and with negatives (1d), leading researchers to suggest that it may have grammaticised to a ‘speaker-oriented modal’ (Sailor and Thoms Reference Sailor and Thoms2019), allowing it to appear in these new clausal environments.
| 1c. | Gonnae you reply to your WhatsApp. (Scottish Twitter post https://twitter.com/FPL_Dave/status/1245786284699930626) |
| 1d. | Seats aren’t for feet. It’s boggin’. Gonnae no dae it? (ScotRail Tweet https://twitter.com/ScotRail/status/1185928801248784384) |
Whatever the grammar of this form, it has rapidly become a stereotype, perhaps due to its use in popular BBC television shows such as Chewin’ the Fat. It has subsequently become highly commodified, where it can be found on, for example, a range of tourist souvenir goods. Such exposure may be the catalyst for its spread across the Central Belt and up the east coast, as indicated by the Scots Syntax Atlas.
6.3.1.2 Contraction
An extremely curious case of contraction occurs in ‘locative discovery expressions’ (Thoms et al. Reference Thoms, Adger, Heycock and Smith2019) with here and there. While Standard English might have (2a), in several varieties of Scots (2b) is possible. Even more intriguing is the highly unusual contracted form heard in Glasgow and the south-west (2c):
(2)
a. (T)here it is. b. There it’s there, Elderslie Railway Station. (SCOSYA, Johnston) c. Where’s the bag? Ah, (t)here it’s!
6.3.2 Negation
An interplay between phonetic and morphosyntactic form is evident in the use of negatives in Scots, and this has effects at both the verbal and clausal level. The non-cliticised, stressed form is no /no/ in the Central Belt and eastern areas (3a) and nae /ne/ in the North-East (3b). The unstressed enclitic is nae /ne/ (3c) and na /nʌ/ (3d) respectively (e.g. Miller Reference Miller, Kortmann and Schneider2004; Smith Reference Smith2001a, Reference Smithb).
(3)
a. We’re no going to be educated. We’re goin’ for a laugh. (SCOSYA, Dundee). b. This year they’re nae looking for a player of my position. (SCOSYA, North East) c. I cannae hack it. (SCOSYA, Borders) d. The dentist wouldna be able to do their job if it wasna for the dental nurse (SCOSYA, North East).
Macafee (Reference Macafee1983:47) notes that the more southern forms have spread further north, and this is supported by recent data from SCOSYA.
While it may look as if these forms are straightforward alternates for Standard English not and n’t, clause-level restrictions on use exist, hence the interplay of phonetic and morphosyntactic form. The Scots cliticised form is productive across all verbs in declaratives but is not used in interrogatives (3e) or tags (3f), where the standard forms are used instead (Thoms et al. Reference Thoms, Adger, Heycock, Jamieson and Smith2023).
| 3e. | He says ‘Isn’t it terrible what terrorism has done to the county?’ (SCOSYA, West Central Belt) |
| *He says ‘Isnae it terrible what terrorism has done to the county?’ | |
| 3f. | He’s still alive, isn’t he? (SCOSYA, Borders) |
| *He’s still alive, isnae he? |
Negation also impacts on the formation of interrogatives (e.g. Thoms et al. Reference Thoms, Adger, Heycock, Jamieson and Smith2023; Tagliamonte and Smith Reference Tagliamonte and Smith2002). ‘Rhetorical’ interrogatives, that is, those which are statements in function, such as (3e), can appear with the standard cliticised form, but non-rhetorical interrogatives have a different syntax: verb + subject + negative (3g, h).
| 3g. | Is she not younger than you? (SCOSYA, Ayrshire) |
| 3h. | Has he no got the ball? (SCOSYA, Fife) |
These negative interrogative forms are covert Scotticisms, used widely throughout the country by speakers of both SSE and Broad Scots.
In most varieties of English, a ‘gap’ exists in the negative paradigm: the cliticised form n’t cannot attach to first-person singular am. In other words, amn’t is not possible. However, in most varieties of Scots, this form is permitted (3i), particularly in tag questions (3j):
| 3i. | I amn’t gonna send it off this week. (SCOSYA, Kilwinning) |
| 3j. | I’m a freak, amn’t I? (Smith 2013–2016Footnote 1) |
A ‘gap’ also exists in the use of the Scots cliticised form ‑nae in Glasgow and surrounding areas. As in other varieties, it is used productively in declarative contexts, with the notable exception of auxiliary do in non-third-person singular present-tense contexts, where the standard form only is used (3k):
| 3k. | They don’t want to tell their Mammy because they’re a clype (SCOSYA, Glasgow) |
Um urnae (3l) is one last form to note under negation, where the auxiliary be is ‘doubled’ to produce a localised form which can be glossed as I’m aren’t.
