Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain: Linguistic Favouritism and Imposed Identities 9781350054929, 9781350054950, 9781350054936

Table of contents :
Cover
Half-title
Title
Copyright
Contents
Introduction
1. Personal and Professional Identities in the Teaching Profession
2. Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice
3. Methodological Approach
4. Acceptance of Modification of Language
5. Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request
6. Concluding Thoughts and the Need for Standard Accents
References
Index

Citation preview

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Also available from Bloomsbury Initial English Language Teacher Education, edited by Darío Luis Banegas Teacher Agency, Mark Priestley, Gert Biesta and Sarah Robinson The Struggle for Teacher Education, edited by Tom Are Trippestad, Anja Swennen and Tobias Werler

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain Linguistic Favouritism and Imposed Identities Alex Baratta

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 This paperback edition first published 2020 Copyright © Alex Baratta, 2018 Alex Baratta has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-3500-5492-9 PB: 978-1-3501-3465-2 ePDF: 978-1-3500-5493-6 ePub: 978-1-3500-5494-3 Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents Introduction 1 Personal and Professional Identities in the Teaching Profession 2 Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice 3 Methodological Approach 4 Acceptance of Modification of Language 5 Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request 6 Concluding Thoughts and the Need for Standard Accents References Index

1 9 57 97 109 139 183 197 209

Introduction

Are there specific accents that you like or dislike? For the linguists reading this book, does the need to maintain scientific objectivity regarding language (i.e. along the lines of there being no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ accents) prevent you from admitting that certain accents nonetheless rub you the wrong way? After all, before we began our careers, we surely developed linguistic preferences regarding certain accents. Moreover, do we recall teachers who, competence aside, had accents that otherwise detracted from their teaching based on our perceptions of their accents alone, having nothing to do with intelligibility? These are questions only you (and I) can answer. This book approaches the subject of teacher identity in Britain from the sole perspective of accent. That is, what role does a teacher’s accent play in the construction of his/her professional identity? Can the accent a teacher has used prior to entering the teaching profession  – an accent otherwise thought of as ‘personal’ – also be used when teaching, as part of an otherwise ‘professional’ accent? Or, is such an accent regarded by the teacher and/or others as a liability, a hindrance to otherwise enacting a professional teacher identity? This is the overriding question the book poses, and answers, with the book organized as follows: Introduction Chapter 1. Personal and Professional Identities in the Teaching Profession Chapter 2. Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice Chapter 3. Methodological Approach Chapter 4. Acceptance of Modification of Language Chapter 5. Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request Chapter 6. Concluding Thoughts and the Need for Standard Accents The book first establishes in Chapters  1 and 2 the theoretical bedrock on which the accounts of thirty-two British teachers rest. The teachers shared their

2

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

experiences regarding what they were told, if anything, regarding their accent. While this specifically involves trainee teachers who are preparing for a teaching career, five of the accounts are from those outside this specific context (e.g. established teachers), but who provided their beliefs on the role that accent – both modified and unmodified – plays in teaching. Thus, it is important to first discuss the concept of identity, both generally and more specifically within teaching, before moving on to explain how this is involved within the context of language use, here accent, in the teaching profession. Following the discussion of the methodological approach, I present the teachers’ accounts of accent usage in terms of how it is decided upon. Is it a free choice to speak as they wish or is an accent deemed more suitable for the teaching profession selected? And if the latter, is this a personal choice or is it imposed on them by someone else, such as a mentor (or imposed perhaps by a fear of societal prejudice in general)? Chapters 4 and 5 function to broadly categorize the teachers into two groups: those for whom accent modification is either not relevant and/or was never mentioned by mentors, and those for whom modification of some kind was indeed regarded as contributing to less of a professional identity and more of an imposed identity, one based on someone else’s linguistic ‘standard’. Chapter 6 then concludes the discussion, offering suggestions as to what action might be considered regarding the subject of accent in relation to the teaching profession in Britain, notably within teacher training. As will be discussed in Chapter 5, accent modification is problematic for some of the teachers, and is regarded as a form of linguistic prejudice in some cases. Thus, considering the lack of research on this specific subject in the British teaching context, it is timely to finally address what is a live issue. My motivation for writing this book is also personal, however. While I do not modify my accent, either for teaching or in other situations (at least not consciously), accent has always been a subject of interest for me. This is because my own accent, ostensibly General American, has been on an interesting journey since birth. I was born in Los Angeles of an English mother and an American father and came to live in England (the Manchester area) as a baby. I returned to the United States for kindergarten then came back to England for three years, only to return to Los Angeles for three years of elementary (primary) school. This was followed by attending high school in England and then returning to the United States for college and beyond. What this has meant for my accent is that it has changed, albeit a natural change over the years (i.e. no one forced me to do so and/or I didn’t try to ‘fake it’). The result is that I am often identified (by Americans and Brits alike) as being from Boston, occasionally Canada and once

Introduction

3

I was asked if I were from Minnesota and also Chicago (though two Americans had me down as being from the West Coast). This has helped ensure an interest in the relationship between our accent and how we see ourselves (and, crucially, how we are seen by others). While the focus that this book takes is not reflective of my personal experiences per se, it nonetheless ties in with a passion for accent and identity, within the context of a career in which accent plays a key role. When entering the teaching profession, we surely take ourselves with us. Who we are prior to teaching is not jettisoned as part of our becoming, or being, a teacher. Thus, the identity we take on as teachers is partly reflective of aspects of an identity that we recognize as ‘personal’, that which existed prior to teaching. However, the introduction seeks to discuss the implications for identity – the personal and the professional  – in the context of British teacher training, as an introduction to the specific focus on the role that accents play in the construction of teacher identity in Britain. For the purposes of this book, personal identity(ies) is that which exists outside of work-based contexts, whereas professional identity is reflective of an identity created specifically for the workplace. However, this need not imply that the two are completely separate and distinct. Indeed, might teachers wish to infuse their teacher identity with aspects of their personal identity? In fact, it might be entirely impractical to separate the personal from the professional anyway, in terms of certain personal dispositions, beliefs and values, for example, which may surface automatically as teachers. Therefore, who we are as individuals will affect and influence who we become as teachers. Day et al. (2006) argue that the professional identity of a teacher is in fact infused with aspects of their personal self(s), given the amount of personal investment in the role of teacher. A  telling quote is provided by Sleegers and Kelchtermans (1999:579), who summarize this identity intersection as being ‘the result of an interaction between the personal experiences of teachers and the social, cultural, and institutional environment in which they function on a daily basis’. This is suggestive of myriad influences which combine to make us who we are as individuals and as individual teachers, comprising personal aspects (e.g. whether we’re religious or atheist); the type of school we teach at (e.g. state versus private) and, on a broader scale, the sociocultural environment in which we live (e.g. Britain versus Japan). Thus, while one’s identity as a teacher exists as part of the professional realm, there are surely instances when a personal identity coexists. A caring and patient individual outside the classroom might very well function with these same qualities inside the classroom, and these are qualities and characteristics we would

4

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

hope for in a teacher. It is personal qualities that often form the focus of research regarding a teacher’s professional identity, including a broad reference to one’s moral purpose, personal values and a desire to step back and reflect on one’s practice as a teacher in order to improve (Atkinson, 2004; Day, 2004; Mockler, 2011); Mockler arguably captures this collectively in the context of ‘making a difference’ (a full discussion of teacher identity and personal identity will of course follow later in Chapter 1). Thus, it might be difficult to determine where the personal identity ends and the teacher identity begins in some cases. While this paints a rather abstract picture, I focus on one which is quite straightforward – the instances when aspects of one’s personal identity outside the classroom clash with the teacher identity inside the classroom. This points to an identity dissonance, in which aspects of who we are prior to entering the teaching profession are deemed incompatible with the expected identity of a teacher. I do not suggest that conflict between the personal and professional is inevitable, however, but within the British context of teacher training, there is a lack of coverage on one specific aspect of who we are which reveals itself the moment we open our mouths  – our accent. While it is important to consider teacher identity from perspectives that link to our personal behaviour, values and dispositions, all of which tie in with our habitus (Bourdieu, 1991), there is a gap in terms of knowledge of one’s linguistic habitus, which links to broader issues involving the notion of linguistic capital – the variety(ies) of language that carries the most prestige in society. What, then, are the implications for our accent when we are in training to become a teacher, having spent more time establishing, and continuing to use, a given accent than we have spent in teacher training? What if our accent does not conform to the ‘teaching standard’, if one even exists (and who decides this standard?)? This is not to suggest that we have only one particular accent prior to entering teacher training, as we may in fact have several (however subtle the differences between them might be), some perhaps assumed without conscious knowledge, such as the so-called phone voice. However, one implication could be that should teacher training be for some individuals their first foray into a professional context involving learning, teaching and training, it may also be their first professional experience of meeting with resistance to their otherwise ‘natural’ accent. This goes beyond school-day memories of perhaps being told by parents not to drop their g’s or h’s, but instead involves an entirely different context of power – in this case, the power that mentors and senior staff have over trainee teachers, and the potential for differing opinions within this context

Introduction

5

as to what constitutes a professional teacher from a purely phonological point of view. Ahearn (2001:111) states that within this relationship, ‘language and power (are) commonly intertwined’. Wodak (2012:216) further asks the question, ‘Who decides on the norms of language use; who sets these norms and enforces them?’ This is a question that will be explored in this book, as many teachers may wish to bring their accent with them to the context of training, and some may not necessarily consider there to be any inherent implications for their accent, positive or negative. In such cases, any discussion of their accent as a liability could be met with genuine surprise and subsequently be perceived negatively. This reference to power is relevant and has been raised in conjunction with teaching (Giddens, 1991; Messer-Davidow, 1995; Archer, 2000; Ahearn, 2001; Day et al., 2006). In the specific context of teacher training, there is an inherent process that involves ‘a role-shift from being a non-teacher to being a teacher’ (Hinchion & Hall, 2015:9). The implication here is that trainee teachers require an insider, someone who acts as a guide for the apprentice teachers in their journey to becoming full-fledged teachers. This largely involves the role of the mentor, who seeks to instruct the trainees regarding, largely, appropriate behaviour, dispositions and techniques, everything from time management skills to lesson planning. Hobson et al. (2008:7) further claim that ‘one of the factors – if not the key factor – reported as having a major impact upon student teachers’ experience in schools is the extent to which they perceive that their mentors . . . have time for them and are helpful and supportive’. Clearly, this is an important relationship throughout one’s training as a teacher. However, if a teacher’s accent is somehow deemed unsuitable by the mentor, then the power relations between the two individuals may surface, in that the linguistic construction of an identity deemed professional may be in the hands of the mentor, not the teacher. It may of course not be an issue at all, with accent never coming up in discussion, and if it does, it is not to say that the construction of a (linguistic) teacher identity is something that can’t be accomplished with input from both parties. However, if a teacher’s accent is judged as being in need of modification for the profession, then herein lies a potential for conflict, with the conflict being realized on three levels. First, conflict may refer to antagonism in the relationship between mentor and teacher, though this is not the focus of the book except in the instances where participants raise such examples. Second, conflict can be seen on a more personal level, internal conflict, caused by the fact that some teachers are told to modify their accents, but do not wish to. One underlying issue for such teachers

6

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

is that to adjust an accent that they do not believe to be in need of such can lead to resentment; to not do so, however, can result in negative feedback from a mentor (e.g. perhaps as part of an observed lesson). This indicates the doubleedged sword that Lippi-Green (1997) references, one which revolves around a desire to be perceived favourably against a simultaneous desire to use language which is perceived by the speaker as more ‘authentic’, but in this case might be regarded by mentors as inappropriate. This can involve a linguistic tug of war for some teachers, involving internal desires to ‘keep it real’ against the reality of those in authority telling us how we should speak. Kerswill (2009:7) further illustrates this linguistic dilemma, explaining that such modification might involve a perception of individuals ‘betraying their roots’ and yet, ‘for many, other people’s negative attitudes are too high a price to pay for keeping their working-class accent’. A final conflict, which will be focused on along with the internal conflict just described, pertains to identity conflict. If we are creating a new identity based on someone else’s ideology and we do not agree with such, then there is the potential for this identity to be regarded as fraudulent, as it is an identity that is imposed on us and not freely chosen. This is not to negate the importance of one’s voice as a teacher of course. We need to be understood in order for students to subsequently understand the lesson, and ideally have a voice tone and delivery that sparks interest, something a monotone voice presumably would not. However, beyond prosodic features, we need to better understand the role that accent plays in the British context of teacher training, and this is argued to be of importance for the following reasons. First, accents in Britain have played a large role in identity formation, and this continues to be the case (Jones, 2001). Very often, class-based assumptions are made alongside an individual’s accent (Hughes, Trudgill & Watt, 2012; Snell, 2014), with more regional-sounding accents often perceived as belonging to the lower classes, and Received Pronunciation (RP) in fact being a class-based accent, irrespective of one’s region of origin. This is reflective of Trudgill’s (2002) linguistic pyramid, in which RP resides at the top in terms of social prestige and ‘local’ accents reside at the bottom. This is not merely a quantitative issue, reflecting the fact, for example, that RP speakers constitute a minority in Britain; it also reflects qualitative issues, with regional accents, certainly historically, regarded as inferior to RP. This points towards the link between class and accent in Britain, and the snap judgements often made of individuals based on their accent as a result, with the Liverpool and Birmingham accents regarded particularly negatively (see Coupland & Bishop, 2007). While many British studies are focused on the use of dialect within education (Cheshire, 1982; Williamson,

Introduction

7

1990; Rampton, 1995; Williamson & Hardman, 1997; Wight, 2006; Snell, 2013; Brady, 2015; Snell & Andrews, 2017), we know correspondingly little about the role of accent, certainly in teacher training. The relevance this has for the research presented here is that it is not merely an attempt to fill a gap; rather, this book seeks to shed light on what current practice is in British teacher training regarding this historical role of accent, and its link with class identity and more broadly, the negative stereotypes that can occur based on certain accents. In other words, is this really a historical practice or does linguistic-based prejudice, perceived though it may be, still exist in the British workplace? Thus, one point of justification is the combined link that accent has with personal identity, set against the negative connotations of specific accents; in such cases, what are the implications for one’s personal linguistic identity against that which may be required in the professional realm? Second, we are living at a time in which equality is championed and diversity is celebrated. This is seen as part of specific identifying characteristics being legally protected, such as race, religion and sexual orientation. While foreign accents are also protected,1 British accents are not. In an overall spirit, however, of diversity and equality, it is time to see if this nonetheless applies to British accents, which are indeed quite diverse. A country’s workforce is in many ways a good indicator of just how inclusive a country really is; while inclusivity is often applied to social identities such as race and religion, and rightly so, how relevant is this to British accents? Therefore, focusing on a subject that is highly relevant to British culture and beyond, and to teaching in general, yet a subject for which we have little information in the teacher training context, can help to bring a new perspective to teacher identity, one that has been neglected. Arguably, in any context of teaching in any part of the world, if teachers believe, or are made to believe, that their accent is somehow not ‘professional’ enough, then this book hopes to make an inroad into this issue, which, while especially relevant to Britain, is not merely a ‘British thing’. The lack of coverage on accent in British education might be due to the fact that accent is either too complex or controversial a subject to tackle. Snell and Andrews (2017:12) suggest this, arguing that ‘the concept of a “standard” is far from straightforward when it comes to spoken language, and thus attempts at standardisation should be confined to writing/reading’. However, if teachers who are otherwise qualified are being made to feel, worst case, that

1

See the case of Chetankumar Meshram at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/ 7110266.stm.

8

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

their accents are somehow incompatible with the teaching profession, then this is an issue which needs to be investigated. Ultimately, what Britain does not need is a standard accent, as this would go against the trend for diversity and equality, being suggestive of a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, what is needed is clarification as to what the phonological reality is for British teachers who display a large variety of accents. A final point to make in the context of language use within teacher training concerns the professional linguistic standards within Initial Teacher Training (ITT) in England, part of the Teachers’ Standards, and which read thus: ‘Demonstrate an understanding of and take responsibility for promoting high standards of literacy, articulacy and the correct use of standard English, whatever the teacher’s specialist subject’. It is clear that standard English is the standard to use in the classroom, thus avoiding non-standard uses of English (regional dialects and/or sociolects), such as it were cold, he be happy and I loves my family. However, this is purely relevant to dialect (standard English is a dialect in its own right, but the one that tends to get the most respect), not accent. In fact, standard English can be spoken in any accent of course, but let us consider this: Would certain British accents be perceived less favourably than others in the teaching context, even if the individual is nonetheless using standard English as required? In this book, I therefore seek to address such questions and discuss the implications of one’s accent in the construction of a teacher identity and how the linguistic ideologies of teachers and mentors during the process of British teacher training can sometimes clash. In such cases, what are the implications for one’s ‘true’ linguistic identity if another one, deemed more ‘suitable’ for teaching, is coerced by those in power? In this sense, it may indeed be the case that linguistic aspects of one’s personal identity outside the classroom are deemed incompatible in the construction and maintenance of one’s professional identity inside the classroom.

1

Personal and Professional Identities in the Teaching Profession

This chapter unpacks the topic of identity and applies it to the teaching context, but first seeks to consider identity from a more everyday perspective in terms of what it means in the first instance and who we are as individuals.

Who are we, anyway? The question ‘Who am I?’ might seem at once simple, with an equally simple answer (e.g. I am Alex Baratta), yet to understand the concept of identity more thoroughly we need to analyse it on a deeper level. First, we should distinguish identity as a mental concept (who we consider ourselves to be) and as a performance (what we actually do in reference to how we see ourselves). Oyserman, Elmore and Smith (2012) refer to the former aspect of identity and Williams (2006) the latter, regarding identity as a performance which we in effect display for, and to, others. Let us consider an individual who regards himself as an honest person, referring to his mental concept of himself (one concept at least) as such. This, however, is merely a concept until it is made public and enacted. Hecht et al. (2001:430) refer to this more broadly as personal identity – ‘an individual’s conception of self ’. Likewise, Gee (2000) describes personal identity in terms of ‘being’ a certain ‘kind of person’ or crucially, being recognized as a certain kind of person (in this case, behaving in a certain way so as to be considered honest by others, and thus reinforcing one’s self-concept). This latter point reveals how identity is a two-way street, something we ‘put on’ and perform, and yet something which is ascribed to us by others, with or without our knowledge and whether we agree with their evaluation of who we are or not. This might all pertain to perceptions, but perceptions of ourselves and of others arguably play a large part in

10

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

constructing our reality. Moreover, while we could reduce our personal identity to a mere mental construct, it is of ‘psychological importance’ to the individual (Garrett, 2010:15) . However, there are multiple personal identities on offer, as identity is fluid, dynamic and ever-changing (Bucholtz & Hall, 2007; Coupland, 2008; Sachs, 2010), a product of the equally changing contexts of communication that we find ourselves in. This is a staple of sociolinguistic research, with Sachs (2010:155) claiming that ‘identity must be forever re-established and negotiated’. Hymes (1972:38) further stated that ‘no normal person . . . is limited to a single way of speaking, to an unchanging monotony’, which strongly suggests that our language use, and the various identities created from it, is subject to change as a means of acknowledging the context in which we communicate, involving the setting, relationship of the speakers, topic of conversation and many other factors. A brief history of identity within the literature might start with Cooley (1902), who discussed the notion of the ‘looking-glass’ self. This was significant, as it recognized the importance of the opinions of others and how they help to shape our identity. In other words, how others evaluate us can shape not only our selfperception, but also how we act out such part of identity performance. Much literature on teacher education treats ‘self ’ and ‘identity’ as interchangeable, yet for Cooley and more recently Nias (1989), ‘self ’ refers more to a core sense of who we are as individuals (Nias considers this a ‘substantive’ self), with identity a broader concept that refers to the various enactments that we perform in public. From this perspective, we could refer to public and private selves. Rodgers and Scott (2008:739, original emphasis) define self as functioning as ‘the meaning maker and identity as the meaning made’. This again points to self as a mental concept and self-image from which meaning begins, and from here, meaning is further made in interactions with others, as part of the way internal meaning is realized as an external display. However, for the purpose of this book, I largely refer to the self (as defined by Cooley, Nias and Rodgers & Scott) as personal identity and, as I will argue, there are multiple identities – including the professional variety – which can all be perceived by the individual as ‘core’ (or ‘substantive’). From the work of Cooley, Mead (1934) went further and discussed the notion of an otherwise stable self which could nonetheless be realized through multiple identities enacted in public. This suggests that while there are multiple performances regarding identity, an individual’s self-concept may indeed be more stable. Going back to the previous example, might there be several different ways in which an honest person can realize this core aspect of him/herself? In

Personal and Professional Identities

11

terms of the language used to reflect an honest individual, this can have multiple realizations, all the while maintaining a core self-image of being honest. Consider the different implications for honest language, as a reflection of an honest self-image, when providing constructive criticism to one’s child for his/ her failed homework versus the honesty needed when conversing with one’s boss and arguing for a pay raise. The former may involve more direct language, the latter more hedging. Of course, this is dependent not merely on the immediate context (dining table at home versus the executive office at work), but also on power relations and the nature of the relationship. There is, for example, nothing to suggest that an individual cannot have an open and free-talking relationship with his/her employer. The work of Goffman (1959) reflects these multiple factors, arguing that we need to develop the ability to adapt ourselves to the communicative context and that individuals have multiple ‘selves’ dedicated to this. I borrow from the ideas of Mead and Goffman, namely that amid multiple enacted identities in public, there exists a more essentialist perspective regarding the ways in which individuals see themselves, outside and inside of public interaction; this can have implications for their language use. Another factor to consider in the construction of our various personal identities is choice. Taylor (2013), for example, discusses identity across four particular incarnations, whose chief attributes nonetheless reflect choice, or lack thereof. Private self – This self is described by Taylor in additional terms such as ‘actual’ and ‘internal’, ‘a person’s intimate representation of his/her present attributes’ (5). Thus, this is synonymous with identity as a mental concept, one’s self-image, and is, I argue, the starting point for identity as a whole, because a self-concept necessarily precedes the enacting of such. Public selves – The reference to ‘selves’ again indicates the fact that there is not merely one enactment of identity displayed to others and such selves are also referred to as ‘external’, a means to acknowledge the ‘presentations that a person may display’ (ibid.). Thus, we again see identity discussed in terms of a private mental concept versus a public performance. However, can the private and public coexist? In other words, under what conditions can our personal sense of who we are be realized for the public, and how is it realized? Taylor (2013) discusses this in terms of the ideal self – ‘a personal representation of what somebody would like to be in the future, irrespective of other people’s desires and expectations’ (ibid.). I suggest that this particular self need not be tied to the future, but of course can be, though the ideal self can be realized at any moment. In addition, Taylor’s

12

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

definition seems to suggest foregoing, if not ignoring, public opinion. This might suggest being oneself at the expense of what is considered ‘appropriate’ behaviour in the given context, such as using taboo language at a job interview. I argue that there are nonetheless social identities that can indeed reflect a more authentic sense of who we perceive ourselves to be in private and thus such identities are essentially a means to ‘please ourselves’ and (hopefully) those around us. Taylor et al. recognize this in terms of a ‘harmonious configuration’. However, what happens when the private and the public can’t get along? If our desire to ‘keep it real’ would result in alienating or offending those around us and thus some kind of identity modification is required, then this is reflective of the imposed self, ‘representations of other people’s hopes, desires and expectations of what an individual should achieve’ (ibid.). This is an enacted identity which is not reflective of the individual’s private self – one’s identity as mental construct – and could be regarded as a fraudulent identity precisely because it is reflective of someone else’s values and goals, not the speaker’s. Another potential issue, however, is that to not conform to such expectations might result in some kind of disapproval. If we consider power relations in particular, with someone in authority telling us how we should speak, then this is one clear example of how identities can be imposed on us by others. Taylor discusses this potentially in terms of a ‘submissive configuration’ in which an individual, despite otherwise being against the expectations of others, nonetheless goes along with them. Varghese et  al. (2005) expand on this, citing the importance of agency in identity construction, which I  suggest is reflective of having power over our identities and choice; this would suggest enacted identities that are reflective of our self-image and thus we need to feel in control of our identities in order for them to be perceived as authentic and ‘ideal’. Varghese et al. cite the imposed identity as assigned, and the ideal as claimed (23), which clearly correspond to the aforementioned imposed and ideal identities respectively. Given that one’s ideal self must ‘be acceptable in . . . relational contexts’ (44), the ideal self might not always be possible, however. In simple terms, who we want to be at a given moment (here, through language use) might not be appropriate, and thus it could be argued that in such cases we are foregoing our ‘true’ self, albeit for a greater cause in some cases (e.g. social cohesion). Nonetheless, a linguistic change that is not chosen by the individual and, crucially, not agreed with, is likely to be perceived as false (Goldstein & Rayner, 1994) or inauthentic. Goldstein and Rayner further state that ‘if the redefinition is coerced, it is seen as “brainwashing” or “coercing”, the ultimate Orwellian nightmare’ (368). While this might be somewhat hyperbolic, it nonetheless

Personal and Professional Identities

13

makes a valid point regarding a need to be who we perceive ourselves to be and not be told how to be. Tesser (1988) further suggests that a stable sense of self is linked to well-being and positive self-esteem; if this is lacking due to a sense of inauthenticity, then we might expect the identity that is forged in this context to not be regarded positively. Table 1.1 summarizes the discussion thus far. Obviously, an identity that is imposed by individuals and/or sociocultural norms need not suggest any negative issues, let alone be perceived as fraudulent. The term imposed is merely a placeholder concept to distinguish from those identities for which we have, or perceive ourselves to have, full control in terms of being able to communicate how we so desire without outside interference. Let us illustrate further. Consider a military identity, in which a man is serving in the Marine Corps. His decision to join the military might be (but need not be) based on a self-perception of being a patriot; this is one particular personal identity initiated with a mental concept (e.g. I love my country and wish to serve it). To consider the enacted aspects of this particular identity, the decision to join the Marine Corps in particular, as an elite fighting force, might represent to him a means by which he displays this identity of being patriotic. Thus, we have a personal identity of being a patriot alongside the professional identity of being a marine,1 with each reinforcing the other perhaps (i.e. being a patriot led to joining the Marines and being a marine serves to validate and reinforce one’s identity as a patriot). Table 1.1 Construction of personal identity Personal Identity Begins with a mental construct, a representation of who we perceive ourselves to be

This mental representation is then enacted in our daily communication within various contexts

Is the enacted identity freely chosen – do we have agency in the way it is performed? Yes? No? Ideal identity (authentic) Imposed identity Does the individual nonetheless agree with the imposed identity? Yes? Ideal identity (authentic) No? A forced identity (possibly fraudulent)

1

On a side note, the language used by US Marines is suggestive of the personal and professional identities having merged, seen with the common expression of ‘I’m a marine’ (as opposed to ‘I’m in the army’, ‘I’m in the navy’, ‘I’m in the air force’ and ‘I’m in the coast guard’).

14

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

However, how much of what happens during this individual’s time in the Marines involves free will versus specific aspects of his professional (military) identity being imposed on him? While the decision to join the military is entirely his own, there are specific duties relating to one’s military life, which, unlike the civilian context, might prove restrictive in terms of personal freedom. For example, as a marine, the individual must assume a range of duties that can include being on guard duty during holiday periods, not being off base at certain times and being in platoon formation at six o’clock each morning. These duties, and many more besides, are all part and parcel of being a member of the armed forces and thus reflect a military identity. For the marine, these duties are clearly imposed by military law and enforced by the chain of command, and if any duty or regulation is not followed, punishment of some kind will be swift (e.g. a reduction in pay or even rank). Nonetheless, the marine may accept these duties willingly, all part of the larger self-concept of being a patriot, which inherently involves, to a greater or lesser degree, self-sacrifice. Thus, this is all part of his ideal identity, and while this identity derives from the directives and orders of those above him (everyone from his commanding officer to the commandant of the Marine Corps), he agrees with the orders. For others, however, it may be part of an imposed identity in the more absolute sense, not merely that it is not freely chosen, but also that although it is not agreed with, one has to go along with it (or else). What this means from a linguistic point of view can involve the use of military jargon (‘head’ instead of ‘toilet’, for example) and of course the need to recognize rank by addressing officers as ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’. This linguistic usage is also imposed in that it is a crucial part of respecting rank, something I recall from my four-year experience in the military. My identity as a soldier required me to use appropriate terms to address senior-ranking soldiers, and at times I was somewhat resentful that I was referred to in return merely as ‘Baratta’ by many of them, as I perceived this to be very impersonal. This was clearly an imposed part of my linguistic identity construction of being a soldier; at other times, it was not given much thought and thus was accepted without issue. Gee (2000) makes a further distinction between the institution identity and the discourse identity. The former is an identity that reflects being part of institutions, of which the military clearly is one. As Gee states, being a professor is another institution identity, one that is tied to the career world and is comparable with the professional identity I have referred to. The power involved, not just that of the professor but also that attributed to the individuals who hire people, is part of ‘laws, rules, traditions, or principles of various sorts’ (102) attributed

Personal and Professional Identities

15

to the said position. This power in turn contributes to the professional identity and certainly plays a role in the language use of the teacher. Thus, this could be seen as an imposed identity, but as I have argued, imposed is not always synonymous with ‘disagreed with’. To put it another way, if someone else’s ideal identity is ‘imposed’ on us, yet we are in agreement with it, it can be understood as an ideal identity for ourselves also. This professional identity can be more broadly related to social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974) and refers to the ways in which individuals derive identity (one of them at least) ‘in great part from the social categories to which they belong’ (Abrams & Hogg, 1998:19). Such categories are often based around race, ethnicity and class, but could more broadly be applied to career-based categories, such as teacher, lawyer and doctor, each of which has implications for language use. Clearly, not all members of a social category, whatever category it might be, are monolithic. To suggest such would be, in some cases, a racist notion. Thus, while one’s race, for example, may indeed play a major factor in terms of personal identity, it need not dictate how individuals perceive themselves; in other words, individuals are individuals. While an obvious point, it reflects the need to look at personal identity from a case-by-case perspective. To put it another way, how do the identity expectations implied by social identity theory become enacted by individuals within the given group? Gee’s further discussion of the discursive identity points to one (potentially several of course) that is equivalent to the personal identity I have also referred to. Gee discusses this identity in terms of a person’s individual traits, using the example of someone identified as ‘charismatic’. We could expand on the category of personal traits and of course create an extensive list, pertaining to personal identities of ‘kind’, ‘patient’, ‘opinionated’ and so on. An individual can of course exhibit a vast array of traits, even contradictory ones such as ‘kind’ and ‘selfish’, which is yet another reason why personal identities are pluralistic. Gee makes an important point, however, regarding this particular (personal) identity – it is one borne from the treatment of, and interaction with, others. In other words, people with an identity of ‘charismatic’ are not so merely because of selfperception, which would pertain solely to one’s mental construct; rather, they attain such an identity, including their self-perception, based on the dialogue and recognition of such by others. This again reveals that identities are formed based on being ascribed to us by others and, thus, how we see ourselves is partly a product of how others see us. Now, could these two identities – the institutional and the discursive – coexist comfortably within the institutional context? It depends. Within the context

16

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

of being a teacher, which is a professional identity that is expected throughout one’s working day, if one is identified as, say, ‘charismatic’, it can be a positive trait. If this refers to a manner of teaching which involves humour, passion and even a degree of eccentricity (however that is defined), and all of the above result in increased student engagement in class, then clearly the personal and professional identities can exist in harmony. But the reference to rules and tradition could imply that certain personal traits are not compatible, as we would not expect a successful trainee teacher to be identified as ill-tempered or impatient, for example. However, how we see ourselves and how others see us may indeed be very different. There were a few occasions during my earlier days of teaching when I regarded myself as ‘serious’, to the extent that I felt the need to communicate all aspects of the lesson (academic writing) to students, giving copious examples of completed essays, both good and bad. Thus, my self-concept as a ‘serious’ teacher was a reference to my attitude towards teaching (i.e. I was, and am, serious about teaching to the best of my abilities). However, a few students told me that they found me ‘strict’ in my approach, and when they explained further, it was clear that this word referred specifically to my demeanour – one which they explained was indeed ‘serious’ and, by extension, resulted in only teaching, with little time for banter or perhaps even smiling. In this case, my serious attitude – itself a positive trait, I would argue – meant that for some students I was identified, partly, as being a serious person (i.e. lacking in humour). Once again, who we are is not just ‘in our minds’ as a concept which is subsequently enacted; it is also in the eye of the beholder – here, one’s students. This is especially relevant to teacher training, as a teacher may have very fixed ideas about who he/she is and what this means for the observed lesson, for example. However, the feedback provided by mentors may indeed challenge long-held notions and the teacher will be forced to re-evaluate his/her beliefs. Thus, a regional accent perceived by the teacher as a means to connect with the students by implying an identity of being ‘one of them’ could be seen by others as unprofessional for the classroom. This is suggested by Pennington and Richards (2016:10) who reference ‘identity stress . . . precipitated by feedback from others who question or deny a person’s own sense of identity’. Thus, if interpreting imposed identity in the negative sense of an identity that is not agreed with and for which we feel we have no real choice, then this is an identity I would refer to as a forced identity. Of course, just because an identity is forced does not mean that it has to be subsequently perceived as fraudulent. This may or may not be the case, but I suggest that if various identities are indeed perceived as forced and free will does not play a part, then feelings of fraudulence are possible, and not mere annoyance.

Personal and Professional Identities

17

The notion of a ‘real me’ Despite the research clearly advocating a constructivist approach to identity, when questioned about their identity, research participants often answer in essentialist terms (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006; Bucholtz & Hall, 2007; Ybema et al., 2009). Bucholtz and Hall (2007:375–76) further explain that ‘within linguistic anthropology (we) cannot dispense with the ideology of essentialism as long as it has salience in the lives of the speakers we study’. Thus, despite evidence that identities are multiple in nature, there is nonetheless a fundamental aspect of how we see ourselves, again relating to identity as a more stable mental construct. In fact, with regard to the presentation of multiple identities within perhaps as many contexts of communication, Giddens (1991) refers to this as ‘the fragmentation of the self . . . its disintegration into multiple selves’ (188) or pseudo-selves, as opposed to a true self. This true self is the one that is perceived by the individual as wholly authentic and indicative of what we might call ‘the real me’. Ball (1972) refers to this as a substantive identity, ‘the more stable, core presentation of self that is fundamental to how a person thinks about himself or herself ’ (Day et al., 2006:603). Gee (2000) also refers to a core identity and Pennington and Richards (2016) use the term authentic identity. The link that these terms – substantive, core, authentic – have in common is what they collectively refer to – one’s self-perception and self-image (Richards, 2015), which is arguably where identity begins. After all, how can we ‘be’ someone unless we have an idea of who we are in the first place? This precedes identity enactment, which in turn precedes identity ascription by others, but can be subsequently reinforced by it. Joseph (2004:1) refers to identity as being constructed of ‘that deeper, intangible something that constitutes who one really is’, suggestive of the ‘essence’ of a person and here, one’s core. While our self-perception can clearly change as we change throughout life, through the natural course of time, life experiences and people and situations we come into contact with, there is a more stable entity that nonetheless exists, a comparatively fixed mental concept of who we are. As I have mentioned, this core self-image can nonetheless be realized across multiple enacted identities, for which I argue that there are conditions necessary in order to evaluate this identity(ies) as authentic: ● ●

the identity in question must be freely chosen by the individual, or if it is imposed by someone else, it must nonetheless be agreed with (i.e. so it is not a forced identity) and usually

18 ●

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

the identity is reflective of an individual’s core self-concept, this core sense of who the person sees him/herself to be; clearly, this plays a large part in the identity being accepted in the first instance.

Blommaert (2013) adds another layer to the concept of being authentic in one’s projection of identity via language use. Specifically, he discusses the concept of ‘enoughness’, referring to a particular identity beyond its linguistic implications, being infused with a sufficient amount of the specific details which in turn allows the individual, be it a teacher or a hip hop artist, to claim his/her identity as such. Conversely, identity construction may begin with the individual declaring that he/she does not have enough of a given feature to enact a specific identity and must, therefore, acquire it, reflecting a need for ‘specific doses of features’ (Blommaert & Varis, 2015:154). I have put forward the suggested conditions for individuals to perceive a given identity(ies) as authentic and it is indeed based partly on having a perception that one has enough, here from a linguistic point of view, to enact said identity. However, this alone does not suggest authenticity in the sense that if the identity is forced, then the individual who is attempting to enact it, perhaps for someone else’s benefit, will arguably encounter some resentment, a case perhaps of going through the (linguistic) motions. We could say that the individual’s heart is not in it, whereas attention to detail (and having ‘enough’), if deemed necessary regarding the proposed authenticity of an identity that is actively sought, can lead to personal fulfilment. Blommaert and Varis (2015) take the notion of authenticity further. Specifically, they make the claim that there are ‘degrees of authenticity’ (155) regarding one’s identity constructions. So what does this mean from the perspective of the individual when he/she displays an identity that, having met the suggested criteria I propose above, is regarded as entirely authentic? To answer this, Blommaert and Varis argue that these degrees of authenticity are reliant on one’s status within the community with which one identifies. Thus, a trainee teacher might regard him/herself, and be identified by others, as a novice, alongside experts (mentors). Trainees may therefore regard mentors and established teachers as more ‘authentic’ in that they have completed training and have many years of experience under their belts. While a trainee teacher may not perceive him/herself to be an ‘official’ teacher until training is completed, this does not mean that he/she perceives him/herself to be inauthentic either, or merely ‘less authentic’. Thus, while Blommaert and Varis discuss authenticity based more on one’s role or experience within the community, I discuss it from the perspective of

Personal and Professional Identities

19

self-perception as one negotiates one’s way around the new community, regardless of rank. In other words, while a trainee might not be an ‘official’ teacher, if he/she truly seeks out full membership in the teaching community, then a sense of authenticity regarding his/her becoming self (Ivanic, 1998) can feel no less real than if he/she were already a teacher. Likewise, might there be teachers who suffer from burnout, precisely because of their many years of experience and as a result feel inauthentic or, to put it more simply, they perceive themselves to be in the wrong job. In such cases, it is difficult to see how a higher rank and more experience will in themselves equate to authenticity in any sense, given that the teacher no longer wishes to be a teacher. Having said that, there are cases in which, despite one’s mental image as being a ‘good’ teacher, and being further willing to make all such changes to create a better teacher, those within the community who are already insiders perhaps and are therefore regarded as ‘real’, might be in more of a position to label the individual seeking membership as a ‘wannabe’ or ‘fake’ (156). This illustrates a potential cyclical nature of identity in that our mental concept, which leads to identity enactment, or enregistering (Agha, 2007), may also involve the identity ascription of us by others as being very different. This in turn can lead to identity modification, with the potential for the changes to be freely accepted or not, and thus the changes can be perceived as part of an ideal, or forced, identity. Simply put, even when we believe our enactment is authentic and indeed comes from the heart, others within the community – here, teachers – may nonetheless declare it not so, indirectly perhaps by way of feedback based on everything from clothing, posture and, indeed, accent. In fact, ‘mobilizing an authentic identity discourse about oneself can be a matter of attending to the most infinitesimally small details’ (Blommaert & Varis, 2015:157). Thus, if lacking in such details as part of a training assessment, we rely on those in the know to guide us, but once again here is where we might run into competing ideologies regarding what an authentic teacher is, and this in turn illustrates the fact that one man’s ‘authenticity’ can be another man’s fraudulence; it is often a question of who has the most power that determines whose version of authenticity will be displayed.

Will the real me please stand up? Let us now present the example of a young boy whose parents describe him as having a ‘clean mouth’, based on his efforts to present the identity of ‘a good son’, and all that such an identity entails via language use (e.g. avoiding taboo

20

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

language). However, the same boy might present a very different identity to close friends when meeting them in private. In this case, the boy’s use of taboo language with friends need not invalidate his otherwise ‘good’ persona, however; instead, it could serve to make him more credible in the eyes of his friends, using taboo language as banter (see Leech, 1983). Thus, in another context, there is a perceived need to create an identity that is fitting when with his friends, which would not be fitting when with his parents. Let’s assume both are freely chosen, out of, say, a respect for his parents and a desire for solidarity with his friends. Here are two very opposing identities forged, partly at least, by language use, which might raise another question – which identity is the real one? The answer of course is that they’re both real (if freely accepted), equally true representations of a complex individual, who, like most of us, understands the importance of context as the means to determine just what is or is not linguistically appropriate at a given moment in time. If, however, the use of taboo language is part of peer pressure and not reflective of the boy’s core, then this is clearly a forced identity, in this case forced by a need to be part of a group, with this desire perhaps being stronger than the desire to avoid taboo language with them and feel excluded. When considering the number of personal identities we might have, it is clear that there may be as many linguistic realizations for each. Thus, our language use serves to create, reinforce and maintain identities. Let us further consider the identity of ‘father’, illustrating how this identity affects, sometimes even limits, the language choices available to us, as well as how the language we use creates this identity, thus indicating a symbiotic relationship. However, we’re not done just yet – what are the implications for one’s identity as ‘father’ when talking to a son versus a daughter (e.g. I call my ten-year-old daughter sweetcake, but would probably not use this term for a son)? How might this identity be realized when talking to one’s child as a toddler versus a teenager? And what about the setting, such as the language used at the dinner table when providing life lessons on confronting bullies versus when with one’s child in the presence of his/her teacher? Clearly, there are important implications for how a given identity may be appropriately realized in a given moment, and thus even one otherwise ‘stable’ identity – here, father – is clearly not stable at all; like other personal identities, it is subject to change at a given moment which in turn necessitates a change in language, whatever that might involve and however subtle it might be. Thus, identity is multifaceted and I would suggest that there are in fact subidentities (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Tran & Nguyen, 2015). This has been hinted at in the preceding paragraph, in that one’s identity at any time may need

Personal and Professional Identities

21

to reflect a change in setting and this in turn affects the realization of that particular identity at that moment. If we further consider the identity of ‘teacher’, this too is far from uniform. A teacher identity is perhaps most obviously realized when, well, teaching. However, what are the implications for a teacher’s language use when teaching on the first day, or when teaching at the end of a term with a class he/she is extremely comfortable with? In these two instances, there may indeed be linguistic implications. A nervous teacher on his/her first day might use more formal language in an effort to sound more ‘educated’. On the other hand, some teachers might do the opposite, believing that using informal language might endear them more to an audience of children and make them sound ‘cool’, or at least avoid being perceived by their students as ‘stuffy’. This could be seen in a teacher’s use of phrases such as ‘the book we’re going to study today is well sick’ (i.e. it is ‘really good’), indicative of the kind of language currently used by British youth. However, such language might be deliberately avoided by teachers, not only because to some it is deemed inappropriate for the classroom, even if used on occasion merely as banter, but also because teachers fear it would make them sound affected. Going further, what are the implications to one’s teacher identity when being inspected and observed, be it OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) inspectors or an observation within teacher training? While this is still part of one’s ‘teaching teacher identity’, it is surely not the same as when teaching one’s students without the inclusion (intrusion?) of inspectors or mentors. Moreover, we might also consider how the teacher identity is realized when meeting with a child’s parents at parents’ evening to discuss the problems with the child’s progress, or when marking essays at night and needing to consider the written feedback for a student’s essay. Here are two further aspects of the teacher identity which do not pertain to the classroom, or indeed to teaching per se, and yet are legitimate aspects of the larger identity of ‘teacher’. The language used in the creation of these specific (non-classroom) teacher identities goes beyond accent of course and can include a need to hedge with one’s written feedback if an essay displays notable problems, for example (this is arguably a good point, but . . .). If we consider the various manifestations of the teacher identity under discussion, there are many aspects to consider and the diagram below hopes to capture just a few. While it may seem rather ‘binary’ to establish a teacher identity as being one that merely exists inside or outside the classroom, with the former dedicated mostly to the act of teaching, I suggest that the table above is anything but

22

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Table 1.2 Manifestations of the teacher identity Inside the classroom

Outside the classroom

• Teaching one’s students, non-observed • Teaching one’s students, observed • Teaching while in training, non-observed • Teaching while in training, observed • Teaching a class to one’s peers (e.g. sharing ideas for teaching) • Teaching on one’s first day at school (i.e. following completion of the PGCE) • Teaching an established class with whom the teacher has a good rapport • Teaching an established class with whom rapport is lacking

• Marking essays/exams at home • Preparing lesson plans • Meeting students outside of class time to discuss personal issues • Meeting students’ parents at a Parents’ Evening • Meeting prospective students at an Open Day • Discussing one’s case for promotion with a Head Teacher • Disciplining a student • Talking to a student’s parent(s) over the phone • Talking with fellow teachers in the staffroom

simplistic. Indeed, I am attempting to problematize the notion of what a teacher identity means for one’s language use. By all means, teachers could undoubtedly continue to fill in the table above with additional teacher identities, whether in the classroom, at home in bed or discussing matters in the school cafeteria. We might also consider the aforementioned issue of how the personal and professional identities intersect and indeed, one might take precedence over the other. For example, the identity put forward when in the staffroom talking to fellow teachers could be seen on one level as the odd man out. This is because it is an identity category which, unlike the others, does not necessarily rely on a conversation that is based on education/teaching per se. This need not always be the case, as teachers certainly discuss work-related matters in the staffroom (e.g. discussing an individual student’s progress). However, this does not tie in directly with one’s position as a teacher, and instead, staffroom conversations may reflect more of the personal, rather than the professional. I say this also in relation to the topic of conversation, including discussion of one’s holiday plans or a recent film. However, such personal topics can undoubtedly trigger more of the personal identity – that which is separate from the teaching context. What would this mean from a language perspective? This also depends on the person with whom we’re speaking. Is the teacher we’re conversing with a close friend or merely a work acquaintance? If the former, perhaps we can be more ‘free’ in our linguistic choices; if the latter, perhaps we feel more reserved. This might manifest itself with more discrete turn-taking, whereas conversation with

Personal and Professional Identities

23

a fellow teacher who is also a close friend might involve more overlap, indicative of being less guarded and more open. However, if the staffroom is particularly crowded at that given moment, then how ‘free’ can we be, not only in our choice of topic, but also in our manner of discussing the said topic? Again, the complexity of identities need not be overstated, but is in need of exposition when seeking to uncover how the personal and professional identities might intersect peacefully or, in some cases, clash, based on differing linguistic ideologies. Thus, society is essentially made up of linguistic chameleons, in an effort to use the right language for the right audience in the right setting at the right time. This fact points to much research on the constructivist nature of (linguistic) identity, which would appear to render fixed notions of who we are somewhat invalid. However, an overlooked aspect of the constructivist approach is that, amid a plethora of identities, I argue that some are perceived as more ‘real’ than others. Thus, one central claim that I make here, and will return to, is that while there may not be a ‘real me’, there are in fact real mes. Therefore, there is the potential for various identities, some of which may in fact be vastly different from each other in their linguistic realizations, to nonetheless all be perceived as real, true and indeed, authentic, by the speaker. I again argue that the understanding of identities being perceived as real depends largely, if not entirely, on choice and/or free will in their construction. In other words, if the language we use to help create a given identity is chosen by us and not by someone else, this is a large part of it being accepted as a real identity. Or if indeed our language change is based on someone else’s directive but we agree with the change, then this too lends itself to an identity perceived as real. We need to explore this further, however. Let us consider the context of a job interview for a teaching position. In such a context, we wish to create an identity of not just a prospective teacher, but more broadly of a professional. That is, what are the qualities we wish to embody for the duration of the interview, as the means to hopefully secure the position for which we’re applying, partly based on being perceived as ‘professional’? First, we need to consider the role of non-verbal communication, such as our choice of clothing. Therefore, we would probably dress the part, wearing a suit (navy blue perhaps, but not electric blue) and having shined shoes (not trainers/ sneakers). We might also consider the importance of maintaining eye contact with members of the interview panel and having a somewhat firm handshake, as well as being mindful of our gestures. There is a lot to consider before we even open our mouths. However, in terms of spoken language, speaking at a steady pace, using standard English and, most relevant to the focus of this book,

24

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

perhaps adjusting our accent to a variety we believe is more appropriate could be key factors. This might mean, for example, avoiding glottal stops if these are a feature of one’s otherwise personal identity outside of the teaching – thus professional – identity context. The point here is, while no one is forcing the applicant to adopt a certain style of clothing, eye contact, handshake or indeed language use, we could argue that there are societal implications for how we are supposed to use language in the context of job interviews. If individuals therefore feel that their language in such contexts is coerced, albeit socioculturally coerced, then the resulting identity could feel forced and potentially, but not necessarily, fraudulent. Thus, the matter of identities being forced need not always point to other individuals doing the forcing, however subtle it might be. It can also apply more broadly to situations in which individuals, while not feeling forced to adjust their language as such, nonetheless feel that they have no choice in the matter, as society does not give them much choice sometimes in certain situations. The notion of choice also extends to free will, another key factor in the extent to which identities are perceived as real or not. In this case, if an individual is told to adjust his/her language in some way for a specific context, be it public speaking, a job interview or for the teaching profession, this in itself need not point to a lack of choice. Rather, if the individual is in agreement with suggestions, if not directives, to modify his/her language in some way, then the resulting identity need not be perceived as fraudulent at all, as I have stressed. This is based on the individual wholly seeking to create this given identity and thus agreeing with others in terms of the linguistic means to establish such. This in turn suggests the degree to which we may actively seek to create linguistic identities in the first instance against what might be a desire to retain our otherwise ‘everyday’ language use. No matter how much an individual may celebrate his/ her accent, if the individual believes, with or without mentors’ guidance, that a less broad version of the accent is required for teaching, and has a passion to be a professional teacher in all respects, then this individual may indeed actively seek out accent modification and feel no negativity at all. Accent modification may thus be regarded as a small price to pay, if at all, if it leads to a perceived professional teacher identity. In the context of the teaching profession, a desire to be a ‘professional’ may well be, for some, based on a simultaneous desire to not modify one’s language use. Again, this can go beyond accent of course. I recall a literature professor during my undergraduate degree who gave students ‘warning’ of his language use on his syllabus, stating that ‘students with an agenda of political correctness may

Personal and Professional Identities

25

wish to seek another teacher for this course’ (in this case, a course in Victorian literature). Right from the first class, it became apparent that the teacher used a great deal of taboo language throughout his lectures, notably the word ‘fuck’ as well as disparaging comments about Catholics. At one point, he even told a student, albeit in jest (which is how it was received by the student) to ‘shut the fuck up’. This raises a few issues regarding personal language use as part of one’s teacher identity. First, I  state again that our identities, personal and professional, are not merely based on how we perceive ourselves. Identity is also ascribed to us by those around us. In other words, from the example of the job interview, the interviewee may seek, through clothing, gestures and language, to create an identity of a ‘professional’. If, however, any one of these categories, or others, is deemed by the interviewers to be inappropriate for a professional context, then the applicant will probably be unsuccessful. Thus, identity is enacted by the individual, but there may sometimes be a mismatch between the identity the individual believes he/she is displaying and the identity that is ascribed to the individual by others. While purely speculative, perhaps this literature teacher’s personal identity (one of them at least), was based on being an anti-Catholic, for whatever reason. This might also reflect the teacher’s desire to retain his personal use of taboo language, perhaps used outside the classroom as it was inside – a means to emphasize his anti-Catholic views by virtue of using marked language (however, after the first class, the taboo language no longer seemed ‘marked’ to me at all). However, we would probably consider taboo language and religious slurs to be at odds with a teacher identity, as these might not generally constitute professional language use. From this teacher’s point of view, perhaps his personal identity as an (suggested) anti-Catholic should not have to move out of the way when he was in front of a class, however, especially as we were all adults (one identity that we all shared). Going further, it might be argued that a larger aspect of how he saw himself, perhaps regarding himself as a ‘straight talking’, ‘no nonsense’ individual, was also reflected in his very desire to retain his anti-religious beliefs, as well as the manner in which he delivered them (i.e. through the use of taboo language and sarcasm). While my identity deconstruction of this individual might be off the mark, it hopefully serves to illustrate how we nonetheless construct identities of others, as I did with this teacher several years ago, rightly or wrongly. In this case, I regarded the teacher (and still do) as genuine, honest and committed to his ideologies (or one particular ideology); I didn’t see this as incompatible with a teacher identity at the university level – I saw him as ‘real’,

26

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

precisely because he didn’t compromise those linguistic aspects of himself that presumably did not merely come to life only in the classroom but existed beyond it. As a result, I trusted him more, as he came across as completely unpretentious, and to trust one’s teacher can only be a positive thing. Other students may, of course, have regarded him differently. His suggested desire to still ‘be himself ’ inside the classroom could have been interpreted as boorish, rude and, indeed, unprofessional. This leads to a second point regarding identities that are perceived as authentic. It is more than just the need to have choice, or at least full acceptance and free will regarding someone else’s directives for identity construction. There is also a need for our core values to inhabit our various identities, as this is a driving force in our perception of them being real, given that they reflect values that we believe make us who we are and this would also help explain why such identities would be freely chosen by us in the first instance, or wholly accepted even if coming about on the basis of someone else’s suggestions. Thus, such identities are reflective of the more ‘core’ self (Day, 2004) – the self-concept. To illustrate, let us consider one’s identity as a practicing member of a given faith as well as a university student. This is actually a current live issue (Mayrl & Oeur, 2009; Guest et al., 2013) amid a background of identity politics, in which the identities of ‘student’ and ‘member of faith’ do not always peacefully coexist. Again, it is not a case of one identity being more real or fixed than the other; there is no reason to believe that a religious individual’s identity as a student is regarded as inherently ‘fraudulent’. Indeed, in a recent study (Smith & Baratta, 2016), it is seen that for some such students, their choice of study is a perfect complement to their faith. This is the case with a Buddhist student whose decision to study business did not conflict with, or impact, her faith. She confirmed this by acknowledging that had she chosen to study biology, which could involve animal dissection, then a clear conflict would have occurred, in which case her identity as a Buddhist would presumably have taken precedence. At the very least, animal dissection would lead to her feeling fraudulent as a Buddhist; worst case, it would be considered sinful. However, let us consider the case of a Jewish music student in the same study. This student had no issue singing the music of Wagner, even though it is effectively banned in Israel. As she declared, ‘It is just music’. Thus, her identity as Jewish did not conflict with this one specific aspect of her student identity. She did have a conflict though which connects with the notion of ‘safe spaces’ on campus (Gayle, Cortez & Preiss, 2013). This was reflected in the student’s desire to not meet with her interviewer outside the Student Union on campus, as she

Personal and Professional Identities

27

believes it to be, as do many Jewish students apparently, anti-Israel. Thus, to have met the interviewer at a location which ironically caters to students would have compromised her religious identity. In this sense, the perceived hostility towards Israel leads to a Jewish student’s religious identity taking precedence, in that her core values of love and respect for the Jewish home state would have to be put on hold essentially if meeting someone outside a specific building on campus. Thus, by meeting her interviewer elsewhere, at a location otherwise considered ‘neutral’ by the student, her religious identity and its inherent values were not compromised. Here, then, is an example of a situation in which there was an identity clash, but one that was nonetheless able to be resolved. A further aspect of the extent to which identities are regarded as real is based partly on how much conscious thought we give to them, though I wouldn’t consider this a condition per se regarding the extent to which particular identities are considered as authentic or not. I have argued that one major criterion for identities being considered forced is the extent to which they are imposed on us, either directly by others, notably those in authority, or indirectly by virtue of societal norms regarding language use. Beyond this, it is also a matter of how much, if at all, we agree to the linguistic modifications, which in turn creates new identities. Thus, an identity can only really be regarded by the individual as forced, even fraudulent, if he/she does not agree with the changes made. However, even being bluntly told to modify one’s language may not be regarded as an issue if the resulting identity is fully accepted and embraced and, above all perhaps, sought out in the first instance. The additional point here is that when we are completely comfortable with a given use of language within a given context, we perhaps give little conscious thought to either; both the language we use and the identity that is created as a result arguably flow naturally. An anecdote I often use in my teaching is the ‘house on fire’. Wake someone up at three o’clock in the morning and tell them the house is on fire; the language they use at that point, accent included, will be a far cry from a ‘phone voice’ and will instead be about as real as it gets. This suggests that accent modification is largely centred on trying to impress one’s interlocutors or at the very least, an attempt to not stand out and instead, fit in (Baratta, 2016). If we find ourselves in situations where we already fit in and have no need to impress, arguably a situation which involves peers – those considered ‘equal’ and those with whom we are extremely comfortable – then no attention is perhaps given to the accent we are using. If we find ourselves in situations, however, where we feel a need to impress, be it a job interview or a blind date, we may indeed modify our accent in some way in order to be perceived

28

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

better. In such instances, it may mean that we have no choice but to give much of our attention, initially at least, to the change of language, reminding ourselves to pronounce our t’s or to drop our r’s, for example.

