This study compares the group-specific evaluations of (t) in Greater Manchester, England, with those of (ing) published in a previous study. The comparison is based on a set of perception surveys, in which study participants listened to manipulated audio stimuli and rated them on a series of scales. In contrast to findings for (ing), the social characteristics of listeners are not pertinent to the evaluation of (t): most social meanings associated with (t) are shared across the Greater Manchester population. It is argued that this is due to the pronounced attitude strength of T-glottalling in this particular region.
AghaAsif. 2005. Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology15(1). 38-59.
2.
AndrésenBjørn Stålhane. 1968. Pre-glottalization in English Standard pronunciation. Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press.
3.
BaayenR. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BaranowskiMaciejTurtonDanielle. 2015. Manchester English. In HickeyRaymond (ed.), Researching Northern English, 293-316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5.
BoersmaPaul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International5(9/10). 341-345.
6.
BohnerGerdDickelNina. 2011. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology62. 391-417.
7.
BritainDavid. 2005. The dying dialects of England? In BertaccaAntonio (ed.), Historical linguistic studies of spoken English, 35-46. Pisa: Edizioni Plus.
8.
CameronRichard. 2010. Growing up and apart: Gender divergences in a Chicagoland elementary school. Language Variation and Change22(2). 279-319.
9.
Campbell-KiblerKathryn. 2007. Accent, (ING) and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech82(1). 32-64.
10.
Campbell-KiblerKathryn. 2009. The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change21(1). 135-156.
11.
Campbell-KiblerKathryn. 2011. The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change22(3). 423-441.
DochertyGerard J.FoulkesPaul. 1999. Derby and Newcastle: Instrumental phonetics and variationist studies. In FoulkesPaulDochertyGerard J (eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles, 47-71. London: Arnold.
17.
EckertPenelope. 1997. Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In CoulmasFlorian (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics, 151-67. Oxford: Blackwell.
18.
EckertPenelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
19.
EckertPenelope. 2002. Constructing meaning in sociolinguistic variation. New Orleans, LA: American Anthropological Association 101st Annual Meeting paper.
20.
EckertPenelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics12(4). 453-476.
21.
EckertPenelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology41. 87-100.
22.
FabriciusAnne. 2000. T-glottaling between stigma and prestige: A sociolinguistic study of modern RP. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School dissertation.
23.
FazioRussell. 1986. How do attitudes guide behaviour? In SorrentinoRichardHigginsEdward (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behaviour, 204-243. New York: Guildford.
24.
FazioRussell. 2007. Attitudes as object-evaluation association of varying strength. Social Cognition25(5). 603-637.
25.
GreenwaldAnthony G.1976. Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?Psychological Bulletin83(2). 314-320.
26.
HayJenniferDragerKatieWarrenPaul. 2010. Short-term exposure to one dialect affects processing of another. Language and Speech53(4). 447-471.
27.
HollandRobVerplankenBasvan KnippenbergAd. 2003. From repetition to conviction: Attitude accessibility as a determinant of attitude certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology39(6). 594-601.
28.
HolmesJanet. 1997. Setting new standards: Sound changes and gender in New Zealand English. English World-Wide18(1). 107-142.
29.
JohnstoneBarbaraKieslingScott. 2008. Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meanings of /aw/-monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics12(1). 5-33.
30.
KerenGideon B.Raaijmakers.Jeroen G. W.1988. On between-subjects versus within-subjects comparisons in testing utility theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes41(2). 233-247.
31.
KirkhamSamMooreEmma. 2016. Constructing social meaning in political discourse: Phonetic variation and verb processes in Ed Miliband’s speeches. Language in Society45(1). 87-111.
32.
LabovWilliamAshSharonRavindranathMayaWeldonTraceyBaranowskiMaciejNagyNaomi. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics15(4). 431-463.
33.
LevonErezFoxSue. 2014. Social salience and the sociolinguistic monitor: A case study of (ING) and TH-fronting in Britain. Journal of English Linguistics42(3). 185-217.
34.
LodgeKen R.1984. Studies in the phonology of colloquial English. London: Croom Helm.
35.
MacaulayRonald K. S.1977. Language, social class and education: A Glasgow study. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McCroskeyJames C.Young.Thomas J.1979. The use and abuse of factor analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research5(4). 375-382.
38.
MeesInger M.1987. Glottal stop as a prestigious feature in Cardiff English. English World-Wide8(1). 25-39.
39.
MilroyJamesMilroyLesleyHartleySueWalshawDavid. 1994. Glottal stops and Tyneside glottalization: Competing patterns of variation and change in British English. Language Variation and Change6(3). 327-357.
40.
MilroyLesley. 2007. Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes. In CainCristopher M.RussomGeoffrey (eds.), Managing chaos: Strategies for identifying change in English. Studies in the history of the English Language III, 149-172. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
41.
MontgomeryChris. 2012. The effect of proximity in perceptual dialectology. Journal of Sociolinguistics16(5). 638-668.
42.
MooreEmmaPodesvaRobert. 2009. Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society38(4). 447-485.
43.
OrtonHaroldSandersonStewartWiddowsonJohn. 1978. The linguistic atlas of England. London: Croom Helm.
44.
PodesvaRobert. 2007. Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics11(4). 478-504.
45.
PrestonDennis. 2010. Variation in language regard. In GillesPeterScharlothJoachimZeiglerEvelyn (eds.), Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation, 7-27. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
46.
PrestonDennis. 2011. The power of language regard: Discrimination, classification, comprehension and production. Dialectologia. Special Issue II. 9-33.
47.
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved August 2014 from http://www.R-project.org/.
48.
RobertsJulie. 2006. As old becomes new: Glottalization in Vermont. American Speech81(3). 227-249.
49.
RomaineSuzanneReidEuan C.1976. Glottal sloppiness? A sociolinguistic view of urban speech in Scotland. Teaching English9(3). 12-17.
50.
SankoffDavid1989. Montreal French: Language, class and ideology. In FasoldRalph W.SchiffrinDeborah (eds.), Language change and variation, 107-18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51.
SchleefErik. 2013. Glottal replacement of /t/ in two British capitals: Effects of word frequency and morphological compositionality. Language Variation and Change25(2). 201-223.
52.
SchleefErik.Forthcoming. Developmental sociolinguistics and the acquisition of t-glottalling by immigrant teenagers in London. In de VogelaerGuntherKaterbowMatthias (eds.), Variation in language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
53.
SchleefErikFlynnNicholas E. J.2015. Ageing meanings of (ing): Age and indexicality in Manchester, England. English World-Wide36(1). 47-89.
54.
SchleefErikFlynnNicholas E. J.BarrasWill. 2017. Regional diversity in social perceptions of (ing). Language Variation and Change29(1).
55.
SchleefErikFlynnNicholas E. J.RamsammyMichael. 2015. Production and perception of (ing) in Manchester English. In TorgersenEivindHårstadStianMæhlumBritRøynelandUnn (eds.), Language variation—European perspectives V, 197-209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
56.
ShorrocksGraham. 1998. A grammar of the dialect of the Bolton area. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
57.
StrawMichellePatrickPeter L.2007. Dialect acquisition of glottal variation in /t/: Barbadians in Ipswich. Language Sciences29(2/3). 385-407.
58.
StreinerDavid L.1994. Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry39(3). 135-140.
59.
Stuart-SmithJaneTimminsClaireTweedieFiona. 2007. “Talkin’ Jockney”? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent. Journal of Sociolinguistics11(2). 221-260.
60.
TagliamonteSali. 2004. Somethi[n]’s goi[n] on! Variable ING at ground zero. In GunnarsonBritt-LouiseBergströmLenaEklundGerdFridellStaffanHansenLiseKarstadtAngelaNordbergBengtSundgrenEvaThelanderMats (eds.), Language variation in Europe, 390-403. Uppsala: Uppsala University Department of Scandinavian Languages.
61.
TagliamonteSaliD’ArcyAlexandra. 2009. Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language85(1). 58-108.
62.
TrudgillPeter. 1988. Norwich revisited: Recent changes in an English urban dialect. English World-Wide9(1). 33-49.
63.
WalkerAbbyGarcíaChristinaCortésYomiCampbell-KiblerKathryn. 2014. Comparing social meanings across listener and speaker groups: The indexical field of Spanish /s/. Language Variation and Change26(2). 169-189.
64.
WellsJohn C.1982. Accents of English 1: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
65.
WilliamsAnnKerswillPaul. 1999. Dialect levelling: Change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In FoulkesPaulDochertyGerard J. (eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles, 141-162. London: Arnold.
66.
ZahnChristopher J.HopperRobert. 1985. Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument (SEI). Journal of Language and Social Psychology4(2). 113-123.