| 3l. | Aye, ye ur…Naw, um urnae. (Scottish Twitter post https://twitter.com/THEDC67/status/733424141819207680) |
This use may be geographically circumscribed to Glasgow and surrounding areas, but just like gonnae, um urnae has recently become iconicised as shown, for example, by its use as a slogan on T-shirts (e.g. https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/glasgowpatter/nawahmurnae-A5d6623d45fd3e4203a8412c1).
6.3.3 Verbal Forms
6.3.3.1 Needs Passive
In Scots, an alternative passive construction with needs exists (4) (e.g. Brown and Millar Reference Brown and Millar1980:86; Edelstein Reference Edelstein, Zanuttini and Horn2014; Strelluf Reference Strelluf2020). This form is a covert Scotticism, with wide geographic spread and used in both informal (4a) and more formal (4b) speech.
(4)
a. The cat needs fed. That’s when he’s into the algae wafers, he needs fed (SCOSYA, Ayrshire) b. My meter cabinet needs repaired or replaced (Scottish Power www.spenergynetworks.co.uk/pages/my_meter_cabinet_needs_repaired_or_replaced.aspx)
While this passive construction is largely limited to use with need, in some varieties, want (4c) and like (4d) can also be used:
| 4c. | Honey wants fed. (Janey Godley YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ViGnLGFwM) |
| 4d. | The kitten likes cuddled (Edelstein Reference Edelstein, Zanuttini and Horn2014). |
6.3.3.2 ‘Progressive’ Stative Verbs
Several stative verbs can appear with the progressive form in Scots (Aitken Reference Aitken, Aitken and Arthur1979; Miller Reference Miller, Kortmann and Schneider2004, Reference Millar2007), including want (5a), like (5b), need (5c), forget (5d) and think (5e):
(5)
a. There’s nobody wanting them. You’re no wanting them, are you? (SCOSYA, Paisley) b. She liking college? (SCOSYA, East Lothian) c. They tested me and they said “Oh you’re needing a new valve” (SCOSYA, Falkland) d. Now I’m forgetting what I was gonna tell you about. (SCOSYA, Saltcoats) e. I’m thinking I’m going to be there June and July. (SCOSYA, North East)
Just as with the needs passive, this is a covert Scotticism, likely to be used across all classes and geographic areas.
6.3.3.3 The Northern Subject Rule
Several variable verbal agreement forms exist across Scotland which can be found in many other varieties worldwide (e.g. Tagliamonte and Smith Reference Tagliamonte and Smith1999). A more specifically Scots pattern of agreement is the Northern Subject Rule, which dates back to the thirteenth century. A number of permutations exist in its use, but in its simplified form, in third-person plural contexts, NPs occur with ‑s on the verb but no ‑s with pronominal they (6a).
(6)
a. The parking facilities is terrible…they’re saying they’re going to park in there. (SCOSYA, Irvine)
On the ground, the ‘rule’ of no ‑s with they remains largely intact, but there is decreasing use of ‑s with plural NPs, particularly with main lexical verbs (6b), but also now with auxiliaries (6c).
| 6b. | Like the things that goes in front of a bairn’s pram (SCOSYA, Northmavine) |
| 6c. | No matter how early you go to it the floors is always sticky (SCOSYA, Golspie) |
6.3.3.4 ‘Regularised’ Verbs
As with other varieties worldwide, Scots uses a number of non-standard tensed verb forms, including seen and done in preterite contexts. A more peculiarly Scots irregular verb use is ‘regularised’ past-tense forms of sold (7a) and told (7b). With the exception of the Highlands and Western Isles, these forms are common in most areas of Scotland, but confined to the broader end of the Scots linguistic continuum.
(7)
a. It’s nae much use if the golf club’s getting selt, is it? (SCOSYA, Lanarkshire) b. I didnae witness it. I got telt about it. (SCOSYA, Dumfries and Galloway)
More geographically circumscribed is the regularised preterite form of go, gied/gaed (7c) which is used in the North East and Northern Isles but may be obsolescing even in these areas.
| 7c. | We gied out for a feed and on a Saturday night. (SCOSYA, North East) |
6.3.3.5 Double Modals
A number of varieties in the Borders and the South West use double (or multiple) modals (8) across a range of combinations (e.g. Morin Reference Morin, Baranzini and de Saussure2021):
(8)
a. I take it you can like grow out of it. Or some people might can. (SCOSYA, Selkirk) b. You say “I used to could do all this and I used to could do that” but you’re too busy now (SCOSYA, Galston) c. She says no ’cause she’ll no can keep her mouth shut. (SCOSYA, Grangemouth)
Results from the Scots Syntax Atlas suggest that these forms are highly recessive, and may in fact become completely obsolescent.