Working at our linguistic identity construction In extreme cases, we may not be able to allow ourselves the luxury of letting down our linguistic guard at all. This is suggested by the actor Hugh Laurie, who did not merely modify his British accent for his role in the TV series House; he changed his accent wholesale for an American accent. I do recall that he made the point that, flawless though his American accent was generally perceived to be, it did require constant attention to get it right. Now, is the ‘House identity’ fake? On the one hand, yes. This is because it is obviously a fictitious character. However, what if individuals purposely choose to modify their accent, either to a less regional version or to a completely new one? I ask this question in regard to the criteria discussed thus far for perceptions of authenticity regarding accent modification – the authenticity, I should point out, not in relation to the accuracy of the accent that one modifies to, but relating entirely to the identity that is created as a result in terms of how the individual perceives him/herself (and is perceived by others). If individuals actively seek out new identities through accent change, then the possibility that they need to monitor their speech, essentially to make sure they get the accent right, need not be an issue. In other words, while having to consciously monitor one’s accent may not sound ‘natural’ at all, and I have of course already argued that our most natural linguistic identities are those constructed without much thought, the additional factor of personal desire cannot be dismissed. If I moved to Sydney and wished to adopt an Australian accent, and if this results, as it surely would, in having to constantly remind myself of how to sound like an Aussie while I’m conversing with people, then the occasional frustration that this would create may indeed be deemed worth it, based on my ultimate goal – to feel more integrated in Australian society by virtue of sounding Australian. However, we now need to turn our attention to identities which are imposed on us by someone else, referring to forced identities. The word ‘imposition’ is suggestive of being forced, but need not be. Rather, I use the word broadly to simply refer to an accent, and identity change, that comes about from the advice or suggestions of someone else, as I have mentioned. This can range from parents telling their children to not ‘drop their g’s’ or indeed to a mentor instructing

Personal and Professional Identities

29

a teacher during training to avoid glottal stops when teaching. It might be counterintuitive to have someone else suggest how we should speak, if not tell us how we must speak, but our language use is not always ours to begin with. As mentioned, how we speak is a complex mix of factors that reside outside of ourselves and includes many influences such as the relationship we have, or perceive ourselves to have, with our interlocutors; issues pertaining to social rank; the topic of conversation; the setting and so on. This of course need not suggest that we are mostly faking it, merely making polite conversation while we simultaneously suppress a burning desire to tell it like it is and say what we really mean and sound how we really want. This, of course, may be the case in some instances, but certainly need not reflect a social truth. So ingrained are these multiple influences that, as mentioned, we hardly give them much thought and simply get on with it, the ‘it’ being the conversation topic, and accent, in question. Nonetheless, if told how we should speak, we need to consider those instances in which we do not agree. While a person’s advice to us to speak in a certain way may be regarded as well-meaning, if we do not agree then this creates a dilemma. Do we follow the advice given or do we go our own way? Again, the situation is multifaceted. Who exactly is giving advice? Is it a parent to our childhood self, or is it a mentor to our adult self? I do not wish to present a picture which suggests a rather ‘either/or’ dichotomy; as mentioned before, I wish to avoid a binary picture of one or the other and instead fully flesh out the complex aspects of identity formation. However, in the example posed, who we are as children and adults represents two different identities, and if a well-meaning parent seeks to have us avoid being perceived as ‘common’ on our first day at a private school (hence, don’t drop your ‘h’s or ‘g’s’), then this might be perceived with a touch of affection by the child. This might be a stark contrast to an adult who has received a first class degree and is doing equally well with the teacher training course, only to be told when meeting with the mentor that accent modification is deemed necessary for the teacher’s classroom observation (and beyond, perhaps). How this ‘advice’ is delivered plays a large part in how it is subsequently received also. Blunt comments about a topic as potentially sensitive as one’s accent might not be considered as advice but as a personal attack. However, if the advice is delivered with excessive politeness and tact, it might be perceived as patronizing. To be fair, this can also be a delicate situation for the person delivering the advice. But as always, the immediate context is a mix of factors – what is the relationship between adviser and advisee, is it in a private or public setting, how is the advice relevant, is there trust between the two and so on. It also depends greatly as to how much disagreement there might be between the two

30

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

individuals regarding the linguistic change. This is where issues can arise. Advice delivered in nothing less than a professional manner, fully explained and justified and provided by someone we respect is well and good, but even this may not be sufficient to lead to the advisee, here a teacher, wishing to go along with the advice; ‘advice’ is a relative word also, as taken literally it would imply that it can be taken or ignored. In some cases, however, it is indeed a directive and as we shall see in this book, for one teacher in particular, advice on accent was not perceived that way at all. It was indeed a directive, part of a target for this teacher for her next classroom observation. Thus, the implied threat was clearly felt to be that if the teacher did not modify her accent as instructed by her mentor, then this would impact on the mentor’s evaluative feedback for the observed lessons. This was also an issue for two other teachers, with their accent modification suggested by the mentors to be a ‘target’ for the next observation. Herein lies a clear case of linguistic fraudulence with this group. The issue is reflective of conflicting ideologies in that, to retain their otherwise personal accent (i.e. to avoid the modifications suggested), the teachers risked receiving negative comments on their next evaluation, despite otherwise experiencing a sense of ‘keeping it real’ from a linguistic point of view. Such a change, fully based on someone else’s standards of appropriate language, was perceived as (linguistic) ‘selling out’, even though it might help in the evaluations. This is a clear example of what a fraudulent identity is. It is an identity that is constructed based on linguistic standards from someone other than the speaker and it is not agreed with. These are two clear conditions for such identities. The extent to which we perceive identities as infused with our personal values being a factor in their perception of legitimacy, might also be addressed here. In this case, a broad value, one of being true to oneself, including one’s regional origins, is clearly not felt to be relevant with an accent that someone else instructs us to make less regional. Sikes (2006:563) in fact argues that ‘when contexts change and priorities shift, grasping hold of identities that one can feel comfortable with is no easy matter’. As I  mentioned, if the linguistic changes necessary for the creation of the teacher identity are agreed with by the individual who was ‘imposed upon’, then this identity need not be perceived as fraudulent at all, given that the speaker also seeks to establish such an identity, based on the perceived rewards it brings – in this case, the rewards being not merely the immediate issue of pleasing his/ her mentor and in return obtaining a favourable review, important though that might also be. Arguably, the perceived rewards are more long-term in nature, and focus on the creation of an identity deemed professional and wholly appropriate

Personal and Professional Identities

31

for a career that the teacher truly desires to be a part of, based on notions of what ‘correct’ speech sounds like in the classroom from a phonological perspective. Thus, there is no conflict in this instance. Given that there is mutual agreement, this new identity is welcomed, or certainly accepted without issue. It should also be pointed out that agreement and disagreement, reflective of Likert scale research perhaps, are somewhat relative. For example, it may be the case that even if a teacher agrees with both the directive of accent modification and even the manner in which the directive is delivered, this does not imply that it involves complete agreement. Likewise, disagreeing with the directives need not mean that the teacher is internally conflicted about whether to ‘play the game and sell out’ or ‘go it alone and keep it real’. It may be that an individual who is otherwise not in agreement with accent modification nonetheless agrees with the perceived logic of it (e.g. perhaps being better understood by students, especially if teaching in a new region). Also, those who agree with the change may also wish that they needn’t have to change, or feel the need to do so. Perhaps this is reflective of a desire to use an accent which doesn’t require having to give too much conscious thought to how one speaks and instead being able to just focus on what one discusses in the classroom. This would be a largely practical issue, with no thought to fraudulence at all. Thus, there may indeed be levels to one’s agreement or disagreement regarding accent modification, if not otherwise feeling completely neutral on the matter, as some may do. It is not an intention in this book to attempt to uncover this, given the difficulties in quantifying levels of acceptance or disagreement. What is felt to be more relevant is to allow the teachers to discuss their personal experiences and, from there, explain the extent, in whatever words they choose, of any inherent ‘levels’ of (dis)agreement with accent-based directives. Moreover, the focus within this book includes examples of the teachermentor relationship in which there are otherwise unambiguous instances, at least as reported by the teachers, of fraudulent linguistic identities, and based on mentors’ comments regarding accent that are perceived as wholly inappropriate. There are, of course, instances in which no mention was made of teachers’ accents or if there were, the teachers have no issue with this. These examples are equally important to illustrate. However, considering that there is scant information in the British context regarding the construction of teacher identity from an accent-based perspective, this book can make a start in establishing that there certainly are instances in which mentors’ and teachers’ linguistic ideologies clash, reflecting a deeper issue regarding perceived notions of what it means to be a ‘professional’ teacher based on one’s accent use in the classroom.

32

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Teacher identity The purpose of this section is to discuss the ways in which teacher identity has been theorized from a non-linguistic perspective, thus providing some necessary context to the larger issue of identity before progressing to the more relevant area of linguistic identity. The discussion in this section comprises research mainly focused on trainee teachers, whose identity as teachers is a work in progress. I begin with a relevant quotation from Wenger (1998:227), who states that ‘learning transforms our identities’. This is indicative of the ways in which new knowledge not only leads to new ways of thinking, but also new ways of doing and being. In the case of trainee teachers, they are learning much more than the practical skills necessary for their future careers. They are also learning a great deal about themselves in the process in terms of how their pre-teacher identities, essentially their personal identities, can (or perhaps cannot) play a part in their burgeoning professional identity of teacher. The potential for some aspects of one’s personal identity to be discarded or negotiated to fit better with the teacher identity is captured by Correa et al. (2013), who discuss this in terms of identities being reconstructed. I had mentioned before that one’s personal identity  – forever a pluralistic concept  – need not have to make way for the teacher identity to emerge and grow, however. Revisiting identity as an initial mental self-concept, we might consider how a self-concept as a person who wishes to shape the lives of children would be wholly fitting in the development of one’s teacher identity. Indeed, we need not suggest that the development of a teacher identity, within the context of training or beyond, is necessarily problematic for individuals. However, for some trainee teachers it can prove challenging and this is based on the fact that there are multiple factors involved in the process of developing a professional identity as a teacher. There is the obvious contribution to teacher identity of the individual and his/ her personal identity and the resulting dispositions, part of identity enactment. As Bukor (2015:306) puts it, ‘Identity may be expressed in the form of beliefs, assumptions, values, and actions as well as in the various ways one perceives and interprets oneself and the world’. This has been covered and I briefly reiterate that identity starts with our self-concept and, as Bukor suggests, the expression of such in terms of our public behaviour is what affirms for the individual who he/she is and what also leads to those around us labelling us in a certain way – identity ascription.

Personal and Professional Identities

33

However, there are other influences on the development of a teacher identity. We need to also consider the mentor’s role, and that of other teaching staff, who bring their own more established teacher identities to interactions with the trainee regarding what makes a ‘good’ teacher. A teacher’s professional identity is thus formed from several influences, another one being that of the ‘the social situation’ (Correa et al., 2013:4), which unites both mentor and trainee. This is an admittedly broad term, but necessarily so, as there are multiple influences on the construction of teacher identity from within the social realm. This can include the country in which one is teaching, with its inherent norms and values, notably regarding education. For purposes of this section, however, I refer to social situation as something more immediate to the trainee teacher  – the situation of training per se, with all aspects such as developing a relationship with one’s mentor, getting to know the ethos of the school at which one teaches, observed lessons, mentor feedback and so on. Indeed, it is impractical, if not impossible, to present a defined list of all that the social situation contains.

Teaching as a community An effective means to attempt to capture the various strands of the social situation of teacher training is to conceptualize it as a community of practice. In other words, realizing the context of training as entering a new community, akin to perhaps moving to a new culture, helps to make things more concrete. We would therefore expect the trainee to learn new values, practices and ways of thinking and doing. This also ties in with the work of Swales (1990) in terms of discourse communities, for which he posits several characteristics, one of which is the need for a suitable level of professionals within the community, thus a means to guide novices towards becoming part of the community (here a community of teachers). Thus community, given its broad nature, can apply to any group which meets Swales’s criteria, and need not be tied to academia (e.g. a fitness club is a community also). Of particular relevance is the use of the word ‘discourse’. Here, Swales is referring to a particular way of using language in a given community, spoken or written, but specifically a reference to lexis. In the case of teacher training, and the larger teaching community, we might imagine relevant lexis to perhaps include zone of proximal development, visual pedagogy and lesson plan. However, as the next section discusses, what is considered ‘relevant’, if not ‘acceptable’ language use, solely on the basis of one’s accent?

34

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

In the context of participating in this new community, Wenger (1998) suggests that one’s identity is built based on a sense of joint cooperation and shared learning and understanding. I would argue that this sense of sharing and perhaps a belief of ‘we’re all in this together’ is highly dependent on the relationship between the trainee and those who are there to essentially acculturate the trainee into this community. This could include a need for the trainee’s views and ideas to be given a forum and considered so that, while power rests in the hands of the mentor, the trainees also believe that their voices are being heard. Thus, we are talking about an otherwise equal relationship to the extent that while the mentor’s views are based on experience and should be considered, there is room for negotiation at times. In fact, Eckert (2006:1) talks of a community of practice in terms of ‘mutual sense-making’. This suggests two points. First, identity formation is not something that can exist independent of some kind of social interaction, at the level of enacted identity. For example, a person cannot really be identified as a good teacher without someone to teach or, more relevant to the current discussion, without a mentor to evaluate their performance as a teacher. Second, the word mutual in turn implies the need for agreement between teacher and mentor regarding what is ‘best practice’. An encouraging finding comes from the research of Woodgate-Jones (2012:155), who comments that ‘student teachers are appreciated for bringing new teaching ideas and approaches into their placement schools’. Thus, given a strong relationship between the teacher and mentor/established teachers, this can allow for discussion and even negotiation at times, but how does one negotiate his/her teacher identity between his/ her personal values and beliefs and those of the mentor? Timoštšuk and Ugaste (2010) argue for the need to ensure one’s personal identity is well understood in the first instance. The point that they are making, and its relevance to the preceding discussion of identity negotiation, is perhaps obvious: before we can modify who we are along the journey to developing a professional teacher identity, we first need to be clear about who we are in terms of what we stand for, what our values are and what are our personal goals and vision. This is argued to be the starting point as a means to answer the question that Timoštšuk and Ugaste pose: ‘Can I be who I am in the classroom?’ (1563, emphasis mine). It has been made clear that identity formation in terms of the identity(ies) which will be enacted (and in training, evaluated) is a multiple concept; it is formed based on the contextual implications of the interaction with others; and identity is indeed based on interaction with others. As I have suggested, there is the potential for conflict when one’s values as an individual do not match those of the mentor.

Personal and Professional Identities

35

An example involves a trainee whose personal identity of ‘affectionate’ indeed had to be renegotiated, if not removed (Correa et al., 2013). This trainee’s emotional identity was essentially in conflict with that expected of the teacher identity, but the expectation came from the more experienced teachers and was not her own. Thus, her self-concept as an affectionate person led her to hug a distressed child, but the beliefs of the teachers who witnessed this were at odds with those of the trainee, who believed that this enactment (hugging) based on her self-concept (‘affectionate’) was acceptable. Cooper and Olson (1996:87) illustrate this dilemma; a teacher identity sometimes ‘entails suppressing personal voice in favour of an objective and distanced voice’. While voice might apply more directly to speech per se, the relevant aspect is based on suppression of the personal to allow for the professional, seen as being more objective. In the example provided, hugging a child was one of potentially many other examples in which a personal expression of identity was deemed perhaps too personal. This need not suggest tension, of course, as some trainees may indeed welcome the opportunity to learn and grow from their ‘mistakes’. Alsup (2006:4), however, offers conflicting advice, exhorting trainee teachers to integrate ‘the personal self with the professional self ’, yet also acknowledges that in the context of this professional identity, there is ‘a narrowly defined professional role’ (ibid.). This suggests that one’s professional identity, precisely because it is not the personal, is less open to variation, reflective of a ‘cultural script’ (ibid.) within the teaching community. Thus, from the influence of others, we see a re-evaluation of one’s teacher identity, one that might not at all be reflective of a personal identity at times. Williams (2006) reflects on the fact that identity conflict can become a reality when we create an identity that falls outside the expectations of others, which in this case can refer to mentors. Timoštšuk and Ugaste (2010:1568) further state, ‘Teachers have to face contradictions between a constantly changing social context and their own beliefs and values’ and in some cases this does not allow for discussion; perhaps trainees are afraid, however, to initiate discussion and instead resign themselves to doing what they are told to do, even if it means forgoing an aspect of their personal identity that they believe is appropriate to infuse the teacher identity with. While it is simplistic to assert that more dialogue is needed between mentor and trainee, it is clear that avoiding such and accepting one’s identity is not conducive to developing a sense of belonging and the identity derived is reflective of a forced identity, what Taylor (2013) would label as submissive. Of course, this is not absolute. While the act of hugging a child was not regarded favourably in one situation, the

36

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

same teacher might find that her enactment of her self-concept of ‘affectionate’ might be regarded positively by other teachers (and the students) if it is manifest with something as simple, yet effective, as a sticker and positive comment in students’ notebooks. There are, therefore, emotional aspects to the formation of a teacher identity, with Bukor (2015:308) claiming that ‘emotional intelligence is at the heart of good professional practice’, further arguing that the teacher identity is indeed made up of several sub-identities, including the emotional, teacher knowledge and professional development, the latter a reference to the fact that identities are an ongoing work, and teachers can indeed grow beyond training. Therefore, the emphasis is not merely on the technical aspects of being a teacher. For example, a teacher who is identified as well-organized (e.g. lesson plans are always prepared on time and followed), punctual and knowledgeable says little about the more human side to this individual. As I had referred to before, my self-concept as a ‘serious’ teacher, consisting of, dare I say, being knowledgeable in my subject area and thorough in its dissemination to the students, did not suggest to some of the students a ‘good’ teacher from a purely emotional side. Clearly, students desire a teacher who ‘knows his/her stuff ’, communicates it well and is also approachable; a strict teacher might not be perceived as reflecting the latter characteristic, however. In training, then, we must also recognize this emotional aspect to identity formation as I have illustrated here, as an emotional aspect presented to one’s students from a broader point of view. Nias (1989:305) argues that ‘Teachers are emotionally committed to many different aspects of their jobs. This is not an indulgence; it is a professional necessity. Without feeling, without the freedom to “face themselves”, to be whole persons in the classroom, they implode, explode – or walk away’. This is not merely about trainees understanding themselves as teachers in terms of the interplay between the established personal identity and the developing professional identity; it says as much about the need for this to be acknowledged by the mentors and senior staff who are as much a part of this professional identity formation as is the individual trainee. Day (2004:24) in fact references a moral purpose as a central component in the building of one’s teacher identity, declaring that ‘moral purposes are at the heart of every teacher’s work’. A moral purpose could easily apply to one’s emotional make-up, being reflected in such qualities as compassion, patience and understanding. Fullan (2002:14) perhaps captures this best, saying that at the heart of good teachers is a desire to ‘make a difference in the lives of students’. Once again, however, it is the enactment of such that determines what is or is not ‘professional’.

Personal and Professional Identities

37

Returning to a central point of discussion, we need to address the interplay between the personal and the professional identities, as well as other factors such as the regulations of the particular school. Mockler (2011) discusses identity formation as indeed based on the intersection of these various factors, with personal identity mentioned as reflective of all manner of identities, including those based on group membership (e.g. race, as was mentioned briefly), as well as extracurricular activities and one’s personal views of education based on childhood experiences. These exist outside the professional realm. The professional context clearly incorporates teacher training and that within, including the interaction with one’s mentor, with training mentioned as ‘a significant element within the domain of professional context’ (Mockler, 2011:521). Using the term ‘teacher activism’, Mockler refers to the ways in which teachers engage, or not, with the contextual level of the politics of teaching (government policy, for example; this will have particular salience in the discussion of teachers’ linguistic identity in a later section, with the discussion of recent legislation in Arizona concerning linguistic standards for teachers). The implications for such intersection are revealed in an earlier study by Nias (1989), and how it can lead some teachers to experience something of an identity crisis. Within a primary school in England, she reveals how the personal identity (e.g. a desire to nurture students), the professional identity (e.g. the requirement to discipline students if necessary) and policy requirements (e.g. to meet standards which are established externally, such as Key Stages) can combine to make teachers feel ‘under pressure, guilty, and inadequate’ (193). Therefore, amid multiple influences, both internal and external, all of which intersect and do not exist independently, it is clear that the development of a teacher identity can sometimes be a challenging process. Mockler further references ‘anchors’ which occur throughout a teacher’s life, including during training, and function to provide ‘a frame of reference for professional practice’ (522); one such anchor can include the school’s teaching standards (themselves often externally prescribed), which teachers must meet. Such anchors can be positive or negative of course, such as having one’s ideas for teaching validated by one’s mentors and also being made to re-evaluate one’s role as comfort giver in the context of teaching. As will be discussed in the following section, there may be linguistic anchors during the course of training, be they mentors’ directives for language use in the classroom or the teachers’ own self-evaluation (or indeed both, as mentors’ comments can lead to selfevaluation and a reconsideration of one’s practice – here, linguistic practice, as a teacher).

38

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

In terms of this dynamic interplay between different, sometimes competing influences, a moral purpose or, to put it more simply, even the best intentions on the part of a trainee, might not always be the best practice. I have suggested that this can be due to a discrepancy between mentor and teacher, but we need to consider this from another perspective. A telling quotation is provided below: We believe that teachers, in good faith, act on an inaccurate understanding of the role of ‘teacher’ because they imitate what they experienced, and their supervisors rarely make clear that the job is to cause understanding, not merely to march through the curriculum and hope that some content will stick. (Wiggins & McTighe, 2007:128)

In such cases, we need to turn to the mentor, as professional insider, who needs to then step in and guide the teacher, not merely by asserting that the teacher is ‘wrong’ or by telling them how they ‘should’ do it (whatever ‘it’ refers to), but also by explaining, rationalizing and justifying. Identity shifts might not always be easy, but in the long run they prove beneficial for students and teacher alike in the sense that they can help to initiate change which is perhaps needed. Li (2013:142), for example, references the need for teachers to continue to grow as professionals, in part based on ‘constant inquiry and reflection’, with Tran and Nguyen (2015:968) discussing the need to become a transformative teacher, as opposed to merely remaining a conforming teacher. This is mentioned in relation to innovation of some kind in pedagogic practice, based sometimes on adapting to the needs of the students, but it might also be a reflection of feedback, including that from students themselves. Day et  al. (2006:612) explain that a ‘significant and ongoing part of being a teacher . . . is the experiencing and management of strong emotions’. This is multi-referential and need not be tied solely to the training context, but in the formation of identity within teacher training, one’s personal view of what it means to be a ‘good’ teacher may sometimes clash with the personal ideas of one’s mentors, or be subject to external influences regarding policy or even the specific ethos of the school. Williams (2006) suggests something of a forced identity, or certainly one that does not come naturally initially, in that some manifestations of the teacher identity may be ‘conscious and calculated’ (5). The reverse, through aspects of identity enactment which are described as ‘spontaneous and natural’ (ibid.), are perhaps reflective of identity which is more fully ingrained in the teacher. This does not suggest, however, that such ‘natural’ aspects (e.g. shouting at students if deemed to be the final solution to get their attention) come naturally. This suggests that identities are not only multiple

Personal and Professional Identities

39

but, as mentioned, are subject to change. Thus, an identity initially perceived as forced and, beyond this, perhaps even fraudulent, can, in time, become fully accepted and thus ideal, to the point that we don’t actually give it much thought. As I have mentioned, however, this is not to say that aspects of new identities that require conscious thought given their newness are a subsequent reflection of forced identities. We may willingly seek out such identities in the first instance and regard the need to actively consider them merely a reflection of identity development in progress. I had briefly touched on agency in the previous section, which is a relevant concept in teacher identity. This is a term which has received several interpretations such as free will (Segal, 1991); resistance (Goddard, 2000); the ability for an individual to pursue his/her valued goals, referred to as personifying one’s role as teacher, thus allowing for personal traits and characteristics to be embedded within the teacher identity (Archer, 2000); and ‘the socioculturally mediated capacity to act’ (Ahearn, 2001:112). Despite these differing views, Ahearn states that agency ‘can be defined in any number of ways’ (130). Here, I define agency from a purely power-based perspective, in terms of the extent to which teachers have, or perceive that they have, freedom regarding how much of their personal identity is input into their professional identity, as opposed to it having to be withdrawn. This relates to the discussion thus far as it addresses the potential for identity problems to be averted if teachers believe that their professional identities need not always discard aspects of their personal identities. Given the previous discussion on the influence on professional identity from other sources, be they mentors, the particular school’s regulations or the broader issue of national legislation, it is clear that some teachers will not always be in a position to just ‘be themselves’ within the classroom. Thus, while Bennet (2013:55) talks of the need for a ‘clear self-image and ownership of an emerging professional identity’ as prerequisites for a successful future career as a teacher, with Beltman et al. (2015:227) further discussing the need to develop a ‘strong, coherent teacher identity’, I  would argue that it is a clear self- image that can indirectly impact on ownership. That is, a clear self-image, linked to the personal identity, can in fact lead to clearly enacted identities, which some individuals may indeed be wedded to. In such cases, this could lead to intervention by those involved in the context of identity production, such as mentors and, as has been discussed, a rethinking of how the personal can, if at all, be embedded within the professional, in some instances at least. Conversely, the extent to which one wishes to become a teacher perhaps can have an impact on the ways in which trainee teachers accept feedback, even when it is bluntly delivered and goes

40

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

against their pre-teaching identity regarding personally held values. Beltman et al. (2015) rightly point out that teaching is a complex process, especially for pre-service teachers. Add to this a vast array of different personal identities and, as part of this, differing personalities, and it cannot be predicted what personal struggles and triumphs trainee teachers might experience on their journey to becoming ‘official’ teachers. Thus, teacher identity is formed at the intersection of personal and public concepts regarding expectations of what it means to be a good teacher. As has been discussed, there are of course multiple factors which make up the ‘personal’ and ‘public’, such as, respectively, one’s educational experiences in childhood and a particular school’s policy. When considering the role of mentor, we must also remember that he/she is influenced by the same external context, such as educational policies, but also potentially influenced by what could be a very different personal identity in terms of what a teacher should do and should be. The defining issue for this book is what this means from an accent-based perspective. How do teachers make sense of, come to terms with and ultimately accept, or not, differing views with regard to how they ‘should’ speak in the classroom?

The linguistic identity of teachers I open with a previous quote from Ahearn (2001:111) who states that ‘language and power are . . . commonly intertwined’. While this can refer on a basic level to the power that mentors have over trainee teachers by virtue of their language (e.g. feedback) carrying weight and being supplied as a means to guide the trainee in becoming a better teacher, there is a deeper issue here. Certain varieties of a given language carry more social power than others, at least in certain contexts, and while this will be more fully discussed in Chapter 2, I mention it here as a brief, yet necessary, inclusion.

The importance of accent Specifically, within official contexts, such as government and education, and involving everything from an academic essay to a MP’s report, we would expect standard English to be used. This is the variety of the English language that carries power partly by its association with institutions which themselves yield power – the power to award academic degrees and to make laws, for example.

Personal and Professional Identities

41

However, this is largely a matter of the written context of language and is, in some ways, rather neutral. By this I refer to the fact that when reading a document, be it a PhD thesis or an online proposal from the local council, there are not necessarily any value judgements made on the quality of the text purely in terms of the grammar and lexis, with the latter referring to words which presumably would be understood across the country one is in. In other words, non-standard forms are not used in this instance and, arguably, we have become accustomed to the use of standard English in such communicative contexts. However, what form of spoken English in Britain carries the most power? Historically, this was RP, which now exists as a class-based accent. Given its association with news broadcasts, it was once synonymous with BBC English. In terms of identity, the use of prestige language forms carries identifying characteristics perhaps, such as being educated and authoritative. In terms of linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1991), essentially referring to linguistic forms that carry respect and prestige in society, RP was the standard. This subsequently implies that regional accents are not. As I  mentioned, this will be covered in greater depth in the next chapter, but it is necessary to provide a brief introduction to this first in order to lead into the central question posed within this section: Are certain accents disfavoured within educational settings (here, teacher training or beyond)? What is the reality for trainee teachers in Britain and beyond, who speak with an accent that is stigmatized in society or dispreferred in some way? On one level, the identity-based issue concerns how others may ascribe identities to them, while the teachers themselves might very well celebrate their accent (or certainly not have personal issues with it). Thus, there is the potential for a personal linguistic identity – realized with an accent that is, as much as can be determined, otherwise unmodified – to have to be negotiated based on the reality of how it is perceived, or thought to be perceived, by one’s students or fellow staff. On a basic level, our accent is a symbol of our regional origins. Regardless of accent, an English person who travels to the United States will be recognized, broadly, as ‘English’ or ‘British’ initially. Beyond this, we might then consider the specific region of origin, with our accent a linguistic ‘stand-in’ for our birthplace and/or where we were raised. In this sense, pride in our region can equate to pride in our accent, given that accent is an oral ID as to where we are from. Furthermore, the connotations of one’s birthplace, be it a country and/or city, might be transferred to the accent, so that northern accents in England might connote positive stereotypes, such as being friendly and open (Mugglestone, 2003). This might pertain to self-evaluation and self-image perhaps, but we need

42

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

to consider how our accent is evaluated, and subsequently we too, by interlocutors. Simply put, what if others do not like our accent, moreover if they hold power over us (e.g. a job interviewer, a teacher or a mentor)? Any dislike may or may not be obviously stated, but if individuals are merely aware of a general societal dislike for their accent, then what? Modify or keep it as is? Many studies have discussed the relationship between language and identity (Labov, 1966; Giles, 1973; Tajfel, 1974; Macaulay, 1977; Labov, 1978; Gumperz, 1983; Eckert, 1989; Chambers, 1992; Ochs, 1993; Johnstone, 1998; Foreman, 2000; Kerswill & Williams, 2000; Fairclough, 2001; Jones, 2001; Evans and Iverson, 2007; Tagliamonte & Molfenter, 2007; Becker, 2009; Kinzler, Shutts, DeJesus & Spelke, 2009; Snell, 2010; Chisholm & Godley, 2011). A central point often made is that language – to include accent – serves to identify us not just based on our region of origin but it can also show allegiance to, and identification and solidarity with, a particular social group (Trudgill, 1986; Foulkes and Docherty, 1999; Evans & Iverson, 2004; Myers, 2006), be it based on region, class or ethnicity. This is perhaps best illustrated if we are abroad and overhear a stranger who not only speaks our language but also speaks our accent. He/she might be seen as ‘one of us’. In addition, accent plays a ‘fundamental role’ (Joseph, 2004:3) in terms of how we construct the identity of others, as mentioned, essentially relating to initial perceptions we make of people, often when we have only an accent to judge them by (e.g. a call centre). Chambers (2003:274) further argues that ‘the underlying cause of sociolinguistic differences, largely beneath consciousness, is the human instinct to establish and maintain social identity’, and language use, here one’s accent, can play a large role in this social identity. Indeed, Mugglestone (2003:43) states that accent acts ‘as a marker of group membership and as a signal of solidarity’ and ‘each utterance . . . becomes in effect an act of identity’ (57), with language use defined as ‘a series of acts of identity’ by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985:181). The importance of our accent as a contributing factor to our personal identity can be seen in a study by Jones (2001), in which British individuals who resided in the United States had begun to adopt American-sounding pronunciation in their speech despite not wishing to. This gradual adoption of certain American accent features was seen to compromise their English identity. Jones describes an ‘underlying fear . . . that, as their accents changed, their national identity as English might be called into question’ (1074). The participants, however, were able to switch to more pronounced English accents when it suited the context, such as getting ‘what they wanted from Americans’ (ibid.) and to ‘feel superior

Personal and Professional Identities

43

over Americans’ (ibid.), both of which illustrate identity as both self-concept and enactment. For example, getting what they want from Americans would suggest that their enhanced British accents equate to more of a British identity being enacted and certain Americans, presumably Anglophiles, may wish to help British expatriates in some way. Likewise, feeling superior over Americans on the basis of one’s linguistic identity (i.e. the accent as a symbol of national origin and all the relevant connotations, such as ‘cultured and polite British’) is one potential mental concept. However, in terms of how they perceived their otherwise unmodified accents, those that displayed American features to a greater or lesser extent, the reactions were largely negative. Feelings such as ‘traitorousness, phoniness, weakness and disloyalty’ (1078) were reported, with one participant feeling ‘phony’ for saying ‘water’ with an American accent, for example (1083) and another participant feeling ‘inauthentic’ (1082) for his Americanized accent. The overall issue with regard to the negative perceptions of gradual accent shift was that such accent change means that ‘once one’s English accent disappears, there will be nothing with which to identify’ (1085). An extreme example of this perceived traitorousness, albeit focusing on how others identify us, can be seen with Scottish singer Sheena Easton. Returning to Scotland in 1990 for a concert, she told the crowd that it was good to be back home. Having acquired an American accent by this point in time after having relocated there, the audience’s reaction was to throw bottles at the stage in response. This suggests that Easton was no longer considered authentic, that she had perhaps betrayed her roots and sold out. Perhaps the perception of her with an American accent was that she had somehow forgotten her Scottish origins and her people in the process. The issue here is the role of accent in making us who we are, be it English, a New Yorker or a Parisian. Within the British educational context, however, there is little information, if anything, regarding the relationship between a personal accent and how it changes, if at all, to construct a professional identity. In other words, the professional identity of a teacher, as I have discussed, is a construction based on influences, sometimes competing influences, between the person one already is and the professional one seeks to be (or is told to be). This can also relate to how we dress and, indeed, speak. A business suit, in some cases, might give the impression of formality which in turn might suggest a strict teacher who does things ‘by the book’. Of course, it might also be a mere reflection of an individual who likes to dress in fine clothes. But from the minute we open our mouths, we are being judged. It is not just a matter of the content of our conversation, but also the phonological realization of how we speak. Those with

44

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

accents judged to be ‘neutral’ (to be discussed in the next chapter) might be seen as unmarked in their language variety, as such people are often said ‘not to have an accent’. But given that a teacher identity can be a patchwork quilt of various influences, and considering the importance of one’s voice as a teacher, it stands to reason that teachers would arguably try to construct a linguistic identity deemed appropriate for the profession. This could involve prosodic features, such as speaking at a suitable pace and perhaps attempting to sound animated, thus reflecting perhaps the identity of someone who is passionate about teaching. However, how we pronounce our words is another matter. We can easily slow down our speech and adjust our volume, but is accent modification as easy? It might well be, of course, and considering the importance of being fully understood by one’s students, would it not make sense to adjust our accent in some way on occasion, to effect better communication? This is especially relevant when teaching phonics at the primary level and, to a lesser extent, when teaching at the secondary level perhaps. On the other hand, what of teachers who do not wish to modify their accents at all, regardless of the potential for students, initially at least, to have difficulties understanding them? Our accent(s), the variety deemed to be freely chosen, reflects who we are and to modify it in some way might mean for some merely a modification for better comprehension; for others, it might equate to a denial of self. Thus, the central issue presented here is how willing, if at all, teachers might be to put aside a linguistic aspect of their personal identity – accent – in the construction of their professional identity.

Accent in the classroom In terms of accent usage within the context of teaching, many studies have focused on this subject from the perspective of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching (e.g. Alford & Strother, 1990; Derwing & Munro, 2009; Moussu, 2010; Blum & Johnson, 2012; Ballard, 2013; Galloway, 2014; Choe, 2016), often discussing students’ perceptions of L2 English/EFL teachers’ accents and, by extension, students’ perceptions of the teachers themselves. Moussu (2010), for example, raises the issue of EFL students’ attitudes towards, and perceptions of, non-native English speakers as their teachers. In this sense, the language under discussion is ‘English’ of course, yet we would assume that a foreign accent would be for some students a dead giveaway as to the teacher’s status as ‘non-native’.

Personal and Professional Identities

45

I reiterate that accent often acts as a symbol of a deeper identity  – here, national origin and, more specifically, a national origin outside the inner-circle English-speaking countries. Going further, this could have, in the classroom context of teaching EFL, connotations of not being an ‘authentic’ teacher and, thus, less qualified. Thus, the accent per se is not necessarily the issue (along the lines of linguistic prejudice). Rather, it is the perception that students may have, based on what they believe the accent represents. Kelch and Santana-Williamson (2002), for example, reference a perception that the teacher’s educational level and experience might be questioned if he/she is an L2 English teacher, and much literature tends to suggest that EFL students prefer to have native speakers, and their accompanying accents, in the teaching context (Jenkins, 2006; Beinhoff, 2013; Kaur, 2014). Phillipson (1992:185), however, addresses the ‘native speaker fallacy’ in terms of the assumption that a native speaker is somehow superior, certainly when teaching EFL. English today is so widespread in both innerand outer-circle countries that it makes sense for teachers to not only reflect the multitude of nationalities which use English (e.g. Indian English), but also the accompanying accents that represent outer-circle countries (Jenkins, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2004; Morrison & White, 2005; Kopperoinen, 2011); Sung (2016), however, acknowledges that in terms of EFL study materials, the accents represented often tend to reflect American and British speakers. I would go further, however, and argue that there are certain types of L1 English accents that, historically at least, were the norm for EFL teaching, specifically RP and General American. Thus, while EFL positions still tend to advertise for native speakers of English, thus excluding highly qualified L2 English speakers, there is hope that those outside of what has been a linguistic hegemony in terms of L1 accents can now be employed (e.g. South African English speakers). I recall that when I was teaching English in Korea in 1997, an individual from New Zealand was interviewed for a teaching positon but was not hired, based entirely on his accent! A  potential identity of a proud Kiwi would not work in the professional context in this case. Such views may now seem dated, given the fact that not only is the English language no longer one size fits all (e.g. consider more recent varieties such as Konglish), neither are native speaker accents, at least not in some EFL circles. Moreover, Ballard (2013:50) states that ‘in the case that a teacher, or speaker, has a strong accent, it does not necessarily mean that the speaker is incomprehensible’ and this applies to all manner of accents, be it an individual from Buenos Aires residing in Los Angeles and teaching EFL or a British individual in London teaching high school maths, albeit with a broad Mancunian accent.

46

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Furthermore, Ballard states that ‘familiarity with an accent leads to greater comprehension or intelligibility of language spoken with that accent’ (68) and this is entirely relevant to students, considering that the real world which exists beyond the school yard is made up of individuals with a multitude of accents; this is the world which the classroom should ideally reflect. However, an extreme case of an imposed identity is presented by Galloway (2014). This concerned a non-native English teacher in Japan who, given that she was from Eastern Europe and yet spoke fluent English (and Japanese), was nonetheless told by her employers to pretend to be American. This led to ‘ethical implications of her assumed identity’ (13) and yet, based on the assumptions that still persist regarding the ‘legitimacy’ of native speakers, this was entirely necessary for her employment. What this meant for her accent is that she had also been told to adopt an American accent, as part of a linguistically imposed identity, mirroring the accent used on the CD for the Japanese English proficiency test. However, this literally fake identity that she uses as a teacher is something she regards positively, given that she admits to making mistakes at times, and thus a perception of being American by her students who do not know the truth might excuse occasional errors, in her mind. Thus, though the identity is imposed on her by her employers, her acceptance of it allows it to be treated as an ideal identity. This example also illustrates that though the identity is fraudulent in a more absolute sense (i.e. she is not really American), her acceptance of it means that in this case, a fraudulent identity is not necessarily an issue, akin to acting perhaps. However, it also perpetuates the myth that native speakers, or at least those perceived as such, are better qualified to teach English. Thus, an accent can go some way in terms of identity creation and ascription. I reiterate that sometimes the accent itself may not be the issue. Rather, it is what the accent symbolizes, at least in the minds of some, that is the issue. As we have seen, a British accent of some kind in the United States might sound, to some Americans, ‘sexy’ or ‘cute’, even though we don’t really know what exact phonological combination equates to ‘sexiness’ or ‘cuteness’ (or ‘ugly’ accents, for that matter). Instead, the connotations of Britain have been, and still are to a certain extent, ‘cultured’ and ‘polite’ and as a result, the accent is standing in for such perceived qualities. In the same manner, an American accent in the EFL classroom in Japan, even if the students cannot distinguish it as such, might carry more immediate connotations, not of American culture per se (e.g. ‘Americans are open and friendly’ or ‘Americans are loud and arrogant’) but a broader issue – our teacher is a native speaker of English and therefore, she is an expert. Perceptions are thus a powerful guiding force in our judgements of

Personal and Professional Identities

47

others and thus can tie in with the ways in which accent contributes to our identity, both the self-concept and the concept others have of us.

