Transcript www.phonetik.uni

Television and language change –
evidence from Glasgow
Jane Stuart-Smith
Department of English Language, University of Glasgow
IPS Munich, Hauptseminar, Soziophonetik
28 May 2008
Television and language change –
evidence from Glasgow
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Quantitative sociolinguistics and language change
TV and language change
Why consider TV?
The Glasgow media project
Results: the correlational study
Interpreting the results
Linguistic appropriation from TV – a working model
The next steps …
2
Recap: quantitative sociolinguistics
observing sound change in progress
• classic sociolinguistic investigation of language variation and
change was formulated by William Labov (e.g. Labov 1972),
and pioneered in large cities, like New York City and Glasgow
• Linguistic variables (any aspect of language which shows a
number of variants) are correlated with extra-linguistic
variables (any aspect of society, e.g. social class, gender,
age, ethnicity)
• Language change in progress observed through the
comparison of patterns of variation across age groups/times,
and explained with reference to social factors/processes
3
A (set of) social factor(s) –
TV and language change?
traditional view of ‘variationist’/’quantitative’ sociolinguistics
• watching TV may affect vocabulary
• but not core features of language, e.g. pronunciation,
grammar
(e.g. Chambers, e.g. 1998, Trudgill, 1986)
‘at the deeper reaches of language change – sound
changes and grammatical changes – the media have no
significant effect at all’
(Chambers 1998: 124)
4
A (set of) social factor(s) –
TV and language change?
traditional view of ‘variationist’/’quantitative’ sociolinguistics
• watching TV may affect vocabulary
• but not core features of language, e.g. pronunciation,
grammar
(e.g. Chambers, e.g. 1998, Trudgill, 1986)
• language change primarily takes place through
accommodation during face-to-face interaction (dialect
contact)
• assumption of strong media effects with ‘direct’ influence
on behaviour
5
TV and language change?
• TV may
– increase awareness of linguistic varieties
– and/or affect attitudes towards other varieties
(e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1985)
• If core features of grammar are affected, this results from
– voluntary orientation towards media
– conscious copying from media models
(e.g. Trudgill 1986; Carvalho 2004)
6
Consonant changes in the UK
Certain consonant changes, typical of London accents
(e.g. Cockney), are spreading rapidly across urban
accents of British English
e.g. TH-fronting, [f] for // in e.g. think, tooth
e.g. Foulkes and Docherty (1999), Kerswill (2003)
In some accents, e.g. Glaswegian,
these features are found exclusively
in working-class adolescents with
relatively low social and geographical
mobility
(e.g. Stuart-Smith et al, 2007)
7
the media themselves are happy
to blame
television
especially popular soap dramas
set in London, such as
EastEnders, apparently featuring
Cockney dialect
8
Why linguists should consider TV (1)
• TV is exceptionally prevalent
• Some TV programmes constitute social phenomena,
e.g. the London-based soap EastEnders (1985-)
– screened 4 times/week plus weekend omnibus
– regularly attracted 18 million viewers/episode (i.e. almost onethird UK population)
– viewing of key episodes have caused exceptional surges in
electricity demand (e.g. National Grid 2001)
– viewers can be highly engaged (e.g. Buckingham 1987)
9
Why linguists should consider TV (2)
• Media are assumed to affect social behaviours
(e.g. McQuail 2005)
BUT
– TV is assumed to be a contributory factor, along with
other factors (Klapper 1960: 8)
– audience assumed to be active interpreters of media
texts (e.g. Philo 1999)
– TV and para-social interaction (e.g. Abercrombie 1996)
10
Why linguists should consider TV (3)
• linguists are starting to include TV:
– as possible cause of language change, in, e.g. German
(e.g. Lameli 2004; Muhr 2003)
– in accounts of language change
e.g. Br. Portuguese (Naro 1981, Naro and Scherre 1996)
Ur. Portuguese (Carvalho 2004)
• and to wonder about TV in these changes
(e.g. Foulkes and Docherty 2000)
11
The Glasgow media project
Is TV a contributory factor in accent change in adolescents?
(2002-5)
Economic and Social Research Council (R000239757)
Are the media a contributory factor in systemic language
change under certain circumstances for certain
individuals?
12
The Glasgow media project
Is TV a contributory factor in accent change in adolescents?