6.3.4 Nominal Forms
6.3.4.1 Possessive Pronouns
The use of possessive pronouns where in most varieties there would be none (9) (e.g. Macaulay Reference Macaulay1991:71; Beal Reference Beal and Jones1997:363) is found across the entire continuum of Scots. This covert Scotticism is largely restricted to particular noun types, including meals, bed and holidays.
(9)
a. I like to read in my bed. (SCOSYA, Caithness) b. When was the last time you made my dinner? (SCOSYA, Glasgow) c. If you eat that now you won’t be able to eat your tea. (SCOSYA, Ayrshire) d. Gabbie’s got a Kindle Fire that she got fae the bairns for her Christmas. (Smith 2013-2016) e. So where you gan your holidays this year? (Smith 2013–2016)
6.3.4.2 Definite Articles
In a similar vein, the definite article the appears where none would be used in Standard English across certain categories of nouns, including public institutions (10a–b), sports (10c–d), seasons (10e), illnesses (10f–g) and trades (10h–i):
(10)
a. We had to walk up fae the school hand in hand. (SCOSYA, Ayrshire) b. I used to go to the kirk every Sunday. (Smith 2013–2016) c. They got there on the Saturday and they went to the football on the Saturday night (SCOSYA, Perthshire) d. I mean there wasna the golf at that time of day. (SCOSYA, North East) e. We go usually every month in the summer and in the winter you go every month. (SCOSYA, Caithness) f. He thinks it’s the flu and you’ve got to be like “No this isn’t the flu”. (SCOSYA, Argyle and Bute). g. You just took a wee sip of it and it gave you the hiccups (SCOSYA, Lanarkshire) h. I worked in the fishing but I worked doing nets, ken for the boats. (SCOSYA, Aberdeen) i. She did a lot of the farming. She’s good at the farming. (SCOSYA, Inner Hebrides)
6.3.4.3 First- and Second-Person Plural Forms
Wir for our in both subject (11a) and object (11b) position is used across most of Lowland Scots, but it appears not to be used in the Highlands and Western Isles.
(11)
a. And wir pay come fae Carlisle (SCOSYA, Stranraer) b. We were sitting in wir table just wir two selves (SCOSYA, Kirkintilloch)
A number of different forms exist in Scots for the pronoun you. You yins/ains for plural you (11c–d), effectively you ones with localised phonology, is heard in most parts of Scotland:
| 11c. | You ains have never been flooded, have you? (SCOSYA, Stonehaven) |
| 11d. | Hey, you yins, let me ower. (Dictionary of the Scots Language) |
The form provides a neat periphrastic solution to the lack of singular/plural distinction of the pronoun you in Standard English and echoes other forms worldwide (e.g. Johnstone Reference Johnstone2013).
An even neater solution to the lack of number distinction in Standard English with you exists in the plural form yous (11e–g):
| 11e. | Do yous get the jacuzzi and all that? (SCOSYA, Strathaven). |
| 11f. | Aye, nae that I’ve held it against yous. (SCOSYA, Portsoy) |
| 11g. | Are yous finished now, are yous? (SCOSYA, Applecross) |
In contrast to you ones, which looks to have considerable time-depth, this form appears to be a more recent, twentieth-century, development. Data from the Scots Syntax Atlas suggests that yous started in the urban heartland of Glasgow and has spread rapidly in the decades since: it can be heard in younger speakers even in the most northern parts of mainland Scotland (although not yet in Orkney and Shetland). The Dictionary of the Scots Language includes a nice ‘doubled’ example of pluralisation of this form (11h):
| 11h. | Us yins … will play verses yous yins at football if yous yins will bye the ball. |
Finally, ee for you in subject position (11i) is used across several regions (see also Smith and Durham, this volume, on singular/plural forms of you in Orkney and Shetland).
| 11i. | Did ee go there when you were young? (SCOSYA, North East) |
6.3.4.4 Demonstratives
Alongside the widespread use of plural demonstrative them (12a), a number of other forms also exist in the demonstrative paradigm in Scots. Across the Central Belt and in the South West, the distal plural they is used (12b). In the North East of Scotland and in Shetland, ‘singular’ demonstratives are used with plural forms (12c–d). A relic third distal demonstrative exists, yon/thon (12e–f) in some areas, although this may be obsolescing.