The intersection of the personal and professional linguistic identities I begin by revisiting an issue that has been raised several times throughout this chapter. Namely, what are the implications for an accent that otherwise serves the speaker well, but is not perceived as well in the classroom? What are the implications at this juncture for identity when a personal identity partly forged by a ‘personal’ accent is implied to be at odds with the professional identity of a teacher, thus in need of a corresponding ‘professional’ accent? It may come down to a personal choice on the teacher’s part, essentially focused on a desire to retain his/her accent, but risk being perceived negatively; or indeed it might rest entirely on the mentor’s comments, in which case there could be a need to modify one’s accent and yet risk believing this one aspect of the professional identity to be forced and possibly fake. Ivanic (1998) discusses this from the perspective of written academic English, not spoken, focusing on the ways that students gradually adopt an academic identity, in terms of the linguistic features they use in their essays and the functions that their texts serve (e.g. taking up a position). In terms of the personal identity, Ivanic refers to this as the autobiographical self, and while this applies to academic writing, it can easily be applied to speech, with a question posed that could easily unite her research and my own:  Can the personal and professional identities in terms of (spoken) language coexist? In extreme cases, a particular accent may impact on employment, as discussed in the preceding section, with Deprez-Sims and Morris (2010:417) acknowledging that accent is ‘salient in the same way as ethnicity, age, gender and skin colour and may be a source of employment.’ Akomolafe (2013:7) also references accent change as a means to create ‘upward mobility in the workplace’. The implications for a potential clash between the personal and professional identities are seen with recent legislation in Arizona. Blum and Johnson (2012) discuss the legislation which focuses on the requirement for English teachers to be fully proficient in the language. Should they be perceived as having linguistic difficulties, then punitive measures can be taken. An outcome of this legislation, however, has been that teachers with accents deemed as ‘heavy’ (Liberman, 2010) are seen as being in need of removal. Thus, here is an example

48

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

of linguistic ‘otherizing’ against a hotbed of anti-immigration sentiment and this can be passed on to teachers who are not only foreign-accented, but also ethnically ‘other’ (e.g. Hispanic). Beyond this, it is suggestive of linguistic hegemony, not pertaining solely to English per se (though this is perhaps implied), but also suggestive of English without a foreign accent. Blum and Johnson (2012:170) summarize thus: ‘Arizona is a prime example of a government controlling the way people talk in order to produce citizens who conform to specific idealized norms’. This is reflective of binary thinking, which in this case refers to English teachers who have an accent (i.e. a foreign accent) and those who ‘don’t have an accent’ (i.e. they do have an accent; it is white, non-Hispanic American). This ties in with other identities – those that cannot be as easily modified as accent can, notably race. Lippi-Green (1997), for example, discusses the dominant group as white, middle-class speakers, and their use of English is seen as the ideal. This belief would arguably apply to both the United States and the United Kingdom, with those outside of this circle (e.g. African American or Asian British) potentially feeling left out. Lippi-Green seeks more open-minded attitudes towards accents and dialects in the United States, further regarding the valuing of one form over another as linguistic discrimination, especially against a backdrop of stereotypes perpetuated in the media regarding foreign accents. Further to the legislation in Arizona, a letter was sent to the state governor, Jan Brewer, stating, among other points, that ‘it is helpful for all students (English language learners as well as native speakers) to be exposed to foreignaccented speech as a part of their education’. Another criticism raised concerns the lack of clarification regarding which specific accent was deemed to be ‘ideal’, beyond a broad concern for what might be termed ‘native-sounding’ accents. As pointed out by Blum and Johnson, and as I have mentioned, the world outside the classroom is awash with multiple languages, including multiple Englishes (Indian English, Konglish, Singlish, multicultural London English and so on), with business conducted globally in a multitude of accents. English is an international language, and so is it spoken with international accents. The discussion regarding negative perceptions of foreign accents is indeed valuable and yet there is little information on the implications for accents and linguistic varieties which are otherwise ‘home-grown’, specifically in the British context. This is still a discussion that is truly yet to be had, but I make an attempt to do so now, albeit drawing from the US context of teachers and language use. In the United States, there are linguistic varieties that are not regarded positively despite being clearly American varieties. The Ebonics dialect spoken by some African Americans is a good example of linguistic hegemony in action in

Personal and Professional Identities

49

that while its speakers are American, they are not part of the dominant group of white Americans. Herein we see the intersection of home language use, reflective of the personal identity, and that expected in the workplace, part of a professional identity. Haddix (2012) discusses Ebonics in terms of African American language (AAL) used by trainee teachers, and makes the point that its aural perceptions, thereby perceptions of the speakers, are not in keeping with the context of academia, with Haddix using the term ‘mismatch’ (170) to describe the home cultures and the educational culture in which AAL speakers are going to teach. Given that the majority of teachers in the United States are largely represented by white, middle-class women, AAL speakers are perhaps regarded as a linguistic threat to the establishment. Of course, Ebonics is a sociolect, not an accent per se, and yet the pertinent issue is again the personal identity that is forged through one’s language variety against the reality of the language of schooling. Haddix comments on the teachers’ need to ‘protect their voices and identities’ (179) and this gets to the heart of the matter – a desire some teachers have to not forego certain aspects of the personal identity in the construction of the professional. Haddix (2010:98) even admits the she initially believed that her use of AAL ‘diminished (her) intellectual and teaching capacity’, though this is perhaps also a reflection of the views of others. Linguistic prejudice (Godley et al., 2015; Reaser, 2016) can certainly be a motivating factor in leading to individuals altering their language use in some way, whether it involves switching from a minority language to the dominant language (e.g. switching from Spanish to English in a US high school); switching from Ebonics to standard English; or modifying one’s accent in some way for the classroom, such as switching to a less regional-sounding British accent. Haddix claims that the linguistic varieties of minorities – in this case Hispanics and African Americans – should not be marginalized ‘from the ruling center’ (99). Nonetheless, Haddix is not ignoring the dominant linguistic norms; instead, using the term hybrid literate identities, she is asking the question, very similar to a central question I pose in the context of British teachers, concerning how trainee teachers reconcile tensions between their personal linguistic identities and that of the teacher identity that is under construction. Within the context of African American teachers, Haddix (2012) thus points to a dilemma involved not only based on being a racial minority, but also based on language use. Language, as a reflection of culture, is thus a reflection of one’s personal identity. Yet, these teachers ‘struggle with the need to embrace their own cultural and linguistic heritage while negotiating the expectations of teacher education programs’ (170), an issue that has been addressed by others (Williams, 2006; Godley & Loretto, 2013). In fact, while Haddix’s claim of

50

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

African American teachers being in ‘cultural limbo’ (171) is based on more than just language use and also has racial implications, it can also apply to language per se. This is because our language use can act, as I have stated, as a linguistic proxy, if you like, for the deeper identities that it represents, such as class. If such aspects of one’s identity are deemed by others to be unfit for the teaching context, then aspects of one’s language may need to change in order to fit in and, thus, our identity changes with it. This can refer to how this new identity changes how we are seen by others, such as mentors, but it can also lead to individuals seeing themselves differently too, both positive (‘I sound, and thus feel, more professional’) and negative (‘I’m selling out’). Therefore, the feelings of being ‘marginalized, silenced, ignored, and invisible’ (170) that can apply to racial minority teachers can apply to teachers who believe that they are in the linguistic minority, in this case applying to an accent variety. I conclude this section by turning specifically to the British context, given that this forms the basis of the discussion. A study that I have just completed (Baratta, 2017) investigated the notion of a ‘standard’ accent within British education, if one even exists or should exist. Nine teachers were interviewed as well as fifty-five students who participated in focus groups, and all were asked the central question regarding whether there is, or should be, a standard British accent for both teachers and students. The students and teachers represented three schools in the Manchester area – a private primary, a state primary and a state secondary. Everyone disagreed with the need for a standard accent, with the exception of one student (who nonetheless did not specify what variety the standard should be). The discussion largely focused on the fact that a standard no longer exists, that there is more exposure to regional accents on TV nowadays and the importance of diversity, with several students raising the issue of asserting a standard to be a form of discrimination, that everyone should speak as they choose and this is a reflection of linguistic diversity. Moreover, there were comments made about the potential impact of forced modification to a standard, as part of a forced identity: ‘People shouldn’t have to change themselves for other people. The right people will like them for them’; ‘In school everyone should be themselves and not have to adjust their accent to fit in’; ‘People shouldn’t change their accent just to please others’; ‘I don’t think people should change themselves’; ‘People . . . will have to fake who they are and will feel like a phony’; ‘You don’t try to be something else’; ‘It makes you feel fake’. However, three students overall admitted to having received linguistic directives from their teachers, specifically being told to avoid glottal stops. One student explained that she was told to ‘pronounce (her) t’s’ with the comment

Personal and Professional Identities

51

from the teacher being ‘you have a Manchester accent’. This is quite an interesting comment as the vast majority of the students described their accents as Mancunian. However, the implication of the teacher’s comment may be that the student’s accent was perceived as too Mancunian; this will be further explored later. Another student was told to avoid glottal stops in her speech within the specific context of her participation in an extracurricular group in which students are given instruction in drama and speech, with one goal of the group being to improve elocution, for use in storytelling, for example. In this linguistic context, elocution lessons are suggestive of the need to be articulate, and the student explained that she is given phonological directives ‘when I don’t pronounce my t’s good enough’. Only one teacher explained that she gave linguistic advice to her students, again regarding avoidance of glottal stops. In terms of the teachers and their own accent modification, two teachers, one from Bristol and one from Salford, admitted to having modified their accents into varieties which they essentially regard as representing ‘professional’ varieties. The teacher from Salford, who teaches at the private school, cited a need ‘to be a role model’ to the students, in that she regarded her school voice, as it were, as more reflective of RP; this was her rationale for modification, in a school in which most of the students’ accents were described as ‘northern’ but not particularly broad. The implication is that a speaker who is identified as ‘broad’ might also be regarded negatively, certainly in the context of a private school, with such accents reflective of lower classes (Trudgill, 2002) and the ascribed connotations, such as being ‘common’. The teacher from Bristol (teaching at a state secondary school) provided a more detailed rationale for his accent modification, which largely consisted of switching from a rhotic accent to a non-rhotic variety, given that rhotic accents in England are the exception, and largely tied to the southwest and central Lancashire. Thus a rhotic accent, while merely involving the pronunciation of ‘r’ [ɹ] in all positions of a word, is not ‘just’ about phonology. Is this phoneme, in fact, viewed one way or the other by non-rhotic speakers? Once again, the phoneme per se is arguably not the issue; rather, it acts as a symbol of the teacher’s regional origins and thus ties in with the stereotypes of the region, which this teacher sought to avoid regarding the negative connotations of his Bristolian accent: The Bristolian accent has lots of connotations. Normally, things like village idiot, yokel, farmer, you know, friendly but stupid . . . I didn’t want to live a life being seen as a thick yokel who lives on a farm. (Bristolian teacher during interview)

52

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

While the teacher, as with all participants in my study, is otherwise proud of his regional roots and accent (at the very least, no one expressed any personal displeasure or shame in their accent), it is clear that he is all too aware of what others might think and, crucially, the way in which he might be labelled based on retention of his Bristolian accent. Given that its rhoticity is a marked feature within Manchester, which is otherwise non-rhotic, this is an aspect which he has removed from his teacher accent. Barras (2015:277) in fact addresses the perceptions in England towards rhotic accents, saying that they are often seen as ‘unsophisticated’ and give rise to supposedly humorous characters such as ‘Farmer Giles’ (ibid.); this is precisely what the teacher wants to rid himself of. Thus, by removing the r’s from his speech, he creates what he regards as a professional identity and this shows how a new identity can sometimes be just a phoneme away (or in this case, just a removal of a phoneme away). Unlike the private school teacher whose accent is by and large reflective of the students’, the Bristolian teacher is teaching away from his home region, so that a rhotic accent might be seen as the marked form and hence open to ridicule. The connotations of ‘village idiot’ are a reflection perhaps of societal stereotypes but also reflect the fact that this professional identity created through accent modification is entirely the teacher’s choice; it was not reported as having been forced upon him. This illustrates the fact that mere perceptions or awareness of societal stereotypes regarding accents can in fact lead to modification – this too can lead to an imposed identity. However, is it a truly ‘forced’ identity? The teacher did not suggest this to be entirely the case, given that he seemed to be positive regarding the perceived avoidance of negative stereotyping: When you get to the point where you cannot tell where someone is from . . . you can’t hear any regional accent in it, then I would class that as what someone would want the standard accent to be . . . because when you can’t tell where someone is from normally it has that BBC slightly Received Pronunciation feel to it . . . that carries some power, that carries some respect and people assume people are educated and confident, as if they’ve broken free from the shackles of being poor or being thick. (Bristolian teacher during interview)

Other than the avoidance of rhoticity in his speech, the teacher does not specify phonologically what an RP ‘feel’ means, suggestive of intuitive notions regarding a ‘standard’ accent. However, he did mention the need to avoid regionality in one’s accent as a means to create an accent that he considers ‘standard’, with a switch to a non-rhotic accent a means to avoid associations with his southwest origins and, as such, an accent he considers perhaps more ‘neutral’. He

Personal and Professional Identities

53

clearly believes that his accent modification allows for avoidance of an identity, ascribed by others though it might be, that does not seem appropriate for education, namely an identity of someone regarded as ‘thick’ or a ‘yokel’. Nonetheless, he did explain that ‘you do feel, you kind of present yourself, slightly fake, falsely to people’; thus, there is the implication of a fraudulent identity, given that it is forced (albeit forced by societal prejudice). Though it is impractical to quantify specific degrees to which individuals perceive their identities to be forced or fraudulent, or even ideal, I had mentioned earlier in the chapter that there may be overall agreement about an identity that is otherwise seen as forced by the speaker, as we see here. For this Bristolian teacher, while it was his choice to modify his accent by switching to a non-rhotic variety, it is nonetheless regarded as forced in that if he didn’t modify, he believes he would be subject to ridicule within an environment in which he wants to be taken seriously. Thus, while the accent is forced and does on occasion make him feel fraudulent, it is overall regarded as ideal in that the perceived benefits of using a non-rhotic accent are, simply put, worth it. Likewise, for the English teacher in Japan, her identity was literally imposed on her by her employers and she does question the ethical implications of pretending to be American when her passport says otherwise. However, the identity of an American is overall regarded as ideal in that she too enjoys the perceived benefits it brings (one of which is not perceived at all – as, without the accent modification, she would presumably not have been hired in the first instance). Thus, we can see an example of a forced and (partly) fraudulent identity with the Bristolian teacher, but one which overall is, if begrudgingly, regarded as ideal, and another identity that is regarded as ideal despite there being negative implications regarding ethics. As I have stressed, I wish to avoid painting a black-and-white picture of identity formation, given that in some cases, and at certain times perhaps, individuals, upon reflection, may resent having to modify to an identity that is otherwise regarded as worth the effort; and others may occasionally see the logic in the modification they make, without necessarily regarding the identity as ideal. This is, therefore, a subject which can be complex, and certainly not ‘either/or’, at least not with some individuals. However, there is the potential with identities perceived as forced to be reflective of a larger issue. This concerns the ways in which a change in identity via a change in career, if not upward mobility overall, can lead to a sense of displacement. In simple terms, we might consider the initial challenges that are experienced within teacher training as reflective of challenges to our preteaching values and goals, and I have made it clear that the heart of this issue

54

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

may indeed involve differing ideologies between mentor and teacher. For some teachers, the transition from civilian to teacher may involve what Bourdieu (2002) refers to as cleft habitus. This starts with the concept of habitus – ‘A system of dispositions, that is of permanent manners of being, seeing, acting and thinking’ (227), with accent one of many dispositions. Bourdieu’s concept is highly suggestive of a certain automaticity in how we act in society, or certainly how we see the world around us and make sense of it. As such, this has ties to self-concept, which, as I have argued, tends to refer to rather essentialist notions of who we are. Of course, individuals are rarely static, and over the course of our lives we may indeed change our world views, which can be reflected in our various dispositions also changing. However, the catalyst for such change may pose an initial challenge, involving our previous reality being shaken up, leading to identity issues. Upon facing new experiences and challenges, this sense of who one is – again, a reference to one’s self-concept – can be called into question within the context of change. In the case of a trainee teacher, for example, his/her previous life’s experiences and dispositions, if called into question or suddenly made to feel inappropriate for the context of teaching, can lead to difficult negotiations. If we consider the linguistic changes a teacher with a certain accent might be told to make in order to enact a teacher identity, then the fact that this is, for some, a forced identity is of course a relevant issue. The identity is forced because the teacher does not personally wish for such an identity, but this could be largely due to the fact that it calls into question all that has shaped the person’s self-concept prior to teaching. If a local accent is a reflection of a teacher’s working-class background, a modified accent might be regarded as a means to feel more fully integrated into the career world of teaching, historically considered a middle-class pursuit. However, the teacher’s working-class identity, reflected with his/her accent, might be regarded as a barrier to ever believing him/herself to be a full-fledged member of this community. The teacher might feel caught between two identities – the personal and the one he/she aspires to. Thus, cleft habitus captures a split between two worlds and identities, or perhaps feeling that we no longer belong fully to either. This in turn points to a need for a sense of belonging, which is largely absent when individuals start to question where they fit, especially when one feels he/she cannot fully claim the personal identity within a professional context (while also feeling that he/she is perhaps not accepted in the latter context). We can further recognize this based on the work of Du Bois (1903), who used the term double consciousness to define the dilemma faced by African Americans

Personal and Professional Identities

55

regarding their two selves: the black self and the American self. He explains that there are two unreconciled strivings, consisting of these two selves and the need to negotiate between the two. This can be applied to teachers of all backgrounds when they experience this striving, to include linguistic double consciousness – an attempt to be faithful to one ‘true’ linguistic identity, while not compromising the other. Of course, it need not be a completely bleak picture. Indeed, Abrahams and Ingram (2013) suggest that it is from this initial clash and identity confusion that a third identity is possible – ‘a third space’ – one that is not a product of the conflicting identities but is rather a product of something else entirely. What this means is unclear, but then again it is an individualistic pursuit and each individual will have to find and construct his/her own third space. However, the assumption is that it goes beyond the identity needs of the personal and professional in order to create a new identity that does not overtly rely on the specific needs of either. Linguistically, this might involve modifying one’s regional accent to a less broad variety (discussed in the next chapter). In this way, the fact that the accent still identifies the speaker’s region of origin, yet in a manner that is regarded as ‘less pronounced’ for the classroom, might be seen as a perfect compromise – though not for all. It is worth noting that in 2014, Peter Brant, head of policy at the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, stated that for working-class students to succeed in university, and prepare for such, acting middle class was a key, a means to fit in. This might also be applied to teachers, who, entering into a middle-class profession, feel that they don’t fit if, say, coming from a workingclass background, or perhaps being the first in their family to work in a professional career. Brant, however, fails to realize that not all individuals wish to fit in if it means modifying who they already are and wish to remain. Brant’s advice, therefore, regarding ‘middle-class values’ that working-class students should adapt to, such as theatre trips, might be rejected by such students. However, it could be argued that students have more freedom in how they choose to represent themselves on campus regarding their dispositions, at least based on the fact that they do not have a mentor who is essentially telling them how to be a student. I close this section, and chapter, having sought to introduce the relevant background with regard to teacher identities forged from accent, if not accent change. There is first the area of identity to consider broadly before we can consider its inception from a purely accent-based perspective, as well as unpacking the complexities of teacher identity formation. In summary, I suggest that a central issue in identity formation is that it is not always at the

56

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

discretion of the trainee teacher; his/her ‘professional’ accent and subsequent professional identity is a product of many influences and can involve competing ideologies, to include phonological ideologies. I now turn to Chapter 2, in which I begin to address the various issues, notions and perceptions regarding British accents.

2

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

The standardization of language allows for only one version to be selected as the standard. This potentially leaves those who do not use the standard form in their home language, an aspect of their personal identity, feeling disenfranchised in contexts where standard English is the norm, such as schools. It is important to first distinguish dialect from accent, given the fact that standard English does exist in terms of the specific grammatical forms that are used (to include both syntax and morphology), for example, and its use of vocabulary that is understood throughout the country (e.g. Britain) and not just tied, as with nonstandard grammatical forms, to a specific region or social group. In this sense, the standard form of a language, given that it is not by definition regional within the country in which it is spoken, is, of course, the ‘national’ form (e.g. standard British English).

A standard dialect I begin by illustrating the syntactic and lexical realizations for language use deemed standard and those that fall outside of this category, thus, non-standard: He goes to school every day. He go to school every day.

The first example is standard English grammar as it conforms to the syntax of this particular language – verbs are inflected by adding an –s for third person. The example that follows is from the Ebonics dialect mentioned earlier, spoken by some African Americans. In this dialect, the verb does not inflect for third person and thus no suffix is added. Both are examples of language use which exhibit predictable rules in terms of grammar and thus both share a predictable structure. There is one significant social difference between the two,

58

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

however, and that is connected with prestige. While standard English is suggestive of social dominance and power, given its use in schools for example, Ebonics, as with non-standard forms in general, does not enjoy this same support (Haddix, 2012). If we now consider word choice, there are many examples of words which are used more frequently in a given region of a country. In doing so, the speakers are signalling, if not celebrating, their regional identity. For example, bap, meaning a bread roll is commonly used in the northwest of England, whereas other regions are more likely to say bun, barm or tea cake. Likewise, in the United States, peanut might be considered standard, if only because a dialectal word for the same item – goober – is tied to the southern and mid regions. From these brief examples, I suggest the following. First, a standard form of a language can be tied not just to power structures (to be discussed shortly), but perhaps also numbers. If a higher number of the population use the word peanut then, by default perhaps, this could be regarded as the standard form. The added implication, however, is that this word would be understood across the United States, whereas goober might not. However, one man’s dialect can also be another man’s standard. If dialect speakers do not come into everyday contact with the standard form, they may not see a reason to change their language use. As has been made clear, however, while there are indeed contexts in which dialectal usage would be seen as highly appropriate (e.g. a local wedding with close family and friends), there are contexts in which its use would not be appropriate. Second, and an important point to make regarding the need to clarify ‘accent’ and ‘dialect’, is that while accent, strictly speaking, refers to one’s pronunciation, and dialect refers to specific use of grammar and lexis, I agree, in conjunction with Crystal (1996), that the two can be intertwined. For example, would speaking in, say, Geordie dialect (referring to the variety found in Newcastle, England) still be seen as authentic if the speaker did not have an accompanying Geordie accent? If we consider the phrase (in Geordie dialect) I’m gannin’ doon the toon (I’m going downtown/to the city centre) delivered in any accent but the one tied to Newcastle, it is very likely that the local people would not see this as authentic, or perhaps see it as somehow ‘incomplete’; if spoken in RP, it might even be perceived as insulting. Or, it could of course be an example of retaining one’s natural accent to otherwise speak in a ‘foreign’ dialect as a means to generate humour. However, Crystal’s (1996) claim that speakers of regional dialects use regional accents simultaneously suggests that we might consider regional pronunciation to be a part of the regional use of grammar and vocabulary also.

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

59

Thus, while the focus within my book is solely tied to accent (i.e. pronunciation), I nonetheless suggest that for regional dialects to be considered ‘complete’, we need to incorporate the accompanying regional accent as well as regional grammatical forms and lexis. In terms of the historical selection of the standard form of English, the variety chosen was based on the language used by the upper classes (Crystal, 2004). Thus, by standardizing this particular variety, it served to legitimize it and ‘power was re-conferred onto the privileged’ (Brady, 2015:149). This is the variety that Bourdieu (1991) refers to as the ‘official’ language and once again, such a status serves to divide potentially along lines of class and, by extension, privilege. As Bourdieu argues, this variety ‘reinforce(s) the authority which is the source of its dominance’ (45); indeed, the standard form is associated with power, status and authority. However, those without access to this form as part of their home language can feel disempowered in as much as insistence on using the standard form in the classroom can leave some students feeling as though their home language is somehow deficient. Arguably, the term ‘non-standard’ can connote ideas such as being less legitimate in some way. As Collins (1999) argues, standardization involves a set of assumptions, either leading to the process of standardization and/or emanating from it. The first assumption is that the standard is about syntactic clarity and lexical precision as opposed to the linguistic ‘free-for-all’ that many assume dialects to be, precisely because they lack aspects of the standard and are thus ‘deficient’ (e.g. Ebonics does not inflect third person verbs, as illustrated earlier). The standard form thus provides a fixed point of view regarding the social hierarchy in terms of those who use it, or indeed those for whom the standard reflects their existing language, with such individuals being privileged or, as the case may be, re-privileged, via the use of this standard. Conversely, those who speak with ‘deviant’ forms of language – including accent – are thus placed elsewhere on the social scale. If we consider the realization of the (admittedly stereotypical) greeting how you doin’ spoken with a New York (City) accent, we might consider it from a syntactic point of view. In this case, the auxiliary verb is missing and in terms of register it is quite informal (given the g-dropping). However, the rules of New York City English are being obeyed, as opposed to the rules of standard English being ignored. Of course, from another perspective, we should not be surprised at all regarding the celebration of stigmatized varieties, an example of covert prestige, such as the (non-rhotic) New York City accent as heard in the Lower East Side (Becker, 2009). I say again that one man’s deviant language, or accent, is another man’s standard language.

60

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

A case of what might be described as linguistic domination occurs in a school (and others in the London area) discussed in a study by Brady (2015), in which students are banned from using informal phrases, with one school compiling a list of ten informal phrases for students to avoid. This illustrates the dominance of one language variety at the expense of banning expressions of working-class language use and, subsequently, working-class identity (Montgomery, 2008). Brady (2015) asserts that there is a history in the United Kingdom involving ‘the oppression of working-class identities through the derision of language’ (150), with the suggestion that their language deemed as ‘bad’ in turn leads to its speakers being labelled as bad. This involves linguistic stereotyping and, by extension, moral stereotyping merely based on one’s language use. While both Brady (2015) and Cox (1991) assert that a student’s mastery of standard English can help to open doors for their future, it is the manner in which it is implemented that is an issue and, more to the point, the manner in which their nonstandard language use is proscribed. The teenage students in Brady’s study felt that their school-based language, which one of them references as ‘hyper-polite’, was based on ‘performing an identity that did not correspond to their seemingly essentialised perception of their “real” self ’ (151) and was thus an identity they rejected; this is a clear example of forced identities and subsequent perceptions of fraudulence if enacting them. While the discussion thus far is based on standard English in the currently understood definition and focuses on the students’ perspective, it serves as a wholly relevant introduction to this chapter. The practice, whether intentional or not on the mentors’ part, of privileging particular language varieties, albeit accent varieties, reflects issues regarding power and lack thereof. If certain accents are regarded as ‘standard’, this has implications for those who speak with them, especially in the context of training to become teachers. I suggest that it is high time to discuss accent within education, not in an attempt to clarify a singular standard, for reasons I will explain, but to address issues and instances of perceived accent discrimination. If certain phonological features of certain accents are met with negativity, we need to know why. Snell and Andrews (2017) do not shy away from the fact that regional accents, along with regional dialects, are stigmatized and such negative attitudes can hamper children’s educational progress. They make an important point in that, while students need to be educated regarding the standard form of the language, they also need adequate discussion and rationale as to why; without such, students can exhibit anxiety. The concept of a language standard discussed thus far can be seen on several levels, such as associations with prestige, so that the speakers of the standard are

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

61

using a language form which gains respect in many contexts and is regarded as a privileged variety. Standardness can even be extended to notions of authenticity and legitimacy (e.g. as seen in the previous discussion in Chapter 1 regarding a general demand for L1 English speakers in EFL contexts in the sense that native speakers, and their language use, are often regarded as ‘standard’). Fairclough (2001) regards the standard form as a dialect which reflects the most power in society through past sociopolitical development and thus refers to it as a class dialect. This can be understood on two levels. First, we might consider the ruling classes who in turn codified language in the first instance, both standard English and the historical accent standard in Britain – RP. Second, given these prestigious associations, speakers of such accents may have connotations of a higher class ascribed to them by interlocutors. In fact, aspiring to become more upwardly mobile might indeed necessitate for some a change to an accent variety deemed to be more reflective of a higher class – thus, power – background (Donnelly, Baratta & Gamsu, 2017). Crystal (1996) also discusses the standard form of language as one that is not regionally based and is most widely understood. While such characteristics have been briefly discussed, the implication for them is that a standard form, given its wide societal spread, might also be regarded as the norm, a generally unmarked form and thus standard, with its connotations of being the linguistic norm, and is a powerful concept for linguistic usage.

Is there a standard accent? Any speaker, with any accent, can speak in standard English; this point is obvious. However, the apparent reluctance to thus far truly engage with the subject of standard (phonological) English in Britain is one that needs to be taken up. This is because as long as negative stereotypes persist regarding accents and these make their way into teacher training, we need to investigate in order to clarify standards (not just one standard), if not establish them, and clearly need to avoid teachers who are qualified to teach being made to feel that their accent is holding them back and they essentially need to ‘re-learn’ how to speak. I reiterate the importance of being understood by one’s students, more so the primary level ones who are, essentially, being taught how to speak by way of phonics instruction. However, there are many regional accent varieties that students will be exposed to in their lifetime and suggesting a uniform way of speaking for teachers (or students) goes against this. This points towards the fact that in today’s Britain there is much more accent diversity within media. Thus, BBC English is

62

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

no longer synonymous with RP, as regional newscasters tend to use their otherwise regional accents. If today’s children are being exposed to more regional varieties within media contexts, for example, this suggests a need to reflect such varieties within the classroom too, given that the teacher is ideally a linguistic role model. Does a strong regional accent, then, equate to healthy exposure to accent diversity or, for some, does it equate to someone who is unsuitable to teach? It would be inaccurate to suggest that it is merely issues of potential intelligibility that necessitate a need to modify one’s accent; it may indeed reflect a preference for certain varieties over others, with mentors in a position to perhaps enforce this. Historically, RP was the standard accent (Giles, 1971; Coupland, 2000; Snell & Andrews, 2016). A study by Giles (1971:11) makes it clear that RP was, even when he wrote his paper, still the standard accent, a reflection of its ‘grossly superior status’. Giles argued for the need for students with regional accents to learn to code-switch as a means to afford them better opportunities in the future regarding their career prospects. While RP had its phonological origins in the southeast, it exists today as an accent which denotes one’s class identity. From here, the connotations of such can be notions of a higher education, wealth and overall privilege; these may seem logical conclusions for an accent associated with a higher social standing. As referenced earlier, Trudgill’s (2002) linguistic pyramid indeed places RP on the top with regard to its social standing, with broad regional accents on the bottom. As I have argued, accents are often merely a proxy for the judgements we make of their speakers. For example, even though it may be the case that individuals like the ‘sound’ of a particular accent (e.g. nasal sounds in French and Portuguese may sound ‘sexy’ and the guttural fricative sounds in German, such as Bach, might sound ‘harsh’), I would argue that very often, any like/dislike towards accents is more reflective of the broader categories which accents represent (by ‘broader’ I refer to categories which go beyond the mere phonological realization of our words). For example, RP’s association with being highly educated and intelligent may indeed play a part in a positive evaluation of an RP speaker (regardless as to whether we actually like the ‘sound’ of RP or not). If we were to hire someone for a bank manager position and this involved a phone interview for the first stage, would an RP speaker be rated more favourably than someone with a regional British accent, even if their qualifications are otherwise equal? The honest response to direct questions such as this can go some way to revealing linguistic prejudice in extreme cases or perhaps merely reflect the social reality (e.g. certain accents are preferred by customers and are thus ‘better’ for business). Again,

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

63

however, any prejudice is perhaps more to do with the social categories accents symbolize than the accents per se. Likewise, there are negative connotations also of RP, such as arrogance and snobbery (Hughes et al., 2012), thus reflecting the negative perceptions of those with wealth and power. Thus, the regionally accented speaker over the telephone, if fully understandable (and speaking standard English), but otherwise judged negatively based on his/her accent, could be an example of how the connotations of a regional accent – such as being working-class – can contribute to an often snap judgement we make of others based on their speech. I  illustrate this with the diagram below. While this diagram may appear simplistic – though I certainly do not suggest it speaks for all of us – it nonetheless represents what can indeed be the aforementioned snap judgements that we make of others the moment they begin to speak. If all we have is the voice of a person as a means to identify them (e.g. when speaking to someone at a call centre), then the accent is even more crucial. There are both positive and negative perceptions of, and reactions to, a variety of accents of course, but we live in a society which is effectively seeking to eradicate, if not such perceptions, then certainly the potential effects of such, including job discrimination. As a result, the ideal society is one which continues to strive for equality for all identifying characteristics, which currently include the following in Britain: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en). The category of race is actually quite broad and would also include nationality in British law. Thus, if an individual, even a native speaker of English, has a foreign accent (e.g. an American), then in this instance, he/she could legitimately claim discrimination if it is believed that his/her accent was, for example, a deciding factor in not being hired for a position. Ironically, perhaps British

Accent ↓ Connotations of said accent based on the social categories it represents (e.g. class, race, sex) ↓ Connotations of said categories (e.g. that working classes are uneducated) Figure 2.1 Accent symbolism

64

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

accents are in need of protection, given the fact that there are some particularly negative connotations of certain accents and this can lead to equally negative perceptions of the speaker of the accent here in Britain. Even with legislation, however, old habits die hard, and this can apply to public, or even individual perceptions of others, based on a particular identifying feature – be it race, sex or accent. Given that a standard accent in modern-day Britain would run counter to current drives for respect for diversity and push for equality, I nonetheless again suggest that there might be standard accents, which I wish to explain further. This pluralistic notion achieves three important goals. First, it avoids a uniform standard which, by definition, would suggest that all those who fall outside this accent group are speaking a disfavoured variety. Even if the Yorkshire accent were made the standard, the fact that there are more Yorkshire speakers than RP speakers does not change the fact that this still creates a binary position within British society based on accent – those who speak the standard versus those who do not. Second, the establishment of standard accents recognizes the fact that the majority of British accents are, by definition, regional in nature. Thus, speakers with accents that have otherwise been stigmatized, such as Liverpool (Honeybone, 2001) need not feel under pressure to modify to a non-Liverpool variety. Complete modification to a different accent seems unreasonable in the first instance, and leads to the final point, which concerns standard varieties of regional accents. In other words, might we have a standard Liverpool accent, a standard Birmingham accent, a standard Newcastle accent and so on? If we suggest a standard version of each regional accent in Britain, however, this might seem like an impossible task to accomplish. However, if we could identify the specific sounds which are stigmatized, which can be found across multiple accents and regions (such as glottal stops), then this might not seem so impractical. This approach explicitly allows for one’s regionality not to be negated completely, thus suggestive of the third space discussed in the previous chapter. However, the implication of this is that it would still involve a degree of change for some speakers. Moreover, the notion of a uniform accent for a given region is misguided as there is arguably no such accent as the Liverpool accent or the Manchester accent, and some have argued that RP is in fact realized across several varieties (Gimson, 1980; Wells, 1982). Instead, and going back to the work of Trudgill (2002), I would suggest that the accents that reside in the mid-section of his linguistic pyramid, which have not really been conceptualized, are those that are

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

65

considered the standard versions of regional accents. In this case, we are discussing standard in terms of contexts in which broader versions of the same regional accents would perhaps not find favour, such as teacher education. Therefore, teachers and other professions might find themselves defaulting to these midaccents (a term I will use hereafter), in order to avoid negative judgements of others, more so if others have themselves a more favoured accent variety. However, the question is then created as to what the standards would be from a purely phonological perspective. What characterizes a ‘broad’ Mancunian accent, for example, as different from what we might call a ‘general’ version? To help explain this, I first wish to delve deeper into the notion of suggested midaccents. Trudgill (2002) claims that RP’s status as the standard British accent is now declining, with Estuary English (EE) on the rise. However, this is not to suggest that EE is simply a replacement standard, as EE has not been ‘institutionally imposed’ (Watt & Milroy, 1999:43). Instead, EE is recognized more as a linguistic result of social levelling (Hughes et al., 2012), which, Watt and Milroy explain, is a variety which ‘develops by quite regular sociolinguistic process’ (ibid.), and not from imposition. Armstrong and Mackenzie (2013) further approach social levelling as a reflection of a more egalitarian society which in turn influences language. Thus, the imposition of a standard would not be reflective of the current British society, as I have explained. Moreover, EE is a phonological mix of two accents  – RP and Cockney (Przedlacka, 2001; Mompean, 2006). Respectively, these accents have been associated with notions of social prestige and commonness. It could be argued, therefore, that EE is itself a blend of two accents which occupy opposing places on the linguistic triangle and thus form a midway point that is regarded as neither too ‘posh’ nor too ‘common’. This is reflective of an ideal society perhaps which might seek to avoid such extremes and EE arguably accomplishes this. As a result, standard accents are regional varieties, but perceived in the same manner as EE arguably is – regional, but not too regional. Crystal (1996) further explains that RP can be influenced by regional varieties, what Cruttenden (1994:86) refers to as a ‘regional RP.’ This would seem contradictory in terms, but it again ties in with the idea that idealized accents in Britain, in a spirit of linguistic levelling, might seek to bridge the gap between the speech often associated with the upper and lower classes, a happy medium, as it were (assuming this is possible). Moreover, I suggest that accent modification is a common practice in Britain (Baratta, 2016) and that there are what I  would call intuitive notions regarding what is considered ‘appropriate’ – thus, ‘standard’ – for a given context. In

66

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

some contexts, a switch to a broader version of one’s accent might be regarded as appropriate if with local people with similar accents, in which case such an accent might provide the speaker with some sort of ‘street-cred’ (e.g. at a football match). On the other hand, a switch to a less broad variety might be seen as the appropriate strategy if at a job interview for a teaching position. Again, there are intuitive notions as to what a ‘broad’ versus a ‘less broad’ accent sound like. While speakers might be able to effect such accents without giving much, if any, thought to the phonological implications of such, for the purposes of this chapter a phonological discussion is wholly necessary.

The phonological realization of standard accents Based on the results of my most recent study (Baratta, 2017), referred to in the previous chapter, and combined with previous research, I suggest that there are two aspects involved with accent modification as a means to achieve an accent considered as ‘standard’. Of course, given that these are accents for which there is no official designation of ‘standard’, the discussion is speculative at this point. However, this is reflective of a lack of research in this area, and thus, while I seek to tread carefully in my discussion, I nonetheless hope to initiate the start of a much needed discussion. My claims of standardness are based on two factors:  avoidance of reductions and/or avoidance of marked phonological forms based on one’s home region. These are the two phonological changes that can be made which, while not rendering one’s accent as void of its regional origins, do not accentuate them either. In this case, this mid-accent might be seen as a linguistic compromise. In fact, Ramsaran (2015) strongly implies that there are accent varieties in modern Britain which are reflective of attempts to achieve a happy medium between the posh and the common. She discusses the aforementioned issue of regional accents influencing RP, to the extent that such varieties might be considered syncretized or ‘the current version of RP’ (179). As Wells (1982:297) further states, we might suggest that this is an example of ‘near RP’ – close enough to be considered upmarket, but not too far removed from the regional influence to be considered uppity. Ramsaran is thus arguing for an emerging accent, though I would go further and argue that there are several such accents, all of which are varieties of regional accents that are nonetheless regarded as more ‘standard’ versions of said accents. While Ramsaran’s discussion is singular regarding this accent variety, she takes the time to unpack its phonological qualities, one of which, and borrowed from the north, is the short-a sound (as heard in northern

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

67

dance). Thus, this near-RP accent (or general accent) is one which nonetheless has retained regional features; Ramsaran suggests that this accent is the new RP. I argue, however, that the issue here is merely regional accents which remove the more localized sounds (to be discussed shortly). An interesting comment, however, was made by one of the state school secondary students (Baratta 2017), who told me during a focus group that the standard accent is ‘right here now, it’s the Mancunian accent’. This comment arguably illustrates the fact that standardness is itself a broad term, a point mentioned earlier, and here we can glean another application of the term – namely, that the immediate context determines what is or is not ‘standard’, with the term perhaps referring here to an accent which will give its speakers the most respect and even credibility. Thus, in a school with mostly local students with Mancunian accents being the linguistic majority, this is the standard. A deviation from that standard need not suggest negativity, but it would otherwise be a marked form perhaps. This was the rationale for the Bristolian teacher at the same school to modify his southern accent, as has been discussed. Returning to intuitive notions, such terms were used quite often by teachers and students in my most recent study (Baratta, 2017) when they discussed accent (with the study having been introduced in Chapter  1). Terms such as ‘broad’, ‘neutral’, ‘not strong’ and, indeed, ‘standard’, were very common. These terms also tie in with what is a common expression perhaps regarding accents seen as ideal in a given context – ‘he/she doesn’t have an accent’. Everyone has an accent of some kind, but this comment is suggestive of a regional accent that has removed the ‘more regional’ (i.e. ‘broader’) sounds. Reductions in speech are one way in which to arguably make one’s accent ‘broader’ and/or to have it perceived that way and from here, to have certain connotations ascribed to the accent and to us. For example, in my 2017 study, the glottal stop was a phonological feature that was mentioned by students and staff alike as something to be avoided. Even though the vast majority of the students had Mancunian accents, those from the private school, indeed described as having ‘neutral’ and ‘standard’ accents by teachers, were especially told to avoid glottal stops. As one student tellingly explained to me, ‘I use full forms’, which was a comment made in reference to her not being told to modify her speech. Moreover, another private school student, as I had mentioned, was told to ‘pronounce (my) t’s’, with the teacher saying in relation to this directive that ‘you have a Manchester accent’. Arguably, this comment referred to having a broader version of a Manchester accent, which the students at the state schools certainly had.

68

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

A glottal stop is, from a purely phonological view, nothing more than a release of the airstream after closure of the glottis. From a societal point of view, however, its usage can suggest lower educational levels and informal speech in general (Millar, 1997; Schleef, 2013), both of which might be regarded as inappropriate for teacher training or for the speech of one’s students. So what is the inherent factor in reduced speech which might be seen as inappropriate for classroom usage? Perhaps it is tied to the notion that reductions are an example of ‘lazy’ speech, as the full forms are not being pronounced. Bybee and Hopper (2001:11) address this common misperception, however, explaining instead that ‘the origins of reduction are in the automatization of neuro-motor sequences [which] involves the reduction of the magnitude of articulatory gestures and the increased overlap of these gestures’. Here is a purely phonetic description of a common linguistic phenomenon; in purely societal terms, however, it can be rendered as ‘sloppy’ speech, a term used by Bybee and Hopper. Burridge and Bergs (2017) further support reductions as a legitimate part of speech, though they acknowledge that there exists a continuum which at one end involves speaking especially clearly (e.g. at a job interview), referred to as hyperarticulation. At the other end, we have hypoarticulation, which is described by the authors as less clear, and thus involving reductions. Again, if someone’s reductions are flagged as a potential to not be clearly understood, this might seem fair in teaching contexts. However, it could also mask a judgement which exists outside of intelligibility and is instead focused on someone else’s standard for ‘proper’ speech. In fact, reduced forms are quite valuable in EFL teaching (Ito, 2001; Rosa, 2002), as a means to demonstrate how native speakers actually speak, thus avoiding textbook English which is not always reflective of the real world (and certainly true of the accents heard on the learning materials, if they are mainly focused on RP and General American). However, in the case of ‘teacher speech’, the use of glottal stops might be frowned upon and, for all intents and purposes, be considered ‘non-standard’. If we revisit Mancunian accents, we might suggest the following phonological realizations for the word party, based on a ‘broad’ and ‘general’ version of this particular accent. I need to first point out that I am not suggesting that there are merely two varieties of the Manchester accent. Rather, for the purposes of the current discussion, it makes sense to at least discuss various regional accents in terms such as broad and general in the first instance. There are, of course, several accents heard in the Manchester area, to include those based in other parts of the city (e.g. Salford).

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

Broad General

69

/pa:ʔɪ/ /pa:tɪ/

Once again, the use of the glottal stop is a reduction, as it removes the alveolar stop [t]. It is this broad accent that is used in the British television show Shameless for the lead character of Frank Gallagher, who is a criminal alcoholic living in Manchester. This is not to ascribe such nasty stereotypes to Mancunians, of course. Rather, it is an example of how a particularly negative TV character is linguistically characterized. Clearly, for such a TV character, RP would not be seen as fitting. The suggested ‘general’ Mancunian accent avoids the glottal stop, yet retains a phonological feature that is characteristic of northern English in general perhaps – the use of a low, front unrounded vowel [a], whereas southern speakers would use a low, back unrounded vowel in its place in certain contexts – [ɑ]. A further example of broad and general Mancunian is seen below with the word Saturday: Broad General

/saʔdɪ/ /satədeɪ/

With the broader version, we have two reductions – the use of a glottal stop in place of the alveolar stop [t] and the reduction of the diphthong [eɪ] to the monophthong [ɪ]. The general version avoids both reductions. We might of course suggest an accent in between both the broad and general, which in turn would render the current general as a ‘posh’ variety and the variety below perhaps as ‘general’. In this case, we might expect the glottal stop to be removed, but to nonetheless replace the diphthong with a monophthong, itself a reduction of course, but one perhaps less stigmatized than the glottal stop. Its realization is thus: /satədɪ/. Other examples of reductions can be heard in accents tied to the Yorkshire area. I recall a postcard that depicted a sign in a field in Yorkshire – tek care, lambs ont road. The word ‘ont’ merely represents a contraction, which is a reduced form of on the (essentially, no different than ‘I’m’ or ‘we’re’, other examples of reductions often avoided in formal writing). Thus, for some speakers’ ‘everyday speech’, reductions might be the linguistic norm; when encountering a context such as teacher training, however, one’s everyday speech might not be seen to reflect the perceived need to give full clarity – ‘articulacy’ perhaps – to one’s speech. Furthermore, Shorrocks (1999) suggests that full forms are not the norm for parts of Bolton speech (e.g. I’m off t’shops) – a city further north of

70

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Manchester  – with Barras (2015) citing such speech as also associated with comedy sketches such as Monty Python. Beal and Cooper (2015:40) also state that definite article reduction is a common feature of the Yorkshire accent, as in t’barber told me so (‘the barber told me so’). In fact, a further example, deriving, I believe, from the British comedian Peter Kay, uses a reduction for humorous effect. The example concerns a fitness coach, who instructs his class to ‘put hands on thighs’, to which the class collectively put their hands over their eyes – this is based on the aforementioned reduction of t’, so that put hands on t(h)’eyes would be largely homophonic with put hands on thighs. This can be another negative association in that such forms are associated with comedic characters and thus not seen as appropriate for a profession in which we wish to be taken seriously. Furthermore, another example of phonological elision, thus a reduction, can be heard in Yorkshire phonology, such as the expression go home. For some Yorkshire speakers, go home would be realized with monophthongs, such as / go:  ho:m/ or further reduction involving h-dropping:  /go o:m/. A  monophthong would be a reduction of the diphthong, /goʊ hoʊm/. Thus, h-dropping, g-dropping (I’m goin’ home) and ‘phoneme dropping’ are collective examples of reductions in speech and thus might be tied to notions of aforementioned ‘lazy speech’; it is not lazy, merely different. Moreover, we need to consider reductions in relation to a particular accent(s); in other words, we only really have a reduction per se if it is being compared with an accent that does not use a reduction in the corresponding environment of a given word. In Britain, it might well be that RP is still regarded as a benchmark against which other accents are measured; in the US context, the ‘standard’ accent would be General American. From this perspective, we can perhaps locate a standard in as much as we have a linguistic starting point  – RP  – to which other accents are judged. In fact, Ramsaran (2015:182–3) clarifies the matter thus: Educated speakers of English do not speak with the broadest (or purest) forms of their local accents and the modifications are generally toward RP. So it can be argued that RP displays itself as a kind of standard, not necessarily deliberately imposed or consciously adopted, not a norm from which other accents deviate . . . but a standard in the sense that it is regionally neutral and does undeniably influence the modified accents of many British regions.

Ramsaran offers a helpful discussion in terms of understanding what a ‘neutral’ accent sounds like. In her view, and one I agree with, it is an accent which avoids the more local sounds of a given region. Thus, ‘neutral’ is perhaps a

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

71

reference as much about a geographical location as about the accent. In other words, by removal of one’s glottal stop, a Cockney accent might sound, essentially, ‘less Cockney’ and thus, the speaker is removing the specific connotations of the accent by removing some of the phonemes associated with a very specific region. Neutral is therefore a placeholder concept for accents which, at their extreme, remove all traces of regional origins; RP is perhaps the only British accent to accomplish this. However, considering terms such as ‘near-RP’ and ‘mid-accent’, I am suggesting that such accents do not involve wholesale removal of local features (e.g. switching from a broad Mancunian accent to upper-crust RP); rather, certain features are removed. On the other hand, given that RP is itself in a state of change and has taken on some regional influence, we might even ask which came first. Is RP being influenced by regional accents or vice versa? Either way, there are regional accents which can be referred to as less local (and thus more general; dare I say, ‘neutral’). Wells (1982) discussed the example of the ‘happY vowel’, essentially remarking that in unaccented syllables, such as the  –y in happy, there can be a distinction ranging from [i:] to [i] to [ɪ]. Here we can see a gradual reduction in the amount of time the phoneme is held. While there is a valid argument to be made for the unstressed syllables of vowels to perhaps be routinely reduced, as it were, there is evidence that the length of sounds (and by extension, adding extra sounds) can have implications for social judgement of the speaker. For example, by adding an extra phoneme, notably a slight schwa off-glide, the word funny would sound thus:  /fʌniə/. However, we should recognize that there may be limits for the appropriate degree of sounding upper crust, with Lewis (1990:161) referring to such pronunciation as common in comedy sketches and depicting an ‘upper-class twit’. On the other hand, we can hear homophones in word pairs such as pitied/pitted, both essentially realized as /pɪtɪd/. This is perhaps common in parts of the north of England, though by no means typical. However, when we consider the use of dialectal forms with a regional accent, the following sentence of give it me could be seen as stigmatized. First, it is lacking the preposition ‘to’, but me could be realized thus phonologically: /mɪ/. Again, this involves a phonological reduction, in that while [i] and [ɪ] are both monophthongs, the latter is of shorter duration. Ramsaran (2015) in fact states that for RP speakers, the [i:] form is the norm for happY words. Of course, reductions per se are not an absolute rule with regard to social judgements regarding accents perceived as more, or less, standard. For example, Ashby and Ashby (2015) point out that there are indeed reductions to be found in certain varieties of RP, such as the expression shall we (go) being reduced to

72

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

/ʃwi gəʊ/. Moreover, Scouse often uses the /i/ phoneme in words such as city and happy /hapi/. This leads to the second point I wish to make regarding judgements of standardness within accents. In some instances, the mere presence of a particular phoneme in a particular word position can easily identify the accent of a speaker and thus does not need to involve reductions. This is the second linguistic aspect of accents deemed standard, or not. In such cases, the issue is tied to the accent, and the subsequent speaker, being stigmatized by virtue of one of the accent’s distinctive ‘phonological giveaways’. Again, I make the point that it is not necessarily the phonemes per se that contribute to an accent’s judgement, positive or negative. This is seen with the fact that different accents may in fact share the same phonemes, but may merely be used in different places. If a certain positioning of a given phoneme makes an accent what it is, then once identified, the characteristics of its region and speakers come to mind, for better or for worse. Given the negativity surrounding the Liverpool accent, for example, Honeybone (2001:219) explains that ‘the high levels of unemployment and poverty which the city has suffered from and the effects connected with this’ might be a reason. Conversely, for many Liverpudlians, and some non-Liverpudlians of course, the connotations are quite different. Belchem (2000:33) states that the Scouse (a term used to describe Liverpudlians and their speech) identity is constructed by how the people speak, suggesting that its speakers share collective pride in their accent; ‘The accent is the essential medium for the projection and representation of the local microculture, the “scouse” blend of truculent defiance, collective solidarity, scallywaggery and fatalist humour which sets Liverpool and its inhabitants apart’. In terms of this phonological giveaway, as I call it, let us consider the phoneme [ɛ], known as a near-low, front unrounded vowel and more commonly as a short-e, as heard in the word bed. This is a sound common to many accents and languages and it is also a common sound in Liverpool English, as heard in certain positions (albeit held longer in duration); in RP, the corresponding sound would be [ɜː]. Let us consider the word nurse from both perspectives: RP Liverpool /nɜːs/ /nɛ:s/ Clearly, there is no reduction, merely a substitute from one phoneme to another. However, given that the latter realization above reflects a recognizable aspect of Liverpool English, this particular phoneme’s positioning in the word is reflective of an accent that is often stigmatized. Another distinctive feature of what might be considered more broad Scouse is the voiceless velar fricative [x],

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

73

often used in word-final positions in place of a voiceless velar stop [k]. Thus, back is realized as /bax/. Again, this is the substitute of one phoneme for another, and while this is a case of ‘like for like’ in terms of both being monophthongs, qualitatively speaking the [x] might not be received well in professional contexts, given its association with a stigmatized accent, which is in itself a stand-in for what is, to some people, a stigmatized city. Thus, phonological features that are considered ‘marked’ and potentially carrying negative connotations as a result refer to those phonemes that are a distinctive part of the accent’s inventory and thereby mark the speaker as well. This might especially be the case when the speaker is using his/her native accent outside of the home region, and is thus in the linguistic minority, relatively speaking. However, the suggestion is also put forward that even within the same region, we might have two speakers employing the same accent, with one speaker using a broader version and the other a more general version. In this case, which version is marked is perhaps at the mercy of who yields more power. On the one hand, in the context of teacher training in Liverpool, if both such individuals are themselves trainees, then there is a shared ‘rank’. However, the individual who uses a more general Liverpool accent might be considered as having a degree more linguistic power, relating back to notions of linguistic capital. If, however, the mentor speaks with a less broad Liverpool accent, he/she may indeed be the one who yields not only linguistic power but also absolute power and can, as a result, instruct a fellow Scouser to ‘tone down’ his/her accent. With the example of the Bristolian teacher in the previous chapter, it was also seen how a feature specifically regional to the southwest, but not the northwest where he teaches, was removed from his teaching voice. This involved removal of his [ɹ] and thus represents a reduction, so that car is realized as /kɑ:/ and not /kɑɹ/. In this case, the reduction, here the loss of a phoneme, is not suggestive of non-standard speech precisely because it involves the removal of a feature that is clearly marked throughout most of England. Thus, his use of the phoneme [ɹ] might well contribute to linguistic otherizing by his students. From his students’ perspective, this might merely be an example of banter; from his own perspective, however, that particular phoneme can be a calling card for his region and, as he explained, the accompanying negative stereotypes. In this manner, and as I have already said, identity change can sometimes be merely a phoneme away (whether adding a phoneme or deleting it). Compiling a list of phonemes and their specific positionings that make accents identifiable could help us to perhaps better understand the connotations that accompany these accents. That is, what are the phonological ‘triggers’ that

74

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

identify an accent and, from here, lead to stereotyping? Such a list could include the Scouse [ɛ:], the Bristolian [ɹ], the American tap [ɾ] (as heard in butter), or the pronunciation of coffee as heard in New York City: /koəfi/. Collectively, these are but merely a small sample of such linguistic giveaways and in General American speech, coffee would involve a reduction (compared with New York) and be realized thus: /kɑfi/. However, precisely because General American is ‘general’, and thus ‘standard’, the reduction here is not an issue; but the distinctive New York diphthong of [oə] is, given the negative stereotypes about New  Yorkers and, thus, the accent they use (Cohen, 2004). But what makes one accent ‘marked’ from a negative perspective can of course be precisely the phonological features that make it unique and wonderful for others. The issue here, then, is that a notional standard might sometimes be applied which suggests that other accents and their distinctive features are regarded negatively, features which are not shared by accents deemed to be more ‘neutral’ precisely because they have removed such marked forms and also involving accents which perhaps never had them in the first instance, such as RP, which clearly does not involve the Scouse [ɛ:], the Bristolian [ɹ], the Yorkshire [o:] or the Cockney glottal stop, as in water: /woʊʔə/. In fact, it may well be the case that if we consider the two sentences below, one standard English (in the common sense) and one non-standard, it might be likely that for some, the non-standard version would be deemed less ‘offensive’ if spoken in a high-status accent, versus standard English spoken in a broad accent. Standard English I was tired. /ɒɪ wɒz tɒ:əd/ – Cockney Non-standard English I were tired. /aɪ wɜ taɪəd/ – RP The issue of reductions in speech as a possible contender for associations made of ‘non-standard’ and ‘broad’ accents will be revisited in later chapters. What this means for teachers whose accent is reflective of reduced forms is that such broad accents may indeed be regarded an inappropriate for the teacher identity one seeks to create. In this sense, the notion of a ‘standard’ accent might be partly tied to using full forms in one’s speech, even when full forms are, for some, the marked variety; likewise, standard accents might involve those which avoid features that are, certainly for the region in which teachers are working, marked forms.

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

75

A notional standard accent within education I now wish to focus on an entirely relevant paper by Millar (1997), which discusses accent within educational settings, relying on the Kingman Report (1988) for information. At that point in time, this report was the official document centred on classroom language standards in Britain though, as Millar argues, it doesn’t adequately address the issue of spoken English and, thus, accent usage. At the time of writing, it is twenty years since Millar wrote her paper and the situation arguably remains the same. While the Teachers’ Standards have been made clear, they do not specifically address accent and, in the case of the Kingman Report, accent use for students and, by extension, teachers, is also shied away from. The Kingman Report mentions accent usage as follows:  ‘Attainment targets at age sixteen: Speak in Standard English, using their own accents (provided that those accents do not impair comprehension by other speakers of English)’ (52). On the one hand, the report is allowing students the freedom to speak with their natural accents, yet there are two hidden issues. First, who decides if the student’s speech is ‘impairing’ someone else’s comprehension? The teacher? Other students? The problem is that comprehension impairment could become a loophole for what might well be someone else’s linguistic prejudice, or at least linguistic preference. If those in authority declare that our accent is in need of modification, even under the ostensibly legitimate guise of ensuring that students will understand us better, it could be tied more to issues of simply disliking our accent. I do not suggest this as some kind of linguistic conspiracy, merely as a linguistic possibility. Second, the fact that standard English is the attainment (again, in the sense that the term of standard English is currently used) could mean that notions of a standard accent(s) might become relevant in the process and, again, whose notions? I again raise the question: What might the implications be in teacher training for speakers who use standard English, but speak in a broad regional accent? The report suggests that there may be such a scenario in the classroom: ‘The use of any accent should not pose a practical problem for teacher or child except when a localized English accent . . . is adversely affecting clear and confident communication’ (42). This point raises further issues. First, a localized English accent is reflective of varieties I  have discussed as broad, and also reflective of British accents which reside at the bottom of Trudgill’s linguistic pyramid. In other words, while such accents might be deemed as broad by some, we need to clarify who is doing the listening. Do the teachers (and fellow students) have similar ‘local’ accents? If so, would this not

76

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

be the relatively unmarked form of language in a region where most of the students, and teachers, speak with such accents? Or are we dealing with a student who, for example, has a broad accent from a different region, say a Newcastle accent within a classroom of mostly Cockney speakers. Surely the Newcastle accent is not completely alien to Cockney students, and yet, its perceived marked status could be sufficient to suggest that certain features, those which precisely make it what it is, need to be modified in some way. However, how would a non-Newcastle speaker instruct a native of Newcastle to modify his/her accent? Accent modification, arguably an intuitive process, is essentially DIY. Second, the wording above – ‘confident communication’ – suggests that it is in the student’s best interests to modify his/her accent, as the suggestion is that if speaking with a local accent, it could result in a lack of confidence with one’s peers. This may or may not be true. Again, if the majority of students in the classroom at least speak with the same local variety, how can this be an issue? Alternatively, if we have a Mancunian speaker or a New Yorker for that matter, who respectively are primary (elementary) school students in a class made up of mostly Cockney speakers or Texans, then this does not necessarily mean that the child will be less confident speaking with an otherwise ‘unusual’ accent (indeed, he/she might enjoy the attention it could initially bring). Millar (1997:112) rightly points out the following: Can we really define intelligibility or confidence in terms that are systematic and precise enough to permit their use as assessment criteria for accent? Without such definitions, the assessment of spoken English will inevitably be somewhat ad hoc and subject to the vagaries of personal taste.

The first sentence of the quotation reveals the impracticalities of using such broad words as ‘confidence’ as a yardstick for linguistic competence. As I have argued, who decides on the extent to which a student is, or is not, confident? On what basis is a lack of confidence being put down to the student’s ‘local’ accent? And in what context of speech  – an oral presentation in front of one’s peers, group work with others or merely asking a teacher for help following class? The second sentence, as I have also argued, reflects a double-edged sword. On the one hand, without some sort of specific phonological guidance with regard to spoken English for students and teachers alike, there is greater potential for trainee teachers to be subject to a given mentor’s own personal beliefs regarding a teacher voice, which may not of course reflect the views of other mentors, let  alone the teacher. However, to provide the clarity that only official standards can – assuming they are phonologically based – and avoid rather abstract

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

77

notions such as ‘articulacy’, means that another issue is raised. Namely, we need to determine who is behind the standard-setting. The need to avoid a phonological standard(s) which reflects, if not privileges one group over another, is important. This would suggest the need for multiple voices to be involved, involving teachers and mentors, which would also, presumably, reflect a variety of class levels and the accompanying accents. Moreover, the word ‘clear’ within the earlier quotation (‘is adversely affecting clear and confident communication’) seems to rest in the ear of the beholder, however, and not necessarily the speaker. This again suggests that if the teacher, or the mentor, has issues with an accent that is otherwise clear, then by drawing on key words such as ‘clear’ and ‘comprehension’, the mentor is afforded a sense of justification for his/her comments regarding a supposed need for teachers to modify their accents. Moreover, Godley and Escher (2012:708) make the point that the preference some might have in educational settings for one variety of English over another, here accent varieties, is ‘driven more by a perception of negative judgements by mainstream society than by reasons such as clear communication’. The current guidelines in England for Teachers’ Standards in terms of the need to promote ‘articulacy’ are reflective of the Kingman Report, as neither really help to clarify matters. In fact, by using such broad words as articulacy it can allow for much interpretation as to what is deemed to be articulate speech, and this determination may not always be in the hands of the teachers or in their interests. Millar further references the ‘wooly criteria’ (112) regarding the report’s reference to accent and this is precisely what I seek to avoid. We need phonological precision in terms of what are deemed to be appropriate accents for teachers in training and if these are to be established, then the views of teachers and mentors need to be taken on board. The fact that Millar uses the term of non-standard for certain phonological realizations, however, is suggestive of putting the linguistic cart before the horse. While Millar uses such a term, it merely begs the question ‘What is the standard(s)?’ Millar references this word, but she does not define it and further acknowledges that there is no standard. Her use of the term ‘accent errors’ (110) might be a reference to accents which are stigmatized, be it a broad variety of an accent otherwise shared in a classroom, or an accent from outside the immediate area. Similarly, Bibby, Lupton and Raffo (2017) also reference a standard accent, distinguishing it from more ‘local’ varieties, and suggesting that the former is ideal when children speak with teachers, the latter appropriate with friends. Once again, in the absence of clear phonological criteria for standard accents

78

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

(something I attempt to nonetheless provide in my book), it appears that there are intuitive notions of what standard accents refer to as a concept. It seems that once again, accents which shed the more localized features – the suggested midaccents – are those that are considered standard. This also suggests a pluralistic concept that involves a standard form for conceivably each and every regional accent in Britain. I find it interesting that, while the term standard accent is used, individuals seem to shy away from using the opposite term – a non-standard accent (instead opting for more neutral language such as ‘local’ accents). This further suggests that while we can easily talk of non-standard English (i.e. a reference to grammar), to suggest that accents are non-standard might be considered, at least at present, a more taboo, or certainly emotionally charged subject. A notable exception, however, is found within the research of Evans and Iverson (2007), who clearly use the term ‘nonstandard accent’ to refer to a variety of northern English found in the Midlands; the implication appears to be that it is nonstandard when compared with standard southern British English (SSBE), ‘the prestige accent of English and the accent of education’ (3814). This implies that notions of standardness are perhaps still thought of in connection with the south, possibly due to its historical association with the birthplace of RP, and continuing imagery of the south as being associated with wealth, education and social status. Thus, a specific accent as used in the south is implied to be the standard, against which all other accents are judged. Returning to Millar, she references these more localized accents (and ‘accent errors’) as being based on ‘regional and social factors for which the pupil cannot be held responsible’ (ibid.), with pronunciation norms being ‘more nebulous’ (ibid.). In essence, the Kingman Report on which she comments is perhaps implying that certain accents are nonetheless ‘non-standard’, by using otherwise legitimate concepts to justify this implication (e.g. the need to speak with clarity and confidence); thus, the report is, to an extent, avoiding the issue and leaving it up to teachers to deal with it head-on. Millar rightly acknowledges that biased beliefs about certain accents cannot be removed from a classroom and yet her proposed way to address this, by open acknowledgement ‘that certain nonstandard accents are unacceptable in the educational context’ (112) is lacking in clarity precisely because we again do not have a clear sense as to what the suggested standard benchmark(s) is against which all others are to be judged. We are judged for how we speak and, in professional contexts, we need to use professional speech. Thus, the establishment of specific standards for a variety of accents in British teacher training, ideally with multiple input, might be a solution, and one that follows naturally from Millar’s suggestion to admit that certain accents are ‘non-standard’ (not from an

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

79

absolute linguistic perspective of course, but from a societal perspective). A final quote from Millar is fully agreed with, concerning her claim that the Kingman Report ‘pays lip service to the solidarity-making role of speech but gives true allegiance to the status quo’ (117). The status quo in 1997 is not suggested to be considerably different to the one that exists now in Britain in terms of accent and linguistic prejudice. I would argue that the accents used in professional contexts such as teaching, and more specifically those advocated by mentors in teacher training, are those which reflect a linguistic status quo, if only one that is intuitively guided at present with regard to notions of ‘standard’ speech. In the US context, Haddix (2008:258) claims a similar argument, in that multicultural teacher education that ostensibly serves to emphasize diversity issues and address hegemony ‘may . . . keep them in place’. Haddix makes this claim on the basis that there is a push for standardization, an essentially uniform approach ‘to the extent that one’s ethnic or linguistic identity does not influence practice’ (ibid.). Thus, the belief among some that the US classroom has an identity that is in fact ethnicity-less, race-less and language-less ironically serves to negate identities that do not reflect the majority, which in this case is white, middle-class teachers. In the case of Britain, while race is of course relevant, class-based divisions are perhaps especially reflective of linguistic issues regarding accents, and their speakers, who are perceived as working-class (again, using local accents) and there is a need to address this. I will leave it for the final chapter to take up a discussion along the lines of where we go from here, as we haven’t reached ‘here’ yet until the results are presented. However, I need to state at this point that I am not asserting that the establishment of standard accents for use within the teaching profession, or certainly within training contexts, is a perfect solution. While this might allow for flexibility regarding accents which are otherwise stigmatized, the issue would still remain the same – even if we allow for more than one standard, anyone outside of these multiple standards is still being made to feel that, potentially, their accent is nonstandard. Thus, the setting of multiple standards, while allowing for more freedom, would still deny it to some. Moreover, whose standards are being propagated? Who decides? These are questions which will indeed be taken up in the final chapter.

Linguistic stereotyping This section serves to discuss past and current attitudes towards British accents, largely centred on how the attitudes towards accents and their speakers serve to categorize individuals, for better or worse. While this has been touched on

80

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

already, a more in-depth focus here helps to better understand the relationship between accent and identity. Blommaert (2005) is right when he comments that one’s accent reveals much more than merely one’s region of origin. Using the example of individuals from Fort Wayne, Indiana, whose accents would be referred to as ‘Midwest’, Blommaert explains how the accent (or any accent for that matter of course) serves as a spatial anchoring, which is ‘crucial in the organization of senses of self ’ (222). This is based on the fact that by having a specific accent which is shared by those around us, it creates a sense of community based on far more than shared pronunciation. Rather, it serves, as I  have earlier explained, as a symbol of the attributes associated with a given region to include the behaviour, customs and even food preferences, thus reflecting, to an extent, a kind of group habitus. It also serves in this manner to create a sense of ‘insiderness’. This, of course, presupposes commonalities based on more than just an accent, but also based on the attributes associated with the region from which the accent, and the individual, derives. This in itself is a form of stereotyping perhaps, yet it serves to allow ‘the crystallization of packages of moral, cultural, and social attributes’ (ibid.) and this again demonstrates the power that accent can have in terms of identity formation. Ironically, to discuss accent in this instance from a purely phonological point of view, as I have done earlier, does not really do the subject justice, given the broader implications that I have also discussed regarding the connotations of said phonemes. This connects back to an earlier discussion of Blommaert (2013) that I provided, regarding authenticity and those seen as insiders and outsiders. On the one extreme, there is the traditional belief that a ‘true’ Cockney is one born within earshot of the bells of St Mary-le-Bow Church, Cheapside. In the case of those from Fort Wayne, the accent, if overheard by a stranger from the same city, serves to provide an immediate association with the particular culture of that city. Accent, then, serves in large part to initiate the associated concepts with the region that the accent derives from. As Lippi-Green (1997) states, accent serves to portray people socially and culturally, and even politically. This leads to two points. First, this can involve, as mentioned, rather stereotypical notions at times which are ascribed to the speaker based on his/her accent. Stereotyping can be regarded as a time-saving device in that the stereotyping of others essentially begins with an immediate impression  – sometimes based on non-linguistic means of course – but as we begin to know the person, we may discover that a shared (or unshared) accent does not equate to commonalities in terms of assumed shared attributes. This again illustrates the fact that identity is, as I had

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

81

mentioned, a two-way street, with our own identity enacted and performed (Butler, 1990) and the end result being an identity that is ascribed to us by others based on their recognition of the enactment. What this means is that it is not merely an identity clash that can be the source of issues, such as, broadly, a mentor who speaks ‘posh’ training a teacher who speaks ‘local’ and all the associated connotations of both styles of speech. Rather, it is sometimes a clash of perceptions. A teacher with a local accent may wish to retain this accent as a means to enact the identity of a teacher who is genuine, ‘real’ and subsequently hopes his/ her students will relate to him/her better as a result. This notion of being ‘real’ purely from retention of a broad accent is, of course, merely one notion, yet tied to the idea perhaps that by not feeling a need to change linguistically for teaching and thus dispensing with notions of ‘teacher voice’, the individual is saying (to him/herself and to the students), ‘I’m the real thing’. This may be the case if the students largely share the teacher’s accent. Yet Garrett (2010:14) states that that ‘the directness, the vibrancy, the “toughness” of non-standard language forms, which can incorporate accents considered “non-standard”, have been found “attractive” to those whose language use is more standard’. While we read again a reference to an otherwise ill-defined concept (non-standard accents), the connotations of such for those students who otherwise speak with a ‘standard’ accent might be positive at times, despite the discussion to the contrary. So far, so good. However, the perceptions of the mentor might be very different. Perhaps the mentor shares the teacher’s accent, yet speaks with a more ‘general’ variety. Either way, an accent perceived as non-standard in a future teacher may be regarded as wholly inappropriate for the teaching profession, as connotations might go beyond ‘authenticity’ and instead be seen as, in a way, inauthentic for the teacher context. In this case, the perceptions might involve ascription of class and/or region, with the subsequent stereotypes potentially being negative. As Garrett (2010:2) states, ‘Language variation carries social meanings and so can bring very different attitudinal reactions, or even social disadvantage or advantage.’ A second point to make, and again referring to the work of Blommaert (2005), is that ‘space defines people’ (223). This is an important concept in sociolinguistic research as it first of all can tie in to context. This can be seen with the spatial importance of one’s home town, to the more immediate aspect involving the actual building or room in which people are conversing. In the case of teacher training, much of this will be set in a classroom of course and in that context, the aforementioned perception clash between the speaker’s self-concept and the concept ascribed to him/her could be very different than, say, the speaker using an otherwise unmodified accent in the space of a football stadium, with friends,

82

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

watching a match. Another example of the importance of space can be clearly seen in the film East Side Sushi (2014). In this film set in Los Angeles, we see a Hispanic woman, working in a sushi restaurant, yearning to move from the kitchen and work up front, actually preparing the food in full view of the customers. Given that the other chefs are of Japanese or at least Asian descent, the fact she is ethnically ‘other’ does not go unnoticed by a customer, who in turn mentions this to the owner and implicitly asks that the woman not prepare food again, in turn praising the owner for his restaurant’s commitment otherwise to the food’s ‘authenticity’. Though this is based on ethnic stereotyping (Hispanic) and potentially racial (the woman appears to be a Mestiza, thus racially incorporating white and Native American ancestry), Blommaert’s argument in this instance would be that it is more than just accent, or language in general, that leads to identity formation or in this example, identity ascription. Indeed, Blommaert refers to voice as the ‘capacity for semiotic mobility’ (68), involving a need to change one’s presentation, be it based on accent, clothing or even hairstyle. However, implicit in this is his reference to ‘orders of indexicality’, referring to power relations and (linguistic) ideologies. Therefore, various ‘signs’ index – signify – aspects of who we are. In the film, the woman has potentially three signs that work against her: she is female (most sushi chefs, we are told, are male); she is Hispanic (and thus, not Asian) and potentially, race is a factor (presumably, if she were an Asian Hispanic, this particular identity might counter the fact that she is a woman). In other words, the customer ascribed to her an identity of inauthentic, based on the fact that her sex suggests she lacks experience and even tradition in preparing sushi; the fact she is a Mestiza Hispanic in particular, especially in Los Angeles, can in turn relate to some particularly nasty stereotypes, often regarding Hispanics as working in menial jobs, such as dishwashers, for low pay and thus, ‘her place is in the kitchen’ as both a woman and a Hispanic. Furthermore, the orders of indexicality refer to power relations and the linguistic ideologies that accompany them. As Gal and Irvine (2000:37) explain, ‘People have, and act in relation to, ideologically constructed representations of linguistic differences’. If the mentor is the boss, and his/her ideology regarding accent is to remove all perceived traces of a local accent, then a speaker under his/her wing will be left with little choice but to accept modification perhaps. Romaine (1984:37) explains that the linguistic choices we make ‘are constrained by the expressive resources available in the language(s) to which (we) have access’. Thus, professional identities may offer a limited means for self-expression, be it tied to dress, our choice of decoration in our office (e.g. a British flag would be fine on the wall, but not a Nazi flag), and accent. In

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

83

the film, the restaurant owner cannot change the woman’s identity(ies), but can, and does, order her to remain in the kitchen. Thus, despite her own selfconcept as a professional sushi chef (she later comes second in a national competition), the owner, and at least one customer, are unconvinced. A final point to make, and suggested in the film, again concerns space. How might the customer perceive a waitress in a Mexican restaurant who was Asian, let  alone an Asian waiter/waitress preparing his table-side guacamole? Would the waitress in this context be seen as inauthentic compared with being greeted by the Hispanic waitress in the Mexican restaurant who was previously deemed unfit to prepare his sushi? Beal and Cooper (2015) discuss the third order of indexicality, referring essentially to specific forms of language associated with a specific group to the extent that such forms now carry with them immediate connotations and, ultimately, stereotypes. Agha (2003:231) describes this as enregisterment. At this point, we have gone beyond merely recognizing a feature and associating it with the relevant group; now such recognition is linked to ‘speaker status linked to a specific scheme of cultural values’. In simple terms, this is about making judgements, akin to what Agha refers to as ‘characterological attributes’ (237). To resume the discussion on accent stereotyping per se, notably in the British context, I  turn to a study by Coupland and Bishop (2007) in which accents were rated on the basis of prestige and pleasantness. As I have argued, people may not always be able to respond if asked what particular sounds of a given accent render it pleasant or not, but the authors report that the findings reflect ‘rather persistent UK language-ideologies around accent difference’ (74). A total of 5,010 respondents were involved in the research, listening to a variety of thirty-four accents, both British and non-British. The participants ranged in age from fifteen to over sixty-five, and themselves all had accents tied to the United Kingdom. One finding is that ‘urban vernaculars’ were ‘systematically downgraded’ (80), referring in particular to accents associated with Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow, and less so those deriving from Manchester and Bristol. In fact, Coupland and Bishop refer to the Birmingham accent as ‘the bête noire of British urban varieties’ (84, original emphasis). Again, is it specific phonological properties that sound ‘unpleasant’ or is it merely that such properties identify a given accent, which in turn opens up a potential floodgate of attributes based on the city/region from where it derives and, finally, the speaker? I have clearly argued for the latter. Connotations of the city in question, such as high crime rates and riots, suggested by Honeybone (2001) earlier regarding the Liverpool accent, might be the more relevant factor than the mere Birmingham pronunciation of, say, goat /gaʊt/, as opposed to the more ‘standard’ /goʊt/.

84

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Interestingly, Coupland and Bishop refer to RP as a ‘standard accent of English’, perhaps more a reference to their participants’ perceptions than their own judgement. However, while RP was rated highly on both variables, the overall positive perception becomes increasingly lower with participants’ age. This suggests that the older generations may in fact ascribe more ‘traditional’ notions of prestige to this accent, whereas the younger generations may not, and even see it as somewhat outdated. Coggle (1993) states that nowadays ‘many younger privileged people make an effort not to sound too “posh”, as they know this makes them unacceptable in their peer group’ (www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/estuary/estufaqs.htm), with Mugglestone (2003:276) confirming that ‘it is clear that traditional stereotypes of RP are indeed in the process of change’, also citing the idea that regional accents are on the rise, though there is still some way to go. In addition, the fact that the younger participants were overall less negative regarding more stigmatized accent varieties suggests that ‘there may be an indication of ideological value-shift over time here’ (85), which would help support the idea that mid-accents are an attempt to balance things out in current British society. Nonetheless, linguistic prejudice in Britain is a reality, and one is more likely to find evidence of this in numerous media reports than in academic outputs, with Woollaston’s (2013) report in the Daily Mail just one of many examples. If we travel back in time, a quotation by Leach (1881:10–11) might not seem dated at all. He states that ‘while financial advantage may enable the purchase of superior clothes, the illusions of social standing (or superiority) thereby created may be rapidly dispelled once a person begins to speak’. Trudgill (2002:176) suggests that this quotation is still relevant, saying that ‘discrimination of the grounds of accent still, unfortunately, occurs in British society’ and Coupland and Bishop (2007:74) further state that values ascribed to certain accents are ‘structured into people’s everyday understanding’. To investigate this topic within an educational setting – here, university – a study by Evans and Iverson (2007) investigated accent modification in northern English university students, in terms of changes to their pronunciation which reflect standard southern British English, such as use of the phoneme [ɑ:] in bath. Trudgill (1986:18) states, however, that ‘many Northerners, it seems, would rather drop dead than say /dɑ:ns/, the stereotype that this is a Southern form is again too strong’ (original emphasis). This illustrates a potential linguistic divide in England, largely centred on north versus south. On the one hand, to retain a more northern pronunciation via [a] in certain contexts as opposed to [ɑ] might indicate, unconscious though it could be on the speaker’s part, a resistance to southern pronunciation and, thus, a demonstration of northern linguistic pride.

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

85

The use of [a], therefore, could be due to speakers’ retention of ‘regional variants in order to show their allegiance to particular social or geographical groups’ (Evans & Iverson 2004:352), suggesting that speakers might desire to retain particular phonemes in certain contexts which in turn signal an identity, in this case a broad identity of being northern, or simply not being from the south. However, Evans and Iverson state that northerners generally tend to replace the phoneme / ʊ/ with /ʌ/ in certain contexts, such as in bus, which could imply that some phonetic features are perceived as too northern. This ties in with collective stereotypes regarding the north and south of England in particular, which are now discussed. However, where does the north end and the south begin? Hickey (2015:2) states that ‘the precise geographical extent of the North of England is a perennial topic of discussion’. However, Hickey acknowledges that the British public seems to have a definitive notion of north versus south, referred to as ‘imagined spaces’ (ibid.). Furthermore, Russell (2004:xii) created a map which reveals the suggested boundaries between north and south, with the midlands (e.g. Birmingham) being part of the suggested north of England. However, Upton (2012) calls for a tripartite division of England – north, midlands and south. What I propose as the more relevant factor for this immediate discussion is to determine phonological aspects that unite both north and midlands and serve to also distinguish them from the south. In this respect, Hickey (2015:8–13) refers to the ‘linguistic North’ and discusses specific phonemes that unite the northern regions overall and thus allow for what we might consider to be ‘a Northern accent’. For example, the north is known for its fronted vowel – [a] – in place of the southern back vowel – [ɑ]. Likewise, the north uses the phoneme [ʊ] in place of the southern [ʌ]. Hickey also references monophthongs, such as [e:] and [o:]. This does not, of course, suggest that all northerners uses such phonemes, but merely that they can be expected in the north. In terms of the west midlands, [a] can be heard in words such as trap, though bath tends towards [ɑ] (Wells, 1982). However, according to Asprey (2001), the tendency towards the back vowel [ɑ], in words such as bath /bɑϴ/, can have connotations of more cultured speech or, on the negative side of things, snobbery (66). This is suggestive of the front vowel [a] being regarded as perhaps ‘common’. Likewise, as with the north, the midlands is known for the phoneme [ʊ], as heard in words such as strut (Beal & Cooper, 2015). Thus, there are linguistic aspects that unite the north and the midlands and on this level, suggest a region of England which is by and large separate from the south, from a linguistic point of view. In terms of what this all means from a social point of view regarding stereotyping, we need to briefly go back in time, to see how negative connotations regarding certain regional accents emerged.

86

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

The variety of English that is regarded as ‘standard’ (i.e. in terms of grammar) emerged in the south, with London English chosen as the standard. The south was known for education, wealth and of course was the political centre and thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that the version of English spoken in the capital was chosen to essentially codify the English language at that time. In terms of the historical spoken standard, this was RP as I have already mentioned (and for some, it still represents the standard), with its origins in the southeast. However, a by-product is that accents which fell outside of this realm were regarded as improper, and even wrong. Walker (1791:xiii) explains that the phoneme [ʊ], as heard in words such as trunk, sunk, for example, is ‘mispronounced’. It was during this period when this pronunciation was noticed and here we can see the origins of the negativity towards this particular phoneme, albeit when used in a particular context. While this quotation, and attitude within, is more than two hundred years old, and this very prescriptive attitude may now seem (hopefully) dated, I refer to it by suggesting that this phoneme, by virtue of it signalling northern/midlands speech, can nonetheless still be regarded on a negative level. Have things indeed changed dramatically since Walker’s time? Or do phonemes, as I have argued, which act as linguistic giveaways for certain regions – even broad regions such as ‘the north’ – still bring subsequent negative associations to mind for some interlocutors? Montgomery (2015:347) explains that negative images of the north have persisted since after World War II, largely based on ‘perceptions of the depressed North and prosperous South’. The former image was based on the collapse of industry in the north, following a period of prosperity. Once heavy industry left the north, which was previously wealthy indeed, decline set in and thus, a northern accent, particularly a broad one, can still be a stand-in for associations made regarding poverty and reliance on benefits. This blanket image can give rise to many ‘smaller’ images which can be, depending on one’s point of view, humorous or, indeed, insulting. These include flat caps, pies, being uneducated and when a northern accent is heard by those from outside the area perhaps, then such images, and many others perhaps, can be automatically generated in the interlocutor’s mind. Thus, as I argue, a given accent by itself is rather academic, and it may not be the particular sounds per se that cause judgement, but more so the associations made with the region, which the accent, acting as a linguistic stand-in for the region, contributes to. Thus, stereotyping abounds between the two regions, with northerners often regarded by southerners as working-class, uneducated and ‘thick’ (though the self-perception of northerners might involve attributes such as friendly and open). Equally at fault, southerners can be regarded as arrogant and cold by

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

87

northerners. These are, of course, gross stereotypes, yet can involve harmless banter at times. Moreover, class is the more prominent issue, given that upperclass northerners are likely to speak RP, and the Cockney accent is not always received positively (Rampton, 2008). Evans and Iverson (2007) further state that ‘students from the north of England typically change their accent from regional to educated norms in order to better fit in with their new university community’ (3814, my emphasis). The suggestion that a particular accent is regarded as ‘educated’ is perhaps reflective of modernday Britain, and here, a desire to sound less regional might be a means to avoid the aforementioned negative perceptions of the north of England. Once again, it is the mere perception of accent prejudice of others (or in extreme cases, linguistic self-hatred) than can lead to individuals modifying their accent, an accent which they are otherwise perfectly happy with. Nonetheless, to celebrate one’s accent as a badge of identity might lead to the ridicule of others, who do not share, nor celebrate, the same identity. In terms of power relations, however, it is difficult to see how students necessarily have any inherent ‘power’ over each other. It is highly unlikely that a PhD student would somehow feel ‘superior’ to a first-year undergraduate student. While this could be possible, my point here is that there is no system of student ranking, at least not along the lines of insider/outsider, boss/ apprentice, and certainly not in the vein of trainee teacher-mentor. However, if students feel a need to modify their accent in the presence of other students with different accents, then it could be suggested that specific accents carry linguistic power, part of the previously discussed linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1991). However, we need to consider ways in which the concept of linguistic power can be regarded on a different level. For example, British politician John Prescott was known for retaining his northern accent, a means perhaps to appeal to the people by projecting an identity of someone who, despite his success, has not forgotten, or abandoned, his roots. This shows how a regional accent tied to a position of power in turn can sometimes project relative power on to the accent perhaps. While the notion of linguistic capital is often tied to a singular variety, a ‘standard’, we need to revisit the importance of spaces, as an accent that affords the speaker capital in one place might not work in another. Thus, a RP-speaking student delivering a paper at a student conference might be well-placed in terms of how his/her accent and, subsequently, him/herself is perceived. But in the context of the same student arriving in a hall of residence on the first day at campus, and otherwise outnumbered by northern students in the halls, his/her accent might suddenly be perceived as elitist, if not self-perceived that way. Hughes et al. (2012:5) in fact cite what is perhaps one of the changing perceptions of

88

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

RP regarding the negative connotations that it can carry, such as snobbery, with such being ‘out of keeping with the kind of image that the accent’s younger speakers would wish to project of themselves’. Thus linguistic prejudice, whether real or imagined, is the heart of the issue. Studies in the United States have revealed the linguistic prejudice of teachers (Dyson & Smitherman, 2009; Godley et al., 2015), particularly a belief that standard English is somehow more grammatical than dialects, and this leads to negative perceptions of their students who speak in that dialect. However, if we transfer this to the British context, what of the linguistic prejudice that can potentially be felt towards certain accents of teachers? How is this conceptualized? Millar (1997), Haddix (2008), Godley et al. (2015) and Reaser (2016) support the idea of instruction provided to teachers regarding the diversity of linguistic forms. I suggest that this is also needed for mentors who come into contact with teachers representing a wealth of British accents. However, there is agreement that merely offering workshops or classes focused on linguistic diversity will not be enough, part of a ‘sociolinguistic sensitivity curriculum’ (Reaser, 2016:92). In fact, Alim (2010:215) explains that discussing a variety of linguistic forms as equal, albeit differing in terms of their appropriate usage, we risk ‘silently legitimizing ‘standard English’. This can apply to standard English per se and equally to individual notions of what a standard accent(s) should sound like in British teacher training. Instead, we are encouraged to move beyond the merely descriptive content of such courses and engage with them instead, adopting a critical stance (Chisholm & Godley, 2011), part of consciousness-raising (Alim, 2010). This involves being taught to question power structures, to include the linguistic structures and ideologies that they uphold and the implications for those outside this group, whether the group is as broad as white, middle-class American women, or as comparatively narrow as British mentors who speak RP against a teacher’s local accent. Presumably, trainee teachers do not need to be ‘taught’ how to be critical, having already graduated with an undergraduate degree and surely having formed their own views, perhaps equally fixed as some mentors’, regarding language ideology.

The rationale for accommodation Accommodation refers to the adjustments we make in our speech (Giles, 1971). It has already been discussed in great detail how the context determines what is appropriate linguistic usage and, in turn, the context determines our appropriate

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

89

identities. A fear of being perceived negatively is often at the heart of accommodation, and so accommodation, even if merely switching from a broad to a more general version of the same accent, can be regarded as a form of code-switching. As Jones (2001:1063) states, people ‘actively construct versions of their selves to fit different situations’. Accommodation has been extensively covered in the literature (Labov, 1966; Giles, 1979; Bell, 1984; Eckert & Rickford, 2001; Giles & Coupland, 1991; Ager, 2003; Gallois, Ogay & Giles, 2005; Giles, Coupland & Coupland, 2010). In this case, I  refer to the term accommodation to mean instances in which people, consciously or otherwise, adjust their accent in some way based on their interlocutor (it could of course refer to much more, such as adjusting their facial expressions and gestures). We could determine the overall context to be the main factor regarding our desire to modify our accent, such as the context of a job interview, yet it is obvious that without someone to converse with in a particular context, modification would not be necessary in the first instance. The determining factor is the nature of the relationship that exists between the speakers. If there are power variables, this might have implications for how one speaks, but it need not be predictable. A trainee teacher who meets with the mentor on the first day is a context unto itself; if we change ‘first day’ to ‘graduation’ then it might be the case that the accent, and language overall, used by both parties has changed over the year. For example, assuming a good relationship between the two, one of mutual respect, it is likely that more informal language is used. However, if the language is formal, this does not suggest a lack of good feelings. Perhaps both parties claim formal language, whatever that might refer to, as merely a way of self-expression, reflective of their personal identities preand post-training. But I ask again: What if the teacher and mentor have very different accents, with one regarded as carrying more credibility in teaching? I reiterate that the power need not be tied solely to rank, but also to the language we deploy in certain contexts. Despite some negative connotations nowadays, RP is more likely to be associated with authority and trust; not just authority based on one’s position, but based merely on the associations made of the accent and attributed to its speakers. Now, what does the regionally accented speaker do? This teacher essentially has three broad ‘choices’, but perhaps only one is plausible, initially at least. One, do not modify; two, modify, though unlikely perhaps, to an even more local version of an already broad accent or, three, modify from broad to general. The last option is an example of convergence, in which we seek to sound more like our interlocutor(s). In this case, it does not mean a wholesale change from broad

90

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Yorkshire to RP; rather, a switch to a less broad variety means, in essence, that the speaker is attempting to deemphasize those aspects of his/her accent that make it broad, and thus is attempting, to an extent, to sound more ‘posh’ (upward convergence). The second option above involves divergence, in which individuals seek to emphasize social difference (e.g. class) by accentuating the linguistic differences that exist between themselves and the other person. Revisiting the concept of cleft habitus, however, if trainee teachers initially feel that they do not fit within academia, and potentially no longer have a sense of who they are based on the personal identity clashing with the professional identity that is still a work in progress, then presumably the personal identity forged from a broad regional accent would not be emphasized. Instead, we might expect it to be modified in order to enact an identity that, having lost part of its regional flavour, is more fitting for this new community. This move towards a suggested mid-accent is reflective of Coupland’s (2010) work on discourse attuning, which focuses on how speakers regulate their language in terms of audience interpretation and perhaps expectation. It is essentially synonymous with code-switching, but, at least in my interpretation, there is a suggested difference in that the use of the word ‘attuning’ is reflective of tailor-making one’s language to fit the context. This additional metaphor might not be immediately clear, but my point is that to truly make one’s language a good fit does not always suggest binary oppositions involving standard-non-standard, formal-informal and so on. Indeed, our language changes might sometimes involve otherwise ‘minor’ adjustments which need not impinge on accent but could, for example, involve a change of voice tone. Likewise, adding a ‘g’ instead of dropping it in certain words might be all that is required (from the speaker’s perspective) to gain favour with his/her audience. Thus, language change can involve wholesale change from English to Spanish; from standard English to Ebonics (and back again); or merely the need to avoid glottal stops. Thus, there is a suggested spectrum when we consider the various types of change that language can involve in various situations, reflective of a need to ‘tune into’ one’s audience and decide what is best from a linguistic point of view, thus reflecting a degree of speaker agency. The implication, however, is that language change is a largely objective matter, and that individuals perhaps don’t give it much thought. This is true to a large extent perhaps, yet we need to also consider those times in which accent modification can lead to individuals feeling conflicted, precisely because they perceive a lack of agency on their part. Thus, awareness of audience and the need to adjust one’s language as a result may not always be straightforward from

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

91

a psychological perspective, even if the language change itself is otherwise a simple process to enact. Nonetheless, accommodation is largely based on fitting in (Foulkes & Docherty, 1999), not standing out. Wells (1982:353) refers to situations in which people choose to ‘posh up’ their accent, which can of course mean simply making it less broad (e.g. partly achieved by eliminating reductions in one’s accent). Accommodation can also be, of course, purely automatic and a subconscious process (covert accommodation). This is suggestive of the relative ease with which we slip in and out of various identities on a daily basis, with language use a prominent factor. In summary, then, we change our language use, be it dialect, accent, lexis, register or a combination thereof, in order to present the identity that is fitting for a given context and more to the point, for a given speaker. This implies that, in a situation in which, all things considered, there is social equality, there might be no accommodation at all (at least not consciously). As I have suggested, deploying accent modification as a conscious strategy, even to the extent that individuals have to give such modification their full attention in order not to ‘slip up’, need not suggest a forced and/or fraudulent identity. I have argued that in such cases, if the perceived benefits of the modification are actively desired, then the need to monitor one’s speech may be regarded as a mere nuisance at times, but worth the effort. Likewise, for individuals who can switch with absolute ease from one accent to another, the switch may not always be welcome, even if it is done effortlessly. The question is, why do we switch or feel a need to do so? If we are switching to impress someone we don’t like, but feel we have no choice (such as sounding less broad with one’s mentor), then the modification of the otherwise personal identity might be regarded with resentment. Penrose (1993:34) refers to such situations as involving ‘multiple or divided loyalties’ (see also Fuller, 2009). This illustrates the fact that some individuals at times may not wish to switch, but feel there is no other choice. This has been mentioned before, but there is a dearth of linguistic research, at least in the British context, which discusses the implications to our personal identity and sense of who we are when we modify our accent in some way. I make no assumptions about this in terms of it being a negative practice on the speaker’s part, but we should not assume that, widespread a practice though it might be, speakers simply get on with it without much thought. I have argued that identities that are constructed against our will, but reflecting the will of others, are those that are most likely to be perceived as fraudulent. When accommodating our speech, we are, in essence, doing it for the benefit of others. As Joseph (2004:73) states, ‘What I accommodate to is not another

92

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

person, but the identity I have constructed for that person’ (original emphasis). This can be a largely neutral process in some instances. It is hard to see how speaking more slowly, for example, when giving directions to someone whose English is limited would leave the speaker feeling fraudulent, even though he/ she is speaking in a very different way than usual. This is the same as speaking more loudly to someone who is hard of hearing. But if we accommodate for someone else’s wishes alone, and do not agree, then in this case we are essentially letting someone else do the talking for us, or we are speaking on their behalf. In fact, accent within the workplace is a valuable line of research, and more work is needed in this day and age in Britain (and elsewhere). Determining to what extent, if at all, accent prejudice exists in the workplace, is a way to establish if indeed we do have an equal playing field as this is the current ideal – a society in which everyone is considered equal – but while we understand this more on the level of race and religion, for example, there is little on this subject from the perspective of accent. Again, while British accents are not protected, foreign accents are, and there has already been legal action taken in Britain against employers whose actions are regarded as, and proven in court to be, based on linguistic discrimination (e.g. the case of Chetankumar Meshram in 2007 illustrates this issue, as I mentioned earlier). In the US context of job hiring, Rivera (2015) makes it clear that there are many factors based on a job candidate’s identifying characteristics that determine if he/she is hired, such as race, sex and ethnicity. Though this may not sound surprising, it does hint at hiring practices that are, in part, biased. Her book makes it clear, however, that hiring is also about finding a candidate who is essentially regarded as the best fit for the position, with a law firm discussed as part of this illustration. Interestingly, diversity is a concept that comes up several times, reflective of the workforce with regard to all manner of ‘difference’. This is something that needs to be addressed from a purely accent-based perspective. This is not to suggest of course that accent alone determines how someone is perceived, whether at a job interview or within the job itself, but it can play a large part in the process of our evaluations of others. Moreover, there is again the issue of a power dichotomy, such as that which exists between interviewer and interviewee and specifically for this book, between mentor and teacher. The following chapters will detail the results of my research with British trainee teachers, but I close by turning to the results of my study in 2016. Though this study involved only six teachers and thus paved the way for the two studies that followed which focused solely on trainee teachers, the initial study captured the views of ninety-two British individuals from all walks of life in

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

93

terms of profession (doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.) and accent. While all admitted to accent modification, with most reporting that they perceived the practice in a neutral manner, just over a third of respondents reported modification in negative terms. Specifically, thirty-seven participants discussed modification negatively, in terms of it making them feel ‘fake’ and ‘angry’ for the most part, with the remaining individuals reporting a host of other perceptions regarding accommodation and/or their feelings on the matter, such as ‘upset’, ‘frustrated’, ‘conflicted’ and ‘unfair’. The issue was a collective dislike of believing that their accent would be perceived negatively if they didn’t modify. Some of the specific responses include ‘A bit fake’; ‘It is a bit of a denial of self ’; ‘I feel fake, angry and upset . . . I feel like I’m betraying myself – my identity and who I really am’; ‘It makes me feel slightly annoyed that I feel the need to change the way in which I speak to be perceived in a better way’. It should be pointed out that the vast majority of the participants, seventy-eight in total, spoke with a regional accent, mostly northern accents tied to the Manchester area. Perhaps unsurprisingly, participants explained that the main rationale for modification in the first instance, whatever their personal feelings on the matter, was to be perceived better and related to this, to fit in and avoid negative judgements. No one expressed any personal issues with their accent, with the majority in fact celebrating their accent as a symbol of regional and/or class pride. There were fourteen participants, notably high school and college students, who spoke RP or Estuary English. Some of these too admitted to modifying their accents, a case of downward convergence, with the rationale provided by one such student as being based on feeling ‘too posh when with people with . . . Northern accents’ and hence adjusting her accent ‘to be more a part of the group’. She further added that she fears, due to her Estuary English accent, that she will be perceived as ‘posh’ and ‘snobby’ by more local-accented friends. Therefore, even for those with accents such as RP that enjoyed historical prestige at least, there may not always be a self-perception of linguistic privilege. In terms of how participants modified their accents, in this case mostly involving upward convergence, the responses were broad: ‘(My accent) becomes posher’; ‘Sound more educated’; ‘My accent thins out’; ‘Lengthening the vowels and softening the harsher sounds’; ‘Sound more proper’. Considering words such as ‘proper’, ‘posher’ and ‘educated’, it is again suggested that individuals have very intuitive notions as to how they describe modification and also how they actually do it in practice. What does ‘proper’ and ‘educated’ speech actually sound like in terms of accent, however? A clue to this, certainly in terms of my previous discussion of mid-accents, is provided with the reference to

94

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

‘lengthening the vowels’. On the one hand, this could mean, ironically, sounding broader, if by ‘lengthening’ the individual is referring to elongating a pure vowel sound – in order words, a monophthong. I had discussed this previously as an example of a reduction and hence, a potential example of broad speech, as heard in words such as go if realized with a Yorkshire accent: /go:/ or even /gə:/. However, it is most likely that this is not the case if we are dealing with, as we are, a case of upward convergence, in which case speakers attempt to speak less broad. In this case, ‘lengthening’ the vowel can actually involve adding a phoneme to an existing vowel and thus, making, in practice, a longer sound by virtue of pronouncing two phonemes as opposed to one. In this case, a word such as home might change from /ho:m/ to /hoʊm/. This could also possibly involve the RP pronunciation, realized as /həʊm/; either way, a reduction is avoided by means of using a diphthong and thus, a perceived means to sound less broad and in turn perhaps, more ‘posh’, is accomplished via the addition (not reduction) of a phoneme. These first two chapters have served to set the scene in order to prepare the discussion that is to follow regarding my research with British trainee teachers. Beyond covering familiar ground, I hope that I have otherwise contributed some fresh perspectives, notably the claim that there are several identities in our repertoire that are perceived as authentic by the speakers, and the implications for those identities that are disagreed with by the speaker is that they can make the speaker, and his/her identity at that moment, feel fraudulent. I have further suggested the need for all relevant parties, and not just mentors, to establish some sort of linguistic guidelines in order to clarify the role of accent in teaching and perhaps establish standard accents in the process. I summarize the main points thus: ●

● ●

●

Identity begins with a self-concept, an image of how we see ourselves; this is part of the personal identity which, at this initial stage, resides merely in our mind. This self-concept is then enacted, thus performed for others. However, the fact that we enact identity for others means that (a) there are multiple identities enacted based on multiple contexts of communication; (b) identities are also ascribed to us by others, with our without our knowledge, and the ascribed identities may or may not always reflect our self-image. Despite the existence of multiple personal identities (father, husband, Manchester United supporter) and varying aspects of one’s professional

Accents in Britain and Linguistic Prejudice

●

●

●

95

identity (teacher as teacher, teacher as counsellor, teacher as homework marker), there are several identities that can nonetheless be realized as true and authentic – ‘real mes’. In the context of teacher training, differing linguistic ideologies regarding a ‘proper’ accent can lead to accent modification; if disagreed with, this is one of the main factors in individuals determining an identity to be fraudulent. While a ‘standard accent’ no longer exists in Britain, RP is arguably still regarded as a standard of sorts, thus leaving regionally accented speakers in Britain potentially regarding their accent as a liability, perhaps more the case for speakers from the north and midlands. Thus, while multiple identities are constructed via language use (and other means), the apparent ease with which we move in and out of them betrays the fact that some identities are not a perfect fit.

3

Methodological Approach

Before discussing the results of the three studies which inform the content of my book, I  first wish to provide information regarding the methodological approach, which I now do, offering information about ethical procedures, participant recruitment and data collection and interpretation.

Background to the studies A uniting factor in all three studies was that the only criterion for participation was that individuals had to have an accent tied to the United Kingdom (though Irish participants were not excluded). Outside of this, and given the infancy of this line of research, I felt it would have been premature to select British participants based on additional identifying characteristics such as race/ethnicity, or to have asked participants to identify themselves on the basis of such. Rather, the purpose was to discover how British participants in toto respond to accent modification, if indeed this is something they admit to doing, have been told to do or not at all, as the case may be. This is not to negate the importance of factors such as race, but the approach taken allowed participants to direct their responses to the questions more freely. That is, by avoiding questions regarding race/ethnicity, for example, participants need not have been directed, however subtly, to consider this a factor. On the other hand, they had complete freedom to raise this as an issue, alongside accent, if they saw fit. This was the case with only one participant from study three, who explained that he was of Nigerian heritage (but born and raised in Britain) and used this to help explain the relationship between himself and his mentor, who is also black. In this case, race was indeed a factor, given that it had specific links to language use (as will be explained). I should also point out that while the study was ostensibly focused on British participants, it did not exclude those born overseas but who had been raised in

98

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

the United Kingdom and thus had acquired a British accent. In this regard, only one participant admitted to having been born overseas (in ‘a Middle Eastern country’), but was raised in England from a young age and identified her accent as RP. This individual, however, was a college student from the first study and thus her response is not included in this discussion as the focus is solely on teachers here. In terms of participants’ sex, I did ask for individuals to identify themselves on this basis and to also disclose their age, however. This latter characteristic was felt to be important as it can help to suggest how different generations might feel towards accent, both their own and that of others. In other words, the current generation may have very different perspectives on accent (as suggested by Coupland & Bishop, 2007) compared with older generations. Again, however, the suggestion is that, to focus on British participants, and to have them consider themselves primarily based on this one, collective identifying factor, allows for a more unified focus and a way to better determine the implications for being British (or Irish) with regard to accent and identity in teacher training. The three questions asked of participants were as follows: Does accent contribute in any way to your personal identity? Do you ever modify your accent (if so, how and why)? How does accent modification affect your personal identity, if at all?

Study one (2014) This took place in the spring of 2014 and consisted of questionnaires as the main method to collect participant data. I had advertised my need for participants in Manchester via posters, which I  had left in three universities in several departments/buildings. I further left posters on the main road where the universities are located, which of course contained my contact details (email). I also obtained responses from students at two high schools which I visited to give talks about linguistics. In all, a total of ninety-two participants came forward and emailed their interest to me, in response to which I sent to them an information sheet about the study, the consent form and the questionnaire. The signed consent form and the completed questionnaire were then returned to me via email. The fact that most of the participants were recruited from universities and schools admittedly provides a high number of students within the study;

Methodological Approach

99

however, participants who represented a range of other careers, such as medicine, law, office work and customer service also came forward. The decision to use questionnaires was taken as a practical means of obtaining as high a number as possible of respondents, as the purpose of this study was to seek a large number of British participants in order to uncover an otherwise unaddressed question – how does the conscious choice (or is there a choice?) to modify one’s accent affect personal identity? Essentially, how do people feel about this decision? Thus, it made sense to use questionnaires in order to have a greater chance of obtaining a potentially large sample in order to investigate. Table 3.1 serves to identify the six individuals from this initial study who, as teachers, provided the first insight into accent and identity for members of this profession, thus acting as the impetus for the two studies which followed and which were conducted from 2014–15. While only six teachers were recruited from this initial study, their responses gave me reason to believe that accent can be a sensitive issue in the teaching profession. The fact that all of these teachers expressed varying degrees of negativity towards the practice of accent modification as part of their profession led me to investigate this subject entirely from a teacher’s point of view, more so those who are just beginning their teaching careers as part of post-university training. Outside of the Scottish participant (T3), all others have accents tied to the north of England. Rossendale is further north of Manchester, in the county of Lancashire; Stockport is a city just south of Manchester; Barnsley is in the county of Yorkshire; and Rochdale is in Greater Manchester, albeit just under ten miles from Manchester city centre. Thus, while we collectively have northern accents (with the exception of the Scottish teacher), we nonetheless need to divide them into the three counties in which they are based: Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire, all of which represent phonological differences. Table 3.1 Participants’ backgrounds from study one Teacher

Self-described accent

Age

Taught subject and level

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Rossendale Manchester Glaswegian Stockport Barnsley Rochdale

45 19 34 44 47 46

Primary-level (elementary) English Primary level, all subjects University, Architecture University, Sociology University, English Language EFL

100

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Study two (2014) This study began in autumn 2014 and involved the collection of data from British trainee teachers who were from two local universities, over a period of two months. I made the decision to focus on trainee teachers (for both studies two and three) based on the fact that, as they are involved in the process of being guided into the teaching profession, it arguably provides a greater chance of understanding what mentors believe is appropriate linguistic guidance. Unlike study one, I advertised my need for participants by placing information about the study on the teachers’ university online systems (e.g. Blackboard). Here, they are provided with regular updates regarding notices about their study progression and university life (e.g. meetings, events) in general. Thus, this was deemed to be a more direct means to obtain participants. Once participants had approached me to volunteer their time by sending me an email, I arranged to meet with them in turn on their respective university campus in a private room where they felt comfortable. The choice was made to interview teachers using a semi-structured approach, given its ability to allow participants to expand on various points and essentially ‘do the talking’ (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2013). The nature of the open-ended questions also allowed for teachers to narrate their experiences. Nonetheless, the purpose was not to provide a discussion of narrative discourse as such; rather, the objective was to conduct an analysis of the teachers’ narratives to discover how they constructed their identity in terms of accent, based on their reflections within the interview. The interviews were recorded and a total of five-and-a-half hours of interview transcripts were transcribed in full. The analysis for studies two and three, however, was driven by the following research questions, which I felt perhaps got a bit more ‘to the point’ regarding the issue of accent and identity:  (a) Had mentors instructed teachers to modify their accent, and if so, how and why? (b) How did this modification make teachers feel  – did it impact on their personal, non-teacher identity? Any personal feelings that the teachers had regarding the relationship between their personal accent and identity were revealed by several teachers in the first instance, more so those who were against being told to modify their accent. Thus, even though teachers were not asked per se how their personal accent contributes to their identity, this information was provided by those who felt it was relevant. Table  3.2 shows the background information on the teachers from the second study.