(2002-5)
Economic and Social Research Council (R000239757)
Are the media a contributory factor in systemic language
change under certain circumstances for certain
individuals?
Does TV play a role in the appearance of Cockney
accent features in the speech of Glaswegian
adolescents?
13
The research team
• The Research Fellow
Claire Timmins
• The Statistician
(Prof) Gwilym Pryce
• The Media expert
(Prof) Barrie Gunter
• a group of kids (and
adults) from Maryhill in
Glasgow
14
Method
• sample
– 36 adolescents; 12 adults (working-class)
• data
– speech: wordlist and spontaneous
– Questionnaire; informal interviews
• design
– Experiment; correlational study
• analysis
– auditory transcription
– all tokens of wordlist
– first 30 tokens of spontaneous speech
15
Linguistic variables
• TH-fronting: [f] for /θ/ in e.g. think, both
• DH-fronting: [v] for // in e.g. brother
• L-vocalization: /l/ vocalized to high back (un)rounded
vowel e.g. people, milk, well
•
•
•
•
typical of Cockney (working-class London) accent
unexpected in Glasgow English
reported informally since 1980s (Macafee 1983)
confirmed as changes in 1997 (Stuart-Smith et al 2007)
16
Results I: Glaswegian is changing
• For all three variables, in wordlists and conversational
speech
– apparent-time change: adolescents use more ‘new’
variants than adults
– real-time change: we find more ‘new’ variants in 2003
than in 1997
17
Change in progress: TH-fronting
100%
80%
% [f]
60%
40%
fraction variant
1997 conversation
1997 wordlist
20%
conversations
wordlists
0%
progress of change
18
Change in progress: L-vocalization
100%
80%
% [V]
60%
fraction variant
40%
1997 conversation
1997 wordlist
20%
conversations
wordlists
0%
progress of change
19
Change in progress: DH-fronting
100%
80%
% [v]
60%
40%
fraction variant
1997 wordlist
20%
wordlist
conversation
0%
progress of change
20
Why are these changes happening?
Correlational study
– (th):[f], (dh):[v], (l):[V]
with
– dialect contact (beyond and within Glasgow)
– attitudes to accents
– social practices/identity
– music (incl. radio)
– computers (incl. internet)
– film (incl. video/DVD)
– sport
– TV
21
Why are these changes happening?
Correlational study
– (th):[f], (dh);[v], (l):[V]
with
– dialect contact (beyond and within Glasgow)
– attitudes to accents
– social practices/identity
– music (incl. radio)
– computers (incl. internet)
– film (incl. video/DVD)
– sport
– TV
22
Statistical analysis
• logistic regression
• ‘general-to-specific’ model
• create list for each category of social factors (e.g. dialect
contact, attitudes, TV, etc.)
• run regressions on each category list
• significant variables from each list + theoretically
interesting variables
-> overall shortlist
• run regressions on list until only significant variables
remain
23
Results II: Dialect contact
Initial baseline criteria: informants born and raised in area
(2.8% born in England, 2001 Census)
Most have few relatives beyond Glasgow, whom they
talk to more than they see. Main contact with friends
and family within Glasgow.
• Some positive links with relatives and friends living in the
South of England for four linguistic variables
• variance explained: 5-8%
24
Results II: Attitudes to accents
• speech samples of 7 accents
–
–
–
–
female speakers same age
reading same passage
beginning of questionnaire
also checked identification of accents
• ‘mental image’ of 8 urban accents (cf Preston 1999)
– e.g. ‘what do you think of the accents in London?’
– end of questionnaire
25
Results II: Attitudes to accents
• Glasgow kids like London accents but less than other
accents
Glasgow
MC Glasgow
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Manchester
London
RP
-1
0
1
2
(less positive ……………... more positive)
average responses for all informants to speech samples
26
Results II: Attitudes to accents
• Some positive links for liking London accent, and/or
being able to identify London accent correctly, but also
scattered relationships with other accents.
