If you live in the UK or are familiar with its wide range of accents and dialects, you can probably tell the difference between a posh or upper-class accent, (think the “King’s English”) and one more associated with the working class (such as Cockney).
Besides accents, it is a popular view, reinforced in media and pop culture, that certain words are used specifically by people of certain classes. For example, in the book Watching the English, social anthropologist Kate Fox comments that the word “sofa” is used by upper-middle-class speakers or above.
In the 1950s, Alan Ross, a professor of linguistics at the University of Birmingham, claimed to identify behaviour that distinguished England’s upper classes from the rest of society. These included, among other things, not playing tennis in braces and an aversion to high tea.
He also identified features of pronunciation, grammar and use of specific words which he thought differed. This was not based on empirical research, but solely on his own perceptions (“armchair linguistics”). While Ross’s claims are often referenced in the media, there has not been much research to see if these views hold up today.
Through two studies carried out with our colleagues George Bailey and Eddie O'Hara Brown, we tried to find out. We investigated the use of words that Ross and others have identified as indicators of class: the supposedly upper-class words loo, napkin and sofa, with their supposedly non-upper-class counterparts, toilet, serviette and settee.
In the first study, we used spot-the-difference tasks to prompt 80 participants of different ages, genders and social classes to say these words. For example, “the sofa is a different colour in that picture” or “the toilet is green in the left picture and white in the right one”. This meant that participants were focused more on the task than the actual words, so we were able to examine their natural usage.
Read more: When did class stop predicting who people vote for in Britain? Know Your Place podcast
While the supposedly upper-class napkin and sofa were more common than serviette or settee, the supposedly non-upper-class toilet was more common than loo. For example, where napkin was used by 72 participants, only 18 used serviette (some speakers used multiple words). This challenges Ross’s claims that words distinguish the upper class from the rest of society. If most people use a word, that word cannot be a reliable indicator of upper classness.
In terms of social variation, we found that the usage of these words varied, but not in a way associated with social class. For example, there were some interesting results relating to age. While, on the one hand, the reportedly upper-class loo is used more by older speakers, the supposedly non-upper-class serviette and settee are also more commonly used by older speakers.
Perception of words and class
We also wanted to examine the perception of these words, as in whether people think certain words are associated with social characteristics, such as education level, professionalism, formality and poshness, which are traits associated with class.
So, in a second experiment, we asked 100 participants to evaluate several social media posts, asking them to judge the writers. Half of the participants read the “upper-class word” and half read the “non-upper-class” word within an otherwise identical phrase, adapted from genuine posts on social media.
For example, one message was: “My flatmate went to a wedding and I brought takeaway, was almost done eating before I saw something that looks like a fried egg, put it in my mouth and it was a napkin/serviette. God why me!?”
From this experiment, we found that the perception of these words is not uniform across social groups. For example, the higher socioeconomic group thought sofa to be more posh, while the lower socioeconomic group perceived settee as more posh.
There were no perceptual differences between toilet/loo. And serviette was perceived as more posh than napkin, despite being identified by Ross and others as the non-upper-class form.
Both of our studies, as well as complementary analysis of the spoken British National Corpus (a 10 million word database of spoken English), show that there is little consistency in the way that each of the investigated variables are used and perceived.
Of course, this is not to say that there are no class-based vocabulary markers in contemporary British English, or that the effects of such perceptions do not have an effect. As much other linguistic research shows, class-based accent and dialect discrimination are unfortunately still alive and well.
While the view that some words are posher than others has endured, our findings show that the claims popularised by Ross in the 1950s are not reflected in the reality of England today.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