Methodological Approach

101

Table 3.2 Participants’ backgrounds from study two Name

Age

Sex

Self-described accent

Taught subject/level

T7 T8 T9

30 21 23

M M F

All subjects/primary level All subjects/primary level All subjects/primary level

T10 T11 T12

21 32 20

F F M

T13 T14 T15

21 40 24

F F F

T16 T17

23 27

M M

Huddersfield (Yorkshire) Stoke-on-Trent Mancunian (specifically, from Eccles) Broad Mancunian Derbyshire-Yorkshire mix Warrington, so a ManchesterLiverpool mix Nottingham Rochdale Self-described as ‘not quite posh enough for RP’ (Sarah is from Portsmouth) Liverpool Derry, Northern Ireland

All subjects/primary level All subjects/primary level Computing and geography/ primary level Math and drama/primary level All subjects/primary level French and Spanish/secondary level English/secondary level English/secondary level

Study three (2015) The final study mirrored the second in every way with the exception of the method used. In this instance, I chose to use questionnaires to collect the data; this was taken for a purely practical reason. I had chosen to investigate trainee teachers for study three who hailed from, or taught in, the south of England, and had secured the cooperation of two southern universities to do so. The rationale for this choice was due to its allowance to compare British trainee teachers from the north and south, given the current north-south cultural divide that I had referred to earlier. In other words, I wanted to see if there existed a linguistic divide within teacher training specifically in terms of whether accents associated with one region over another were favoured by mentors. Given the distance involved in travel from my university to the two southern universities chosen, especially the potential for multiple trips needed to conduct interviews, there was a need for travel funding which I did not have as the research involved with study three was unfunded. Thus, questionnaires proved to be a more practical choice for this particular study. Table  3.3 provides the background information on the participants for this study:

102

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Table 3.3 Participants’ backgrounds from study three Name

Age

Sex

Self-described accent

T18 T19 T20 T21 T22

21 20 26 29 45

F F F F M

Midlands Medway South London (quite strong) Irish, Dublin Estuary English – Kent

T23 T24 T25

21 27 22

F F M

T26

28

F

T27

21

M

T28 T29 T30

25 21 20

F F F

T31 T32

25 29

F F

Taught subject/level

Primary, all subjects Primary, all subjects Art, secondary English, secondary Citizenship, History, Religious Education, secondary RP/Lancastrian Primary, all subjects Standard English French, Italian, secondary A mixture between Cockney Citizenship, Sociology, Politics and Irish (southern) and Government, secondary Mostly RP with a bit of Estuary Primary, all subjects English A happy medium between Primary, all subjects Estuary English and RP Mild Belfast (Northern Ireland) Drama, secondary Southern1 Primary, all subjects Northern Irish now with a Primary, all subjects slight English twang/wellspoken Northern Irish Irish, but not strong Primary, all subjects Newcastle Art, secondary

Study four (2017) While study four is not included as part of the discussion to follow, I  had of course referenced some of the results earlier (e.g. the account of the Bristolian teacher in particular). The rationale for it otherwise being excluded from the discussion is as follows. First, this study was focused more on the students’ experiences and views, specifically with regard to their opinions regarding a standard accent, how they perceived their own accents and especially if they had been given directives by their teachers regarding their accent usage. This latter point certainly has relevance to the book’s focus and such information has already been discussed (i.e. three students were told to avoid glottal stops). However,

1

This participant’s accent was described in great detail and will be presented thus within the discussion. For now, I use the broad term, as the participant did herself, of ‘southern’ in the first instance, while leaving the detailed aspects for later, which she provided in the description of her accent.

Methodological Approach

103

the focus within this book is on the teachers’ experiences, not the students’. This ties in with the second point, which is that the results of study four represent the next phase of my research – the students. That is, by having first obtained the views of teachers regarding what they believe (and what they were told) regarding the role of accent in the teaching profession, it stands to reason that we might then ask the following question: What are students being told in this regard? This is, however, the next phase of my work and for now I wish to provide an otherwise more unified picture by discussing the teachers’ views on this subject (and by extension, their mentors’ views also).

Ethical concerns I now provide information on the general ethical concerns which themselves were raised by the ethics committee. One concern, even enquired about by a participant in study three, is that of anonymity. While this might seem like an ‘automatic’ and certainly an obvious part of ethical research, the fact that one participant was concerned in this regard (primarily as she had reported negative feelings towards her mentor in her questionnaire response), it should be addressed. None of the participants in any of the studies were known to me in the first instance and securing anonymity was a large part of the research. Given the number of anonymous names that would be required for this book, however, I chose to use numbers to represent the teachers. This might seem like an attempt to depersonalize the participants; –actually, that was precisely the purpose. Furthermore, participants were reassured that their personal details, to include their email addresses, would not be shared with anyone. As part of their signed consent, however, participants were also told that their anonymized responses would form the basis for publication outlets, such as this book, but also including several media outputs since 2014 (e.g. TV interviews with the BBC). Overall, participants were thus reassured, should they have needed to be, that their identities, views and responses would all be kept anonymous, as they indeed have been.

Positionality Another concern within research is that of positionality. This refers to the need for the researcher to consider his/her ‘place’ within the research process and what perhaps his/her own identity is in this context in relation to others and,

104

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

crucially, how this might affect the research. A  main objective is to ensure neutrality as much as possible. However, when we begin to unpack the term positionality, arguably, identity (so relevant to this book) reveals itself as an embedded aspect. In an attempt to present and maintain a neutral stance, we must first consider how the ‘researcher identity’ comprises several other identities, themselves derived from our personal values, beliefs and stances. To put this simply, who I am as a researcher is influenced by who I am outside this context and the need to consider this is based on a goal of ensuring that my role within the process of research ensures that participants are not being influenced, for example, by any personal agenda. We can thus consider positionality from perhaps two broad perspectives of identity – the ‘who I am’ as Alex Baratta (broadly regarded as my personal identity outside the research context – Sikes, 2004) and the researcher identity, as mentioned, which pertains to how I  position myself in this specific context (including everything from contacting participants, conducting the interviews and analysing the data – Savin-Baden & Howell Major, 2013). As mentioned, the latter identity is a product of the first. The need to reflect on my goals, values and beliefs as part of the research process was paramount and doing so determined how I presented myself in the identity of researcher. Given that I only had face-to-face contact with the teachers from study two, this seems to be the more relevant aspect to consider my position. This is not to say that questionnaire-based research is not relevant to positionality; indeed, I ensured that the questions asked of participants in studies one and three did not attempt to lead them into declaring accent in any sense to be an issue. Savin-Baden and Howell Major (2013) suggest first considering how any personal positions could influence the research and then consider the relationship dynamic between myself and the participants. I made it clear in the Introduction that my interest in this line of study is based on personal experiences regarding my own accent journey. I had to question how this fact alone might influence the research. Was I on a quest to ‘prove’ somehow that accent plays a major role in identity formation (let alone accent modification)? Did I arrive at the research with a default setting that equated accent modification in professional settings as some kind of an existential threat to one’s sense of self? To ensure that such positions were not part of my involvement in the research, to include everything from the research question formation and my contact with interviewees, I created a script of sorts which prefaced not only the participant information sheet

Methodological Approach

105

but also the questionnaire and the interview. The purpose of this was to inform participants of the following: ●

●

●

●

My own background as a linguistics lecturer in education (hence, it was purely a professional interest, and not a personal one, that led to the research). I did not assume that accent modification was in any way an inevitable aspect of teacher training; the purpose was to approach this from the start with a completely open perspective and also express this to the participants from the start. There was no predetermined outcome or hoped-for result; the teachers were completely free to answer as they saw fit (to this end, I did not reference any of the previous studies, which might have implied that accent modification was inherently negative). I also explained before I began the interviews that I was a teacher, as they were, and, thus, we had a shared identity based on shared experiences as educators.

Though hardly original, this initial clarification of purpose and intentions was a means to help assure the participants, if assurance of some kind were necessary, that I was not investigating a problem, merely investigating a topic; that we were on the same team, as it were and that their participation was much appreciated. To provide a deeper means of thanking the participants from study two, I also arranged for a buffet lunch to be provided. Overall, I believe that the provisions made helped to avoid potential limitations to the research and thus address the quote from Hammersley and Atkinson (1995:17–18) in that as researchers, ‘we are trying to describe phenomena as they are, not merely how we perceive them or would like them to be’.

Self-reporting Kristiansen and Jørgensen (2005:293) reflect on attitudinal-based research, suggesting that participants’ knowledge of such is questionable. They state that participants are ‘often unaware of linguistic phenomena, or at least unable to describe them in anything but ad hoc terms’. This further points to a possible mismatch between what a speaker is consciously aware of regarding his/her language use versus those instances in which a speaker’s linguistic usage may indeed

106

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

be subconscious (covert accommodation). I  have of course argued that when we use language to construct identities that are otherwise ideal and regarded as authentic, we probably do not give them much thought. However, in the context of being told how to speak by mentors, it is arguably the case that trainee teachers are much more aware of linguistic modification made in response. This is especially true if the modification is part of a classroom observation, and possibly even if the modification is self-administered, as it were. Arguably, with the knowledge that language use is one part of the overall evaluation teachers receive as part of training, it stands to reason that this is a phenomenon that they may be very much aware of. Thus, while Ladegaard (2000) further acknowledges a potential discrepancy between what participants say they do regarding language use as opposed to what they do in reality, I again argue that within what is a rather unnatural environment, such as observed teaching (or merely conversing with one’s mentor), there is a greater awareness of our language choices. Moreover, given that the responses from studies two and three were collected during the teacher training actually taking place, I argue that the discussion provided by the teachers is fairly accurate as a result, in terms of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ regarding their language use. Furthermore, I suggest that there are specific aspects of the teachers’ responses that can be clearly relied upon. Namely, the teachers’ personal belief systems regarding their accents, modified or otherwise, reflect ideological positions which can be trusted. This also applies to the ways in which a modified accent impacts, or not, on their personal identity and how they feel about this practice. Thus, even if teachers are not always accurate regarding the ways in which their accent changes, or not, within training, their personal ideology regarding accent in relation to teacher identity, and outside of this context, is a subject which only the teachers themselves are qualified to discuss. Indeed, it is the potential for ideological clashes between teacher and mentor that form the backbone of this research, in that, for some teachers, the idea of someone essentially telling them how to speak is perhaps a foreign concept. I concur with Labov (1966:455), who states that ‘we can learn a great deal about attitudes towards the variables from their reports’ (my emphasis) and it is participants’ attitudes and beliefs which together help to inform the discussion here regarding the relationship between accent and identity. Thus, while there might be discrepancies regarding the more micro-level issue of accent production and modification, I argue that at the more macro level, involving attitudes and ideologies, there is less room for error on the teachers’ part, given that such represent more essentialist and perhaps rather unchanging (for now at least) beliefs.

Methodological Approach

107

Chapter  4 begins the discussion of the study. Based on the participants’ responses, there are four categories:  teachers for whom no information was provided regarding their accent; those who were told to modify their accent but had no issue with this directive; one individual teacher who was encouraged not to modify her accent but nonetheless wished to do so; and teachers who were told to modify their accent but did not agree with this directive. Table 3.4, which will be revisited in Chapter 6 (as Table 6.1), provides a summary of all the teachers in terms of who was told to modify their language and how (with the code P representing the primary (elementary) level and S representing secondary).

Table 3.4 Summary of mentors’ language-based directives Teacher

Self-described accent

Teaching Level

Instructed to modify language use?

What does the modification involve?

T1 T2

Rossendale Manchester

P P

Accent Accent

T3

Glaswegian

U

T4

Stockport

U

T5

Barnsley

U

T6 T7

Rochdale Huddersfield (Yorkshire) Stoke-on-Trent Mancunian (specifically, from Eccles) Broad Mancunian DerbyshireYorkshire mix Warrington, so a ManchesterLiverpool mix Nottingham Rochdale

S, EFL P

Yes No, but feels a need to No, but feels a need to No, but feels a need to No, but feels a need to Yes Yes

Accent Accent

P P

Yes Yes

Accent Accent

P P

Yes Yes

Accent Accent

P

No

N/A

P P

Yes Yes

Accent Accent

T8 T9

T10 T11 T12

T13 T14

Accent Accent Accent

108

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Teacher

Self-described accent

Teaching Level

Instructed to modify language use?

What does the modification involve?

T15

Self-described as ‘not quite posh enough for RP’ (Sarah is from Portsmouth) Liverpool

S

No

S

Yes

S

Yes

P P S

Yes Yes Yes

S S

No No

N/A N/A

P S S

No No Yes

N/A N/A Speed of delivery

P

Yes

Accent

P

No

N/A

S

No

N/A

P P

No Yes

N/A Speed of delivery

T31

Derry, Northern Ireland Midlands Medway South London (quite strong) Irish, Dublin Estuary English –Kent RP/Lancastrian Standard English A mixture between Cockney and Irish (southern) Mostly RP with a bit of Estuary English A happy medium between Estuary English and RP Mild Belfast (Northern Ireland) Southern Northern Irish now with a slight English twang/well-spoken Northern Irish Irish, but not strong

T15, however, wishes to modify her accent, despite being told not to Speed of delivery Speed of delivery Accent Accent Accent

P

Yes

T32

Newcastle

S

Yes

Speed of delivery Avoidance of ‘Americanisms’ in speech regarding lexical choices

T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24 T25

T26 T27

T28 T29 T30

4

Acceptance of Modification of Language

Despite the inclusive title to Chapter 4, the coverage is broken down into two broad categories: teachers whose mentors raised the subject of language modification and this was met with acceptance, and teachers for whom no mention was made of their accent at all. The unifying factor for both groups, however, concerns the fact that from a purely accent-based point of view, there is no conflict reported. For teachers who accepted directives to modify their accent, the following themes are presented as a means to explain the acceptance:  professional control (relating to the teachers’ perceived control of the classroom that a ‘professional’ accent allows for), clarity of communication (suggestive of a need to ensure the teachers’ students understand them), professional acting (relating the role of a teacher to the metaphor of acting and thus, using a modified accent as part of one’s ‘act’) and setting an example (this is based on the teachers’ desire to be as professional as possible for the students’ benefit, to include the notion of linguistic professionalism). For those who did not report being given accent-based directives at all, the suggested rationale for this linguistic harmony between their personal and professional identities has been coded based on three themes:  accent mimicry (in which teachers attempt to match their mentors’ accents), the use of a prestige accent (i.e. the teachers use an accent of power suggested to be in no need of modification), a shared accent (both teacher and mentor share the same accent) and for three teachers, no reason was provided.

Linguistic harmony between the personal and professional Accent mimicry The ability to mimic the mentor’s accent is regarded as the reason for one teacher’s mentor to not mention her accent within the context of training. In fact, Rivera (2015) discusses this as a strategy made by job applicants, a means to

110

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

emulate the interactional styles of elite individuals they knew or had met. While this is quite broad, it could of course encompass accent, and the point is that notions of ‘elite’ could be applied to accents which, if not seen as elite, are nonetheless regarded for certain professions as the ones most likely to win respect and have positive connotations ascribed to the speaker of the accent. This practice is mentioned by only T29, describing herself as ‘a bit of a chameleon with accents’ who enjoys her self-described ability to shift accents. This is the teacher who broadly identified her accent as ‘southern’ in the first instance, but then proceeded to expand on this in great detail: I tend to switch back and forth depending on who I spend time with. Back home in the north I’d say I have a ‘posh’ generic northern accent? It’s not really specific, just a general accent, perhaps a little Mancunian and I’ve always been told I have a posh accent. Because I am spending most of my time down south, however, I seem to get ‘more common’ or ‘more northern’ than I have ever been and this both amuses and concerns me! Down south, I’d say it’s a range of general Kentish with a Maidstone twang. I take a lot of influence from what I hear, like my mum I’m a bit of a chameleon with accents! If I spend a lot of time with someone, I take a lot of their accent.

There is much that can be gleaned from this detailed description of T29’s accent. First, T29 hails from the north of England, in the Manchester area. We might therefore expect her accent to reflect her region of origin, which she suggests it does, albeit a ‘general’ Mancunian accent. We see again more evidence of individuals using intuitive notions of what constitutes various accents. That is, while an individual can switch to an accent, or identify someone else’s as ‘generic’ or ‘general’, it is lacking in precision from a phonological perspective. As T29 explained, ‘Describing accents and pronunciation is hard!’ I have taken time to unpack the notion of accents described in intuitive terms such as ‘general’, ‘posh’ and ‘neutral’, for example, suggesting that such accents do not abandon their regional origins, but seek to avoid the more obvious realizations (with ‘obvious’ itself rather an intuitive word). That is, avoidance of phonological reductions in one’s speech and phonemes which, if not reductions per se, are nonetheless regarded in a negative light when appearing in certain positions. We might consider Cockney English an example of the latter category, in which the voiceless and voiced interdental fricatives of [θ] and [ð] are replaced in some instances with labio-dental fricatives [f] and [v]. For example, consider the Cockney pronunciation of thin and brother, realized as /fɪn/ and /bɹəvə/. This is an example of what is called TH-fronting, which is described as a rapidly

Acceptance of Modification of Language

111

spreading phonological change and, interestingly, is described by Trudgill (1999) as non-standard English. It is frustrating to see certain pronunciations labelled as ‘non-standard’ without having first been provided with an adequate discussion as to what is the standard. Moreover, what makes certain accent features non-standard? It seems to be the case that negative judgement by some is being used as the yardstick for determining non-standardness. For T29, then, perhaps her otherwise Mancunian accent avoids such stigmatized features, such as glottal stops, and monophthongs such as /de:/ for day being made more ‘general’ or ‘generic’ via a diphthong: /deɪ/. As Trudgill (2002) describes accents at the bottom of the pyramid as ‘local’, it suggests that they are ‘non-general’, as ‘general’ would suggest accents which can be heard in a larger area; local would suggest accents tied to smaller towns that exist within a larger city and/or region. Moreover, in my most recent study (Baratta, 2017), one of the teachers at the private school said that students from state schools had accents that were ‘more in the area’, a reference she had made to accents which were more phonologically typical perhaps of certain parts of Manchester and thus perhaps more likely to be perceived as broad. The word ‘general’, despite its broadness, is therefore perhaps offering a phonological clue. It could be that ‘general’ is used in order to contrast with specific, which might refer to accents which are much more stereotypical for a given region. Thus, T29 might avoid features which would leave interlocutors in no doubt as to her origins, complete with glottal stops and monophthongs as potential examples; however, by arguably avoiding both, this can lead to an accent that, having removed such ‘northern’ features, is left as comparatively less specific to Manchester and the surrounding area and is perhaps more open to interpretation, but still identified as ‘northern’. Clearly, an accent described as merely northern is much more general, and much less specific, than one identified as ‘Mancunian’ or one identified as local (to the Manchester area), such as accents deriving from the Moss Side area of Manchester. T29 admitted that her pronunciation of bath and grass often reverts back to her northern roots: /baϴ/ and /gɹas/. In this instance, she is more likely to be identified as northern by southern students, but perhaps ‘less northern’ than if she adopted the features that I have argued to be reflective of ‘non-standard’ speech (not my evaluation of course, but merely a reflection of the phonological culprits which lead to someone else feeling this way). T29 further states that despite her described ability to shift accents, her accent seems to retain its northern roots though she is otherwise spending more time in the south. She states that it is not only ‘more northern’, but also ‘more common’.

112

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

First, this implies that perhaps T29 is attempting, whether consciously or not, to accentuate her origins by ensuring her accent marks her as being a northerner. Second, the fact she refers to her accent becoming ‘more common’ is reflective of linguistic stereotyping. It might be that her evaluation of her accent being common is a reflection of other people’s evaluation or merely that of society’s. Clearly, her accent being both more northern and more common suggests that in her evaluation, the connotations of northern accents in the south might be that they are regarded as common, perhaps involving class-based stereotypes. This may be a source of T29’s reported ‘concern’ regarding her accent sounding more northern; on the other hand, it might also be a reflection of an accent which is suggested to be somewhat unstable, given its reported susceptibility to reflect the accents of those around her. Nonetheless, it is this self-described ability that is T29’s reason as to why her accent has not been mentioned by her mentor during training. T29 described her mentor’s accent as RP and provided a further rationale as to why her own accent has not been raised as an issue in any way: I try to take on the role of the class teacher during placement and I don’t want to disrupt the flow of the class so I take note of accent and how the teacher speaks. I have mimicked the southern accent quite well already and I rarely slip up any more, so I think that this has also helped to influence this. I enjoy enunciating words correctly, so I think that this influences my accent in the classroom.

T29 makes a telling comment when she explains that her professional identity is something that is ‘taken on’, suggestive of an informed decision to forge such an identity and, in this case, one based on her accent adjustment. The suggestion that her otherwise northern accent would ‘disrupt the flow’ of the class suggests also that perhaps she is keen to maintain a certain linguistic sameness with regard to the accents that the children hear and thus, a more northern accent might be perceived as the ‘linguistic other’. A final point worth mentioning concerns the use of the word ‘correctly’ with regard to her enunciation. It would be useful to determine what T29 considers to be ‘correct’ in the context of one’s accent in a primary school. On the one hand, this is largely tied to southern pronunciation; on the other hand, it might be a reference, however indirect, to avoidance of northern pronunciation in terms of the features discussed previously. However, we only have T29’s self-reported accent mimicry to go by to explain why accent modification is not suggested by her mentor. As such, it cannot be determined whether indeed this is the rationale for a lack of mentor input in this

Acceptance of Modification of Language

113

regard, besides the fact that there is no phonological evidence to support her claim. Nonetheless, accent mimicry, which can be subsumed as an example of the so-called chameleon effect, is argued to be a byproduct of empathetic individuals, and often an unconscious process (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Perhaps T29 is overinflating her reported ability to switch accents as the means to explain a lack of linguistic guidance provided by her mentor. However, her sole inclusion within this particular category provides an interesting and unique, though highly subjective, discussion.

The use of a prestige accent This category refers to teachers who believe that, as their accent already holds a degree of social prestige, it is not deemed as something to be modified by mentors. Thus, their otherwise personal accent is suggested to be appropriate for their professional identities as teachers. T23’s mentor’s accent is described as being reflective of Kent and the Sussex area in general, with T23 describing her accent as RP/Lancastrian. T23 makes it clear that as she comes from the north (Lancaster being in Lancashire), she still retains northern pronunciation; however, she is otherwise perceived as ‘posh’. Some people have described my voice as ‘posh’ but I have short vowels in words such as ‘bath’ and ‘ask’.

This is a phonological reference to sounds associated with the north of England as described earlier, yet this represents a phonetic realization that does not exist for RP. It is also clear that T23 strongly implies that such short vowels are not indicative of ‘posh’ speech and this further implies that they can be perceived, in certain contexts, as ‘common’. Moreover, broad words that are used to describe accents, either the accents of others or ourselves, can be at once clear and yet equally nebulous. Arguably, people know a ‘posh’ accent when they hear it, as well as being adept at recognizing broad accents or, more negatively, accents perceived as ‘common’. I have attempted to use the existing literature as well as my own work in an attempt to clarify what all this means from a phonological perspective. On the other hand, we must rely on people’s accounts of their accents, given a lifetime of experience with using them in some form and also based on the accounts of others. Thus, an accent described as a hybrid of RP and Lancastrian might represent T23’s personal account of an otherwise regional accent that is realized as more general and not as broad as others. This could account for the perceptions of others regarding her accent being ‘posh’.

114

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

I had mentioned that regional accents perceived as less broad than others retain distinctive features and lose others. In simple terms, the accent remains regional, but not too regional. The case of T23 perhaps mirrors a variety of the Scouse accent referred to as ‘posh Scouse’.1 In this case, an accent tied to Liverpool, but with more positive perceptions. Phonologically speaking, this might include avoidance of the voiceless velar fricative used in more broad varieties of Scouse in place of voiceless stops; thus, back is realized as /bax/ in broad Scouse and not /bak/ as I illustrated earlier, but for posh Scouse, the latter pronunciation is arguably the case. In other words, the use of [x] in word-final position is an example of the aforementioned linguistic giveaway which can serve to perhaps more immediately identify a person’s region of origin. In this case, such a sound, being tied specifically to Liverpool, England, is thus a means to simultaneously identify the speaker with the more negative connotations of the city itself, from which the accent derives. T23 continued, explaining that despite her accent’s posh connotations, her otherwise northern vowels (the short a) are modified of her own accord. She admitted that she often makes her vowels ‘longer’, with the children ‘quite surprised by (her) northern vowel sounds’. This information provides relevant information. First, by making her vowels ‘longer’, arguably her short-a sounds, it could mean that she is, to an extent, adopting southern pronunciation, so that bath is realized more as /bɑ:ɵ/ or even /ba:ɵ/. This might be another implication of the negative connotations of reductions in speech combined with another aspect of pronunciation which can lead to negative stereotyping – use of features that, whether involving reductions or not, nonetheless involve sounds very specific to a region which is itself negatively stigmatized, certainly by those outside the region. Let us see how these two factors might combine here. The short-a sound, given that it is ‘short’ within northern pronunciation in words such as bath and grass, is a giveaway for northern pronunciation in England, and separates it from more southern pronunciation. In this case, it can be tied to negative stigma associated with the north and at the same time, it involves a reduction (from a broad perspective) by means of not lengthening one’s vowel sounds (the lengthening represented phonologically by the diacritic

1

There is little about posh and broad accent varieties in terms of research, but again, much to read in the media. For example, at http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=150089.0 there is a discussion regarding the Liverpool accent, with some arguing that Scouse is a specific variety, even using the derogatory word of ‘scally’ to describe broader versions (with scally a reference to an aggressive, working-class individual and thus, an accent with the same title can be suggestive of crime).

Acceptance of Modification of Language

115

of : placed after the vowel). Therefore, perhaps T23, by referencing ‘lengthening’ of her vowels, is being a bit more specific in terms of what posh and common might mean from a phonological perspective. The fact that she chooses to sometimes switch accents is entirely of her own free will and is not imposed, or even suggested, by her mentor. Moreover, as she reported no negativity towards this practice, which is perhaps an otherwise objective response to the ‘surprise’ of her students regarding her northern vowels, this needs to be acknowledged. However, given that she otherwise uses an accent perceived as posh, this can help explain matters also, though it is not clear who perceives her accent as posh – northerners or southerners? T27 described his accent as a ‘happy medium between Estuary English and Received Pronunciation’ and provided more background information regarding his accent usage. T27 is also the only teacher who brought up the subject of race, as he is black British. I was born in South London and so spoke in what I describe as Black British Vernacular English or what my friends usually described as ‘ghetto’. I  then moved to Essex in my teens and wanted to distance myself from that way of speaking, but wasn’t too keen on the Essex accent and so negotiated a happy medium between Estuary English and Received Pronunciation.

T27 makes no indication that his accent change in his teens is connected to career aspirations; perhaps his was a choice made in terms of a personal desire to enact a different identity to others, one that would not have connotations of ‘ghetto-speech’. Thus, his personal identity was itself a linguistic product of a self-chosen accent change. I mentioned before that ideal identities are those that involve free choice and on this level, T23 has enacted an ideal identity precisely because it was his choice to change his accent, even if based on avoidance of societal-based prejudice of so-called ghetto speech. He even implies a degree of accent selection, in that he rejected the Essex accent and, to his knowledge, speaks with an accent that he has selected as his ideal way to communicate. It is perhaps safe to say that language use described as ‘ghetto’ would not find favour within teaching, though it perhaps involves more than just accent and can incorporate dialectal features also. T27 is also the only participant who identified his race within study three (for study two, as I interviewed the teachers, all were confirmed as white), as pointed out. I had mentioned that I did not otherwise ask participants to disclose information based on race or ethnicity (or other identifying factors such as religion) in order to not risk leading them in any way. That is, I wanted to err on the side

116

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

of caution and focus simply on the larger picture of British accents and ideally leave it to the participants to then reference other identifying factors such as race, class and so on if they deemed it relevant to the discussion, as a means to help inform the discussion on accent. In the case of T27, this is indeed relevant, given that his mentor is from Ghana. He mentioned that his mentor’s accent was initially hard to place, describing it as ‘slightly Estuary’, but he then continued by explaining that ‘if we were having a joke around, she would sometimes slip into a strong Ghanaian accent’. T27 further referenced that he noticed this accent change when his mentor ‘was telling off black children’. She admitted that this was deliberate. This illustrates the ways in which an accent change can be a deliberate strategy in order to create a new identity; presumably, a switch to a more discernible Ghanaian accent might help to create the identity of a disciplinarian. Perhaps this is down to the accent being the marked form from a teacher whose accent is otherwise English. Nothing was mentioned of the black students’ own cultural heritage, but the switch is a means to enact an identity of a teacher who, perhaps by accentuating her African heritage via an accent change, is also switching to a culture which might also have specific connotations of discipline for misbehaviour, and respect for authority. For example, given the fact that T27 is of Nigerian descent, he suggests that he and his mentor have a shared cultural heritage by virtue of being of African descent. T27 explained that the two of them had discussed cultural values between Britain and Ghana (and perhaps this can extend to Nigeria also). Specifically, T27 explained that a couple should not be forced to marry should the woman become pregnant: Her views reflected her cultural upbringing as she lived in Ghana well into adulthood whereas I only had Nigerian parents, but was brought up in England so could appreciate her beliefs, but did not hold them myself.

While this says nothing regarding accent, it nonetheless provides additional information as to why accent was not an issue. Given the suggested rapport between T27 and his mentor, in part based on a shared racial identity, this can help to explain why they get along. Nonetheless, T27 explained the reason for his mentor not mentioning his accent in any way during training as follows: I would say that because my accent was closer to Received Pronunciation than hers (the mentor) that she felt no need to ask me to modify my accent. I do so of my own accord, however, ensuring that I pronounced my t’s and g’s, things that I usually drop in conversation.

Acceptance of Modification of Language

117

Again, given that T27 modifies his speech freely, the decision to pronounce full forms is his alone. Moreover, as his accent is described as being more similar to a prestige accent, this is clearly felt to be the underlying reason as to why accent change is not required, beyond the avoidance of reductions. This again illustrates that reductions are a factor in determining levels of appropriateness (or standardness perhaps) in terms of accents. It could be said that h- and tdropping might be considered examples of more ‘traditional’ reductions (and glottal stops perhaps), in the sense that these are specific features that individuals are sometimes instructed to avoid from childhood, as I had mentioned earlier. Thus, while parents often instruct their children not to drop their g’s, it is perhaps less common for them to discuss reduction, at least in specific phonological terms, with regard to pure vowels and avoidance of such (e.g. [o] in place of [oʊ]). Again, reductions are put forward as an overall aspect which can determine the level of appropriateness for accents in formal workplace settings, such as teacher training.

A shared accent This category applies to teachers whose own accent was explained to be the same as their mentors and they believe that this is a rationale as to why their mentors did not raise their accent as an issue during training. Unlike the category of accent mimicry, however, this is a case of teachers’ otherwise ‘natural’ accent being in the same linguistic category as that of their mentor. If accents are similar for both mentor and teacher, this can be a more objective reason to not feel a need to modify, or feel a need to tell someone to modify. It is of course acknowledged that this again points to a matter of perception. It is not necessarily a matter of perception that individuals believe their accent to match that of someone else; this may indeed be the case. However, in this case, it is merely the teachers’ perceptions that a shared accent is synonymous with removing any need mentors would otherwise have to instruct trainee teachers to adjust their accent in some way. Nonetheless, we can see here how such perceptions are again relied upon to explain the linguistic reality for teachers within the broader category of having received no instructions at all to modify their accent, or speech in general. T22 describes his accent as Estuary English and with regard to why his accent has not been mentioned by his mentor in any way, he explained that it ‘doesn’t seem to be an issue. She [sic] Kent native too’, with his mentor’s accent also described as Estuary. It might also be pointed out here that few teachers

118

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

referenced any negative issues with their mentors; they found the relationship to be positive. The exceptions to this will of course be discussed and perhaps unsurprisingly are to be found largely in the instances in which teachers disagreed with mentors’ directives to modify their accent. I reference this here because while T22 also referenced the relationship between himself and his mentor as ‘positive’, he provided additional information as to why the mentor might seek to avoid any perceived confrontation, in this case arising from suggestions for T22 to modify his accent: She [sic] very ‘nervey’. Suffers from low morale. Often feel it’s me supporting her . . . she’s easy to persuade.

While a shared accent is perhaps the greater issue in terms of no suggestions being made regarding T22’s accent, it might also be the case that given his mentor’s apparent lack of confidence, she does not feel comfortable being seen to challenge T22 in the first instance. Amid otherwise positive relationships between teachers and mentors, this particular relationship is at one extreme with T22, given the implied power dynamic between mentor and teacher; at the other extreme is the relationship with her mentor as described by T20, which will be discussed later. T24 provides a very interesting perspective on her accent, describing it as ‘standard English’. I would suggest that it is unlikely that she would be confusing the dialect referred to as standard English with an accent, for which no official standard exists in Britain anymore. She explained that ‘my mentor has a very similar accent to mine – she has a standard English accent even though many other staff have a clear “Essex” accent’. Given that T24 is studying at a southern university, it does not follow that she derives from the south. However, if she is from this region, then her perception that accents that partly follow southern pronunciation are ‘standard’ would reflect a notion that standard accents are region-based and not just class-based. Moreover, we might ask what the implications are for speaking with an Essex accent, given that T24 implies that this is the norm for the majority of staff, which clearly distinguishes them from the accent used by T24 and her mentor. The accent referred to as Essex might, certainly from a more recent point of view, be viewed with negativity, given its association with the British TV show The Only Way is Essex.2

2

I direct the reader to a very abrasive account of this television show, to include its acronym of towie, which can refer to the kind of person depicted on the TV show and not just the show itself. http:// www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TOWIE.

Acceptance of Modification of Language

119

Both T22 and T24 also teach at the secondary level, unlike the other teachers discussed earlier. It might also be a factor that as they do not teach at the primary level, possibly phonics teaching is not a relevant part of their position, and this might allow for a degree more freedom in their use of accent. However, this alone is not found to be uniform, for teachers who were teaching at the secondary level were also told to modify their accents. However, a final suggestion might also be tied to the subject one teaches. T24 teaches French, which is not her mentor’s specialty (as she is a Spanish teacher) though the two co-teach French. As a result, T24 explains that ‘my professional MFL accent is not commented upon’. Presumably, adopting some semblance of a French accent would be seen as wholly appropriate and, thus, ironically removing one’s native English accent. Given that this is not the mentor’s subject, however, then as T24 suggests, perhaps she feels unqualified to comment on T24’s accent as used in the classroom. Nonetheless, the more prominent factor, at least as reported by T24, is that both she and her mentor share an accent which, whatever its realization and category, is nonetheless perceived as standard by T24; thus, the implication is that no modification is needed.

Unknown T12 explained that during training his mentor did not comment on his accent at all, and he further explained that his accent is ‘neutral’. While this is his own evaluation, he mentioned this as a possible reason as to why his accent was not commented on. I have of course attempted to unpack such broad notions from a phonological perspective, with neutral suggestive of an accent that has removed its more local features – those that can serve as a linguistic giveaway, as I have said, for its region of origin. The implication? Once again, the features can serve to reinforce negative associations of the said region. Nonetheless, T12 did admit to modifying his accent when teaching, though he told me that ‘it wasn’t a conscious choice, I just found myself doing it’. Though he didn’t specify what this meant phonologically, he did expand on the implications that one’s accent has for teaching: If you’ve got a regional accent which is not specific to where you’re teaching and the children can’t understand, that can’t be good for their learning. It’s about learning at the end of the day.

The need to be understood is an important consideration for some teachers, to the extent that it can help to avoid notions of fraudulence in teachers’

120

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

identities that involve accent modification. That is, being clearly understood by one’s students is regarded as a legitimate aspect of the job and therefore, the linguistic changes made to ensure this, and the subsequent teacher identity created, are also regarded as legitimate. This is arguably because, in part, a specific aspect of a teacher identity (being understood), is sought by the teachers in the first instance. In the case of T12, he freely admitted that he would modify his accent if the students did not understand him, but the fact that this is his personal choice, and not forced upon him, helps to also explain why he appears to discuss the topic of modification with no apparent issues. In fact, he admitted that he ‘would try to fit in’ if he were in a different region in which his accent was not native to that area. The concept of fitting in is very often a broad reason as to why we modify our language use in the first instance and in this case it is referenced not merely as a classroom practice but as a social practice that can involve communication beyond the classroom. For both T21 and T28, there is no clear reason provided, or even speculated upon, as to why their accents have not been mentioned by their mentors. However, T21 has a Dublin accent and T28 has a Belfast accent and they together respectively represent the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The mentors of both T21 and T28 have accents described as London. T21 provides little information beyond this, except that, as with the majority of teachers, he describes the relationship with his mentor in positive terms (‘very helpful and friendly, easily approachable and empathetic’). However, might the issue here be one of national origin? As T21 is from the Republic of Ireland, it could be that any perceived criticism of his accent could equate to discrimination not merely on the basis of accent, but more broadly on the basis of national discrimination, given that foreign accents are a protected category, as mentioned, though this would not apply to accents deriving from Northern Ireland of course. The basis of a foreign accent as a means for mentors to avoid directives to modify it is merely speculative and there may be other factors involved, such as T21 otherwise having an accent which, while foreign, is nonetheless understandable. In addition, as he is a secondary teacher, I suggest again that his audience of older children might not find his accent as being in need of modification as opposed to, say, having to teach phonics to primary level children. T28 is also a secondary teacher, and given that her specialty is drama, it might be the case that a ‘different’ accent is perceived as more fitting for a subject in which adjusting one’s accent might be potentially relevant for portraying different characters. Indeed, she commented that as part of her training as a drama teacher, ‘using accents is part of my training anyway’.

Acceptance of Modification of Language

121

Furthermore, we need to consider in more detail the ways in which the teachers feel the need to comment on the positive relationship which they enjoy with their mentors. For example, T28 describes the relationship thus: My mentor is happy for me to make my own decisions and whilst she guides me she does not enforce her authority or encourage me to do anything I am not comfortable with.

Given that this is a common sentiment, it could be suggested that this helps to create an atmosphere of equality between mentor and teacher, a chance to discuss matters from both individuals’ point of view, to potentially include the subject of accent, even though it has not been an issue raised for the teachers discussed in this section. T23, for example, described her relationship with her mentor as ‘comfortable’; T24 described it as ‘an excellent working relationship’. Moreover, T29 explained that ‘I’ve always listened to my mentor and I feel that they have always listened to me’. This comment perhaps captures very succinctly what might be considered a crucial aspect of the teacher-mentor relationship – the need to listen to each other. Such a relationship implies a degree of equality, in which the teacher feels validated by having the opportunity to express his/her views and again, there is no reason why even opposing views, including linguistic views, need be controversial within a relationship which is otherwise viewed as healthy and professional. However, T28 provided more detailed information with regard to her accent and her mentor’s views, which, in fact, suggest a great deal of fairness with regard to accents which are different from those of perhaps most of the student body. T28 explains as follows: My mentor has never told me to modify my accent. When a pupil has misunderstood something I have said, I have apologized for the misunderstanding which I have been told not to do.

This is what might be considered a very modern reaction on the mentor’s part to the diversity of accents in the United Kingdom. T28, clearly identified as having an accent which is not from the local area, is not told to adapt to the students, but they, in fact, are told to adapt to her. This is confirmed when T28 explained that her mentor told her to not apologize for her accent, as ‘if a child does not understand me then they can ask for information to be repeated’. This is suggestive of a fair and perhaps more egalitarian approach to language diversity in the modern day, yet we can only speculate as to the mentor’s rationale. It might be seen as the ideal if the mentor regards her own advice, as I have suggested, as merely a common sense approach to teachers whose accents are different from

122

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

the students and represent the variety of accents to be heard outside the school gates, as part of exposure to the real (linguistic) world. T28 further discussed the relationship between her accent and her personal identity, in this case initiated with her self-perception: From the beginning of my placement I was constantly asked by students where I am from. At least once a day I am asked ‘Miss, are you Irish?’ At first I stated that I was not Irish, as in actual fact I have British citizen [sic], I am however entitled to dual nationality so whilst I am not offended by the assumption I am Irish, I do not want to misled [sic] the pupils. So I would then inform them that I am Northern Irish.

T28’s response implies that her identity is one that is based on a clear selfconcept as belonging to the United Kingdom, considering herself British in the first instance. The suggestion appears to be that considering herself Irish is not correct from her viewpoint as it in turn suggests originating from the Republic of Ireland. This is further elaborated on: If they ask me if I am from Ireland, then I find this question more straightforward to answer because yes, I am from the island of Ireland. I recognize that explaining the complicated history of my native country is a bit daunting, especially for a child, so now I tend to say yes when a child asks if I’m Irish.

A clear distinction is made with T28 in terms of not being from Ireland (i.e. the Republic of Ireland), yet being Irish in a more general sense (referring to the island per se, but not in a political sense). It appears to be an important distinction for T28 to make, as a means to clarify who she is and how she sees herself. However, for the sake of helping students understand the otherwise complex matter more succinctly, she is flexible and has no issue with describing herself as ‘Irish’ on occasion. Nonetheless, T28 suggests that her identity is indeed flexible at times. This may not have any effect on her accent, but is instead tied to her self-concept. I am the Irish teacher, when my passport says otherwise, but this is merely political, first and foremost I am Northern Irish, I have British nationality, but equally I can just as easily produce an Irish passport should I ever see the point in having more than one, and of course, come St. Patrick’s day, I will most defiantly be Irish!

An effect of retaining her personal accent is that it can be a means to engage students. T28 explains that she receives ‘compliments’ on her accent as it is ‘unfamiliar to them [students]’. She does concede, however, that this can work against her in terms of maintaining control of the class:

Acceptance of Modification of Language

123

When I  say something that is misheard then it can result in laughter which disrupts my lesson. It doesn’t bother me personally, I expect that some words are going to catch their interest, particularly vowels, when I say words such as ‘flower’, ‘power’, ‘poor’, etc. even with staff members they sometime need a translator! I’ve just used the word ‘poor’ when talking to a colleague and she thought I said ‘purr’.

In this sense, being perceived as a ‘linguistic other’ need not always point to negative perceptions. If T28’s accent is both a source of occasional misunderstanding, yet also interest from students, then this could arguably function to engage the students while also allowing T28 to retain a personal accent for the professional context and thus not feel potentially disenfranchised for being made to otherwise feel that the personal and professional identities cannot coexist within a southern school placement in England. However, there are two modifications that T28 makes to her speech, both of which are her choice. She admitted to slowing down her speech, as ‘one of the quirks of my accent is that the Northern Irish speak really fast, so I have slowed down my speech’. Nonetheless, T28 concedes that she ‘would have done this regardless of where I was teaching, children need slow and concise instructions’. The fact that T28 was able to make this linguistic choice on her own and was essentially trusted by her mentor to make her own linguistic decisions is important. Another change she admits to making concerns what might otherwise be an accent shift from Northern Irish to English (the latter presumably reflective of the local region). Her rationale for this change is ‘to clarify instructions and move on, I do this to make light of the situation’. This would also represent an ideal identity in that it is hers alone to decide upon and perhaps the levity which a switch to an English accent is implied to cause is regarded as a positive and meaningful byproduct, especially in the context of drama, in which, to an extent, the teacher and students are acting in the first instance. A final point made by T28 concerns the two linguistic identities of professional and personal. Though it has been strongly suggested that T28’s professional accent does not differ from the personal variety, she elaborated on this: My teacher voice is quite different from my usual voice but I assume that this applies to most teachers. My teaching voice is more than accent alone, its tone, pitch, volume, etc. particularly in drama, and in my personal life I would use a lot of slang which isn’t professional to use in a classroom.

We again see a reference to her work as a drama teacher, in which accent, while integral to this career perhaps, is but one of several linguistic aspects to

124

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

consider. Thus, for T28, her taught subject is perhaps more relevant to her use of language than for the other teachers discussed earlier. However, the more relevant factor for this research is that she has the freedom to choose what to do with her accent and how to present herself linguistically for her students. From the results in this section, we can see that there are of course instances in which accent is not felt to be a relevant subject for mentor (or teacher) as part of training. The use of accents which are considered prestigious is one factor, as is perhaps the fact that some teachers’ accents are merely a reflection of the local accent. However, this latter factor is not uniform, as we will see with regard to northern-accented teachers who, despite remaining in the north to teach, were nonetheless instructed to modify their accents. This potentially raises a discussion point about the values ascribed to northern and southern accents. However, for the teachers whose accounts were provided thus far, there is clearly no issue suggested with their accent and thus there is otherwise a comfortable coexistence between the personal and the professional identities from a linguistic perspective.

Modification of language as an accepted part of the teaching profession This section focuses on teachers whose mentors told them to modify their language in some way, not always based on accent, and for whom this directive was accepted without issue. This illustrates that language modification need not be an issue at all of course, let alone leading to identity conflict. In fact, there can be harmony between the personal and the professional identities precisely because, for some teachers, they are regarded as separate and distinct in the first instance.

Professional control T8 referred to his accent as ‘a bit of a difficult one’, explaining that while his accent derives from Stoke-on-Trent, it has been influenced by his mother, who is from Portland in Dorset. This again is suggestive of one’s perception regarding language, including a personal accent. However, while this might be suggestive of a rather intuitive perception, it nonetheless illustrates the importance of selfperception and the ways in which individuals identify themselves. T8 referenced his ‘teacher voice’, mentioning the need to avoid glottal stops as an example of his linguistic teacher identity, with this being a phonological

Acceptance of Modification of Language

125

feature his mentor raised in training. T8, however, accepts this without it being taken as a veiled attack of his speech habits, telling me that ‘if we (the teachers) get it wrong, they’ll (the students) get it wrong as well’. Thus, he suggests that the need to teach students a ‘correct’ way of speaking is important, but we again see references to very clear notions regarding speech, with his use of the word ‘wrong’. But what is ‘wrong’ with glottal stops? I have argued that there is nothing inherently wrong (or right) regarding language use. It is, however, a case of using appropriate language for the context one is in and glottal stops have been discussed as being a stigmatized feature for the classroom, perhaps more so when teaching children phonics. While this rationale for his language modification seems to be based on a need to be a linguistic role model for the students, including, as he mentioned, the need to ‘pass on the right traits to children’, T8 stressed another perceived aspect of his modification in terms of the resulting identity: It probably makes you feel as if you have more power in the classroom. Feel more in control putting on your teacher voice to command control. Feel more in control of the classroom.

T8 enjoys the perceived benefits of modifying his language – not just being understood, but also how it helps contribute to his idea of a professional teacher identity. This is implied with his use of the words ‘power’ and ‘control’, suggestive of his desire to achieve a degree of autonomy (Hobson et al., 2008). Moreover, he reported no loss of control from the perspective of being told to avoid glottal stops which means that, broadly, he is not in full control of his language use. However, as he agrees with his mentor, and clearly seeks a teacher identity which emanates professional control within the classroom, this represents an ideal identity from a linguistic point of view. Thus, T8 suggests that his desire to essentially be ‘in charge’ is effected via his language change, so the change is regarded positively as the means to create this desired identity. T8 also acknowledged that this teacher voice does not make him feel like a different person. He implies that his teacher identity is simply an extension of his personal identity, as he does not reference the two as separate. However, the fact that he readily accepts the teacher aspect of his otherwise personal identity demonstrates that he accepts the practice of modification that accompanies this self. Thus, there is no conflict. However, T8 did admit that ‘as I  get more comfortable with the class . . . I will fall back into a more comfortable register and speak as I normally would’. Register is more a reference to one’s style of speech, but this could encompass

126

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

accent as well, to include falling back on features, such as glottal stops, that T8 otherwise seeks to avoid. He seems aware though of the impressions that a broader accent might have, referencing secondary level students. In this teaching context, T8 admitted that teachers will ‘probably get more acceptance from students talking your natural self ’. The word ‘natural’ ties in with other concepts which together relate to the idea of a personal identity(ies) being one in which the individuals can ‘be themselves’. That is, an identity projected without much conscious thought, to a certain extent, because the individual is not attempting to create, as in the classroom, an identity that relies upon a need to impress others and/or set an example. Nonetheless, as T8 enjoys the perceived benefits of using a modified accent as a means to be in control of his classroom, this is an end whose means – avoiding glottal stops – justifies the end. T16 told me that his mentor did not suggest accent modification at all, which, he explained, is based on the fact that she has a similar accent (Liverpool). The fact that both mentor and teacher share an otherwise stigmatized accent might help explain why T16 was not given any linguistic directives. However, he referenced the fact that he was told by his mentor to slow his speech when in the classroom, which, he explained, results in the students ‘paying more attention’. Thus, his account is included here since it does involve modification, albeit not tied to accent per se. T16’s comment also touches on that of T8 regarding the notion of his ‘teacher voice’, one in which there is a degree of perceived control over the classroom. If students are paying more attention to the teacher, then this could be regarded as emanating from maintaining control over one’s class. T16’s perception of control can in turn help him feel legitimated in his role, and identity, of teacher. For both T8 and T16, the control they refer to arguably goes beyond merely ‘controlling’ the students (e.g. within the accepted framework of getting, and maintaining, their attention). Instead, they perhaps feel in control of their teacher identity, related to Archer’s (2000) discussion of personifying one’s role as a teacher. This allows for a degree of one’s personal identity being invested within this role, or certainly the perception that no personal aspect of one’s identity is being proscribed. This can help explain why, for these two individuals, the personal and teacher identities have essentially merged – the personal identity is invested in the teacher identity, which in turn reflects the personal. Considering that T16 explained that he is ‘proud’ of his accent and where he is from, then given that this is one linguistic aspect of his teacher identity that is not being challenged, it can also help to explain why this personal aspect of his identity is allowed to be invested in his professional identity as a teacher. He even explained that he is ‘worried about losing (his) accent’ and this was a direct

Acceptance of Modification of Language

127

reference to the need some may feel about modifying a broad accent in order to fit in within certain professional contexts, such as education in general. He illustrated his point by referring to his brother who lost his Liverpool accent and now speaks more ‘posh’ since moving to Durham to attend university. T16 referred to this as a ‘great shame’. Given these feelings, it might well be the case that if the mentor’s language modification went beyond speaking more slowly and involved a need to modify his accent, T16 might have responded differently. Accent is arguably a more personal aspect of who we are in terms of how we use language.

Clarity of communication T7, as with all teachers within this subcategory, referenced the importance of being clearly understood by students, which was the main point of discussion and the teachers’ subsequent justification for making language adjustment when teaching. This might be more relevant when teaching at the primary level (with children aged 5–11), as is the case with T7 and T12. T7, for example, clearly illustrates his awareness of the need to consider the context in which he is communicating as the means to determine what is or is not appropriate language, demonstrating an overall objective stance towards modification: In front of a class there is a persona that you have. It’s just a persona and it can be switched, such as when talking with mates versus teaching. You have those two personas that have totally different voices and it changes depending on who I’m talking to.

T7’s use of the word ‘switch’ is interesting, as it implies that he is able to effect different identities with ease and, regarding his use of the word ‘just’ (arguably used here to mean ‘merely’), he positions himself as an individual for whom a teacher identity is not seen as a threat to his personal identity, even though the modification is from his mentor’s directives. T7 provided phonological information regarding how his accent is modified for the classroom, in which it was described as ‘still Yorkshire, but shined up a little bit’. Specifically, he contrasted the ‘home me’ with the ‘teacher me’, using the example of the words no and home. T7 explained that these two identities are linguistically realized as /nə:/ / hə:m/ for the home me and as /noʊ/ /hoʊm/ for the teacher me, further explaining that these two identities ‘have two totally different voices’. Overall, then, T7’s acceptance of modification directives suggests that the ‘two mes’ he references are real mes.