• variance explained: 5-12%
27
Results II: Social practices
Our sample captures
some existing groups and
fragments of others
The majority of the
sample identify each
other as ‘neds’, i.e. young
urban delinquents
“I’m a wee Glasgow
person. I wouldnae say
I’m a ned ’cause I don’t
like go oot and start fights
an’ aw that.” (2m3)
http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk/
28
Results II: Social practices
• some positive links with more anti-school practices
• variance explained: 2-18%
29
Results II: TV
Our informants report access to 3+ TV sets at home, and
say that they watch TV every day, with average exposure of
around 3 hours/day.
London-based programmes are rated highest for soap
(EastEnders), comedy (Only Fools and Horses), and police
drama (The Bill).
TH-/DH-fronting and L-vocalization occur (variably) in
‘media-Cockney’
30
Two Glaswegian adolescent boys talking …
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
L
R
have you been watchin’ EastEnders?
Phhhh, uuh.
Do you watch it?
Aye ah watch it but.
Brilliant man
No’ saw it (inaudible)
They two nearly got caught aff ay,
Aye
Sam was it?
Sam, an,
(laughs)
She hid behind the couch.
Aye. (laughs)
That’s the last one ah saw ah think.
Ah know she wants tae break it up now an’ he doesnae.
(laughs)
Pure shockin’ innit?
Aye, ‘cause he’s
Mad Barry’s left in his cell man, pure makes, things for him an’ aw that. So he does, ‘s
quite shockin’
31
Results II: TV
• Several factors are significant
– positive correlations, mainly with engagement with
EastEnders
– negative with simply watching TV, or engaging with
Scottish/Northern/US programmes
– Fairly consistent pattern across the five variables
• variance explained: 4-13%
32
music
sport
attitudes
dialect
contact
TV
lik re wd
c
fi
e
an ord nal
im vi
at de
io o
re n f
nt
il
co ms
R me
e
d
su a l R y
pp a
d
w ort io
at
C
co w ch elt
m atc sn ic
o
pu h
te Fo oke
r g rm r
am u
es la 1
a
ch lon
e
a
in
te troo
rn
e m
lik dis t o s
se e L like the
e/ on
sc r
ta
d
h
o
lk
re n s ool
l S am
N
En ple
gl
w and
at
% ch T
T
V
w Vc
at
o
ch n v
C
o
w rS
at
t
EE ch
fa ER
v
pr
og
film
ExpB
TH-fronting (wordlists) all categories
Variables
tested:
6.00
4.00
linguistic
2.00
0.00
-2.00
computers
-4.00
social
-6.00
Reg 1: n = 715, r2 = 35; Reg 2: n = 715, r2 = 35
33
TH-fronting (conversations) all categories
Variables
tested:
14.00
linguistic
10.00
12.00
film
music
sport
ExpB
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
-2.00
social
-4.00
us
ic
m
dialect
contact
wo
rd
f in
l
we
%
ek
m
us
en
ic
d
in
fo
rm
pl
al
ay
wa
fo
ot
tc
ba
h
Fo
ll
rm
ul
a
ch
1
at
ro
in
om
te
s
rn
et
ot
di
he
sl
ike
r
sc
ou
ho
tw
ol
/e
nd
ni
gh
vis
t
it
Lo
nd
on
%
TV
co
wa
nv
tc
h
Co
r
wa St
tc
h
ER
fa
v
ch
ar
EE
computers
TV
Reg 1: n = 1327, r2 = 23; Reg 2: n = 1327, r2 = 23
34
music
dialect
contact
TV
wo
rd
%
f in
f il
m
l
m
us
c
ic
da onv
y
w
go
/e
w
nd
/e
n
d
id
di
en
n
sl
tif
ike ight
y
Lo
s
se
n d cho
e/
ol
on
ta
sa
lk
re
m
se
lS
p
e/
E n le
ta
lk
gl
an
re
lN
d
en
gl
ta
an
l
id
en k TV d
tif
f il
y
m
W
s
C
G
la
s
wa w
tc
h
TV
ta
lk
wa
TV
tc
in
h/
f
lik
e
wa
CS
tc
h/
t
lik
wa
e
ER
tc
h/
lik
e
EE
linguistic
20.00
film
15.00
ExpB
DH-fronting (wordlists) all categories
Variables
tested:
30.00
25.00
10.00
social
5.00
attitudes
0.00
-5.00
Reg 1: n = 644, r2 = 53; Reg 2: n = 662, r2 = 50
35
attitudes
dialect
contact
TV
ea opl
e
l
m Ra
us dio
do ic c
o
i n at h nv
vo le
in lve tic
te d s
rn sp
e
in t g ort
te am
de rn
e
via et s
o
te th
l
lik ike un er
e N
Lo /c ifor
n s m
se d o n a m
p
e/
ta sam le
se lk
e/ re ple
ta l N
lk
re eng
vi l S
sit e
Lo ng
n
w do
at n
ch
%
Lo
T
nd TV V
pr co
og nv
c
lik
lik onv
e
e
EE
C
S
/c
rit like t
ici
se ER
ch
ar
s
social
%
computers
pe
sport
R
music
Exp B
L-vocalization (wordlists) all categories
Variables
tested:
7.00
6.00
linguistic
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
Reg 1: n = 876, r2 = 20; Reg 2: n = 876, r2 = 19
36
sport
computers