(12)
6.3.4.5 Non-Reflexive Him/Herself
In the Highlands and Western Isles, and in the North East and North of Scotland, ‘reflexive’ pronouns can be used in place of simple pronominal forms (13a).
(13)
a. Well, himself and John went for a pizza the other day. (SCOSYA, Broadford)
In Scottish Gaelic, pronouns like himself and herself can be used in the same way, thus the likely origin of this form in the Highlands and Western Isles.
In the North East, there may be pragmatic constraints on the use of these forms, where they are often used humorously (13b) or disapprovingly (13c):
6.4 Discourse-Level Forms
While many of the discourse-level phenomena are shared with other varieties worldwide, a number of forms are specific to Scots.
6.4.1 Quotatives
As with many other varieties, the Scots quotative system in younger speakers has adopted the globalised be like form (e.g. Tagliamonte, D’Arcy and Rodríguez Louro Reference Tagliamonte, D’Arcy and Rodríguez Louro2016). A variant on this form is found in Glasgow and surrounding areas where that is inserted between the quotative and the quote (14a):
(14)
a. I was like that “Ah do you know my Ma was born there?” (SCOSYA, Clydebank)
Macaulay (Reference Macaulay2005:148) refers to this form as a ‘kind of hybrid quotative’ and notes that often no actual quote follows (14b) but instead a non-lexicalised sound or facial expression to signal reaction:
| 14b. | She was like, “Just sign it.” I was like that [makes face]. (SCOSYA, Airdrie) |
6.4.2 Discourse Markers
See fronting with co-referential NP is used clause initially, often to introduce a new topic which is then followed by a question (15a), information (15b) or opinion (15c).
(15)
a. See that booth you got at Kushion. Did you ever use it? (SCOSYA, Motherwell) b. See that Aldi’s night cream. It’s £1.69. (SCOSYA, Clydebank) c. See that caramel wafers. They’re fantastic. (SCOSYA, Scalpay)
But is used clause finally to signal, amongst other things, opinion and clarification (16).
(16)
a. He’s too little, but. (SCOSYA, Canisbay) b. I do like things like that, but. (SCOSYA, Whithorn)
So + subject + verb as a tag (17) is heard around Glasgow and surrounding areas, often used for intensification:
(17)
a. My mum grew up in New Farm, so she did (SCOSYA, Glasgow) b. Such a muppet, so I am (SCOSYA, Glasgow)
This form may arise from contact with Hiberno-English, where it is also used.
Around Edinburgh and up the east coast to Dundee, an eh tag is used with rhetorical questions (18a):
(18)
a. We’ve never lived together, eh. (SCOSYA, Dundee)
An alternate version also exists in the same areas, eh no, (18b) but data from SCOSYA shows that this appears to be used more by younger speakers, suggesting perhaps a change in progress from the original eh marker.
6.5 Concluding Remarks: The Future for Scots and Scottish Standard English
The future looks bright for Scots. Despite anticipated dialect levelling (e.g. Foulkes and Docherty Reference Foulkes and Docherty1999), the incorporation of some southern English forms with ongoing dialect-internal changes, means that Scots phonology continues to maintain its own pathway distinct from Anglo-Englishes. In terms of morphosyntax, again, rather than a march towards Standard English, resources such as the Scots Syntax Atlas and Speak for Yersel show continued use of Scots-specific forms. In addition, there are also ‘home-grown’ forms such as yous and gonnae which demonstrate spread from Glasgow outwards, resulting in a more, rather than less, distinctive morphosyntax across Scotland.
Beyond the linguistic evidence, other tell-tale signs exist for the improving status of Scots. Against a historical backdrop of Scots contracting to particular domains, the twenty-first century displays an expansion of domains from, for example, comedy and classic stereotypes (sports reporting, football, etc.) to mainstream drama, local reporting, and the use of Scots in indie music (e.g. Krause and Smith Reference Krause, Smith, Montgomery and Moore2017). This, coupled with Scots in social media, provides evidence of the increasing social acceptance of Scots, given that the media act partly as a mirror reflecting contemporary sociolinguistic norms (Tagliamonte and Roberts Reference Tagliamonte and Roberts2005).