128

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

T7 also provided some relevant background information regarding his attitude towards accent modification. He explained that he had previously worked in a call centre and told me in the interview that ‘phone voice’ had been a very relevant practice, involving, as with the classroom, the use of ‘far less glottal stops’, as well as speaking more slowly and clearly for the benefit of the customer. While he did not explain if this phone voice was something he was told to do or not, T7 implied that it was a practice nonetheless based on a kind of linguistic self-regulation, for which he displayed an overall neutral stance. Given this work background, in which the need to be understood by a vast array of individuals was indeed tied to business, T7 has taken this and applied it to the classroom. He explained that as part of his own teaching, ‘you’re constantly trying to make people enunciate and speak properly’. T7 is not just focusing on his own language, ensuring that it is understandable for the students, but he is also making it clear that he regards his position as one of ensuring he is linguistically responsible. Thus, speaking ‘correctly’ is perhaps tied to broader notions regarding being perceived correctly by people in society. In fact, regarding his correction of students’ speech, T7 told me that ‘you have to be really strong on it’. T7 admitted that if he used the ‘home me’ voice in the classroom, there might be misunderstandings, and above all, the need to speak in a manner that is comprehensible to one’s students is his overall rationale in the construction of a professional teacher identity based on his accent. He believes that not only do his students understand him, but they also ‘respect’ him, in part based on his language use. This latter point refers back to a need to not only be understood in one’s everyday interactions, but is also suggestive of a need to use language that is appropriate for the context, as a means to be respected by others. T7 is clearly aware of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in terms of language use in the classroom so again, perhaps, he sees his role as a teacher as instructing the students to use language that is both understandable and, crucially, appropriate for the context. In the context of the classroom, glottal stops, for example, are seen as inappropriate by T7 for his own language use and also that of his students. Thus, previous work experience has helped T7 to regard his accent modification as a necessary part of his job, in order to create an identity that is seen as wholly separate from his personal identity (e.g. T7 referenced the fact that when he is with his ‘mates’, he swears a lot – this is perfectly appropriate in such a relaxed and informal context of course). Nonetheless, T7 did end the interview by acknowledging that there is ‘richness to be had’ regarding the many different accents in Britain. He even admitted that there was ‘definitely a part of me that wishes I didn’t have to modify my voice’, though he conceded that ‘it is

Acceptance of Modification of Language

129

for the better to do that’. However, I categorize T7 as a teacher for whom accent modification is not regarded as an issue in any way, because it was clear from his responses that he regards the practice as appropriate for the professional context and enjoys the benefits of being more understandable for the students. This illustrates a point I had made earlier regarding the mixed feelings that can sometimes accompany linguistic modification as a means of identity enactment. That is, while T7 appears to occasionally not wish to modify his accent, he is otherwise fully accepting of the ‘teacher me’ and thus it is an ideal identity, enacted via a mid-accent; in T7’s words, this is still his Yorkshire accent, but ‘shined up a bit’. T17 referenced mentor-directed modification only in terms of speaking more slowly. He did not regard such changes as affecting his identity, explaining that ‘(my) original identity still comes through’ based on the fact that he is ‘not sacrificing’ his accent. This is because he is not changing his accent, merely making changes to his speed of delivery based on his mentor’s comments. His notion of an ‘original identity’ can be linked to one that he regards as authentic, an identity Pennington and Richards (2016:7) also describe as ‘authentic’, and that which refers to a non-professional identity(ies) established prior to entering the teaching profession, one with which we are most familiar. Once again, his acceptance of modification might be due to the changes to his language appearing to focus not on accent per se, but merely directives to speak more slowly. No specific phonological information was provided by his mentor, nor did T17 report on any negative comments made. These are two important considerations which arguably play a large part in some teachers being in disagreement with modification. T26 teaches at the primary level and describes her accent as RP ‘with a bit of Estuary English’. This description might suggest the ‘near RP’ or even a midaccent. The mentor did not directly suggest that T26 needed to modify her accent, but a comment she had made regarding her own training inspired T26 to adjust her language. Specifically, the mentor had been told to avoid reductions in her own speech, such as ‘gonna’ and ‘wanna’. This again raises the issue of using full forms, as the reductions clearly involve removal of phonemes and represent a realization often, though not entirely, associated with American English. T26 admitted that this anecdote made her ‘more aware of (her) own speech habits’, with the result being that she admits to self-correcting ‘if I hear myself slur words together’. T26 appears to be fully accepting of a need to modify one’s speech, as she explained that ‘in teaching, an effort should be made to offer pupils a model for correct, clear language, expressed in a professional way’.

130

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

From this statement, there are several implications. First, it is clear that T26 believes that avoiding reduced speech – slurred speech – is one key to ‘correct’ language. Her reference to the word ‘clear’ is perhaps more a reference to not only using full forms, but also enunciating well. This could of course also involve slowing one’s speech down. Taken together, this helps to perhaps feed into her concept of the professional identity of a teacher that she wishes to display for her students. However, T26 followed this by asserting that, with regard to her speech delivery, ‘an accent does not change that delivery, but lax language use does’. In this sense, T26 is suggesting that there are not any lax accents (that is, she perhaps might not regard accents in this manner), but merely lax enunciation, as opposed to pronunciation. As a result, she seems to imply that the need for teachers to speak in a professional manner has nothing to do with one’s accent, as it is most relevantly tied to one’s delivery of speech. Could we then suggest that an RP speaker and a Cockney speaker could both exhibit ‘slurred’ speech, what might be considered ‘lax’? It is difficult to answer this definitely, as what is otherwise one’s normal, everyday accent may be considered slurred, or simply unprofessional. As a speaker of General American, there is no doubt that my speech involves reductions (such as I’m gonna go) and the use of a tap, as heard in butter /bʌɾɚ/. I would never consider either to be slurred (i.e. with the wider implication of it referring to ‘lazy’ speech, or at least informal). In fact, this is representative of how I speak, as far as I can tell, in both formal and informal contexts, including teaching. However, as I teach adults and not children, this has of course an influence on my language use. Though I teach in England, I have never felt a need to adjust my accent; to do so might even be seen as patronizing by the students who are themselves adults. It might be said that the older one’s audience of students, the less the need to modify one’s accent. To put it another way, it is unlikely that a foreign-accented university lecturer would be told by the hiring committee to modify his/her accent for the benefit of the students; if I were teaching at the primary level in England, however, perhaps my aforementioned speech samples would be modified, and voluntarily. My own rationale would not be that my speech is somehow ‘unprofessional’ for children, but merely that the potential for confusion in terms of what I am saying might be. I can imagine such a scenario if using the word writing in my speech. Given my pronunciation – /ɹaɪɾɪɳ/ – the students might mistake it for riding. On the other hand, might we make the argument that any initial confusion will be remedied in time as the students adjust to any accents that are otherwise unfamiliar at first? This is another perspective of the argument regarding the need for teachers to be understandable.

Acceptance of Modification of Language

131

To conclude her thoughts, T26 had this to say regarding her accent modification in relation to her identity: I do feel that my ‘home voice’ is different to my ‘teaching voice’, but I do not feel a conflict of self, rather a clear division of myself as a professional at work, and a relaxed person at home.

T26 is implying that even for an RP-accented speaker, there are nonetheless more ‘relaxed’ versions of her accent, which presumably involve the reductions she avoids in the classroom. Thus, a relaxed identity – one stemming from the immediate context of being at home with family – can give way to relaxed language use. This may go beyond accent and enunciation of course and involve the use of a more informal register and even potential taboo language. It also implies that any one of our personal identities is indeed that which we wear with comfort; in the absence of trying to fit in, attempting to impress and/or seeking to avoid negative judgement, we are in a better position to speak naturally. This was something I had argued earlier, not as a strict indicator of an ideal identity as such, but very often a byproduct of it. With regard to identity, T26 has no conflict at all, regarding the home and teacher identities, and their phonological realizations, as separate and distinct. There may also be the influence, however, of speaking with an accent that is otherwise prestigious, even presumably with the addition of various reductions involving ‘slurred’ speech. Moreover, T26 explains that it is not about accent modification per se, but merely clearer enunciation and this can also explain why she perhaps does not feel any ‘threat’, as it were, to her personal identity, as the home accent remains, merely her enunciation changes. Thus, if we consider the expression I’m going to go in a suggested teacher voice and home voice for T26, it is clear that, while merely speculative, her distinctive RP-based pronunciation remains, notably with [əʊ] used for the long-o sound: Home voice:/aɪm gʌnʌ gəʊ/ Teacher voice:/aɪm gəʊɪŋ tu gəʊ/ Thus, there is harmony between the two identities precisely because they do not intersect in the first instance; one is retained for personal life and one is enacted for her professional role as a teacher. T30, who is from Northern Ireland, was only told to slow down her speech by her mentor. It is important to make the distinction of course between modifying one’s accent in some way, as opposed to adjusting aspects of one’s voice delivery, which is connected merely with prosody. Interestingly, T30 describes her accent,

132

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

and that of her mentor, as ‘well-spoken’, with the mentor speaking in a manner that ‘appears to be normal for SE England’. With regard to the need to slow down her speech, T30 is fully accepting of this: I was with a year 1 class and was told to slow down my speech. It was a fair comment, however it was my first lesson in a year, I was nervous, and I’d never taught a KS1 class so didn’t realise how slow I needed to speak.

Despite not being relevant to accent per se, I  nonetheless have chosen to include instances in which teachers were told to adjust their speech in any way. Ultimately, this ties in with the broad issue of, to an extent, being told how to use one’s voice in the construction of a teacher identity. In this sense, the need to speak at an appropriate speed is entirely relevant and on that level, T30 shows no disagreement, including having no issues with having her speech monitored somewhat. However, with regard to accent modification, T30 had this to say: It’s grand if it’s something I can easily change (like the speed at which I talk), however pronunciation is slightly more difficult and makes me less confident in speaking as I know I have to say words differently that’ll [sic] I normally would when e.g. teaching phonics.

This perhaps illustrates a key issue, and one that will indeed be discussed with teachers in Chapter 5 – modifying one’s accent when teaching phonics and more to the point, being told to do so by one’s mentor. This can be problematic for some as it involves an aspect of one’s voice, which, as T30 suggests, is not as easy to control for as merely adjusting prosodic features. However, there is more than just this practical issue. We need to also consider the importance of an accent that has been a part of our personal (non-teaching) identity for the time before entering the teaching profession. People can become very protective about this one aspect of their identity and so to suggest, however politely, that it is in need of changing to a ‘correct’ version for the purpose of teaching phonics, can be a touchy subject. T30 had only this to say about her accent: When I’m not teaching phonics, teaching with my normal accent doesn’t seem to be much of an issue. The children get used to it after a while, and understand that people speak differently.

This suggests two points. First, might it be that phonics teaching, at least within the primary school context, is seen as the particularly relevant aspect in requiring teachers to modify their accents? It might be quite impractical for

Acceptance of Modification of Language

133

teachers to modify their accent all day while teaching in the class, yet we could suggest that solely for phonics instruction then we need to have a standard. However, what is the standard? Is it based on the particular region in which one is teaching? Is it based on the mentor’s own accent, or that used by the majority of the students? This is something that will be further explored in the next chapter. Second, that T30’s accent was not raised as something to modify, and is not seen as ‘an issue’, potentially reveals that national origin might play a part in this. We have seen how two previous teachers, T21 and T28, who both hail from Ireland (north and south), were also not given any directives to change their accent. Moreover, T28 was specifically told by her mentor not to apologize for any misunderstanding with her students that arose due to her accent. It could be that, while Northern Ireland is not a foreign country per se (as part of the United Kingdom), mentors might be reluctant to raise accents from this region as an issue for fear of it being tied to prejudice based on national origin. Having said that, both T21 and T28 are not involved in phonics teaching (and T31, discussed next, was told to modify her speech; she is also from Northern Ireland), yet the national origin of teachers might also be a factor in terms of a mentor’s willingness to discuss their accent as a barrier to understanding. Moreover, T28 and T30 suggest that, given time, a ‘different’ accent can be fully understood and as I have mentioned, there is much difference beyond the school environment to be expected, and this certainly applies to accents, both British and foreign. T31 is also Northern Irish, but describes her accent as ‘not strong’. While she has not been specifically told to change her accent, she explained that ‘there are just a few words I say which she (the mentor) has picked up on, in addition to speaking to [sic] fast’. It is unclear what T31 means by her reference to her ‘words’, as this could apply to how some words are pronounced, or even refer to dialectal expressions which are tied to Northern Ireland. T31 also describes her mentor’s accent as ‘standard English’, which again is precisely the variety(ies) which needs to be established to perhaps create a greater sense of clarity for what the linguistic expectations are for trainee teachers. T31 further elaborated on how her mentor’s directives to adjust her speech have been received: As she has not been horrible or meant anything disrespectful towards myself, I still feel that our relationship is strong enough for her to mention this sort of stuff to me. At the end of the day, if the children do not understand me then I need to do something or else I might fail my placement.

134

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

A good working relationship with her mentor, perhaps established from the start, is clearly a key in understanding comments raised regarding accent. The need to be understood, especially as a crucial element in placement success, is also a prominent factor in T31’s acceptance of adjusting her language in some way. Thus, we can regard this as an ideal identity, in that the directives of the mentor are taken on board and agreed with, as the means to enact a teacher identity during training which will achieve success. However, T31 suggests that her accent has undergone some considerable change, but perhaps change that has happened organically during her time in England, and not based on a conscious desire for change: It wasn’t until I went back home to Northern Ireland and my friends and family told me I sounded English that I realized I changed how I spoke.

It might often be the case that individuals do not recognize any change to their accent from living overseas, yet friends and family do. Thus, T31 is perceived differently perhaps by her family – though this need not suggest anything negative, along the extreme lines of having ‘sold out’ her Irish identity. In fact, the perception change, if any, might be nothing more than recognizing a linguistic change as part and parcel of her teaching and thus, T31 is still the same, but merely having undergone a linguistic change, whatever that might be, as part of her change to a career woman in the profession of teaching.

Professional ‘acting’ T14 accepted her mentor’s directive to modify her accent, explaining that modification is ‘expected’ during training and is mentioned ‘an awful lot throughout the degree’. As with T7, T14 implied a keen awareness of the context determining what is or is not appropriate regarding her language use and on that level, she accepts modification as part of the job. She explained her attitude towards accent modification by using the metaphor of performance: (Modification) is a bit of a mask, like being on a stage. You are putting on a front. You’re tweaking who you are to fit the role.

The notion of a ‘mask’ and the metaphor of acting might suggest a degree of fraudulence, not in the sense of ‘pretending’ to be a teacher but suggestive of a linguistically forged identity which is recognized as not being one’s usual or everyday self. However, T14’s later acknowledgment of her desire to ‘fit the role’ suggests that there is recognition to communicate appropriately as a teacher. This recognition does not lead to a sense of fraudulence. Thus, T14 the teacher

Acceptance of Modification of Language

135

is regarded as a legitimate identity as is her personal identity(ies), and accommodation in this instance need not suggest an unwelcome change, but merely a change – hence, adjusting who she already is. This reflects an objective change to her otherwise personal, non-teacher identity. I had mentioned previously that specific identities are not in themselves monolithic and can, in fact, display many manifestations depending on the immediate context; thus, there are sub-identities. In terms of the teacher identity, there are differing ways in which this is linguistically realized when one is outside the classroom. T14 mentioned this, referencing a ‘clear split’ between ‘you the person’ and ‘you the professional’ in terms of the identity projected in the staff room. In such a context, the personal identity is realized, presumably with less thought to one’s accent than when the teacher identity is engaged with the act of teaching per se. The notion of a ‘split’ serves to illustrate T14’s acknowledgement of a division between the personal and professional identities, without suggesting that they should be the same in terms of language use. In terms of how her accent is modified, T14 referenced the fact that she attempts to make it ‘generic British’. This term could be reflective of the general versions of regional British accents that I had proposed, those that are generic by virtue of removing the more localized features (Trudgill, 2002), which are often the very features that serve to make such accents stigmatized. T14 explained the implications for her self-perception – the starting point for personal identity – if she otherwise used her local accent (as she describes it): It’s been a very long journey to get on to the degree . . . feeling a bit thick all the way through school . . . it makes me feel slightly more intelligent if I speak with clearer enunciation than if I allowed my local accent to come through.

While no one expressed any displeasure in their accent, this does not mean that they are unaware of the negative implications. If a modified accent allows T14 to feel more intelligent, then this self-perception can in turn act as a springboard for her professional identity to be enacted. In other words, by using a modified accent, she might also hope that the identity that is created as a result – one of an intelligent teacher – is one and the same with the identity that is ascribed to her by others, be it students or her mentor.

Setting an example The final subcategory under discussion concerns the responses of one teacher in particular, T19, who strongly suggests that accent modification is a response to creating a teacher identity that will set the example for one’s students. T19

136

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

teaches at the primary level and describes her accent as ‘Medway’. This is the variety which is found within the southeast of England, part of Kent. T19 gave a detailed response with regard to her mentor’s directive to adjust her speech, while acknowledging that the two have an otherwise positive relationship: He told me that some of the things I pronounce are too common or my grammar is not as exemplary as it should be due to where I am from and the turn of speech there. He noted that I am a role model to young children and thus I almost need to have a ‘home accent’ and a ‘school accent’; the former where I  can speak however I  wish and the latter, modifying my accent and grammar from what I am used to, to ensure that I am being a good model to the children.

First, it appears that dialectal usage is also a linguistic factor in need of modification, as grammar would apply to dialect per se. In terms of ‘turn of speech’, this might also apply to local lexis from T19’s home region, though no examples are provided. The mentor’s comments also clearly reflect the personal and professional identities which I discussed in Chapter 1 and, in this case, the way in which they are not regarded as compatible. In this case, it is the mentor’s evaluation of T19’s language use, which is seen as being in need of modification in order to subsequently modify the identity that is ascribed to individuals by others; T19 needs to present a professional identity in terms of her language use in order for her children to emulate her in this regard. Therefore, this is a case of the need to create an identity regarded by others as appropriate for the teaching profession, and one’s home accent is suggested to be incompatible in this regard. However, the mentor’s accent was reflective of south London, and so T19 explained that the mentor ‘was able to sympathize with the difficulties I was having’. This might help to regard the comments of her mentor as merely based on an objective need to provide appropriate communication in the classroom and, in the process, provide her students with a variety of English perceived as professional, and not ‘common’. Nonetheless, to describe someone’s language in such terms can be problematic, and T19 discussed her initial feelings on the matter: It made me feel like a bad teacher at first, because I  worried that my accent and dialect was having a poor effect on the children and that was the last thing I wanted to do. However, because he has picked up on it, I can now focus on this during my next placement to ensure that when I am a teacher, I am being the best role model to the children as I can. Therefore, to begin with it was a bit of a shock and negative, however now I can see it as constructive.

Acceptance of Modification of Language

137

T19’s above comments reflect a development in her teacher identity, beginning with a negative reaction to her mentor’s comments, but at the time of conducting my research, merely one semester into her training, she looked back upon the comments as a necessary part of the mentor’s position, and hers as a developing teacher. It is important to therefore point out that while comments about one’s language use (or any aspect of one’s identity upon beginning training) can indeed lead to doubts, the fact that T19 has changed her viewpoint suggests that the evolution of her teacher identity has reached a point where, to an extent, it could be suggested that she has ‘arrived’. This is true certainly from a linguistic point of view, where she appears to have fully accepted the need to enact a professional identity by means of modifying her accent. While we have no specific information on what this means from a phonological point of view, it is nonetheless the case that accent modification has been a necessary part of building her identity as a teacher and, given her desire to create such a professional identity, the linguistic modification realized as part of this is now accepted. However, T19 went further with her discussion as to how the modification had made her feel, and how she now regarded it, explaining that modification did have an effect on her personal identity, in this case a reference to her self-concept: My accent is who I am and therefore, having to change this when I am teaching is having to change a part of me. However, I also understand that to be the best for the children, sometimes teachers do have to make adjustments like that and therefore, I will embrace this as my teaching identity, but not my personal identity.

Once again, we see a change in her view regarding this one aspect of her identity, both personal and professional, which involves an otherwise objective acceptance of modification to create an identity that is desired and thus, while the initial changes made to her accent may indeed have reflected a forced identity, the identity is now regarded as ideal. However, T19 clearly views the personal and professional identities as separate and distinct. This may involve other differences regarding the two identities, such as her choice of clothing both in and out of the classroom, but it is clear that T19 is two people (and undoubtedly many more); one is personal (involving many sub-identities, such as friend, daughter and so on) and the other concerns who she is, and who she becomes, when class starts. The need to change a part of herself can be regarded many ways. On the one hand, some teachers might regard this as losing a part of their personal identity in order to make way for the professional. This in itself could

138

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

be positive or negative, in that if one’s ideal professional identity is truly desired, then putting aside an aspect of the personal identity need not be an issue, and this is the case here. However, as we will see in the next chapter, for some teachers there is a reluctance to modify the personal identity, a practice regarded as wholly unnecessary.

Conclusion This chapter has sought to discuss the teachers for whom there was no reported conflict regarding their linguistic construction of a teacher identity, whether based on a lack of accent-based directives or otherwise; if linguistic modification of some kind was initiated by their mentors, there is acceptance of this as a legitimate part of the development of one’s teacher identity. The kind of teacher one specifically wishes to become plays a large role in the changes that one is perhaps willing to make and speaking clearly for the students and setting an example as a role model are clearly two such considerations here as to why accent modification is accepted, albeit not initially for T19. There is of course a relationship between some of the subcategories presented here. For example, the desire to speak clearly and be understood, while a goal unto itself for T7, T12 and T17, is nonetheless regarded by T19 as a means to a larger end, that of being a role model for the students by setting a good (linguistic) example. This, of course, might be an implication for other teachers who wish to speak clearly as their main rationale for acceptance of modification directives, yet T19 made this more explicit. Likewise, the professional control one desires to have as a teacher, itself a very broad reference, could easily involve a need for linguistic control. The main factor uniting all these teachers, however, is that they accept modification and certainly do not regard it as a threat to their personal identity, in some cases merely regarding themselves as different people in different contexts (e.g. the home and the classroom). Moreover, given that for some teachers, modification was based merely on prosodic and not phonological features, it is suggested that this too plays a role in overall acceptance with the mentors’ directives. Despite my conclusions here being reached based on largely self-reported data and the teachers’ personal conclusions (i.e. there is little reported regarding the mentors’ views on accent), there is much reported that is reliable – the rapport with mentors, the teachers’ philosophies on their career and their own views on the role accent plays in teaching.

5

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request*

This chapter serves to illustrate what is a negative scenario for power and language in education – the potential for it to be equated with linguistic prejudice and, given the lack of agency in the teacher identity’s linguistic construction, a resulting identity that is perceived as fraudulent. For those who took issue with modification, the following three themes emerged based on teachers’ responses regarding their negativity towards the practice of modification:  A need for linguistic diversity; linguistic pride; and a desire to ‘keep it real’. Collectively, however, a common belief is that the creation of a professional teacher identity does not mean ridding oneself of an accent deemed more personal. The purpose of this chapter is thus to explore the ways in which teachers discuss their resistance to accent modification, even within a relationship with their mentors that is otherwise positive (with exceptions).

A need for linguistic diversity T9 explained that the head teacher at her school had told her to ‘be careful’ regarding her accent, immediately following this directive with the comment, ‘but you are from Eccles’ (in Manchester), to which he had then laughed. This latter comment was made with regard to T9’s otherwise unmodified accent and the implied point, certainly as understood by T9, was that she needed to avoid speaking with a broad regional accent. The comment implied that it is essentially ‘not her fault’ if modifying such a regional variety is impossible, as part of intended banter perhaps. The implication is that some regional accents are too strong to completely rid oneself of. Moreover, this comment was also made in *

This chapter is derived, in part, from an article published in Journal of Language, Identity & Education on 10 October 2017, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1359608.

140

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

the specific context of a target for the next lesson, as part of T9’s overall teacher training. While T9 had taken the comment as a joke at the time, she admitted in the interview that it made her angry when recalling it. T9 explained that she has become more aware of her accent since she began teaching and explained that her mentor told her ‘You need to make sure your accent isn’t as broad so the children can understand’. This in itself is not necessarily a controversial statement and her mentor had also admitted to having modified his own otherwise broad accent for teaching. However, directives to adjust one’s speech are somewhat dependent on how they are delivered, and received, and, overall, the attitudes that teachers might have regarding their accent and its place within education is an important factor. In fact, T9 did admit that accent can be ‘a sensitive subject’. While the need to be understood is yet another reference to what appears to be the mentors’ collective rationale for accent modification, there appears to be a mismatch between the mentor’s views on the construction of a teacher identity and those of T9: If you are going to speak the same as everyone else then you are going to lose who you are and where you’re from. Trying to teach children to be who they are. You don’t teach one way because children are not the same person, but then you say that we’ve all got to speak the same so it’s a bit backwards.

For T9, the directive to sound less broad is in conflict with her views that such ‘broadness’ is what makes her who she is, part of her linguistic identity and one that reflects her regional origins, which she believes should not be proscribed within academia. Her notions, then, of authenticity in regard to identity are tied with her accent not being modified based on someone else’s directive, and beliefs regarding what is appropriate. T9 desires to construct a teacher identity that, linguistically speaking, reflects her personal identity, more broadly connecting this with the classroom practice of celebrating students as the individuals they are. This is in keeping with the trends of the National Curriculum in Britain, with one clear goal being the celebration of student diversity. As with T8, T9 referenced her ‘teacher voice’ in the interview. However, when she used this term she made it clear that it was a voice she regarded as imposed on her by her mentor. The imposition is based on her beliefs regarding the need to treat students as individuals and recognize their background (including linguistic background), yet teachers, as the role models for students, are not afforded this same treatment, in T9’s view. She later explained that

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

141

if you tell everyone that you can’t speak from where you’re from then that’s taking away from their culture and you want to teach children about different cultures.

T9 is applying the word culture broadly, implying it to be relevant to British students from perspectives such as class and region, for example. T9 constructs herself, then, as a champion for students in terms of advocating a need to respect their heritage, while she believes that hers is being ignored to an extent. If cultural (here, linguistic) diversity is not encouraged in the teachers themselves, but respected within the student body, then clearly it is deemed to be ‘backwards’ from current classroom practice. T9 explained that accent is ‘more dwelled on than it has to be . . . because you’re taking away from actually teaching . . . you’re trying to think “Am I speaking properly?” ’ The need to be more consciously aware of one’s accent, as part of a teacher voice and identity is implied to be somewhat of a distraction, to the extent that it becomes the main focus and ‘takes away’ from what should be key – teaching. The accent that T9 uses as part of her teacher voice is of course a key component of her teacher identity, yet this is an identity that she feels should not be so dependent on modifying an accent, especially in the context of teaching, and celebrating, student diversity. T11 referenced a specific phonological change mentioned by her mentors, albeit a change from a phoneme very much associated with the north of England, in particular Yorkshire. This concerns the monophthong [o:], used in place of [oʊ] (or [əʊ] for RP), so that in Yorkshire speech, go would be realized as /go:/. She further referenced a switch she was told to make from [a] to [ɑ] in order to be ‘more formal’. These changes were based on her mentor’s comment to switch to a ‘more standardized’ speech. In this case, standard is again suggestive of removing reductions from one’s speech – even those that are themselves ‘standard’ in one’s home region. T11 further discussed the metaphor of being on stage, but this differed from that same metaphor used by T14. While T14 used a metaphor of performance (‘mask’) to signify linguistic flexibility, T11 references further connotations of that same metaphor: You want to be seen as professional as possible. You’re constantly thinking about the words you’re using and sometimes you script what you want to say. It’s rehearsed.

For T11, the acting metaphor is used to explain that she feels she is acting, in that she is not being true to a more personal identity which would not require accent modification. She is also suggesting a degree of artificiality in

142

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

that the ‘script’ is written by her mentor, not herself. This was made clear with a later comment: It’s like a drama technique, you’re trying to control a part of your voice. But then your accent is where you’re from and your life journey, trying to copy someone else rather than just be myself.

The metaphor of a journey was expanded on, and this helped T11 to position herself as someone for whom her life’s experience – that included her regional origins – needs to be muted to make way for a teacher identity. For T11, her original identity, one derived from her pre-teaching experiences of growing up in the north, is essentially being silenced to make way for a new identity: My accent is part of my life, my journey of where I’ve lived. It’s important to have a sense of your own personality in there and just be yourself and not thinking about ‘who should I be as a teacher?’

From a purely linguistic point of view, T11 believes that her ‘home accent’ (a term I use here) should not be at odds with her teacher identity, hence a desire to just be herself, rather than have to construct a new (linguistic) identity. Thus, modification is not regarded as an objective means to be better understood, but is seen as an imposition on the part of others in the construction of her teacher identity. The concept of ‘being herself ’ clearly links to a personal identity, one which emphasizes her regional origins. Furthermore, T11 also touched upon the need for linguistic variety being an important part of the classroom – a reflection of cultural diversity in England – thus echoing the views of T9: It’s where I’ve been, where I’ve lived, and it’s important that children hear different accents so that when they go other places they can understand what people are saying and don’t think the accent’s abnormal, I don’t see how accent should impact [on the students’ learning].

The word choice of ‘abnormal’ is perhaps a reflection of what T11 feels are excessive comments regarding accent modification. This might further imply that mentors’ views are not just about the need to be understood, but involve a preference for certain accents over others. T11 did admit that her modification is ‘a bit sad. It removes you from where you’ve come.’ Again, this comment suggests that within the context of celebrating classroom diversity, T11 does not understand why this does not apply to the teachers themselves on a linguistic level. She further explained the negative connotations of accents perceived

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

143

as ‘common’ (which T11 admitted was a term used by others to describe her accent); ‘There’s nothing wrong with the way I speak; there’s nothing wrong with my own intellect’. This strongly suggests that mentors’ comments to modify her accent might be seen as more in keeping with modifying the negative connotations that accompany certain accents, certainly those with connotations of ‘commonness’. This does not, however, necessarily point to issues of intelligibility. Further, T11’s reference to her intellect clearly suggests that her personal accent is one that carries negative connotations of being perhaps ‘slow’, itself an offshoot of being perceived as common, yet she feels no discrepancy between her accent and her ability to do her job. It might be that it is precisely an individual’s concept of what a personal identity is that in turn can lead to issues, or not, with accent modification. Teachers who regard diversity in all forms as a major aspect of teaching are more likely to perhaps regard accent modification as a means to lessen diversity, certainly from a linguistic point of view. The identity that is created via accent modification is indeed a forced identity for T11, and not just because it is one imposed on her by her mentor, with which she does not agree. In addition, the implications are that, as with T9, T11 is forced to give more thought to her teacher accent as opposed to being able to use her otherwise personal one, which led to her telling me that ‘it’s harder to just naturally be yourself ’. But this is the point – T11 is not really able to be herself – her personal self – and must instead work to consciously focus on a teacher identity – described as ‘hard work because you’re constantly thinking about it’. Again, this is a forced identity and one which is clearly fraudulent to T11, as it involves modifying her accent based on someone else’s standard. She further admitted that her accent has been described as ‘common’ in the staff room, which she conceded is not how people want to be seen. However, given the importance she attaches to her accent, as a symbol of her regional origins, she does not agree that her personal accent would have an ‘impact’ on her students, or negate the importance of her being a ‘role model’ to them. In fact, T11 did suggest that it would be useful to explain to the students the different accents that exist in Britain, something which they are already aware of perhaps, but explaining to the students how she normally speaks allows for the added rationale of such instruction being a means to encourage sensitivity to other accents by being exposed to them. However, she followed this by admitting that she was afraid of any negative repercussions for the students’ phonics test scores. That is, hearing accents not otherwise used in connection with phonics teaching could lead to ‘confusion’, as she put it, and thus, potentially lowered

144

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

scores which, she admitted, made it ‘very difficult to take that risk’. Phonics teaching was further referenced in terms of the need to teach students ‘correct’ sounds, which, in the absence of further information, might presumably refer to the phonemes that are part of T11’s teacher accent, yet not her personal accent. Given that teachers sometimes routinely reference accents in terms of ‘standard’ and related terms (e.g. neutral), this is all the more reason why, if attempting to clarify this on a national level for teacher training, we need to obtain the teachers’ views on this matter as well as those of mentors – we need to know just what a standard accent(s) sounds like for British teachers. T13 specified language modification as broadly involving the need to avoid reductions such as playin’ and glottal stops. In more specific terms, T13 was told by her mentor of a potential need to modify her accent should she work in the south, specifically being told she would have to change her vowels from [a] to [ɑ] in certain contexts, so that bath would be realized as /bɑ:θ/ and not /baθ/, the former characteristic of southern English pronunciation and the latter attributed to the north and the midlands. T13 mentioned that the mentors themselves had ‘less regional’ accents and while she did not specifically reference mentors’ comments other than the one above in terms of specific phonological modification, T13 nonetheless explained that it made her ‘quite upset to be told that I don’t speak properly’. Nonetheless, T13 revealed, as have other teachers, a keen awareness of the perceptions other people might have of her based on her personal accent. She told me that ‘I don’t think that I would be given the job’ should she otherwise choose not to modify her accent in a job interview; this is a reference to what is perhaps a socially forced means of accent modification – she is forced to modify her accent, or so she believes, based on the larger societal implications for her regional accent. Within training, however, it is based purely on her mentor’s directive. From the perspective of some of the mentors, it might be the case that, as they have modified their accents in an attempt to set a linguistic example, the teachers must do so too, in order to set the example to their students. Once again, however, not all teachers are in agreement with this, regardless of their awareness of the negative implications for regional accents. As with the other teachers discussed in this section, T13 regards her accent as a symbol of her region of origin, takes pride in both and, as a result, she resents modifying her accent to what is, once again, her mentor’s standard. T13 regards her accent as a major part of her personal identity, and thereby equates modification as a means to also weaken this aspect of herself, an aspect derived from her regional origins:

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

145

I identify myself quite strongly with where I’m from and a huge part of that is the way that I speak.

As with T9, T13 mentioned the need for linguistic diversity to be reflected in the classroom by means of not instructing teachers to modify their accent: It’s so important to protect different regions that make up Britain and allow them to be as they are.

Regional differences in Britain are referred to here from a linguistic point of view, based on the variety of regional accents within the country. Accent is not a protected category in Britain (such as race) as I have mentioned, yet T13 positions herself as an advocate for the protection of teachers’ diverse accents within the classroom, if not on a legal level, then perhaps protection from the perspective of not being forced to modify one’s accent.

Linguistic pride T10 had been told by her mentor to ‘control’ her Mancunian accent, which had made her feel ‘really insulted’. As with T9, the need for T10 to control her accent was made a ‘target’ by her mentor, and specific phonological directions were provided. T10 told me that she was advised to avoid the near back, near high unrounded phoneme – one very much associated with the north of England – and replace it with a front, mid vowel instead. This was illustrated with the word Bury, which is a town in England, north of Manchester. This means that her natural pronunciation of Bury, /bʊɹɪ/, is realized in the teaching context as /bɛɹɪ/, demonstrating that she needed to avoid a phoneme often associated with her region. The need to be understood by students was again the rationale provided by her mentor for modification, so that accent is not ‘getting in the way of how children learn’ (her mentor’s reported words). While T9 told me that her mentor had a regional accent (though he had admitted to her that it had been modified over the years), T10’s mentor, as an RP speaker, spoke ‘very posh’. T10 admitted that this had made her feel ‘inferior’ and that accent modification had been ‘pushed down (her) throat’. For T10, then, this is clearly an imposed identity: As a teacher you do have to modify your accent and that’s not because you want to, that’s because you have to in that job.

146

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

One factor in T10’s feelings of resentment towards modification, and the fact she admitted it had affected her identity, appears to stem from her own awareness of the negative perceptions of her accent: I do feel inferior when I’m speaking to others because I  do have a broad Mancunian accent. You go into interviews and people are speaking posh you feel like you have to speak like them to be accepted. Accent is very personal, it’s where you come from. You can’t change it. I shouldn’t have to (modify); it’s who I am. I can still do the job just as well as someone else can who speaks posher. The children will still learn. It makes absolutely no difference.

From this excerpt, it is suggested that T10 has a very personal dilemma, illustrative of divided loyalties regarding her accent. On the one hand, her negative feelings towards her accent emanate from societal perceptions (e.g. broad northern accents can sometimes be regarded as ‘common’), but certainly not from within herself. This is seen with the fact that, despite such awareness, T10 nonetheless seeks to have the courage to use her accent in teaching. Even though her accent’s connotations of perhaps being common might, to her mentor, be regarded as inappropriate for the teaching profession, T10’s pronunciation is indicative merely of her regional origins and not of her intellectual capacity. While T10’s feelings of how others might respond to her accent (e.g. in job interviews) are merely perceptions, Edwards (2011:12) has argued that ‘perceptions are, in fact, social reality’. For T10, her reality is confirmed by the negative comments made regarding an accent she celebrates but believes that others might not, notably those in authority. Given that her accent is described as reflecting who she is, this essentialist perspective suggests that to modify her accent based on someone else’s directive is indeed modifying her personal identity and a means to perhaps lose some of it in the process. T10 admitted that the modification ‘had affected’ her identity and, as with other teachers, it is based on having to be more consciously aware of how she is speaking as opposed to what she is saying. I  had argued that very often a key aspect of an identity perceived as true is a lack of any need to give it much thought – instead, we can use language without a need to consider it in terms of how we actually sound, how our language is perceived and whether or not it is ‘good’ enough. However, none of this is relevant to an identity whose linguistic make-up is forced by a mentor and this would help explain why it has an impact on T10’s personal identity – it is arguably based on the fact that her professional identity is somewhat unnatural and requires so much conscious thought and attention in its linguistic output.

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

147

T18 is from the east midlands and thus describes herself as having a midlands accent. She teaches in the south at the primary level and described her mentor as speaking RP. She cited a specific incident which involved her mentor’s comment regarding the need for T18 to modify her accent: I have been told that if I want to teach phonics it would be ‘best to go back to where I come from’, and if I ‘refused’ to do that, I would need to use my teaching assistant to teach certain sounds that are different  – e.g. the ‘u’ sound in umbrella, or the long ‘a’ sound in grass (in the South) . . . I was quite affronted by the comment to ‘go back to where I came from’ as it was made in front of my whole seminar group, and I felt it was a little unnecessary.

First, there is a clear linguistic divide between north and south, which was mentioned earlier. It is referenced above in T18’s account with regard to two specific vowels, with the differences heard in her pronunciation of bath/bus: / baɵ/ /bʊs/; instead, she was told to use the southern pronunciation: /bɑ:ɵ/ /bʌs/. I have argued that reductions in speech and phonemes that, in specific contexts, are linguistic giveaways for certain regional accents, are two main factors with regard to societal notions of non-standard accents. Let us consider this further. The northern realization of words such as bus and umbrella would involve the use of the following phoneme in the u-slot, [ʊ]. As used in such words, it is indeed a dead giveaway, among others, for northern speakers. However, this is not to say this phoneme does not exist at all in southern speech, as this is not the case. For example, the word foot would be realized in both north and south thus: /fʊt/, or if realized with a more broad accent, /fʊʔ/. Clearly, then, this is not a ‘northern phoneme’ as such. The issue, however, concerns its placement in northern speech, which, in this case, distinguishes it from southern speech and, in doing so, clearly marks it as a northern sound, to an extent. In this sense, its unique placement marks it as northern and thus, marked as being ‘not southern’ and, more to the point, with T18’s mentor being an RP speaker, such usage would clearly not be reflective of a more prestigious accent, such as RP. Regarding the short-a sound, there are two considerations. First, its association with the north might be a clear factor, as it is thus regarded as a linguistic symbol of the more negative connotations of the north of England. However, given that it represents a reduction of sorts, this might also be a factor in it being, as is in this case, stigmatized for phonics teaching to southern children. On the other hand, the phoneme [ɑ:] is held comparatively longer in speech and thus, any reduced forms of this phoneme (i.e. going from [ɑ:] to [ɑ] to [a]) might be

148

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

seen negatively, assuming certain contexts of communication of course, such as teacher training in a southern university. The second issue, and one perhaps more immediate for T18, concerns the nature of her mentor’s comment. While relevant details such as the mentor’s tone and body language are unknown, and which could help to better understand how she intended her comments to be taken, it is nonetheless clear that T18 did not receive them well and was, in fact, offended. Given that the comment to ‘go back’ to one’s home region was made in front of the seminar group, this played a part in its negative reception. However, from the mentor’s point of view, perhaps it was seen as a fair, if blunt, comment, designed to alert T18, and perhaps others, that there is indeed an expected standard for phonics teaching in the south and in the mentor’s view, this means a default to southern pronunciation. This example alone is another rationale for why standards might need to be put in place, or some kind of clarification as to what the linguistic reality is for British teachers and also what their linguistic rights are (or at the very least, a discussion would be useful as to whether or not we need to have a subsequent debate about establishing the linguistic reality for British teachers in training). But for the mentor, her notional standard is, for all intents and purposes, the standard. So what does this mean if we consider this on a broader scale perhaps? Must northern/midlands-accented teachers default to southern pronunciation, certainly if teaching phonics in the south? Is the opposite case also true? At present, we have no information on this point, and yet, with potentially more examples of this occurring in teacher training in Britain, there is a need to clarify linguistic matters once and for all, or at least begin to do so. T18 did, however, provide the mentor’s justification for this modification, explaining that ‘it would be difficult for the children to understand what I was saying and may confuse them more, hence the need for the teaching assistant’. Granted, but do directives have to be made in such a blunt manner? Having said that, T18 explained that the relationship with her mentor is ‘positive’ and this is indicative of what otherwise might have been an off-colour comment in an otherwise good relationship. However, is northern pronunciation really a barrier to southern children’s learning of phonics? Or is the issue, partly at least, tied to a fear that southern children will end up sounding like northern children? To this question, I can only guess the answer. However, it is a fair question to raise, and one tied to issues of potential linguistic preference (or prejudice). It is extremely unlikely, however, that a teacher or mentor would admit to disliking certain accents to fellow staff outside of an otherwise private conversation perhaps. Thus, to instruct a teacher to modify his/her accent, a more ‘official’ and entirely objective rationale is needed in the context of teacher training.

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

149

In response to modification, however, T18 told me the following, regarding her own intentions on the matter: I do not intend to change my accent purely for teaching, as the children are still able to understand me but I will potentially still use my teaching assistant for certain phonics lessons.

This response suggests that first, T18 intends to retain her accent for teaching outside of phonics as opposed to attempting to sound southern for the duration of the classroom. Second, as she might ‘still’ use her teaching assistant, she implies that she is already doing so, in regard to having someone from the local area demonstrate phonics. If this is the case, then T18 perhaps regards the imposed identity suggested by her mentor as one that would be forced and, potentially, fraudulent. In this case, T18 is perhaps standing her linguistic ground by refusing to adopt southern pronunciation for phonics teaching and instead taking the option of having someone else, presumably a native of the region, do it. T18 provided a final comment which supports the idea that the modification directives of her mentor would equate to a forced identity: I feel that if I modified my accent it would impact on my personal identity, as I am not ashamed of the fact that I am from Leicester, and I feel some people’s comments imply I should be. I use quite a lot of words that are fairly specific to Leicester (e.g. mardy, cob, etc.) and I would not want to change this, as it would feel forced. I am careful not to use these words in school, as I try to speak a little better in school anyway, but at home I feel like I’m entitled to speak as myself!

T18 makes it clear that a modified accent would impact on her identity because it would serve to remove phonemes that contribute to her identity as someone from the midlands, a regional identity that she is proud of. The reference to people’s comments, which perhaps include those of her mentor, is indicative of a negative reaction, regardless of how it is intended, regarding T18’s accent. The fact that it is her mentor’s directive to modify her accent, and that T18 does not agree, equates to making a modified accent part of what would become a forced identity. Therefore, T18 does not regard her personal identity as necessarily incompatible for the professional identity of the classroom and part of this might also have to do with the blunt comments made in this regard. This again shows how the personal and professional identities might involve linguistic differences in their construction, but the perception of a need to dilute one’s personal accent also means dilution of one’s personal identity for some, one that is otherwise celebrated. Thus, the need to strengthen one’s professional identity by means of ‘weakening’ one’s personal identity is a clear issue for T18.

150

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

A particularly negative account of what was wholly interpreted as linguistic prejudice is provided by T20, a teacher with a self-described ‘quite strong’ south London accent, who teaches secondary art. T20 referred to her mentor as ‘professionally selfish’ and this was a comment made on the basis of what T20 perceived to be a professional identity that the mentor sought to force on her in an extreme sense. T20 explained that ‘it was definitely the case that I had to do what he said’. T20 had actually referenced two particular mentors. One was her mentor in her most recent placement at a state school in a middle-class area in Gloucestershire, and the one before was actually a Training Manager (TM) in her first placement at an independent boarding school, also in Gloucestershire. In terms of language use, T20 references more than accent, including the use of dialect and what could be considered a rather informal register for teaching, certainly in the mind of both mentor and TM. However, the TM, being from Croydon, as is T20, was referred to positively. T20 explained that based on this shared regional identity, the two of them had ‘bonded over that’. Nonetheless, her TM had cautioned T20 on her language use, which went beyond accent and also included dialectal usage and what was considered to be an informal register for school, with the TM described as having a ‘middle-class accent’. From my previous discussion, this might refer to a mid-accent, one still understood as deriving from London in this case, yet not involving pronunciation, such as glottal stops, which would render it ‘broad’, or, as T20 puts it, ‘strong’. I was told by my TM to watch out for my ‘sarcasm’ and ‘banter’ which was put on to a formal observation form. I explained afterwards that they were colloquialisms quite normal in South London and not either ‘sarcasm’ or ‘banter’. However, she felt that within the school confines as it was an independent school it could be deemed inappropriate by senior management and parents.

This is the only reference to the type of school made by any of the participants. Here, we see that at an independent boarding school, the connotations of T20’s language use may indeed have been regarded as inappropriate, though not so for T20 herself. Here is another, perhaps more explicit example of how a teacher’s personal identity, one so tied up with her region of origin and the language used there, is deemed wholly incompatible for the teaching context. T20 stated that even though she and her TM shared a place of origin and presumably familiarity with its regional language use, ‘due to the school I think she (the TM) played it safe’.

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

151

What might the linguistic expectations be for independent schools? In this day and age would broad, regional accents be regarded as inappropriate somehow for the teachers, if not the students? From my most recent study which I referred to previously (Baratta, 2017), the teaching staff at the private school agreed that the students’ accents, as well as that of the staff, were ‘neutral’, even ‘standard’, though still tied to the Manchester area. This notional standard has been discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and perhaps it is not surprising that some parents may indeed have expectations for teachers’ language use – here, accent – in fee-paying and/or independent schools. To what extent should teachers be expected to rid themselves of personal language use for such schools, if not schools in general? T20 explained her take on her language use in the context of an independent school thus: I felt that I  brought a bit of reality to an independent boarding school that allowed the students to experience different people from different backgrounds. I was a bit taken aback by the comment (from the TM) but as she wasn’t in the art department that much I  didn’t feel it was an issue and that I  should only change my accent when she was observing.

While T20’s TM perhaps did understand the use of language, so central to T20’s identity as a Croydon native, she regarded it part of her duty to advise her on the linguistic expectations of the school. This further implies that perhaps the TM had eradicated those aspects of her personal identity for the teaching context, making a clear demarcation between the personal and the professional. The relevant issue for T20’s situation is captured by what Rivera (2015) refers to as ‘caricaturing difference’. This refers to instances in which people exaggerate class differences between themselves and those who, in this case, wield power. However, a more controversial – and risky – strategy, which clearly pertains to T20, involves exaggeration of ‘nonelite interactional styles in order to fit into an easily digestible stereotype’ (263). In this case, by purposely using more localized forms of language (which include, but go beyond, her accent), T20 is perhaps trying to create the teacher identity which wishes to avoid notions of elitism, at least from a linguistic point of view and in doing so, she hopes to create an identity of someone who is ‘the real article’, precisely because she does not give in to linguistic expectations of the position. The example Rivera offers concerns a man from the southern United States, who, at an interview for a consulting firm, admitted to accentuating, in his own words, the ‘whole small town, country bumpkin thing’ (ibid.). One aspect of this was perhaps a dead giveaway – his accent, which he refused to change. This is

152

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

indeed risky, as negative stereotypes of the southern United States persist. While for this individual, pride in his southern roots might have been a factor in not wishing to modify his accent, it could be suggested that it was part of a larger strategy, which could be to project an identity of confidence precisely because he does not adjust his accent. This in turn could imply that his desire to keep it real is reflective of a self-confident mind and an individual who knows his worth, so why dilute it by modifying an accent which otherwise symbolizes his working-class southern roots? In terms of how he is perceived, it could range from charming to ‘violating the tenets of good polish’ (263). Rivera further references the notion of cultural capital and this is seen on one level by the use of linguistic capital. From T20’s TM’s point of view, her language did not fit her view of linguistic capital for the position of a teacher. T20 was not in agreement of course with regard to how her mentor perceived her language (he indeed regarded it as ‘violating tenets of good polish’), yet from T20’s perspective, the perception that she brought ‘reality’ to the students can be understood on two levels perhaps. First, her desire to retain her natural accent was in itself an act of being ‘real’, by virtue of not changing who she was. On a broader level, and as I have argued already, the linguistic reality beyond the school is that there is indeed a multitude of accents to be heard, from all walks of life, and T20 perhaps believes that the teachers should be a reflection of this linguistic reality, as opposed to modifying who they are by modifying their accents. However, the main problems were reported as being based on the relationship with her mentor. To get a sense of the language she used, which was the basis of the troubled relationship with her mentor, examples are provided from T20, who stated that her mentor felt that her accent was ‘too common’ and that her dialect and choice of words were ‘not acceptable for the professional workplace’. This may be as simple as saying ‘Aw man that work is well bangin’ which is an extreme version and acceptable as a normal phrase in South London. Through to me telling my mentor ‘hey man don’t stress’ was for him stepping over a line that I didn’t even know existed. He told me the parents wouldn’t like that way I sounded and would hide behind the teaching standard TS3 which states that teachers should ‘demonstrate an understanding of promoting high standards of literacy, articulacy and the correct use of standard English, whatever the teacher’s specialist subject’. He said that I cold [sic] never pass that standard as I couldn’t speak standard English. My accent and language doesn’t fit the criteria.

The Teachers’ Standards, which were referenced earlier in the book, provide the current linguistic guidance for trainee teachers. Based on the guidelines

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

153

set for language use, an argument could be clearly made against T20’s use of expressions such as ‘that work is well bangin’ (i.e. that work is very good). This is because it corresponds to grammatical rules that are non-standard, when standard English is the variety that is stipulated for all teachers to use, regardless of taught subject. Thus, even though T20 is an art teacher at the secondary level and phonics is not a relevant aspect of her position, she is still bound by the Teachers’ Standards. However, the standards say nothing about accent, yet the mentor is perhaps using key words such as ‘standard’, ‘literacy’ and ‘articulacy’ in order to justify the imposition of his own personal views as to what is appropriate language regarding register and accent. This was an issue I had referenced earlier in relation to the work of Millar (1997), namely that, in the absence of specific information regarding accent, it can be left to the mentor’s discretion to determine what an ‘articulate’ accent actually sounds like. Furthermore, if we consider the notion of articulate language, how exactly should we interpret this? Does this apply solely to accent, lexis, dialect or all of the above? At this stage, I ask the reader to apply his/her own standards as to which of the following expressions is deemed to be ‘articulate’, or not: I was considerably fatigued. I was very tired. I was knackered. I was well knackered. I were knackered. I were well knackered. I were bloody knackered.

It should be quite clear that I have used sentences which all express the same meaning, albeit to varying degrees of intensity (i.e. regarding the speaker’s level of tiredness), that also progress from a very formal standard version of English to the most (relatively speaking) informal version, seen with the use of a mild expletive. In between, we also have uses of non-standard English, reflecting a more local use of language in the Manchester area, certainly from what I  am used to hearing sometimes (i.e. I were). Deciding on what is or is not appropriate regarding a teacher’s language use (or here, what is/is not ‘articulate’) is not always straightforward. It might be the case that some teachers may indeed use dialect occasionally, as a means to reflect some of the students’ home language and thus, provide an opportunity for banter. Moreover, what if a teacher tells a student that his/her essay is ‘well good’ or ‘well bangin’? If these are expressions that the student is known to use, then might this otherwise marked form of

154

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

language be perceived positively, as a means to emphasize the teacher’s view that the essay is really good? Though perhaps an obvious context, and however micro level it might be, it is worth considering. If we consider the use of ‘considerably fatigued’, this might be seen as a form of hypercorrection, but also perfectly acceptable if the teacher is using such language as a means to be humorous, perhaps even self-mockery if the students feel his/her language is usually formal, to an extent. As for taboo language, including bloody, this may have a legitimate usage in classroom discussion or lecture. It is not for me, in fact, to suggest what is or is not ‘articulate’, given that no one can ever predict the myriad of communicative contexts that can exist, and suddenly manifest themselves at any given moment, in a classroom. Moreover, we are still no closer to a satisfactory definition of what articulate actually applies to. In my understanding, it applies more to register and clear enunciation; for others, however, it applies to any language use – including accent – that does not meet the standards for appropriate, professional teacher language (and again, whose standards are being applied?). We see that the mentor told T20 that she was not using standard English and that this was a judgement made based on her accent, as well as her vocabulary. However, as we know, there are no standards for accent in teacher training, but perhaps broad words such as ‘articulate’ can serve to act as lexical loopholes for mentors to insist on an accent which fits their criteria for professionalism. This appears to be the case with T20 as the mentor had told her that his rationale for accent change was based on the need to use a ‘professional’ accent; her mentor said nothing, however, regarding issues of intelligibility. The mentor had further provided more explicit directives on T20’s feedback sheet, provided as part of a classroom observation. At the bottom of the page is a list of developmental targets for T20 to consider as part of self-improvement. Aim to use specific learning language IN CLASS (+ OUT OF CLASS), (original emphasis)

The mentor had also provided T20 with two examples of what he felt constituted ‘learning language’. Specifically, he advised T20 to avoid ‘nice’ and ‘interesting’ and replace them with words such as ‘skilful’ and ‘positive’. This is a suggestion which appears to be beyond register and dialect and is instead focused on the use of words which are perhaps more descriptive and thus can help the students’ understanding of their academic work and progress. While there should be some leeway allowed, and expected, for the differing views that mentors (and teachers) might have regarding appropriate language use – here concerning the use of more descriptive lexis – we need to consider that accent

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

155

is a hot topic and in the absence of specific information on this matter, there can exist a battle of ideologies between teacher and mentor, as we have seen here. In terms of the mentor’s specific views regarding an ‘articulate accent’, T20 explained in more detail, including more information regarding her mentor’s overall displeasure with her word choices: He was very patronizing and tried everything to change my accent and colloquialisms that it was a conversation we would have every week. He really disliked my colloquialisms and deemed them unacceptable in the professional environment and he would argue using the term ‘professional language’. He would also write down words or terms I would use that were unacceptable and also asked me to write the word ‘water’ with a capital T so I  would remember to pronounce the T.

Clearly, the use of a glottal stop, which I have already argued as being a stigmatized feature (not inherently, but merely in certain social contexts), is raised as unprofessional. A  self-described ‘strong’ south London accent might tie in with the notion of a ‘broad’ accent and in order to make the accent more ‘general’ for the teaching context, the mentor has used a somewhat extreme measure to ensure this. This example would appear to illustrate what T20 considers to be her mentor’s ‘patronizing’ behaviour. As a result of this ongoing struggle between two very different linguistic ideologies, and by extension, identity conceptions, T20 experienced a personal crisis, detailed below: I struggled everyday with the feeling that I was never good enough. Not good enough to teach, not good enough in the work environment and not good enough to pass the course. I really didn’t like my time at that school . . . almost thankfully, I ended up becoming ill and was unable to continue my placement there and to be honest I was quiet [sic] grateful of that.

The comment above reflects what I referred to in Chapter 1 – the notion of cleft habitus. In this case, T20, though clearly desiring to be a successful teacher, is made to feel that in order to do so, she must leave her personal identity at the door each morning. For some, this might not be an issue, and indeed it is not an issue for some teachers in this study, with a personal identity willingly modified, through accent, in order to create the professional identity. For T20, however, her mentor’s comments left her feeling inadequate, perhaps questioning her ability to ever be able to fully access the teaching profession, yet not comfortable with having to remove a vital aspect of her personal identity as a means to do so.

156

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

A final comment provided by T20 serves to summarize her feelings regarding her accent, the variety which includes a glottal stop and by extension, involves the use of dialectal phrases: I am very proud I  am from Croydon, from the ‘ghetto’ as the kids call it and consequently, I am proud of my accent and my colloquialisms that are native to Croydon. I felt that he (the mentor) was trying to modify my identity when I think that it adds to my teaching. I can very easily relate to students and I have gained great professional relationships through my teaching and it is because I speak differently to their normal teachers. It’s because I sound more like them. I am not sure why my mentor in my previous placement was on such a crusade to change me but in the end it just made me feel sad for the students at his school and how they are unable to experience diversity through accents here in the UK.

While T20 references a need to have diversity reflected in the classroom, in this case a reference to linguistic diversity, I have included her responses within the subcategory of linguistic pride. This is because, overall, her repeated references to her celebration of her local language use serves to strongly suggest that her rationale for wishing to retain her personal accent is indeed based on linguistic, and regional, pride; this is the main issue for her. However, connotations of ‘ghetto-speech’ might not bode well for a largely middle-class student body. On the other hand, we read how T20’s personal accent also served to make her ‘different’. This could be a veiled reference to teachers who have modified their broad accents for the classroom, with T20 perhaps being afforded a degree of respect for not wishing to do so (and as she mentioned earlier, choosing not to do so when not under observation). The word ‘normal’ being used to refer to other teachers is interesting; this might suggest that T20 is not the ‘norm’ for wishing to retain her personal accent, while also implying that it is perhaps the norm in teaching to otherwise do so. In other words, is a ‘normal’ accent (i.e. modified) in this context the relative standard? T20 references the building of relationships with her students based on the fact that she sounds like them. While it is unknown if this refers to the placements she mentions or not, clearly she has experience of teaching students with similar accents and, by sounding as they do, they can arguably relate to her more. This raises three points, the first two of which have been discussed but I revisit them here. First, what is it that makes accents desirable? In this case, what is it about T20’s London accent that makes her students apparently warm up to her and, in

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

157

doing so, helps to build rapport? Beyond the obvious answer of having a shared accent, I turn again to the phonological make-up of a given accent. I have argued that we may indeed like/dislike certain accents on the basis of the specific sounds and the phonological contexts in which these sounds occur. Second, and what I believe to be a more substantial point, is that it is arguably the connotations of the accent that serve to ultimately attach labels to the speaker, irrespective of whether we actually like the sound of the accent or not. In this case, T20’s accent, with its use of a glottal stop, might be favourable to some students based on the glottal stop symbolizing a shared regional background and also based on the connotations that they might have of London. This depends on who’s doing the listening, however. For some Americans, any given British accent might induce visions of royalty and culture; for T20’s mentor, however, he may have likened her accent to negative images, such as being from the inner city, a lack of social bearing and the like. However, a third point concerns a deeper image that may be ascribed to speakers based on their accent, one that goes beyond its specific phonemes or the connotations that the accent has. A reason why T20 believes that she has been able to build good relationships with her students might also be tied to the connotations of a teacher who has chosen not to modify her accent, at least when she’s not being observed. In cases such as this, it is possible for the interlocutors, be they students or otherwise, to move beyond their phonetic likes and dislikes, and to even go beyond the connotations of the accent, whether good or bad. Instead, listeners might find themselves attracted to the speaker by virtue of the fact that he/she has otherwise not chosen to modify his/her accent for a context in which it might otherwise be expected. That is, by using her (strong) personal accent in a professional role, it might help to send the message that T20 is saying ‘This is my accent, and it’s me’. Perhaps respect can be built for such individuals based on the fact that they are not afraid to be who they are linguistically speaking and, as a result, might be ascribed positive attributes such as being honest, unpretentious and confident. This could likewise encourage students to just ‘be themselves’, in the realization that their accents won’t be proscribed, unlike the students in Brady’s (2015) study discussed earlier. A final mention of the lack of diversity with regard to the directive to remove the more localized features from one’s accent is also mentioned, and by no means as a mere side note. As we have seen, this sentiment played a more prominent part for the teachers referred to in the previous section and T20 is also aware of this perceived need – to reflect the linguistic diversity that exists in the outside world. However, for T20, a clear pride in her regional origins, best exemplified

158

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

in her otherwise unmodified language use, including accent, is the key driving force with regard to the reason why accent modification, amid a particularly negative experience with her mentor, is met with resentment.

A desire to ‘keep it real’ The first six teachers in this category – T1–T6 – represent the six teachers whose accounts were part of my initial study in 2014, which collected the views of ninety-two British individuals regarding their thoughts on accent modification. For these six teachers, and the two whose accounts follow (T25 and T32), the collective response to their negativity towards accent modification, whether chosen by themselves or by others, is based on a perception that they are not being true to themselves. The feeling is one of compromising a specific aspect of their regional identity to appease others, when in fact their identity, via their accent, is something they celebrate, or certainly do not feel ashamed about. While linguistic pride arguably applies to all teachers in this research, for some it is this pride that causes them to display a reluctance to modify their accent. T1 explained the following regarding how his accent shapes his identity: At university I  think my accent marks me out as working-class. In my mind, I hope it signals that I’m straightforward, that I’m a hard-worker. I left school with no qualifications and worked in factories for a few years and I think this has made me more practically minded than many people at university. I’m proud to have had to work hard for a living and this is part of the identity signalled through my accent when I’m at university.

Class-based assumptions can often be attributed to British accents, in this case more broad accents being associated with working classes, which is something T1 seems to hope for. In other words, his personal connotations regarding what might be perceived as a ‘working-class accent’ signal positive attributes, such as being hard working, which itself is a reflection of his varied career experiences before entering academia. However, a change in career does not equate to a change in accent for T1. Though the six teachers who participated in study one responded to the research via a questionnaire, I  had met T1 at a conference, at which point I discussed my study with him. In terms of his own accent, T1 demonstrated monophthongs common to the north of England, as heard in, for example, J-Lo, realized as /dʒe: lo:/ and not, say, /dʒeɪ loʊ/. Moreover, he also had a rhotic

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

159

accent, which, as with the Bristolian teacher referred to in Chapter  2, is the exception in England. After T1 gave his conference presentation, he asked if the audience had any questions. However, he stipulated that if there were questions, audience members must speak with T1’s accent. This raised a few giggles, and T1was not completely serious, but he had used this directive of sorts to raise his point – no one should be told how to speak by someone else (in this case, being told to modify their accent). The incident that T1 was perhaps referring to when he told others to speak like him was revealed in his questionnaire response to my research, an incident that T1 described as ‘emotive’. This took place within his interview for a PGCE (Post Graduate Certificate in Education) in English: A couple of minutes into the interview, the man interviewing me said he was stopping the interview. He told me that I was applying for a job teaching English but I wasn’t speaking it properly myself! He said no one would give me a job if I couldn’t speak Standard English because headmasters would be afraid that the pupils would go home and complain to their parents that the man teaching English couldn’t teach it himself! I  was boiling up with anger, partly because I had a sociolinguistic degree and I knew more about accents and dialects than the man lecturing me, and partly because I’d worked all over the country with senior managers and my accent had never been raised as a problem.

The response of the interviewer to T1’s accent might, on the one hand, be considered a clear case of accentism. However, is this necessarily the case? Arguably, even though British accents are not a protected category, it is highly unlikely that within a professional context it would be acceptable to blatantly attack someone for their accent, along the lines of I hate your accent. Nonetheless, to suggest someone is not speaking English properly due to his/her accent is a strong claim. However, the interviewer appears to justify his remarks by making a reference to the potential reality concerning students’ parents, who perhaps have their own linguistic ideologies. This clash between a teacher’s values and those of the senior staff member echo the situation with T20, whose accent was for her a symbol of proud regional identity, and served, in her mind, to make her more ‘real’ and even approachable. In her case, and the case for T1, however, a broad accent is regarded by those in authority as not being appropriate for the educational context. In response to the interviewer’s comments, T1 continued the interview with a more ‘suitable’ accent. It is unclear what this means from a phonological point of view, though T1 suggests that his original accent involved h-dropping, which

160

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

has been reported across Britain for hundreds of years (Baranowski & Turton, 2015). This was suggested given that T1’s modified accent led to hypercorrection, as he explained that he found himself ‘adding aitches where they didn’t belong’! T1’s use of the word ‘standard’, however, appears to be yet another reference to some kind of notional mindset regarding British accents, or indeed merely a more general version of his otherwise everyday accent. Perhaps the term was used by the interviewer, which again raises the issue that, in the absence of official standards for accent in Britain, there nonetheless appear to be de facto standards. T1 then went on to explain what was said, and agreed upon, by the end of the interview: At the end of the interview, the interviewer discussed my accent and said that I’d have to ‘correct’ my pupils if they spoke like me. By then, I’d lost respect for the man and I deliberately lied to him and told him I wouldn’t have a problem doing that. On my way home I felt disgusted in myself for attempting to appease the man’s bigotry – but I felt like it was something I had to do to get on his course.

Here we can again see negative consequences for modifying to someone else’s standard, when the speaker otherwise wishes to retain an accent for which the connotations reflect issues of personal pride but for others they reflect an accent deemed unprofessional for academia. T1 concluded his reflection: I did get a place on his course and over the summer, I wrote a 10,000 word article in justification of allowing pupils to keep their own accents and dialects. I gave it to him on the first day of the course and over the next year I had many arguments with him about this but was never able to convince him of my standpoint.

Clearly, T1 feels as passionate about his position as the interviewer appears to feel about his. T1 also references dialect, however, for which of course there is a standard – standard English. To deviate from this within the classroom (i.e. by lecturing in dialect) is against the current Teachers’ Standards. However, T1 feels that there is a case to be made for the use of dialect in education, though he did not specify further. It may well be that many teachers do teach dialect in the classroom, including at the primary level, as this too is a reflection of exposure to diverse forms of language use and arguably an important aspect of reflecting diversity in Britain, something which some of the teachers in this chapter feel applies to pedagogy but not to their own accents. However, in the absence of official standards for accent, for students or teachers, then might T1 have a stronger case in his argument for linguistic diversity?

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

161

T1’s example is perhaps, along with T20, one of the more explicit of what is perceived to be linguistic prejudice. The need to be understood by one’s students, especially if teaching phonics, is perhaps uncontroversial. However, the interviewer suggests that certain accents in Britain are perhaps still favoured over others within educational (and other) contexts, with some, then, being disfavoured. T2 was the only trainee in study one and is not already established in the field of teaching. Her response to the questionnaire is therefore a reflection of what might be considered an identity that is in progress as a teacher. T2 recognizes the need to be understood as a teacher, referencing the need to speak with a ‘proper accent’, itself a loaded term, but also quite vague, given that T2 does not mention specific examples of such and also discusses her accent in terms of dialect at times, which is not the same: My accent and the ability to speak standard English is very important to me as I am training to become a primary school teacher therefore being able to pass on my skills of being able to speak standard English is vital.

T2’s statement would perhaps appear to be uncontroversial, given that standard English is the prescribed form of the English language to be used in education, in terms of grammar. As we know, however, it can be spoken in any accent. What is meant by T2’s reference to a ‘proper’ accent is unknown, but it again suggests perhaps a modified version of her own Mancunian accent, coupled with standard English grammar. T2 went further to help explain her additional rationale for linguistic modification: If I  feel I  am speaking in ‘slang’ terms with people who are speaking better English and in a more professional accent than I am then I feel conscious as to change/modify my accent.

Clearly, T2 is aware of what she deems to be a more acceptable accent in what might be professional settings, but this has nothing to do with slang, however that is defined. It might be tempting to consider slang as incompatible with accents deemed to be ‘professional’ or ‘proper’, yet there is nothing to suggest that an RP speaker could not use dialect (though perhaps unlikely) and an individual with a broad accent could not use standard English. However, the broader issue appears to be tied up with societal notions of professional speech, certainly for a classroom environment. In this case, as a future teacher, T2 wishes to remove all traces of speech for her classroom identity that might be considered ‘unprofessional’.

162

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

T2 went on to explain thus: Just feeling conscious about the way you are speaking sometimes makes me feel like I need to speak better English/with a proper accent.

The notions of ‘proper accent’ and ‘professional accent’ strongly suggest that T2 is aware that specific accents carry specific connotations, both positive and negative. Though it is unknown which accent(s) she perceives thus, it can be argued that T2 is aware of the need to be perceived positively, especially as a future teacher, and her accent is an aspect of constructing a professional teacher identity. While her changes to language use are not reported to be the result of a mentor’s advice, T2 nonetheless reports on the implications for her personal identity when she modifies her language: Sometimes I feel phony about this but like I said, I feel like this is important for my further practice as a teacher. However, I don’t feel it affects my personal identity, because I am who I am, nevertheless what accent I have.

From this response, T2 implies that there is no conflict between her personal identity (i.e. that which can be broadly designated as the ‘non-teaching identity’) and her teaching identity. A  feeling of ‘phoniness’ seems to be an occasional issue, but one secondary to her need to be understood and to be perceived in a professional light. Thus, the response of T2 is somewhat unique in that while she feels phony, this does not seem to ultimately impact on her personal identity; she is still the same person. Nonetheless, her response does raise the question concerning why she perceives herself to be phony if she otherwise appears to have harmony between herself as an individual outside the classroom and herself as an individual inside the classroom. Perhaps T2 simply reflects a desire to not feel a need to modify her language use for teaching given the attention this might require yet, overall, we can see that she takes an otherwise pragmatic response to this practice – it is based on a need to present herself as professional. In this case, T2 might be said to have somewhat conflicted feelings on the matter, but feelings that appear to be in favour of being linguistically professional, as opposed to retaining her otherwise personal accent. T3 teaches at a northern university, yet is originally from Glasgow. She admits to modification of her accent, albeit from two perspectives – ‘toning it down’ and sometimes making it stronger: It has become something of an in-joke with Scottish friends and we facebook and text one another . . . speaking as broadly as possibly when in front of English people, e.g. in the pub.

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

163

This is a reflection of a personal identity, one of many. In this case, the personal identity is that of a friend, more specifically a shared identity of being Scottish. Here, then, we can see an intersection between the realization of a personal identity based on one’s region of origin and yet, the personal identity being reinforced by a shared membership as part of a larger social group. While in Scotland, perhaps T3 regards herself first as a Glaswegian, yet in England sees herself from perhaps a more broadly defined category – Scottish. This is implied by referring to her friends as Scottish, without any particular reference to their city of origin. Furthermore, we may consider the context of a pub, in which there is perhaps the expectation of relaxing and ‘having a laugh’. In this case, accentuating her Glasgow accent is perhaps a means to share a joke with Scottish friends, in this case at the ‘expense’ of English people. Here we see a playful side to T3, as she suggests that she enjoys the potential to confuse interlocutors, initially at least, by using a stronger version of her otherwise ‘everyday accent’. This is an example of accent modification that she practices of her own free will and, as I have argued, a lack of free will, real or perceived, regarding one’s accent usage is precisely what can lead to feelings of fraudulence. However, T3 explains a different scenario for her accent within professional contexts: I have also done radio interviews and realized how terrible my Glaswegian glottal stop sounded . . . therefore I have tried to pronounce my t’s more by making myself repeat ‘it’s all gone utterly butterly in Bolton’.

We see yet again a reference to what may be one of the most stigmatized reductions in British speech  – the glottal stop  – with reductions in general argued to be a linguistic feature which have connotations, in professional contexts, of being inappropriate. Nonetheless, we must consider the vast array of contexts; ‘contexts within contexts’, as it were. For example, while a radio interview represents a professional context if being interviewed on the basis of one’s academic expertise, discussing policy with policymakers in London is surely nothing less than professional. However, in this context, T3 admitted to making her accent broader: When speaking with London policymakers, I sometimes get a little chippy, shall we say, and play up my accent.

Though T3 did not specify the topics of discussion with policymakers, it is suggested that in this context, one much different from that of a pub, a stronger version of her accent can help to act as a marked form. In conjunction with the

164

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

word ‘chippy’, meaning defensive, this accent modification can perhaps serve to reinforce such a persona, which would not be out of place when arguing with those from an opposing side regarding national policies. In other words, rather than modify her accent to one less Glaswegian, T3 chooses instead in this context to ‘play it up’, thus helping to construct, on a linguistic level, a persona of defiance and strength, reflective perhaps of caricaturing difference (Rivera, 2015). In other words, she does not feel a need to modify her accent to one less pronounced. Instead, she makes it stronger so those on the opposing side of her argument must modify their listening, as it were, should they find it difficult to understand her initially. Thus, by using a marked form of language perhaps, she is positioning herself as a nonconformist, which is logical to the extent that she is engaged in a debate and presumably does not wish to renounce her position. For radio interviews, however, perhaps a modified accent serves to help the listeners understand her better and crucially, with only her accent available for people to form an opinion of her, perhaps it is more relevant for T3 in that context to modify her accent so that her voice, and herself, are not stigmatized by the listening public, based on the negative perceptions of the Glasgow accent (Coupland & Bishop, 2007; Braber & Butterfint, 2008). Here, then, are two identities T3 creates via accent use. The first might be considered as a purely personal identity, one based on shared friendship with fellow Scottish individuals and an identity deployed as a performative act – here, to ‘perform’ an enhanced Scottish identity via an enhanced accent, and for purposes of humour. The second identity also relies on a stronger accent, but in this context it is a means to signal defiance, based on being on opposing sides of a given debate. However, the conflict that T3 refers to is indeed based on a desire to retain her accent, amid acknowledgment of the negative stereotypes that exist: The Glaswegian accent sometimes, I  think, can make you sound stupid . . . I work in an educational environment where one is expected to speak clearly. I guess that I am frightened of my accent making me sound stupid . . . I have always worked in jobs where you have to speak a lot.

T3 is aware, then, of the negative connotations of her accent, whether perceived or real, and in the context of work – here, teaching – she is clearly uncomfortable with being perceived in a negative light in a profession for which we would arguably expect teachers to be ‘educated’. This can apply to the ways in which language is used and as a result, considering the negative connotations of the Glasgow accent in particular, T3 wishes to avoid such when lecturing. It

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

165

is suggested, then, that a desire to sound ‘educated’ (i.e. to not sound ‘stupid’) is behind her decision to tone down her accent when teaching in university. I do it (modify) because of my work. Does it affect my sense of self? Well, I’m sure that you will find this to be a common answer: when I go home I’m teased about being posh and English. Yet, when I am in England, this is far from the truth. It makes you feel like you don’t really have a place anymore. I feel a bit of a phony about this.

From this response, T3, though aware of her regional roots, feels less connected to them now perhaps, based on the need to modify the aspect of herself which is arguably a dead giveaway to her Glasgow origins – her accent. Though a modified Glasgow accent would still be perceived as Scottish by English individuals, T3 is aware of how she believes she should sound, given her background. This is a practice she does not seem to enjoy, and it perhaps contributes to a sense of a diluted self or, as she puts it, not having a place anymore and feeling like a ‘phony’. In terms of what this means from a purely phonological point of view, she references her glottal stops. Again, however, T3 makes it clear that such modification is based on avoiding negative perceptions in the context of teaching, and not on any inherent personal dislike of her accent, one she describes as ‘thick Glaswegian’. She further summarized the relationship between her accent and personal identity thus: ‘I can’t get away from it, I’m Scottish and my accent gives it a way [sic]’. Finally, however, T3 also admitted the need to be understood in the classroom as a more practical rationale for her modification, echoing T2’s rationale for modification also. When responding to why she does this, T3 replied succinctly – ‘Why – students don’t understand what I am saying’. She then went on to explain that this can be a real issue and one separate from negative perceptions some might have of her accent. Immediately after explaining that she feels a phony, she then told me the following: On the other hand, people struggle with differences in dialect. It takes me some time to understand north-eastern England (Geordie) and Northern Irish accents to be fair.

Overall, then, there are two reasons for T3 to modify her accent to what might be described as one less broad (though dialect, as she references, would imply more than just accent). First, to ensure that she is understood in her role as a university lecturer, a reason for which she implies she harbours no particular resentment. Second, T3 tries to sound less broad because she seems to fear

166

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

the negative perceptions that her largely English student body might have of her if she did not. It is such perceptions, and the desire to avoid them, that can make individuals feel as if agency is lacking in their accent use. Thus, a desire to appear more ‘educated’, by weakening an accent which T3 takes pride in, can lead to the perception of being fraudulent. T4 is also a university lecturer, from the Manchester area (specifically, the city of Stockport just south of Manchester), and he described the link between how he sees himself and his accent in great detail: My accent is very much a part of my identity. This includes being a northerner and also being working class. Although I do modify my accent, I actually like my accent – which I prefer to think of as a dialect. Many people see my dialect as just laziness, but I don’t see it like that at all – I am perfectly capable of speaking clear English, but speaking in my dialect connects me to a class and community identity. I live on a council estate (i.e. government-provided housing) and although I wouldn’t say I feel ‘pride’ about that, I do feel like the social value of people who live on council estates has been greatly diminished over recent years, so I feel it’s important to connect my identity – which includes accent – with my achievements. Also, as a working class academic I feel that it’s important to show that working class people aren’t stupid, therefore, although I might change some of the things about the way I speak when at university – such as not swearing and speaking more clearly – I never modify my accent to make it ‘posher’ there. I am who I am.

Several issues are raised from T4’s discussion. First, there is a keen sense of pride in his accent. This is based on an earlier comment he made when describing his accent as ‘Stockport’. Though this is south of Manchester, he explained that ‘people always assume that it’s “Manchester”, but they (the two accents) are different’! T4’s use of an exclamation mark serves to reinforce his viewpoint that the two accents, though similar, are different in his opinion and this in turn reinforces his identity based on being from Stockport, and not Manchester. This implies that he does not want to be placed in the larger sociolinguistic group of ‘Mancunians’ and wishes to be recognized as a native of Stockport instead, with this more specific regional pride tied to his accent. This linguistic pride is also based on T4’s desire to ‘upgrade’ his accent to a dialect. As dialect is based on regional usage of grammar and lexis, perhaps T4 uses this word to suggest that his language use cannot be realized solely by accent alone and instead involves a much larger repertoire. For example, his suggestion that taboo language is part of his personal linguistic identity ties in with a previous comment by Garrett (2010:14) regarding not only the ‘vibrancy’ of regional

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

167

varieties of language, but also the ‘toughness’. T4 concedes of course that to some interlocutors, his accent equates to ‘laziness’; to him, it is a badge of identity. Furthermore, the notion of laziness might also be a reflection once again of the negative stigma attached to reduced forms of language, thus a potential reflection more of T4’s accent per se. A second point made by T4 is that his personal identity is one which is also forged from group identity. In this case, his identity is based with those who share it, an identity grounded in working-class culture and also being from the north of England. Though speculative, it could be said that though he is a university lecturer, T4 is still very much aware of his roots and these have not been abandoned by his success in academia. Thus, he is not resorting to abandoning, via such specific accent change, his core sense of self, which is clearly not based on being posh and for T4, ‘working class academic’ is not an oxymoron. Finally, as with T3, T4 is aware of the negative connotations of his northern accent, seen with the aforementioned comment of ‘laziness’ regarding other people’s perceptions. This is further seen with the comment of ‘stupid’ – a reference to how T4 believes the working class as a whole are perhaps regarded, with his accent a symbol of such origins. As with T2, T4 also eludes to ‘speaking more clearly’, which implies that there are accents regarded as ‘clear’. This is a comment which raises more questions than it answers, however. Is a more regional accent inherently more ‘unclear’ than, say, RP? To some, the answer might be ‘yes’, but I argue that no accent is inherently easier to understand than another. Rather, it is a case of being exposed to certain accents more than others that might make some easier to follow and for T4 and his community, the local Stockport accent is not in any way ‘unclear’. Given that his personal language use – his idiolect – is indeed referenced in terms of dialect as well as accent, however, this might approach the subject of linguistic clarity from a new perspective, by the use of words which are tied to a given area and by definition are not used nationwide. In academia, perhaps the expectation is that teachers should use lexis which are tied to the country as a whole and are thus more ‘general’. What this might mean from an accent-based perspective is not made clear by T4. However, in phonological terms, making his speech more clear is perhaps based on eliminating features which others do not necessarily use in their own speech, such as glottal stops. A  telling point made by T4 came later:  ‘It’s just speaking more clearly – or rather, more clearly for the listener’ (emphasis mine). This is wholly suggestive of accommodating one’s language use for someone else’s benefit, and not, for example, because T4 perceives his accent to be in any way deficient.

168

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Nonetheless, T4 explains that he makes his accent ‘less broad’ in certain contexts, notably if ‘talking to someone in authority, or someone who has authority in a certain situation, such as my children’s teachers’. This specific modification is rationalized as a means to avoid negative judgements. This is not merely a judgment of being perceived as working-class but, as I have argued, it is the connotations which in themselves might be passed down to speakers perceived in this way. T4 explained, ‘If I’m talking to people in authority, I must feel on some level that they’ll take me less seriously if they think I’m common’. In this sense, it might be the case that T4 is concerned that an accent perceived as workingclass will in turn be judged negatively based on the negative attitudes that can exist towards the working classes; the use of the word ‘common’ is a reference to such. As we have seen, however, T4 does not regard himself in this manner and instead takes pride in his working-class origins, which he does not regard as a hindrance to his career as an academic. He suggests that he is afraid, however, that others might. As with T3, T4 also admits to making his accent stronger, explaining that ‘if I’m talking to people in shops in my area, my accent goes broader’. This is a linguistic means by which T4 is arguably ‘keeping it real’. As he believes that the social value of people on council estates has been diminished, one way to counter this is to perhaps retain – if not accentuate – a feature of this particular social identity, and this is accomplished linguistically. This sense of keeping it real with members of his local community is clearly a concern for T4, as he discussed this in more detail: If I’m talking to people who share the same accent as me, or the same social situation such as living on an estate, then my accent becomes much stronger, as does my use of slang and dialect. I think this is much more than just communication, much more than just ‘speaking the same lingo’, it’s about identity and community. It’s also about feeling more comfortable and being able to use swear words and slang, which I think are often overlooked as an important part of dialect and community/putting aside formal barriers.

Again, T4 references his personal language use, which is revealed on a deeper level when he is with others who share the same group identity. In this case, an identity forged by not merely living on a council estate, but what this represents in T4’s mind – the working classes. His language use is clearly more than just his accent but, as mentioned, also incorporates taboo language. For T4, his association of taboo language with the working classes is important. It serves to reveal their identity in that its usage is symbolic perhaps of putting aside airs and

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

169

graces, as it were, and instead using language which might be considered more ‘real’ and more ‘honest’. While for others it might be regarded as ‘bad’ language, or even a sign of ignorance, for T4 it acts as a symbol of being free from social constraints when with one’s friends, to the extent that using language otherwise considered taboo is seen as a legitimate means of communication. T4 further explains that there is another reason for his personal identity to fully reflect linguistic choices which signal his working-class origins; it is also a means by which he signals to the local community at home that he is indeed still the same person despite working in academia: I also think that as a successful person it’s very important that I don’t speak to other people in my community in a way that makes it seem like I’m ‘above’ others, because I don’t feel like that at all. I have a great job and I’m doing really well, and I’m also highly qualified, but my dialect lets people know that I’m still part of the same community and that I still respect it and don’t feel ‘above’ other people.

This reveals the desire T4 feels to still be the person that arguably is most personal to him: the working-class northerner. However, aware of the negative stereotypes that accompany class and region in Britain, perhaps T4 feels a need to please the other community which he is part of – the academic community. Herein lies the conflict, amid what is otherwise T4’s keen sense of regional, class and linguistic pride: At times, I do feel a bit phony – especially if I make my accent posher just to talk to someone who has some kind of authority. Nevertheless, next time I’m in that situation I will still do it again. I don’t think this has any effect on my sense of self, as it’s quite normal to alter behaviour to fit a particular situation, and I just see it in those terms. However, I  do think that on some level it’s sad that my proper accent would be considered far too common to fit in at the university, and so it is a bit of a denial of self to speak more ‘clearly’.

On the one hand, T4 expresses pride in his accent and what it represents for him – both his regional and class origins. However, he is aware of what it might mean to others and on this level, those in authority positions, such as senior staff, might perceive him as ‘stupid’. Indeed, his self-described title of ‘workingclass academic’ suggests that those in academia are not perceived to have come from working-class origins. Thus, while his response to modification seems quite neutral, as with T2 (e.g. ‘it’s quite normal to alter behaviour to fit a particular situation’), T4’s feelings of being ‘phony’, coupled with acknowledgement of

170

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

an accent he is proud of being perceived as too ‘common’ for university, suggest a resigned approach to the matter. Clearly, however, T4 does not wish to accept this. While T4 feels like a phony, his sense of self nonetheless remains intact. This suggests that he is very self-aware, in that he knows who he is regardless of accent change – he’s still aware of his roots and his current and continuous establishment of such, via his community where he lives and a desire to maintain bonds with members of the community. Clearly, however, he wishes he could maintain the same linguistic persona in and out of the university environment, but is well aware that the social effects of his ‘proper’ accent used at home (a sense of community, maintaining friendships, ‘keeping it real’) are perceived in academia as ‘common’, ‘stupid’ and ‘lazy’. A further point concerns T4’s use of quote marks around the word ‘clearly’, strongly indicating that he does not agree with this notion, and that it is once again for someone else’s benefit (and perhaps a word attributed to someone else). However, T4 offers another perspective of the apparent ‘mismatch’ of the terms ‘working class’ and ‘academic’, seen from the perspective of other people’s (linguistic) prejudice: Although I have to admit that I am also conscious of being a working class academic, and I make a point of that, partly by maintaining a Stockport accent, even if it is a bit modified. It’s important that students understand that just because someone is working class that doesn’t mean that they’re thick. I also like it when people read my work – my academic work – which I spend a lot of time crafting, and then some people simply cannot believe that I wrote it, because it is so different to how I normally speak. I take pleasure in that, because it highlights a real prejudice some people have about working class dialects.

T4 seems to have the last laugh of sorts, in that he refers to instances in which he believes that his ability to write a persuasive academic paper as part of his research duties ‘proves’ indeed that he is capable of doing so and, thus, that he is far from ‘thick’. It appears that for some it is not merely the accent being regarded as a marker of intelligence (or lack thereof), and the ability or not to therefore craft an academic paper. Moreover, it is suggested that his working-class speech is vastly different from the academic identity seen within his written language (see Ivanic, 1998). T4 suggests that the connotations of his speech are too strongly felt by some individuals to allow for his abilities in a more ‘academized’ language variety. T4 provides a final point regarding his home identity – the personal identity – interestingly by referring to the anecdote of coming home after a day at work:

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

171

When I come home to my children, my accent is at its most natural – sometimes if they wind me up I can hear myself, and how common I sound, and how I would fit right in on a show like Benefits Street. But I love my accent and I’m comfortable with it when I’m comfortable with who I’m with.

T4 references a British TV documentary called Benefits Street, which provides a window on working-class families in Britain who receive government support. Perhaps this is merely a self-deprecating comment, yet it indicates an individual who is indeed at peace with his personal identity referred to here – that of working class – and how it is realized through his accent. Thus, T4 celebrates his accent as a representation of a social background that he cherishes; yet, as he reports, he nonetheless feels that the professional identity involves accent modification which, while seen as a pragmatic response to the context of communication, nonetheless leaves him feeling like a ‘phony’. The fact that his accent is at its most natural in his home is a strong indicator of T4’s personal identity, one that is indeed natural largely by virtue of, as I have discussed, not being crafted based on a need to impress others or avoid negative perceptions. When he is with his family, we would expect language use to be natural and not be in need of conscious consideration for the most part. T5 is also a university lecturer. Like T4, she had much to share regarding the ways in which her region of origin – Barnsley (in northern England) – shapes her identity, both the personal identity and the one that she believes is ascribed to her by others: I don’t have a particularly strong Barnsley accent but the town and its mining history are well known across Britain so when I travel other people project an identity on to me which links to their perceptions of the area. I think that I have succumbed to this projected identity over the years and do feel that it is now a welcome part of my identity.

Though it is unclear what her projected identity is in more concrete terms, other than a reference to Barnsley’s coal mining history, T5 seems to welcome this. She also references the fact that identity works both ways – the way we see ourselves and the way we are seen by others, who in turn ascribe an identity to us and can help reinforce our sense of who we are. In terms of accent modification, as with T4, there is no specific phonological information provided. Instead, T5 references that she reverts to a ‘less broad’ accent in more formal situations or when speaking in public. As a lecturer, this is perhaps one such context. However, like T3, T5 also referenced making her accent more broad:

172

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

I exaggerate a Barnsley accent for gentle humour or speak to friends who have a ‘broad’ Barnsley accent. When I return to a ‘less Barnsley’ accent . . . this feels more like my normal, everyday, functional voice.

Clearly, T5 reports on downward accent convergence, attempting to sound more like those around her by means of using an accent that is otherwise regarded as more broad. T5 also explained that ‘I will also revert to a less “broad” accent in more formal situations or when speaking in public’. It appears that a broader accent is used for banter, perhaps even gentle self-mockery. It is telling that T5’s otherwise ‘everyday’ voice is referred to as ‘functional’. Perhaps this is an indication that T5 regards this accent as one that indeed helps her to function in the real world of academia and contexts in which being understood clearly – largely by those from outside her area – is crucial. However, T5 touches on the conflict inherent in her modification, revealing that modification of her accent is not regarded as merely a pragmatic necessity: I think that I now have a confused dialect identity. To Barnsley speakers I am ‘not one of them’ but to speakers outside the Barnsley area I have an identifiable Yorkshire accent. I certainly feel ‘phony’ when I try to cultivate a ‘broad’ Barnsley accent and I regret that this is not a natural part of my linguistic repertoire.

T5 clearly feels conflicted, like T3, in that she appears to be in a linguistic ‘no man’s land’ – what I refer to as ‘linguistic homelessness’. She feels that her Barnsley accent is perhaps not as authentic as that of other locals. Moreover, the fact she feels like a phony for attempting to sound broader implies that this is an accent that she has to work on – it doesn’t come naturally. Though no explanation is given, T5 had implied that it stems from deliberate weakening of her accent in the first instance, as a means to ensure she is understood in her teaching context, as with T3. Arguably, weakening one’s accent can lead to a weakening of one’s personal identity (see Jones, 2001). T6 is an EFL teacher from Rochdale, further north of Manchester. As with T4, she referenced very specific connotations that she believes her accent conveys: I strongly identify with being a ‘Northerner’ and the positive characteristics of straightforwardness, left leaning politics, cosmopolitan and inclusive cities (much to the disbelief of many southerners), and friendliness in certain situations.

T6 lives in the south, but regardless of any negative connotations ascribed to her as a northerner, T6 nonetheless holds clear, and positive, connotations

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

173

as to what she believes her accent says about her. Thus, we see again how one’s personal identity begins with a self-concept, which in this case revolves around being friendly, for example, and is believed by the individual to be connoted with his/her accent. T6 has lived in the south ‘on and off over the years’ (e.g. Kent and Bristol) and despite her own positive feelings towards her accent, has nonetheless chosen to modify it for two main reasons. One is based on the perceived prejudice in the south towards people from the north and also, to be understood by her EFL students. A summary of these two reasons is provided by T6. Upon answering ‘why’ she modifies her accent, she explained that she still retains the northern ‘flat vowels’, but they have been ‘polished’ over the years by living in the south on and off and having a southern partner and, ‘primarily this has been due to claims of not understanding my accent most particularly in the context of teaching English in a variety of formats over the year’. Once again, while there is no individual per se reported as being behind the accent modification of T6, societal pressure is implied to be the driving force and thus, T6 still regards this as a forced identity. T6 went further in explaining the linguistic reality for EFL teaching in Britain, referring to the broad picture as involving – Teaching EFL students who are used to Cambridge material with RP accents; teaching Functional Skills students who are southern, not well travelled and find other accents ‘strange’.

T6 uses mild sarcasm above to reference the southern students who have apparently not taken well to her accent in the classroom and references the oft discussed north-south divide on a purely linguistic level. In other words, while she references positive connotations of her northern accent, she is aware that it is not always regarded so highly by people in the south. This is explained further when she discusses the effects that accent modification has on her identity, as T6 explained that this is indeed an issue for her, seen wholly as an imposition for a person who is otherwise proud of her regional origins and the accent that symbolizes such: I have found it a struggle to live in Kent . . . I have not modified my accent to the point of decimation but I have realised that southerners attribute negative characteristics to northerners i.e. stupidity, class (as if this does not apply to the South!), inferiority, etc. I feel it affects my personality in that I cannot be ‘me’ if I want to earn an income or ‘fit in’. This is to the extent that I hope to return to the North. Interestingly, other people who I have met here who are northerners

174

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

have all returned to the North, worn down by the constant battle to assert your intelligence and ability in the face of negative stereotyping.

Here we can see how T6 references her accent as being indicative of her own self-concept as being left-leaning and friendly; in the south it indicates a lowerclass level with its associated connotations of being ‘stupid’. Here is yet another clear example of how the personal and professional identities can come into conflict, in as much as those in power may associate a given accent in a manner unbecoming the profession – here, the teaching profession. The negative stereotypes of the north, such as ‘common’ and ‘stupid’, both of which were made clear by T4, are perhaps that bit more strongly felt when living outside one’s home region. T6 makes it clear that amid a ‘battle’ to prove your intelligence – a battle that T4 is also aware of – it can be tiresome. Clearly T6 feels, as with T4, that her northern accent does not, and should not, leave her in a position to ‘prove’ anything. In fact, T6 offers an example which alludes to this: I was actually told in an interview that I sounded ‘too northern’ to teach English and that it would create the ‘wrong’ impression.

It is difficult to know what ‘impression’ an EFL teacher with a northern accent would give, other than perhaps being difficult to understand initially if indeed the students are more familiar with RP. However, for someone who is otherwise fully qualified to teach, should accent be an issue? Though T6 did not reference it, there are of course a diverse amount of accents within England, which EFL students can become familiar with over time and need to do so, given that only a small percentage of the population speaks RP. However, RP’s use in educational materials, notably for EFL students, has been common. Hughes et al. (2012:4), for example, refer to RP in the context of teaching EFL as supposedly ‘the “best”, most “correct” accent’. This might help explain the comments made by the interviewers, though it does not justify them in the mind of T6. She further references the phenomenon of ‘northern bashing’, clearly indicating that her status as a northerner, illustrated with her accent, is a live issue. However, as a proud northerner, she admits to wishing to instil this pride in her own daughters: I have two girls who are growing up in the South . . . we visit the North every year and I impress upon them their ‘Northern Heritage’!

Thus, we have seen in the case of T4 and T6 some clear issues regarding region of origin, notably the north, and the associated stereotypes that others hold with regard to this particular part of the country, perhaps more so with T6 who lives away from her home region.

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

175

T25 is a secondary teacher of a variety of subjects, such as citizenship, sociology and politics and government. He describes his accent as a mixture of Cockney and southern Irish. This is as a result of his upbringing as he was born in Britain, grew up in Ireland for ten years and then moved back to Britain, where he has been since (and is currently twenty-two). T25 references an ability to switch accents and he believes that this helps him while teaching in the south of England: Based on my capability to switch the strength of my accent according to my environment my mentor has suggested to be more relatable I could talk slower. In class, I tend to now have a more London accent which relates well to the children. I do however still have an Irish twang to my voice which also allows good humour between classes such as pronunciation of words – I feel it helps build a good relationship with classes when a teacher has character.

While T25 may not be completely rid of the Irish in his current accent, his ability to accentuate the London-ness in his accent is clearly relevant for students from that region, or certainly from the south of England in general. However, from his account, the mentor feels that he could go further in presenting a more ‘relatable’ identity to the students by speaking slower. It is not clear if speaking fast, if indeed this is the case, was reported by his mentor along the lines of accent in some way but obviously, it is indicative of his mentor suggesting ways to present himself as clearly to the students as possible, even with the adoption of a more London-sounding accent. However, given the Irish aspects to his accent, what might be considered a hybrid accent, T25 feels that this is a positive trait, as did T28, in that it can create humour and this, for these two teachers, is a way to engage the students. Perhaps it is this aspect of his accent, however, that makes T25’s mentor believe that he needs to modify his speech that bit more, albeit merely it is a directive to change the speed of delivery, not the accent per se. However, T25 does not appreciate this and it does have an impact on his perception of himself from the perspective of the professional identity enacted as a result of speaking slower: It was said for my own benefit to modify the way I talk, something I was already aware of anyway. To be told to talk slower makes me feel like I  am dumbing things down for pupils.

It is suggested that this is not T25’s idea of a professional identity, as it creates, in his mind, a means of patronizing the students; for the mentor, however, it is a means to be more professional by way of speaking in a manner easier to understand. This would tie in again with the justification largely used by mentors with

176

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

regard to speech modification  – the need to be fully understandable to one’s students. T25 regards this, however, as indicative of creating a different identity for the students, perhaps one which creates the impression of not treating them as equals. In terms of how the personal and professional identities intersect, T25 said this: I do feel that when I am teaching with my mentor in the class observing I have to be very careful with what I say and this sometimes makes me more nervous than I need to be . . . I feel like I cannot really be myself as am trying to be someone else which makes my workload a lot more stressful.

The key aspect of T25’s dilemma stems not simply from nervousness associated with being observed, but has more to do with the fact that he is attempting to appease his mentor by adjusting his language in some way. While not specified (beyond, presumably, speaking more slowly), T25 is suggesting that the professional identity that he attempts to enact during observation is not really his; it belongs to his mentor. Thus, we can again see a forced identity to an extent. If T25 agreed with the changes that he is told to make, it could still prove challenging for him to be more consciously aware of the changes required for his language use. However, the fact that he would be in agreement with such changes and the identity that they would create would otherwise be seen as worth the effort. Here, they are not because the effort expended appears to be the means to create an identity that T25 otherwise would wish to create without modifying his language use, hence the reason he is ‘trying to be someone else’. I say again that trying to be somebody else is not the issue per se, if indeed this ‘somebody’ else is a desired identity that is actively sought out, in which case it is an identity that we hope to claim for ourselves in time (and thus, it is not really ‘somebody else’). T25 made a final comment regarding his linguistic dexterity: It is very fluid the way I speak, when I am at home I tend to stick with my Irish accent but at university it is more London as I am surrounded by those kinds of peers. I have a strong heritage in Ireland and I believe that I am conflicted with ideals of being someone else to just be professional, even though I think I have more than enough capability to be extremely professional and relatable even with my Irish accent. Having a mixed accent is both a benefit and a burden.

It is unclear what aspects of his accent reveal the Irish and which aspects reveal the London. Given a hybrid accent, this could be a clear reflection of a hybrid identity; on the other hand, by accentuating his Irish tones, he is perhaps reclaiming a more stable Irish identity at that moment. This would also apply

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

177

to the times when T25 switches to a more London-based accent. It is clear that he wishes to be perceived as one or the other depending on the audience, based on a desire to reflect the accents of those around him. In attempting to create a certain linguistic harmony, then, T25 perhaps desires to be identified as one of them (with ‘them’ referring to family and peers in this broad instance). However, he strongly implies that it is the Irish identity, forged via an accentuated Irish accent, that he wishes to enact within the classroom, but also implies that this is seen as somewhat incompatible from his mentor’s point of view. We see a situation in which an accent perceived as different in some way is, from the mentor’s point of view, not compatible with the teaching context, perhaps regarded as less relatable to students whose accents reflect the immediate area. However, T25 regards his Irish tones as a means to engage with his students and certainly does not regard a different accent as being any less professional merely because it is different. T25 is quite unique in that he reports himself to have a hybrid accent and hybrid identity and yet there are times when he wishes to reclaim one specific identity – Londoner or an Irish individual – based on strengthening one of these two accents. This might help explain his comment that his mixed accent is a blessing and a burden; regarding the former perspective, it perhaps allows him to essentially identify as Irish-British (or perhaps British-Irish?), and display linguistic dexterity when the situation requires it. As a suggested ‘burden’, however, T25 might be referring to an accent which, by itself, is neither fully one nor the other and thus, an effort is made to claim a more ‘pure’ accent for the occasion. This is again a case of what I referred to earlier as linguistic homelessness, with T25 suggesting a need for a singular ‘home’, forged by a singular accent. Regardless of what T25’s otherwise ‘everyday’ accent sounds like, it nonetheless seems to be celebrated, at times, as a symbol of his cross-cultural life; at other times, it suggests frustration. T32 teaches secondary art and has an accent described as Geordie, thus hailing from Newcastle in the northeast of England. She describes, as do all teachers other than T20, a positive relationship with her mentor, though we see again how the mentor’s view of a professional teacher does not agree with T32’s own assessment of the same. While the mentor also has a Geordie accent, he has nonetheless told T32 to modify her language, albeit based on lexical choices. T32 explains that ‘I was told that the use of words such as awesome was American and should not be used. He said I should use real English.’ This is perhaps quite an explicit appraisal of what is considered appropriate language for school. Though the word ‘awesome’ is the only example T32 provides of her lexical

178

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

choices, her mentor’s views regarding ‘real’ English determine the language T32 should use against the language she wishes to use, perhaps a reflection of her personal idiolect. T32 also explained that she too, like T25, becomes ‘nervous during lessons’. She explained that this is based on a fear that she is ‘using words that are American and using an accent that is too Geordie’. Though she made no mention about her accent in relation to her mentor’s possible comments in this regard, T32 appears to be focused more on both what she is saying and how she is saying it. During observation, might it be the case that many teachers feel like they are being someone else, however? I made the argument earlier that the teacher identity is surely not the same incarnation when teaching with just one’s students versus teaching with a mentor present. Of these two teacher identities, which is more ‘real’? If we are forced to enact a specific identity due to observation, one which, among other things, is focused on specific formal lexis that one might otherwise not use, then this is perhaps a more forced identity; we are clearly performing for the mentor, and not necessarily just being ourselves (which might assume that the non-observed teacher identity is an ideal identity). However, if we feel like we are being monitored which, after all, is a part of observation, then it is difficult to see how this alone cannot make some teachers feel fraudulent at times. Indeed, T32 concluded by saying that ‘I love teaching and performing to a class and feel straight jacketed when I cannot express myself naturally but have to think about words I use and how I say them.’ This comment appears to confirm that T32, as a reflection of the personal identity, wishes to use words that make her who she is, be they Americanisms or not. However, as she is told to avoid such usage, she clearly feels that she lacks the agency in her observed classroom teaching to be the teacher she wishes to be, one who is infused with a strong sense of the personal identity, at least with regard to her lexical choices (and perhaps a broad Geordie accent).

Summary We have thus seen the conflicts that arise when teachers and mentors clash with regard to differing ideologies as to what is considered professional language for the teaching profession. From the mentors’ point of view, the need to be understood and to use language that they deem professional is the justification for instructing teachers to adjust their language in some way. However, for teachers who wish to embody their teacher identity with a sense of the personal identity,

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

179

this is where conflicts arise. Moreover, we can also see that some of the mentors’ comments are themselves perceived as unprofessional and this too can play a part in teachers’ disagreement over such directives, and feeling that they have little say in the matter. Thus, for these teachers, the collective issue is perhaps tied to a strong belief that there is nothing unprofessional about retaining their personal accents and identities as part of the professional realm, citing pride in both, a need as teachers to respect diversity and, ultimately, a desire to be linguistically true to themselves to avoid creating an identity that is forced upon them. While some nonetheless concede the need to be clearly understood and also to avoid the negative connotations of their otherwise personal accent, there seems to be a collective desire that it needn’t be thus. Abrahams and Ingram (2013) talk of a third space, as I had referenced earlier, referring to a somewhat optimistic view – though not impossible – for individuals experiencing identity conflict to eventually adopt an identity that need not be based on either of the two that are in conflict. In other words, for individuals who wish to retain a regional accent to signal a regional identity, but find this is not compatible with the professional identity of a teacher, the third space might posit that their idealized identity as a teacher may not need to rely on regional pride or a sense of mentor-induced professionalism; what this means from a linguistic perspective, however, is difficult to determine. I have of course suggested that the mid-accent is, for some, an ideal, in that it does not remove one’s regional accent, but does not seek to accentuate stigmatized features either. This could be considered a third space, a happy medium between the personal and the professional. We should further consider that teacher identity is a work in progress, which goes beyond the context of training and, as such, how these teachers feel in the future regarding the role their accent plays in the construction of their teacher identity might be very different than when they took part in this research. For now, however, there is a clear conflict between their linguistic ideologies and that of their mentors.

Accent disagreement This very brief section is focused entirely on the one teacher (T15) who was specifically told by mentors not to modify her accent. However, her account is included in this chapter as she nonetheless references issues with her accent, regarding an accent that she wishes to create for her teaching and yet is otherwise discouraged from doing. During her placement as part of her training, T15

180

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

told me that staff at her school told her that she should not seek to modify her accent at all. This individual is the only teacher in the research who has been given this directive, though in the case of the teachers at the school it might be considered a compliment, as opposed to a directive as such. Nonetheless, T15 does not agree and instead, seeks to modify her accent to one which she believes will help to establish the teacher identity that she wishes to enact for her students. While T15 described her accent as ‘not quite posh enough for RP’, it is nonetheless perceived as posh by her students, all of whom were described as having ‘strong’ local accents where she teaches in a small northern town. One of the students commented on T15’s accent, telling her she was ‘dead posh’. Another student, however, referenced the accent as sounding ‘strict’. This perhaps reveals the differences in perception of ‘posh’ accents from two opposing views. A positive perception arguably refers to connotations such as being educated and perhaps ‘cultured’. However, the comment of sounding ‘strict’ is perhaps reflective of more modern attitudes towards ‘posh’ accents, such as perceptions of coldness (Hughes et al., 2012), which T15 wishes to be free of. For her part, T15 mentioned a desire to ‘soften’ her accent to make it ‘as neutral as possible’, to presumably rid herself of such negative connotations. In this case, the concept of ‘neutral’ is being approached in terms of removal of those features which serve to make her accent stand out to her students, and fellow staff, yet which she feels serve to only create distance as a result, based on being perceived as ‘posh’ by children who perhaps do not see themselves in that way. The rationale for her mentor, and staff, to tell her not to modify her accent is perhaps based on the historical value placed on accents perceived as posh. However, T15’s desire to modify her accent is based on her personal views of a teacher identity, with a modified accent a means to construct such a preferred teacher identity: I will change it because you kind of want to fit in and be accepted, especially by kids. I don’t want the gap to widen between us. The fact I’m not from here already puts a bit of distance between us and you want a good relationship (with the students).

T15’s goal is to lessen the perceived gap between her and her students, a gap that is created via an accent perceived as not only posh, but perhaps with this, also leading to assumptions about T15’s background perhaps being privileged. As T15 suggested, it is ‘like a class thing as well’. Thus, a modified accent is a starting point in building what she believes to be a closer relationship with her students. T15 (along with T1 and T4) was the only teacher who referenced class,

Abandoning the Personal Identity by Request

181

albeit briefly, and it ties in with the judgements made based on accent. As her accent is perceived as posh (regardless of its specific phonological qualities), this is then passed on to T15 as a result. From here, the further perception is that she is arguably seen as perhaps ‘too good’ for the school, though this is speculative. What we could argue more convincingly, however, is that T15 does not wish her accent to serve as a social divide and regardless of her social background and how much it may deviate from that of the local students, she does not appear to enjoy the ‘positive’ connotations of her accent precisely because they serve to create separation, when she instead desires to create a more even playing field with her students.

6

Concluding Thoughts and the Need for Standard Accents

Before discussing the implications of the results presented, there are a few considerations which I concede.

Limitations First, this is of course a small-scale study, which makes generalization impossible. However, given the infancy of this line of enquiry, it makes sense to first initiate research in this area. Having done so, and having demonstrated that there are issues involved with the linguistic construction of British teachers’ professional identities, the stage has been hopefully set for further investigation, albeit on a much wider scale. Ideally, a study which encompasses trainee teachers from across Britain would be the next step. Until then, I have presented the results of my research in order to shed light on a well-established area – teacher identity – from a new perspective. Second, we have the teachers’ voices on this matter, but we do not have those of the mentors. It would make sense to include mentors’ views on this topic for a future study, in order to perhaps provide a more balanced picture. While I do not suggest the teachers here are presenting a false picture, it is nonetheless a picture seen only from one perspective and is sometimes based on perceptions deriving from self-reported data. From the results here, however, it seems to be clear that mentors appear to regard accent modification as largely based on a need for teachers to be understood better by their students, notably for teachers who are teaching phonics. There are nonetheless comments made which present a different rationale for accent modification and one that is not mentioned in conjunction with being understood, and this is a need to use ‘professional’ language.

184

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

We also have a sample of responses that appear to largely reflect white British teachers. All the teachers from study two were white, as were two teachers from study one who I had met at a conference. It may of course be the case that there were black or Asian British participants, but this is unknown (other than T27, who discussed the fact that he is black British). However, as I had stressed earlier, given the infancy of this subject within the British teacher training context, it was felt to be a prudent choice to focus solely on British (and Irish) teachers, and thus foreground accent in all teachers, regardless of race or ethnicity. This is not to overestimate the importance of accent as an identifying characteristic, or to underestimate the importance of race. I did not want to lead participants and instead allowed them to bring up issues of race, ethnicity, class or any other feature that they felt to be relevant to the overall discussion (such was the case with T27, who is black, and T15, who briefly referenced class differences between herself and her students). A future study would be better placed to take up the inclusion of other identifying characteristics perhaps, with this study having first addressed the larger issue of accent and identity as collective British/Irish teachers. Having given participants the opportunity to raise issues they felt pertinent beyond their accent, collecting information regarding their age, in retrospect, was perhaps unnecessary. While there was an age range for the teachers, 19–47, no one implied that this was a factor between themselves and their mentors, for example, or based on anything else, nor did the differing views on accent appear to be motivated by the age of the teacher. However, despite these gaps, I hope that I have managed to fill a larger one, a gap within the field of education, and linguistics, which covers the ways in which accent plays a part in the professional identity construction of British teachers and the challenges within for some regarding conflicting linguistic ideologies between mentor and teacher. Indeed, Samantha Prosser (2015), representing OFSTED, declared that my research has generated ‘new evidence’ and I wish to take it further, having made an inroads into an otherwise rather untapped area of research and discussion.

Implications of the research There are two broad issues to consider, based on the results. First, it concerns the very issue of identity formation, in this case constructing a professional identity via accent modification (or not, for some teachers of course) and the effects that this has on the personal identity. For some teachers, there might not be a

Concluding Thoughts

185

perceived need to modify their accent as part of their career choice, so the fact that they are told to do so by mentors is problematic. This creates a sense of anger for some at what is perceived to be prejudice at worst or, at the very least, an unnecessary addition to their repertoire of items to consider in their projection of a teacher identity (certainly when being observed). For others, directives to modify their accent, or language use in some way, are met with overall neutrality, if not agreement, regarded as a legitimate part of the job of being a professional teacher. We might consider, however, the ways in which such directives are delivered by mentors – are they perceived as blunt orders involving sarcastic references to one’s accent, or are they perceived, and perhaps intended, as merely a necessary aspect of the position and delivered with the tact and sensitivity that such information requires? This can have an effect of course on how we internalize and subsequently understand the message behind such directives. Of course, being told to change our language use from a mere prosodic perspective (e.g. a change of voice speed) says little, if anything, about the underlying accent and therefore mentor feedback based on this might be perceived as fair. Moreover, while our accent is arguably closely tied to our personal identity, we might suggest that our voice speed is not, comparatively speaking. Furthermore, for those with issues connected to directives to modify their accents, this may reflect the aforementioned cleft habitus, which is a byproduct potentially of being told to change an aspect of oneself (or feeling the need to do so) in order to create a new self, particularly within the context of social mobility. At this point, the teachers may well ask, ‘Which is the real me?’ Clearly, the pre-teaching identity(ies) (at least some of them), though authentic, is not welcomed within training if it is retained from a linguistic point of view and so, despite a desire to become full-fledged teachers, for some teachers it comes at a price, which involves what they see as an abandonment of who they were before entering training. For such teachers, there is no clear division between personal and professional; instead, the personal identity that is initiated with their selfconcept is something they hope to bring to teaching. Nonetheless, if they are under pressure from mentors to adapt, then internal conflict is possible along the lines of a personal conflict between the values one brings to the teacher profession against the mentor’s imposed values. Abrahams and Ingram (2013) discuss how this cleft habitus can indeed result in emotional struggle, citing the example of a working-class student who was educationally successful. The authors cite two identities inherent in this example, that of ‘working-class’ and of ‘educationally successful’, implying that, from a societal point of view at least, the two identities do not mix well. This is again

186

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

based on stereotypes, but it nonetheless reveals itself in the ways individuals struggle to maintain two conflicting identities. This is no less relevant to some of the teachers in this study – the desire to maintain one’s regional identity through a regional accent (though class was only referenced by three teachers), against the reality of having to dilute it if wishing to enter the teaching profession (and more immediately, if wishing to receive positive feedback from one’s mentor). Second, we should also consider exactly who is being told to change their language use in some way. Table 6.1, presented in Chapter 3 (as Table 3.4), outlines two main aspects. First, the accents of the teachers themselves and the directives that they are given, or not in some cases, regarding their language use: Out of thirty-two teachers, eighteen teach at the primary level, eleven at the secondary level and three at university. Thirteen primary teachers were told to modify, whereas six secondary level teachers were told to do so. While it is important to consider the rationale that some might have for modification that is self-directed, often based on perceived sociocultural prejudice, it is more relevant to focus the attention here on teachers who were specifically told to do so. From the results, it is clear that modification is more of an issue for the mentors of primary teachers rather than those of secondary level teachers. Perhaps this is not surprising given the focus on phonics at the primary level of teaching. It might be the case that many teachers modify their language in some way, especially when teaching phonics, and this can be without any directives from their mentors and could even be purely subconscious on their part. However, if directed to modify our language in specific contexts, it is arguably more possible that individuals would be aware of such, precisely because they have been told to focus on this practice, which might not come naturally at first. What we need to also consider is which accents, at least from this research, are the ones more likely to be in ‘need’ of modification and what precise information is given by mentors in this regard. Of the thirty-two participants, five have accents deriving from Ireland (north and south); one is Scottish; one participant, and subsequent accent, is a product of having lived in both England and Ireland; sixteen teachers have accents deriving from the north/midlands; and the remaining nine teachers have accents tied to the south/RP-speakers. Regarding those from the north/midlands, twelve were specifically told to modify their language, whereas only three teachers whose accents are tied to the south were told to do so. In terms of the directives provided between these two broad groups, all were told to modify their accent per se, with the exception of T16 from Liverpool (who was merely told to slow his speech). However, it is only the teachers who derive from the north/midlands who reported being

Concluding Thoughts

187

Table 6.1 Summary of mentors’ language-based directives Teacher

Self-described accent

Teaching Instructed to What does the Level modify modification language use? involve?

T1 T2

Rossendale Manchester

P P

T3

Glaswegian

U

T4

Stockport

U

T5

Barnsley

U

T6 T7

Rochdale Huddersfield (Yorkshire) Stoke-on-Trent Mancunian (specifically, from Eccles) Broad Mancunian DerbyshireYorkshire mix Warrington, so a ManchesterLiverpool mix Nottingham Rochdale Self-described as ‘not quite posh enough for RP’ (Sarah is from Portsmouth) Liverpool Derry, Northern Ireland Midlands Medway South London (quite strong) Irish, Dublin Estuary English –Kent

T8 T9

T10 T11 T12

T13 T14 T15

T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22

S, EFL P

Yes No, but feels a need to No, but feels a need to No, but feels a need to No, but feels a need to Yes Yes

Accent Accent

Accent Accent

P P

Yes Yes

Accent Accent

P P

Yes Yes

Accent Accent

P

No

N/A

P P S

Yes Yes No

Accent Accent T15, however, wishes to modify her accent, despite being told not to

S S

Yes Yes

Speed of delivery Speed of delivery

P P S

Yes Yes Yes

Accent Accent Accent

S S

No No

N/A N/A

Accent Accent Accent

188

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

Teacher

Self-described accent

Teaching Instructed to What does the Level modify modification language use? involve?

T23 T24 T25

RP/Lancastrian Standard English A mixture between Cockney and Irish (southern) Mostly RP with a bit of Estuary English A happy medium between Estuary English and RP Mild Belfast (Northern Ireland) Southern Northern Irish now with a slight English twang/wellspoken Northern Irish Irish, but not strong Newcastle

P S S

No No Yes

N/A N/A Speed of delivery

P

Yes

Accent

P

No

N/A

S

No

N/A

P P

No Yes

N/A Speed of delivery

P

Yes

Speed of delivery

S

Yes

Avoidance of ‘Americanisms’ in speech regarding lexical choices

T26

T27

T28 T29 T30

T31 T32

given specific phonological directives, as opposed to merely being told to somehow make their speech less broad, or the like. The only exception to this is T20 with a south London accent, who was told to avoid glottal stops. Besides avoidance of glottal stops, the northern/midlands teachers were given very specific information, such as avoiding their regional monophthongs, such as [o:] and their otherwise everyday sounds such as [a] and [ʊ] in specific contexts. Respectively, they are told to switch to [oʊ], [ɑ:] and [ʌ]. The need to avoid specific phonemes is a more clear indication as to what mentors deem to be, to an extent, inappropriate language for the teaching profession, perhaps more so if teaching at the primary level. It is clear that glottal stops are stigmatized, yet given the fact that the glottal stop is a feature associated with accents throughout the United Kingdom (Baranowski & Turton, 2015), it is perhaps less likely to be seen as controversial to ask someone to remove this feature. That is, given

Concluding Thoughts

189

that it is somewhat difficult nowadays to associate this feature with a particular region, it could be argued that being told to avoid the glottal stop in one’s speech is less controversial, as it is perhaps less tied to the speaker’s regional identity (but could of course be tied to his/her class identity). On the other hand, telling teachers to change phonemes that are indeed region-specific, features that are, as I  have used the term, phonological giveaways for a specific region, it is more likely to have the potential to cause offence. Given that two teachers from the midlands were told that teaching phonics in the south would necessitate a change to southern phonology, it raises the question as to what the perceived issue is, from the mentor’s point of view. Do they have some kind of first-hand knowledge perhaps, or has experience taught them that northern phonemes are not acceptable in specific teaching contexts? Or might the issue be partly based on a desire for southern children to sound southern, and not pick up on northern phonology, based on being exposed to it? We do not have the answers to these questions of course, but these are nonetheless questions which need to be raised (and answered). Furthermore, what would the implications be for southern teachers who teach phonics in the north? Are their phonemes regarded as equally ‘foreign’, accepted without issue or even regarded as superior, hence a possible reason for T15, who is from Southampton but teaches in the north, being told not to change her accent. We also need to consider the fact that of the English teachers who were told to modify their accent, all were essentially teaching in their region of origin. The exceptions are T6, from Rochdale but teaching in the south; T15 (referenced above); T18 from the midlands but also teaching in the south; and T20 from London who, while still teaching in the south, is nonetheless teaching in an area in which a strong London accent, while still southern, is not the norm for the school. This also suggests that even when using an accent that is broadly tied to the area one is teaching in, there might still be expectations for a school-based accent. As I have argued, this seems to involve an accent that does not shed its regional origins, but does not accentuate them either – a so-called mid-accent. This, however, appears to be the case for the northern teachers, especially to the extent that specific phonemes have been flagged as being in need of change; for southern teachers, such specific directives are lacking. For the five teachers from Ireland, to also include T25 whose accent is described as a hybrid between Irish and Cockney, only four (T17, T25, T30 and T31) were told to modify their language but this was only in reference to slowing down their delivery. This is also perhaps less of an issue for the speaker, given that one’s speed of delivery is arguably much less, if at all, tied to a personal identity

190

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

than, say, specific phonemes, and adjusting one’s speed is easier than switching phonemes. Moreover, speaking quickly might well be due to nervousness when being observed, and thus the need to slow down could be something the teacher agrees with and so does not take such advice from a mentor personally; this was a point raised by T30. While Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, I have nonetheless suggested that for Irish teachers collectively, there might be reluctance on the mentors’ part to raise their accent per se as in need of modification. If so, this could be based on historical and political issues, involving prejudice towards the Irish which, in the modern day, we would seek to avoid. Given that foreign accents are also protected, an accent that is foreign, or perceived that way, might be one which mentors are less likely to raise an issue with. In terms of why some teachers took issue with directives to modify their accent, it is clear that some identify with their accent as a marker of regional pride and do not regard it as a hindrance to being understood, and thus, modification is an unwelcome practice. Moreover, the teacher we desire to be can have an impact on the way mentors’ advice is taken. If some teachers are particularly wedded to notions of linguistic diversity and personal/regional pride, then this desire for educational equity, from a linguistic perspective, can raise itself if mentors suggest that the teachers’ accents are inappropriate in some way. Aware of the negative stereotypes surrounding northern accents in particular, but certainly not adhering to them, some teachers resent the implication, perceived though it might be, that it is such stereotypes that play a part in mentors’ directives. As I have also said earlier, if northern teachers are teaching in the north, with their students speaking broadly as they do, then surely their accents would be regarded as the relative norm. Again, however, broad accents are the suggested issue, but not more general versions or mid-accents. T7, however, was able to accept such directives without issue, and this might be due to his past experience of working in a call centre where, in the absence of any body language to help explain matters to the customer, accent is indeed the most relevant aspect of how one communicates. This experience helped him to accept the mentor’s directives, as well as the fact that he, like others, stressed a need to be understood to the fullest extent. No teachers appeared to disagree of course with the need to communicate as clearly as possible to their students. However, some disagreed with the extent to which their unmodified accents would, if at all, lead to any difficulties in students understanding them. For teachers T9–T11 and T13, their collective ethos is the need to respect diversity, including accent diversity, and this is reflected on as part of their career in the first instance, given the need to respect students’ diverse backgrounds, as well as teaching them about others. It was also reported,

Concluding Thoughts

191

and I have stressed this point, that students’ exposure to a multitude of accents inside the classroom can only help to prepare them for the real world and the accents which they will hear.

Continuing problems with the role of accent in British teaching However, it is somewhat naïve perhaps to assume that all accents are created equal (or more to the point, perceived that way in teaching). As a result, I have reported on the subject of teacher identity from this fresh perspective, as it is time to uncover the subject of accent within teacher training in order to shed light on the current attitudes towards British accents within this context. The fight for equality is ongoing and this should be applied to accents. On the other hand, given that the Teachers’ Standards express a need for ‘articulacy’, yet stop short of mentioning accent per se, two goals are accomplished. First, it allows a subject as potentially divisive and controversial as accent to be avoided, so that we can also avoid the suggestion that there is still a standard accent in Britain, or at least within teacher training. The mere suggestion of such could arguably reflect notions of elitism, something that we would wish to avoid in today’s society and certainly in a profession for which teachers are actively sought out from a variety of backgrounds. Second, the word of articulacy arguably acts as a linguistic loophole for mentors to comment on teachers’ accents and if they deem modification is necessary, this one key word can act, in the mentor’s mind, as justification for accent-based directives (as was the case with T20’s mentor). Thus, taken together, there is a means by which mentors can ensure that accents deemed appropriate are used within teaching. So where do we go from here? The reality is that it is entirely possible that teachers who are fully qualified to teach are nonetheless being made to feel that their accents are somehow not up to the job, even if teaching in their home region. This appears to be more an issue for northern/midlands accents, with accents tied to the south (notably the Home Counties) less of an issue. On the one hand, we might not wish to be linguistically prescriptive for future teachers beyond their need to use standard English, a linguistic directive which appears to be generally accepted. However, in the absence of clarification on the matter, both mentors and teachers alike are somewhat in the dark, with some mentors particularly attached to very specific personal views on the subject of accent. Therefore, it might be time to determine the linguistic reality for teachers within

192

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

British teacher training, but crucially this needs to be done with the collaboration of both mentors and teachers. In this manner, teachers feel that their voices are being heard and taken seriously, and the resulting documentation, and perhaps even legislation on the matter, is the product of multiple voices, all of which are treated as equal within the profession of teaching. I should also point out that in response to my earlier studies, Avis Gilmore (2015), who is the north west regional secretary for the National Union of Teachers, said the following:  ‘There is an increasing culture in schools for accountability. Teachers feel quite stressed, bullied and if teachers are being picked up on because of their accents, we would view that as another form of bullying. We should be celebrating diversity, not trying to make everybody the same’. Her comments indeed echo those of many of the teachers in this study, but for them, the reality is one in which their perceived and understood notions of diversity do not merge with those of the mentors. Thus, there is a suggested mismatch between the stance of both the NUT representative and teachers, against the views of some mentors on this linguistic matter.

Proposed solution to the problem identified It is not sufficient to merely guide teachers to speak ‘less broadly’ or ‘clearly’; instead, specific phonological information is required. This is already the reality for some teachers anyway, as I have reported. The purpose of establishing accentbased guidance for teacher training, and with multiple input, is to help address the perception of linguistic prejudice that some teachers already have regarding mentors’ comments (or job interviewers), to avoid confusion on anyone’s part regarding an accent deemed ‘appropriate’ and ultimately to allow teachers and mentors alike to be able to work together on this project that culminates with a set of accent standards. I concede that this is not an easy task and it is not seen as a perfect solution; it is a preferable solution, however, than avoiding the subject and essentially perpetuating what might be a linguistic, and identity, ‘free for all’. So where do we begin? The first step in creating official guidelines and related documents is to use sensitivity and common sense. This is not about asserting any inherent ‘betterness’ with one accent or another (there isn’t any), but initiating the issue by first admitting that certain accents are stigmatized in society and in schools as a reflection of society. An honest conversation is needed to get things started and, from there, identify what is it precisely about certain accents, or certain versions of specific accents, that appears to be the problem.

Concluding Thoughts

193

This is one of the stumbling blocks of course, as it is in the ear of the beholder as to what accents sound ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or merely which accents we do or do not like. But again, the need for objectivity is key, as legislation, or a document to be used in teacher training at the very least, cannot be based on personal likes and dislikes. Rather, we first need a more extensive study to be conducted, one that researches teachers’ accents in the primary and secondary school context in order to determine what the perceptions are of British mentors and teachers (and perhaps primary and secondary students, parents and employers) on this matter, from Scotland to Wales, from Aberdeen to Cornwall. Obtaining the current, honest and anonymous views on this matter within the British, if not the United Kingdom context, we are then in a position to draw up a linguistic guide for trainee teachers, based not on public perception as such, but more specifically on the specific sounds that respondents – teachers, parents, students, for example – deem to be inappropriate in some way for the classroom, primary and secondary, with phonics teaching perhaps making a specific mention in the survey. I have already attempted to do so, having cited a recent study of mine earlier (Baratta, 2017), which involved the views of fifty-five students and nine teachers from three local Manchester schools. With just one exception, everyone agreed that there is no longer a standard accent, nor should there be, and teachers and students alike should use their natural accent, yet the glottal stop was a feature that appeared to be justifiably stigmatized and, as a result, justifiably avoided. This is a start, however small. A nationwide survey can be conducted through a questionnaire sent to schools, and proposed questions might be as follows: ●

● ● ●

Students, especially if learning phonics, need to understand their teacher. Do you believe that there are certain British accents which could be difficult to understand? If so, which accents? Can you explain why? Most importantly, can you identify, as much as possible, any specific sounds associated with certain British accents that might create difficulty in comprehension?

The success of the proposed survey lies in large part on the nature of the questions. While this is an obvious point perhaps, the questions above are not at all focused on people’s like or dislike of certain British accents. Instead, they are focused entirely on the potential for difficulties in understanding, given that this is the mentors’ collective rationale for accent modification for the most part. The use of the word ‘articulacy’ might also be brought in to the survey and perhaps

194

Accent and Teacher Identity in Britain

it should, given that this word is a feature of the Teachers’ (linguistic) Standards. However, I  would be reluctant to base a question on this word (e.g. ‘Which British accents do you feel are articulate’?), given its potential to link even more with linguistic preferences based on stereotypes. Such a question could be seen as, worst case, ‘emotionally leading’, in that it could lead to responses such as ‘I think the Geordie accent is common’, ‘I think Mancunians sound thick’. It is precisely such responses, involving snap judgements and linguistic stereotyping, that we need to avoid, and it is these type of judgements that are felt by some teachers to be the basis for mentors’ comments regarding accent modification. Instead, by asking participants to comment on less potentially emotional aspects regarding accent diversity, there is a greater chance of obtaining answers that are a degree more rational, objective and perhaps even more ‘justified’ in the sense that participants might draw purely on struggles with understanding accents, but not based necessarily on disliking them and/or the speaker based on personal linguistic prejudice. Of course, not understanding an accent is purely relative and this is largely based on where the respondents are from  – this is why it would be crucial to also identify participants based on their region of origin. For example, we might expect participants from the south, certainly those in smaller towns, to be somewhat unfamiliar with, say, the Geordie accent. Likewise, English participants collectively might cite Scottish accents as difficult to understand, with people from Edinburgh perhaps saying the same about Glaswegians. It is indeed a relative matter. This is precisely the reason why we need to get to the heart of the matter by asking the British public, whose children will be/are being educated, as well as teachers and mentors, which specific sounds are the linguistic culprits for being difficult to understand. Again, there will be a range of answers, depending on who is answering and where they are from. However, by avoiding the suggestion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ accents (though inevitably, some participants might be thinking along these lines), and pinpointing specific phonemes which participants believe to be the key aspects of difficulties in understanding, we are then better positioned to identify a host of features which can be put forward by teachers as candidates for a national document whose purpose is to flag certain phonemes, in certain positions, as a means to be as understandable as possible. Clearly, the general public, and perhaps teachers themselves, do not need linguistic jargon for a document that needs to be as accessible as possible for such a potentially complex, if not controversial, subject. Thus, terms such as ‘phoneme’ can be replaced with ‘sounds’ as arguably the British public are familiar with certain accents enough to describe them (and implicitly, their phonemic inventory)

Concluding Thoughts

195

using terms such as the ‘northern u’ or the ‘short-a’ in bath. Once the results are in – potentially thousands – and answered by teachers, staff, students and their parents, then we are hopefully one large step closer to addressing the issue of what phonemes cause problems in comprehension. The need to be understood by one’s students is clearly important and it is this objective need that should form the backbone of the suggested survey, as opposed to the mere suggestion that people are being asked to discuss their accent preferences. While we cannot ignore the fact that accent prejudice exists, the need to clarify the linguistic reality for British teachers – and their linguistic rights – should not be based on such. Instead, the fair need to be understood as clearly as possible should be the starting point for such a survey. However, this does not mean that there is no leeway for questions to be included that could be reflective of more personal linguistic attitudes. These could include questions such as ‘What is an appropriate accent for teaching?’; ‘Should teachers have to change their accent if they teach in a different region?’ In the end, I realize of course that any document that results from a nationwide survey will not find favour with all teachers, with some perhaps believing that it is a pointless exercise. However, if trainee teachers are being told to modify their accent to what they perceive as someone else’s standard, and further regard this as based partly on prejudicial notions, then we must, at the very least, find a way to address this and at least start a conversation. While that conversation may not involve a survey, let alone policy change regarding linguistic standards for teachers, at least the conversation, however that is manifest, will have presumably deemed surveys and policy change unnecessary. Such decisions cannot be reached, however, in the absence of an initial discussion, albeit a wideranging discussion, with my own hoped-for solution to be the establishment of standard accents, which appears, at least from my own research, to be the reality already. The results of the survey would be an effective means by which we can more thoroughly address the linguistic imbalance that has been uncovered in my research and hopefully ensure that all British accents are given a voice.

References Abrahams, J. & Ingram, N. (2013). The chameleon habitus: Exploring local students’ negotiations of multiple fields. Sociological Research 18(4), 21. Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Prospects for research in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 1, 7–20 Ager, D. (2003). Ideology and image. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Agha, A. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23, 231–73. Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30(1), 109–37. Akkerman, S. F. & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 27, 308–19. Akomolafe, S. (2013). The invisible minority: Revisiting the debate on foreign-accented speakers and upward mobility in the workplace. Journal of Cultural Diversity 20(1), 7–14. Alford, R. & Strother, J. (1990). Attitudes of native and nonnative speakers toward selected regional accents of U.S. English. TESOL Quarterly 24(3), 476–96. Alim, H. S. (2010). Critical language awareness. In N. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 205–31). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourse: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Armstrong, N. & Mackenzie, I. (2013). Standardization, ideology and linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ashby, M. & Ashby, P. (2015). Generalisations on RP consonant clusters. In S. Ramsaran (Ed.) Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson (pp. 168–77). New York: Routledge. Asprey, E. (2001). A study in West Midland phonological variables. Unpublished MA thesis. Leeds: University of Leeds. Atkinson, D. (2004). Theorising how student teachers form their identities in initial teacher Education. British Educational Research Journal 30(3), 379–94. Ball, S. J. (1972). Self and identity in the context of deviance: The case of criminal abortion. In R. Scott & J. Douglas (Eds) Theoretical perspectives on deviance (pp. 158–83). New York: Basic Books. Ballard, L. (2013). Student attitudes towards accentedness of native and non-native speaking English teachers. MSU Working Papers in SLS 4, 47–73.

198

References

Baranowski, M. & Turton, D. (2015). Manchester English. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Researching northern English (pp. 293–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baratta, A. (2016). Keeping it real or selling out: The effects of accent modification on personal identity. Pragmatics and Society 7(2), 291–319. Baratta, A. (2017). Investigating the notion of a standard accent in British schools. Working paper, part of the accent and identity project. Barras, W. (2015). Lancashire. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Researching northern English (pp. 271–92). Beal, J. & Cooper, P. (2015). The enregisterment of northern English. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Researching northern English (pp. 27–50). Becker, K. (2009). /r/and the construction of place identity on New York City’s Lower East Side. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13, 634–58. Beinhoff, B. (2013). Perceiving identity through accent: Attitudes towards non-native speakers and their accents in English. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 2(1), 148–52. Belchem, J. C. (2000). Merseypride: Essays in Liverpool exceptionalism. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. In N. Coupland & Jaworski (Eds), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 240–50). New York: St Martin’s Press. Beltman, S., Glass, C., Dinham, J., Chalk, B. & Nguyen, B. (2015). Drawing identity: Beginning pre-service teachers’ professional identities. Issues in Educational Research 25(3), 225–45. Bennett, D. (2013). The use of learner-generated drawings in the development of music students’ teacher identities. International Journal of Music Education 31(1), 53–67. Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Bibby, T., Lupton, R. & Raffo, C. (2017). Responding to poverty and disadvantage in schools. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Blommaert, J. & Varis, P. (2015). Enoughness, accent, and light communities: Essays on contemporary identities. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 139. Available at: https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/ babylon/tpcs/item-paper-139-tpcs.htm. Blum, A. & Johnson, E. (2012). Reading repression: Textualizing the linguistic marginalization of nonnative English-speaking teachers in Arizona. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 11(3), 167–84. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Translated by Gino Raymond & Matthew Adamson.

References

199

Bourdieu, P. (2002). Habitus. In J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (Eds), Habitus: A sense of place (pp. 27–34). Aldershot: Ashgate. Braber, N. and Butterfint, Z. (2008). Local identity and sound change in Glasgow: A pilot study. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics 13, 22–43. Brady, J. (2015). Dialect, power and politics: Standard English and adolescent identities. Literacy 49(3), 149–57. Brant, P. (2014). Working classes must ‘fit in’ to ‘middle class world’ to go to university, says government adviser. Mancunion, student newspaper, University of Manchester. Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2007). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369–94). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bukor, E. (2015). Exploring teacher identity from a holistic perspective: Reconstructing and reconnecting personal and professional selves. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice 21, 305–27. Burridge, K & Bergs, A. (2017). Understanding language change. London: Routledge. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge. Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (2001). Introduction to frequency and emergence of linguistic structure. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chambers, J. (1992). Dialect acquisition. Language 68, 673–705. Chambers, J. (2003). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. London: John Wiley. Chartrand, T. & Bargh, J. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(6), 893–910. Cheshire, J. (1982). Dialect features and linguistic conflict in schools. Educational Review 34(1), 53–67. Chisholm, J. & Godley, A. (2011). Learning about language through inquiry-based discussion: Three bidialectal high school students’ talk about dialect variation, identity, and power. Journal of Literacy Research 43, 430–68. Choe, H. (2016). Identity formation of Filipino ESL teachers teaching Korean students in the Philippines: How negative and positive identities shape ELT in the Outer Circle. English Today 32(1), 5–11. Coggle, P. (1993). Do you speak Estuary? Estuary English FAQs. Available at: http:// www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/estuary/estufaqs.htm. Accessed on May 10 2013. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge. Cohen, M. (2004). Voice user interface design. New York: Addison-Wesley Professional. Collins, J. (1999). The Ebonics controversy in context: Literacies, subjectivities and language ideologies in the United States. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp.201–34). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner.

200

References

Cooper, K. & M. R. Olson. (1996). The multiple ‘I’s’ of teacher identity. In M. Kompf, W. R. Bond, D. Dworet & R. T. Boak (Eds), Changing research and practice: Teachers’ professionalism, identities and knowledge (pp. 78–89). London: Falmer Press. Correa, J., Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. & Gutierrez, L. (2013). Between the real school and the ideal school: Another step in building a teaching identity. Educational Review, 1–18. Coupland, N. (2000). Sociolinguistic prevarication about standard English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(4), 622–34. Coupland, N. (2008). The delicate constitution of identity in face-to-face accommodation: A response to Trudgill. Language in Society 37, 267–70. Coupland, N. (2010). Handbook of language and globalization. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Coupland, N. & Bishop, H. (2007). Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(1), 74–93. Cox, B. (1991) Teaching standard English. In L. Barke, T. Crowley & A. Girvin (Eds), The Routledge language and cultural theory reader (pp. 478–502). London: Routledge. Cruttenden, A. (1994). Gimson’s pronunciation of English. London: Arnold. Crystal, D. (1996). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, J. (2004). The stories of English. London: Penguin. Day, C. (2004). A passion for teaching. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Day, C., Kingston, A., Stobart, G. & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal 32(4), 601–16. Deprez-Sims, A. & Morris, S. B. (2010). Accents in the workplace. Their effects during a job interview. International Journal of Psychology 45(6), 417–426. Derwing, T. & Munro, M. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching 42(4), 476–90. DfE. (2013). Teaching Standards 2013. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/teachers-standards. Accessed on 23 February 2017. Donnelly, M., Baratta, A. & Gamsu, S. (2017). A sociolinguistic perspective on accent and social mobility. The Sociological Review. Under consideration. Du Bois, W. (1903). The souls of black folk. New York: The Modern Library. Dyson, A. & Smitherman, G. (2009). The right (write) start: African-American language and the discourse of sounding right. Teachers College Record 111(4), 973–98. Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and Burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press. Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 683–85). Boston, MA: Elsevier. Eckert, P. & Rickford, J. (2001). Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, J. (2011). Challenges in the social life of language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

References

201

Evans, B. & Iverson, P. (2004). Vowel normalization for accent: An investigation of best exemplar locations in northern and southern British English sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115, 352–61. Evans, B. & Iverson, P. (2007). Plasticity in vowel perception and production: A study of accent change in young adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121, 3814–26. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Essex: Longman. Foreman, A. (2000). A longitudinal study of Americans in Australia. Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society. Foulkes, P. & Docherty, G. (1999). Urban voices – overview. In P. Foulkes & G. Docherty (Eds), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles (pp. 1–24). London: Arnold. Fullan, M. (2002). Moral purpose writ large. School Administrator 59(8), 14–16. Fuller, J. (2009). Sam need gun go war: Performances of non-standard English in the construction of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13, 659–69. Gal, S. & Irvine, J. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language (pp. 35–84). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School for American Research. Gallois, C., Ogay, T. & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galloway, N. (2014). ‘I get paid for my American accent’: The story of one Multilingual English Teacher (MET) in Japan. Englishes in Practice 1(1), 1–30. Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gayle, B., Cortez, D. & Preiss, R. (2013). Safe spaces, difficult dialogues, and critical thinking. International Journal Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7(2), 1–8. Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education 25, 99–125. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giles, H. (1971). Teachers’ attitudes towards accent usage and change. Educational Review 24(1), 11–25. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15, 87–105. Giles, H. (1979). Ethnicity markers in speech. In K. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds), Social markers in speech (pp. 252–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H., Coupland, J. & Coupland, N. (2010). Contexts of accommodation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H. & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. The University of Michigan: Open University Press. Gilmore, A. (2015). Y’alright Sir! Mancunian teachers under pressure to drop their accent in the classroom. Manchester Evening News, 28 January. Available

202

References

at: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ yalright-sir-mancunian-teachers-under-8532176. Gimson, A. (1980). Pronunciation of English. London: Hodder Arnold. Goddard, V. (2000). Gender, agency, and change: Anthropological perspectives. London: Routledge. Godley, A. & Escher, A. (2012). Bidialectal African-American adolescents’ beliefs about spoken language expectations in English classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 55(8), 704– 13. Godley, A. & Loretto, A. (2013). Fostering counter-narratives of race, language, and identity in an urban English classroom. Language and Education 24(3), 316–27. Godley, A., Reaser, J. & Moore, K. (2015). Pre-service English language arts teachers’ development of critical language awareness for teaching. Linguistics and Education 32(A), 41–54. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. Goldstein, J. & Rayner, J. (1994). The politics of identity in late modern society. Theory and Society 23(3), 367–84. Guest, M., Aune, K., Sharma, S. & Warner, R. (2013). Christianity and the university experience: Understanding student faith. London: Bloomsbury. Gumperz, J. (1983). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haddix, M. (2008). Beyond sociolinguistics: Toward a critical approach to cultural and linguistic diversity in teacher education. Language and Education 22(5), 254–70. Haddix, M. (2010). No longer on the margins: Researching the hybrid literate identities of black and Latina preservice teachers. Research in the Teaching of English 45(2), 97–123. Haddix, M. (2012). Talkin’ in the company of my sistas: The counterlanguages and deliberate silences of black female students in teacher education. Linguistics & Education 23, 160–81. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography principles in practice. Guildford and Kings Lynn: Routledge. Hecht, M., Jackson, R., Lindsley, S., Strauss, S. & Johnson, K. (2001). A layered approach to communication: Language and communication. In W. Peter Robinson & H. Giles (Eds), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 429–49). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Hickey, R. (2015). The north of England and northern English. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Researching northern English (pp. 1–26). Hinchion, C. & Hall, K. (2015). The uncertainty and fragility of learning to teach: A Britzmanian lens on a student teacher story. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1–17. Hobson, A., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Giannakaki, M., Pell, G. & Tomlinson, P. (2008). Student teachers’ experiences of initial teacher preparation in England: Core themes and variation. Research Papers in Education 23(4), 1–27.

References

203

Honeybone, P. (2001). New dialect formation in nineteenth century Liverpool: A brief history of Scouse. In A. Grant, C. Grey & K. Watson (Eds), Liverpool’s language, people and places (pp. 106–40). Liverpool: Open House Press. Hughes, A., Trudgill, P. & Watt, D. (2012). English accents and dialects. Croydon: Hodder. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–93). London: Penguin. Ito, Y. (2001). Effect of reduced forms on ESL learners’ input-intake process. Second Language Studies 20(1), 99–124. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). English pronunciation and second language speaker identity. In T. Omoniyi & G. White (Eds), The sociolinguistics of identity (pp. 75–91). London: Continuum. Johnstone, B. (1998). Sounding country in urbanizing Texas: Private speech in public discourse. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 13, 153–64. Jones, K. (2001). ‘I’ve called ’em tom-ah-toes all my life and I’m not going to change!’: Maintaining linguistic control over English identity in the U.S. Social Forces 79, 1061–94. Joseph, J. (2004). Language and identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kaur, K. (2014). Accent attitudes: Reactions to English as a lingua franca. Procedia – Social & Behavioral Sciences 134, 3–12. Kelch, K. & Santana-Williamson, E. (2002). ESL students’ attitudes towards native and non- native speaking instructors’ accents. The CATESOL Journal 14(1), 57–72. Available at: http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CJ14_kelch.pdf. Kerswill, P. (2009). Language and social class. In J. Culpeper, F. Katamba, P. Kerswill, A. McEnery, R. Wodak & T. McEnery (Eds), English language: Description, variation and context (pp. 358–72). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kerswill, P. & Williams, A. (2000). Creating a New Town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 1, 65–115. Kinzler, K., Shutts, K., DeJesus, J. & Spelke, E. (2009). Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition 27, 623–34. Kopperoinen, A. (2011). Accents of English as a lingua franca: A study of Finnish textbooks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 21(1), 71–93. Kristiansen, T. & Jorgensen, J. (2005). Subjective factors in dialect convergence and divergence. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens & P. Kerswill (Eds), Dialect change (pp. 287–302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labov, W. (1978). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

204

References

Ladegaard, H. (2000). Language attitudes and sociolinguistic behaviour: Exploring attitude-behaviour relations in language. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4, 214–33. Leach, A. (1881). The letter H. Past, present and future. London: Griffith & Farran. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Le Page, R. & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, J. (1990). HappY land reconnoitred: The unstressed word-final –y vowel in General British pronunciation. In S. Ramsaran (Ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson (pp. 159–67). New York: Routledge. Li, G. (2013). Promoting teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students as change agents: A cultural approach to professional learning. Theory into Practice 52, 136–43. Liberman, M. (2010). Removing teachers with ‘accented’ speech? Available at: http:// languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2365. Accessed on 3 March 2017. Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent. London: Routledge. Macaulay, R. (1977). Language, social class, and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mayrl, D. & Oeur, F. (2009). Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and future directions for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48, 260–75. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Messer-Davidow, E. (1995). Acting otherwise: Theorizing gender and agency. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Millar, S. (1997). British educational policy, sociolinguistics and accent. Journal of English Linguistics 25(2), 107–21. Mockler, N. (2011). Beyond ‘what works’: Understanding teacher identity as a practical and political tool. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice 17(5), 517–28. Mompean, J. A. (2006). Estuary English: Revisiting the debate on its status as a new accent of English and potential EFL pronunciation model. Available at: http:// www.raco.cat/index.php/bells/article/viewFile/82956/139971. Accessed on 23 January 2017. Montgomery, C. (2015). Borders and boundaries in the north of England. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Researching northern English (pp. 345–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montgomery, M. (2008). An introduction to language and society. Oxon: Routledge. Morrison, R. & White, M. (2005). Nurturing global listeners: Increasing familiarity and appreciation for world Englishes. World Englishes 24(3), 361–70. Moussu, L. (2010). Influence of teacher-contact time and other variables on ESL students’ attitudes towards native- and nonnative-English-speaking teachers. TESOL Quarterly 44(4), 746–68. Mugglestone, L. (2003). Talking proper: The rise of accent as social symbol. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

References

205

Myers, G. (2006). Where are you from?: Identifying place. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10, 320–43. Nias, J. (1989) Primary teachers talking. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26, 287–306. Oyserman, D., Elmore, K. & Smith, G. (2012). Self, self-concept, and identity. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 69–104). New York: Guilford Press. Pennington, M. & Richards, J. (2016). Teacher identity in language teaching: Integrating personal, contextual, and professional factors. RELC Journal 47(1), 5–23. Penrose, J. (1993). Reification in the name of change: The impact of nationalism on social construction of nation, people and place in Scotland and the United Kingdom. In P. Jackson & J. Penrose (Eds), Constructions of race, place and Nation (pp. 27–49). London: UCL Limited. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prosser, S. (2015). OFSTED, email communication. 2 February 2015. Przedlacka, J. (2001). Estuary English and RP: Some recent findings. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 36, 35–50. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. Rampton, B. (2008). Disciplinary mixing: Types and causes. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4), 525–31. Ramsaran, S. (2015). RP: Fact and fiction. In S. Ramsaran (Ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson (pp. 178–90). New York: Routledge. Reaser, J. (2016). Developing sociolinguistic curricula that help teachers meet standards. In K. Denham & A. Lobeck (Eds), Linguistics at school, language awareness in primary and secondary education (pp. 91–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rivera, L. (2015). Pedigree – how elite students get elite jobs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rodgers, C. R. & Scott, K. H. (2008). The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. NemserFreiman (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 732–55). London: Routledge. Romaine, S. (1984). The status of sociological models and categories in explaining linguistic variation. Linguistische Berichte 90, 25–38. Rosa, M. (2002). Don’cha know? A survey of ESL teachers’ perspectives on reduced forms instruction. Second Language Studies 21(1), 49–78. Russell, D. (2004). Looking north: Northern England and the national imagination. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Sachs, J. (2010). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy 16, 149–61.

206

References

Savin-Baden, M. & Howell Major, C. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Schleef, E. (2013). Glottal replacement of /t/ in two British capitals: Effects of word frequency and morphological compositionality. Language Variation and Change 25(2), 201–23. Segal, J. (1991). Agency and alienation: A theory of human presence. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 200–39. Shorrocks, G. (1999). A grammar of the dialect of the Bolton area; Part 2 morphology and syntax. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Sikes, P. (2004). Methodology, procedures and ethical concerns. London: Sage. Sikes, P. (2006). Working in a new university: In the shadow of the RAE? Studies in Higher Education 31(5), 555–68. Sleegers, P. & Kelchtermans, G. (1999). Inleiding op het themanummer: professionele identiteit van leraren [Professional identity of teachers], Pedagogisch Tijdschrift 24, 369–74. Smith, P. & Baratta, A. (2016). Religion and literacies in higher education: Scoping the possibilities for faith-based meaning making. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning 4(2), 68–87. Snell, J. (2010). From sociolinguistic variation to socially strategic stylisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14, 630–56. Snell, J. (2013). Dialect, interaction and class positioning at school: From deficit to difference to repertoire. Language and Education 27(2), 110–28. Snell, J. (2014). Social class and language. In J-O Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Snell, J. & Andrews, R. (2017). To what extent does a regional dialect and accent impact on the development of reading and writing skills? Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(3), 1–17. Sung, C. C. (2016). Exposure to multiple accents of English in the English language teaching classroom from second language learners’ perspectives. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 10(3), 190–205. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tagliamonte, S. & Molfenter, S. (2007). How’d you get that accent?: Acquiring a second dialect of the same language. Language in Society 36, 649–75. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information 13, 5–93. Taylor, F. (2013). Self and identity in adolescent foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 181–227). New York: Academic Press.

References

207

Timoštšuk, I. & Ugaste, A. (2010). Student teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 1563–70. Tran, L. T. & Nguyen, N. T. (2015). Re-imagining teachers’ identity and professionalism under the condition of international education. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice 21(8), 958–73. Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trudgill, P. (1999). The dialects of England. Oxford: Blackwell. Trudgill, P. (2002). Sociolinguistic variation and change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Upton, C. (2012). The importance of being Janus: Midland speakers and the ‘north-south divide’. In M. Markus, Y. Iyeiri, R. Heuberger & E. Chamson (Eds), Middle and Modern English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 257–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B. & Johnson, K. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 4(1), 21–44. Walker, J. (1791). A critical pronouncing dictionary. London: G. G. J. and J. Robinson. Watt, D. & Milroy, L. (1999). Variation in three Tyneside vowels: Is this dialect levelling? In P. Foulkes & G. Docherty (Eds), Urban Voices: Accent studies in the British isles (pp. 25–46). London: Hodder Education. Wells, J. (1982). Accents of English I: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Wight, J. (2006). Dialect in school. Educational Review 24(1), 47–58. Williams, B. T. (2006). Introduction: Literacy, power and the shaping of identity. In B. T. Williams, B. T. (Ed.), Identity papers: Literacy and power in higher education (pp. 1–16). Logan: Utah State University Press. Williamson, J. (1990). Divven’t write that, man: The influence of Tyneside dialect forms on children’s free writing. Educational Studies 16(3), 251–60. Williamson, J. & Hardman. F. (1997). To purify the dialect of the tribe: Children’s use of non-standard dialect grammar in writing. Educational Review 23(2), 157–68. Wodak, R. (2012). Language, power and identity. Language Teaching 45(2), 215–33. Woodgate-Jones, A. (2012). The student teacher and the school community of practice: An exploration of the contribution of the legitimate peripheral participant. Educational Review 64(2), 145–60. Woollaston, V. (2013). Scousers have the ‘least intelligent and least trustworthy’ accent, while Devonians have the friendliest. Daily Mail, 26 September. Available at: http:// www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2433201/Scousers-intelligent-trustworthyaccent--Devonians-friendliest.html. Ybema, S., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., Beverungen, A., Ellis, N. & Sabelis, I. (2009). Articulating identities. Human Relations 62(3), 299–322.

Index accent 42, 46–7, 61–74, 79–81, 83–8 accommodation 88–94 attuning 90 convergence 89, 94, 172 divergence 90 Estuary English 65, 93, 117 General American 2, 45, 68, 70, 74, 130 mid-accent(s) 65, 66, 71, 78, 84, 90, 93, 129, 150, 179, 189, 190 mimicry 109–10, 112–13 non-rhotic accent 51, 52, 53, 59 RP, see Received Pronunciation 6, 41, 45, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 83–4, 86, 87–8, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 112, 113, 131, 145, 147, 161, 167, 173, 174, 180, 186 rhotic accent 51, 52, 158–9 standard accent(s) 61, 64–5, 66–7, 72, 74, 75–9, 81, 83, 87, 88, 94, 95, 118, 141, 144, 151, 154, 156, 160, 191, 192, 195 agency 39, 90, 139, 166, 178 class 59, 60, 61, 62, 77, 79, 81, 87, 88, 90, 93, 112, 116, 141, 151, 152, 150, 156, 158, 166–71, 185, 186, 189 cleft habitus 54, 90, 155, 185 code-switching 89, 90 covert prestige 59 dialect 8, 57–9, 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 160, 165, 166, 167 diphthongs 69, 70, 94, 111 discourse community 33 double consciousness 54–5 Ebonics 48–9, 57–8, 59, 90 EFL teaching 44–5, 68, 173, 174

ghetto speech 115, 156 glottal stops 50–1, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 90, 102, 111, 117, 124, 125, 126, 128, 144, 150, 155, 156, 157, 163, 165, 167, 188–9, 193 habitus 4 hypercorrection 154, 160 identity authentic identity 17–19, 30–1, 94, 129. See also real mes forced identity, 16, 24, 27, 29, 35, 38, 47, 52, 53, 54, 91, 137, 143, 149, 173, 176, 178. See also fraudulent identity fraudulent identity 30, 31, 44, 46, 53, 60, 91–2, 94, 95, 139, 143, 149, 163, 166, 178 ideal identity 14, 46, 53, 115, 123, 125, 129, 131, 134, 137, 178 imposed identity 13–14, 46, 52, 145, 149 personal identity 3, 9–13, 15, 32, 37, 49, 91, 94, 125, 135, 136, 137–8, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 149, 150, 151, 155, 162, 163, 164, 171, 173, 176, 178, 184, 185 professional identity 3, 15, 16, 23–5, 37, 49, 52, 56, 82, 136, 137–8, 146, 149, 150, 151, 155, 175, 176, 184 real mes 23–8, 95, 127 social (group) identity 15, 42, 163, 167, 168–9 linguistic capital 40, 73, 87, 152 linguistic discrimination 48, 49, 50, 60, 62, 63, 72, 75, 84, 88, 92, 114, 139, 148, 150, 159, 164, 170, 173, 185, 192, 195 linguistic homelessness 172, 177

210 monophthongs 69, 70, 73, 94, 111, 117, 141, 158, 188 OFSTED, see Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, 21, 184 personifying 39, 126 phonological giveaways 72–4, 85–6, 110, 111, 114, 141, 145, 147, 188, 189, 195 phonological reductions 66–72, 94, 111, 114, 117, 131, 144, 147, 188 positionality 103–5 race 63, 64, 88, 92, 97, 115, 116, 145, 184

Index self-reporting 105–6 standard English 40, 49, 57–61, 63, 74, 75, 86, 88, 153, 154, 160, 161, 191 stereotyping 60, 72, 79–88, 112, 114, 151, 194 teacher identity 3, 21–3, 32–40, 125, 132, 138, 140, 141, 142, 151, 162, 179, 180, 183, 185, 191 teacher linguistic identity 40–4, 180, 183 Teachers’ Standards 8, 75, 77, 152–3, 160, 191, 194 TH-fronting 110–11