social
attitudes
dialect
contact
TV
pe
m ople
ed
y
su
pp film
or
s
tC
pl
ay elti
de sn c
o
vi
at oke
e
un r
ol
ifo
d
lik
e
r
em e L r ac m
o
t
iv
ai
nd
lf
on ities
rie
n
s
se
e/ ds f am
p
ta
lk rom le
re
l N Gla
SE sg
n
vi glan
si
d
tL
on
do
w
at n
ch
ta
T
lk
TV V
% fil m
TV s
co
w
at nv
ch
C
St
w
EE
at
c
fa
h
v
E
pr
og R
/c
ha
r
Linguistic
co
Variables
tested:
lik
e
film
ExpB
L-vocalization (conversations) all categories
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
Reg 1: n = 1015, r2 = 20; Reg 2: n = 1015, r2 = 19
37
Correlational study – results
for all linguistic variables
• satisfactory model only achieved when a range of social
factors entered together
• A number of social factors are significant together
including
– dialect contact
– social practices
– engagement with TV (EastEnders)
• How should these results be interpreted?
38
Social factors and language change
Language
e.g. (th):[f]
attitudes
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
39
Attitudes and language change?
Language
attitudes
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
40
Dialect contact and language change?
Language
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
41
Dialect contact and language change
Language
Speech accommodation
in face-to-face interaction
(e.g. Trudgill 1986)
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
42
Social practices and language change?
Language
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
43
Social practices and language change
Language
Linguistic practices develop
with social practices as part
of identity construction
(e.g. Eckert 2000)
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
44
Social practices/TV and language change?
Language
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
45
Social practices/TV and language change?
Language
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
46
TV and language change?
Language
Factors not
measured
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
47
TV and language change?
Language
Factors not
measured
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
48
TV and language change?
Language
Factors not
measured
How?
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
49
TV and language change?
Language
Factors not
measured
Direct
behavioural
influence?
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
50
TV and language change?
Language
Factors not
measured
Awareness?
Copying?
(e.g. Trudgill 1986)
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
51
Awareness of ‘media-Cockney’?
• Explored using informal imitation task (boys only) given
during informal interview (cf Preston 1992)
– informants shown a set of picture cards
– asked to pronounce words first in their own accent
– shown a picture of a leading actor from EastEnders
– asked to talk about his accent and theirs
– asked to say words again, but with the same accent as the actor
– Fine phonetic analysis of the pairs of words
52
Awareness of media-Cockney
All children thought the actor’s accent was different from theirs
• ‘he’s from a different place … just different’
• ‘English’ ‘he’s fae England’ ‘s just … pure English, no?’
• ‘English snobby’ ‘says it posher’
• ‘It’s like a sore throat accent … or … they took his tonsils oot or
something’
• ‘Ah ‘hink they pronounce more’
• ‘He changes the letters, if it was ‘f’ he’d use ‘v’’
• ‘he talks different’ ‘he talks more tough’
• ‘It’s aw right … I wouldnae like to speak like it but’
53
Imitation of ‘media-Cockney’
• First impression: ‘Ah cannae talk like him’
•
•
•
•
idiosyncratic, subtle, alteration of segments
more alteration to suprasegmentals
no apparent systematic alteration of (th dh l)
no evidence of awareness of these features as particular
features of this character’s speech
• Implication: variation in these speakers is not resulting
from conscious copying
54
TV and language change?
Language
Factors not
measured
How?
TV
engagement
Social
practices
Dialect
contact
55
Rethinking the notion of TV ‘influence’
• ‘causality’ ≠ blanket transmission of linguistic features to
passive speaker/viewer
– appropriation, i.e. what each speaker/viewer takes for
themselves whilst engaging with the media, given their
own particular experience of the world (Holly et al 2001)
– observations from interactional sociolinguistics that
individuals appropriate media material for specific
stylistic purposes (e.g. Androutsopoulos 2001)
– current ‘episodic’ models of speech
perception/production assume at least short-term
storage of incoming material – from all sources – as
part of process of perceiving speech
56
Linguistic appropriation from TV
– a working model
• the ‘bones’
– perception
– appropriation
– sociolinguistic system
‘systematic resonance’
appropriating
at media
– production
– style/identity
exploiting
in context
– time
57
The next steps …
• Investigate ethnographically the kinds of phonetic
variation that speakers exhibit whilst watching TV
• Investigate experimentally how people respond to
speech experienced in different ways, e.g. through
watching it pre-recorded on screen (like TV) or from
talking to another speaker
58
The next steps …
• Investigate ethnographically the kinds of phonetic
variation that speakers exhibit whilst watching TV
• Investigate experimentally how people respond to
speech experienced in different ways, e.g. through
watching it pre-recorded on screen (like TV) or from
talking to another speaker
59
The next steps …
• Initial results from our first experiment (Stuart-Smith,
Smith and Holmes 2008) suggest that
– speakers do learn about accents other than their own from
interactive and ‘mediated’ speech
but that
– the processes of learning are different for each source
– linguistic structure is important
– attention may play an important role for mediated speech
60
EXTRA SLIDES
61
1. TH-fronting
100%
100%
80%
80%
[m]
60%
[thf]
[f]
40%
[th]
20%
[0]
60%
[h]
[f]
40%
[th]
20%
0%
0%
1F
1M
2F
2M
wordlists (n = 951)
3F
3M
4F
4M
1F
1M
2F
2M
3F
3M
4F
4M
conversations (n = 2519)
62
1. DH-fronting
100%
80%
[m]
[dhv]
60%
[r]
40%
[v]
[dh]
20%
0%
1F
1M
2F
2M
3F
3M
4F
4M
wordlists (only) (n = 973)
63
1. L-vocalization
100%
100%
80%
80%
[m]
60%
[lV]
[V]
40%
[lV]
60%
[V]
40%
[l]
[l]
20%
20%
0%
0%
1F
1M
2F
2M
wordlists (n = 1165)
3F
3M
4F
4M
1F
1M
2F
2M
3F
3M
4F
4M
conversations (n = 1429)
64
2. Results
• Linguistic
– significant factor of specific position in word emerged
for each variable:
– variance explained: around 12%
• regressions for age and gender consistently either failed
to be significant, or to show sufficiently high explanation
of variance
(cf Labov 2001: 272, n 16)
65
3c. TH-fronting and TV
20
30
25
15
Count
Count
20
10
15
10
5
5
0
two
three
0
more than three
1-2 days a week
How many television sets do you have in your house?
5-6 days a week
every day
How often do you watch the television?
many have 3 or more TV sets
most watch TV every day
weekday
weekend
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
2
Count
Count
4
0
Less than 1 hr
Btw n 2 and up to 3 h
Btw n 1 and up to 2 h
More than 5 hrs
Btw n 3 and up to 5 h
How much TV do you watch on weekdays?
2
0
Less than 1 hr
Btw n 2 and up to 3 h
Btw n 1 and up to 2 h
More than 5 hrs
Btw n 3 and up to 5 h
How much TV do you watch on weekend days?
self-reported TV exposure of between 1 to 5 hours a day (av. 3hrs)
66
Mean
1.50
Mean
3c. They watch and like EastEnders most
like
watch
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
ily
m
?
et
re
St
?
irs
fa
Af
?
ks
oa
ly
ol
H
Fa
e?
al
d
er
m
Em
s?
r
de
en
st
Ea
s?
ad
ro
ss
ro
C
n
io
at
on
or
C
e
lik
e
lik
e
lik
e
lik
e
lik
e
lik
s?
ak
yo
oll
-H
?
irs
ffa
?
