BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Exploring Multicultural London English across Offline and Online s
 pace - Dr Christian Ilbury (University of Edinburgh)
DTSTART:20220303T163000Z
DTEND:20220303T180000Z
UID:TALK167038@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Javier Moreno
DESCRIPTION:Registration link: https://cam-ac-uk.zoom.us/meeting/register/
 tJwtf-2qqTIuGdCdwQpjZSb_OSYN1GZU_IVK\n\nMulticultural London English acros
 s Offline-Online space\n\nIt has now been over 15 years since the ‘Lingu
 istic Innovators’ project (2004-2006) which first identified and describ
 ed an emerging multiethnolect spoken in London: ‘Multicultural London En
 glish’ (MLE\; see Cheshire et al.\, 2008\; 2011). In the years since\, r
 esearch has examined the social distribution and function of an array of M
 LE features including: pronominal man\, utterance final tags innit and sti
 ll (or <styll>)\, and intensifiers such as bare (see inter alia Cheshire\,
  2013\; Pichler\, 2021\; Núñez-Pertejo & Palacios Martínez\, 2018). Mor
 e recently\, others scholars have drawn comparisons with other varieties s
 poken in ethnically diverse areas of the UK\, such as Manchester and Birmi
 ngham. This has led some to argue for the emergence of a more general vari
 ety – what Drummond (2018) labels ‘Multicultural (Urban) British Engli
 sh’.\n\nPrevious research on MLE tends to converge on the finding that i
 t is an “ethnically-neutral variable repertoire” (Cheshire et al.\, 20
 11: 157) and that its use is best predicted by the ethnic diversity of the
  speakers’ friendship networks (Cheshire et al.\, 2008). Indeed\, for ma
 ny working-class speakers in London today\, MLE appears to be the unmarked
  Labovian vernacular\, largely replacing Cockney. However\, more recent re
 search on MLE and MBE has complicated these claims (see Drummond\, 2018\; 
 Gates\, 2019\; Ilbury\, 2020)\n\nIn this talk\, I explore the use of MLE (
 or MBE) across offline-online space\, considering the ways in which the va
 riety has become ‘recontextualised’ (see von Mengden & Kuhle\, 2020). 
 To do this\, I draw on insights from two recent projects that I have been 
 involved in (Ilbury\, 2020\; Ilbury\, Grieve & Hall\, 2021\; in prep). The
  first project is a blended ethnographic study of language variation in an
  East London youth group. In that study\, I show that aspects of MLE have 
 become enregistered with certain social practices and identities that indi
 rectly reference ethnicity. Specifically I argue that features of MLE are 
 stylistically recruited by individuals to express an alignment with a Blac
 k British interpretation of transatlantic ‘street cultures’ – what s
 ome have termed ‘Road culture’.\n\nThe second project is collaborative
  work with Jack Grieve (Birmingham) and David Hall (QMUL) that explores th
 e spread of MLE lexis across the UK. In that project\, we use a multimilli
 on-word corpora of Tweets from 2014 to examine the geographical distributi
 on of MLE lexis (e.g.\, leng\, paigon\, fam). By examining the frequency o
 f MLE words across different regions\, we find that not only is MLE (or MB
 E) lexis strongly associated with London\, particularly in areas with esta
 blished African Caribbean communities\, but also there is evidence for the
  geographical diffusion of MLE lexis in other ethnically and culturally di
 verse areas in England. I then go onto discuss some (proposed) mechanisms 
 of the diffusion before considering these findings in light of claims of a
  broader ‘MBE’.\n\nConcluding\, I reflect on the dynamics of language 
 variation in an era of digital culture. This leads me to argue for the uti
 lity of integrating social and digital media data in studies of sociolingu
 istic variation and change.
LOCATION:Faculty of English and Online
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR