“Signed, One Who Does Not Call a Spade a Spyde”: arguments over vowels in 1890s Melbourne

This paper investigates the intersection of socioeconomic status and country of birth in social meanings of Australian English (AusE) variation in colonial Australia. It does this by examining written data from the 1890s.

The British colonisers of Australia were both transported convicts and free settlers. By the late 1800s, most white Australians were Australian-born (the ‘currency’ or ‘colonials’), while others were English-born (the ‘sterling’). Most ‘currency’ individuals were the children of freed convicts. This social distinction was highly salient to Australians during this time. Socioeconomic status (SES) also remained a salient social distinction.

The data examined in this paper consists of 133 letters to the editor of the Melbourne newspaper Argus, published over three weeks in late 1893 and early 1894. Letter-writers are arguing over which group(s) of Australians use ‘bad’ or ‘incorrect’ vowels. They specifically cite FACE, KIT, MOUTH, and CLOTH as relevant vowel variables. Variables identified are largely the same between authors. The main disagreement is over whether the social dimension of this variation is SES or the currency/sterling distinction. Letter-writers link SES to AusE variation both explicitly and via qualities such as education level, intelligence, correctness, and politeness. Variation is also linked to the currency/sterling distinction, mostly assigning ‘bad’ pronunciation to currency individuals.

Analysis suggests that socioeconomic status was a highly salient social dimension for Australians in the 1890s with respect to AusE variation. The currency/sterling distinction was almost equally salient to AusE speakers; the speech of the Australian-born was almost universally stigmatised. Finally, this paper argues that the currency/sterling distinction in colonial Australia was itself closely related to socioeconomic status.

Within a semiotic enregisterment framework (Agha, 2007), these letters are simultaneously reflections of social meaning and acts of enregistering social meaning. Thus, they provide important insight into the social dimensions of variation in AusE in colonial Australia.

Reference

Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.