ale
d
er
A
ily
am
-F
m
m
-E
s?
er
nd
te
as
-E
?
et
re
St
s?
ad
ro
ss
ro
-C
ion
at
on
or
-C
67
Extra-linguistic variables – TV
• correct identification of TV programmes (auditory accent
stimulus)
• general TV exposure
• exposure to soaps/dramas
• favourite programme/character/accent
• engagement with soaps/dramas
• TV and socialising (watching TV; talking about TV;
engaging with TV)
• additional mention of TV from project recordings
68
3c. TH-fronting occurs (variably)
in EastEnders
All positions TH _ EastEnders
100%
80%
0
%
60%
f
40%
th
KELLY
KAT
SPENCER
SONIA
NATALIE
ALFIE
RICKY
SAM
SHARON
IAN
PAT
PAUL
LITTLE
PHIL
BILLY
0%
PEGGY
20%
Characters
69
4. Imitation of media-Cockney
(phonetic alteration)
• our first impressions were that little had been changed
• but narrow auditory transcription revealed that most children altered
at least something in response to the task
• segments were altered
– in the ‘expected’ direction: e.g. [th] > [f]
– also towards the standard: e.g. [f] > [th]
• changes in suprasegmental features were striking:
– voice quality; length; pitch
e.g. face: 1M2:
own
town: 1M1:
own
brother: 3M4: own
thinking: 2M5: own
imitated
imitated
imitated
imitated
70
Imitation
1.00
(th)
1.00
(l)
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.60
different
0.50
same
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
different
0.50
same
0.00
mouth
teeth
thinking
milk
w heel
bottle
71
Investigating media effects
• media effects research typically investigates the potential
short-term effects of TV using two main approaches
(e.g. Gunter 2000)
• (longitudinal) correlational studies
e.g. Lefkowitz et al (1972), agression/predict aggressive behaviour
• behavioural experiments
e.g. Bandura et al (1963), direct imitation and/or generalized
aggression
72
Results II: TV as ‘softening-up’ agent?
• Are positive attitudes towards Cockney the result of
watching popular programmes set in London (i.e.
Trudgill’s ‘softening-up’, 1988:44)?
• We tested this claim statistically using multiple
regression analysis to find out which variables might be
linked with holding positive attitudes to Cockney.
• The only significant result was in fact a negative link
between liking the Cockney speech sample and
watching EastEnders.
73
Results II: TV
20
30
25
15
Count
Count
20
10
15
10
5
5
0
two
three
0
more than three
1-2 days a week
How many television sets do you have in your house?
5-6 days a week
every day
How often do you watch the television?
many have 3 or more TV sets
most watch TV every day
weekday
weekend
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
2
Count
Count
4
0
Less than 1 hr
Btw n 2 and up to 3 h
Btw n 1 and up to 2 h
More than 5 hrs
Btw n 3 and up to 5 h
How much TV do you watch on weekdays?
2
0
Less than 1 hr
Btw n 2 and up to 3 h
Btw n 1 and up to 2 h
More than 5 hrs
Btw n 3 and up to 5 h
How much TV do you watch on weekend days?
self-reported TV exposure of between 1 to 5 hours a day (av. 3hrs)
74
Mean
1.50
Mean
They watch and like EastEnders most
like
watch
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
ily
m
?
et
re
St
?
irs
fa
Af
?
ks
oa
ly
ol
H
Fa
e?
al
d
er
m
Em
s?
r
de
en
st
Ea
s?
ad
ro
ss
ro
C
n
io
at
on
or
C
e
lik
e
lik
e
lik
e
lik
e
lik
e
lik
s?
ak
yo
oll
-H
?
irs
ffa
?
ale
d
er
A
ily
am
-F
m
m
-E
s?
er
nd
te
as
-E
?
et
re
St
s?
ad
ro
ss
ro
-C
ion
at
on
or
-C
75
These features occur (variably)
in EastEnders, e.g. TH-fronting
All positions TH _ EastEnders
100%
80%
0
%
60%
f
40%
th
KELLY
KAT
SPENCER
SONIA
NATALIE
ALFIE
RICKY
SAM
SHARON
IAN
PAT
PAUL
LITTLE
PHIL
BILLY
0%
PEGGY
20%
Characters
76