Dissertation Version To Print

Rather Wonderful: A study of linguistic features of the British Aristocracy 1
The Lygon family at Madresfield (sisters Dorothy and Sibell 1st and 3rd from L)
Rather Wonderful:
A study of linguistic features
of the British Aristocracy
Student no 150601719
Rather Wonderful: A study of linguistic features of the British Aristocracy
CONTENTS
Page Title
03 ABSTRACT
04 INTRODUCTION
07 LITERARY REVIEW
12 DATA AND METHODS
15 RESULTS
44 DISCUSSION
49 CONCLUSION
51 PRIMARY SOURCES
51 BIBLIOGRAPHY
56 APPENDIX
ABSTRACT
This study explores the hitherto somewhat overlooked discourse of the British upper-class, or
aristocracy. It shows how previous analyses of class variance have tended to compare only middle-
class and working-class speakers and identifies the upper-class as a social group worth exploring. It
suggests that linguists have a role in ensuring where possible that written dialogue for period drama
featuring the upper-class should accurately reflect the discourse of the time. The study identifies the
pragmatic markers, adverbs and adjectives and rare lexical items found in a corpus of upper-class
speech from a TV documentary series broadcast early in the 21st Century, featuring interviewees
whose average birth year was 1925. The transcript of the TV series is compared with the spoken data
of the British National Corpus, and variance is illustrated in a series of bar charts, which show the
differences between the two corpora in figures per thousand words spoken, and percentage of
individual speaker use. Where possible, gender variance is also shown. The study finds that there is a
significantly greater use by the aristocrats of the intensifiers; absolutely and very, and the tendency
for them to double intensifiers, as in very, very. The hedge, sort of, crops up frequently, and the
multifunctional terms; quite, rather and really, and the adjectives; great, little and wonderful, are all
spoken more by the upper-class group. The men were more like to use absolutely, great, rather, sort
of, very and wonderful, where the women were more likely to use little, quite and really. There is an
indication that the tags at the end of a phrase, I think, I don’t think and I s’pose, were all more
common in women’s speech, and that the adjective beautiful was more likely to be used by women. It
was also found that well… at the start of a phrase was more used by women. Unusual lexical items
were noted, and those which did not occur even once in the BNC corpus are listed. Without looking at
historic documents and old film footage, dialogue writers for period drama do not have an enormous
amount of access to authentic discourse from the last 100 years or earlier, so it is hoped that this
work will have some use in that area. This is an exploratory study, intended to open debate on this
topic. It does not focus on any one marker, nor go into great detail about collocation, nor undertake
statistical significance testing. The purpose is simply to identify features, which with further research,
might prove to be typical of the speech of the upper-class of this period in recent history.
INTRODUCTION
The class system in the United Kingdom is well known, but today, less discussed. With the
existence of comparatively few class based linguistics studies, this essay examines an almost
completely overlooked linguistic group - the British upper-class, or aristocracy. The discourse of a
corpus of upper-class speakers is compared with that of the general public, through the British
National Corpus, focusing on pragmatic markers, adverbs and adjectives, and unusual lexical items. It
aims to identify features of discourse which can be claimed to be more typical of the upper-class.
How is class defined? Cannadine (2000: 2), contrasts the views of Karl Marx and Margaret
Thatcher. Marx believed that society is always a history of class struggle, between workers and
capitalists, where Thatcher regarded the concept of class as ‘communist’; separating people into
groups and setting them against each other, but have we achieved, in the 21st Century, her ideal of a
‘classless society’? Max Weber’s economic sociology theory explained class in terms of social actions,
lifestyles and opportunities (Meyerhoff, 2006: 156). Very often, class has been defined by income,
education and occupation (Downes, 1998: 109), but perhaps more than all these it is about, first and
foremost, the degree of access to social power. Despite his much quoted New York study, where
Labov (1966), suggested that one’s speech is related to social position, Block (2015), claims that in
Linguistics, we have suffered ‘social class erasure’, where class has received little or no attention,
compared with the many studies based on identity and societal issues. Fairclough (2001: 33),
describes the ‘opacity of discourse’, suggesting that through discourse we unconsciously legitimise
or de-legitimise the power of our position and social status. It could be said that we betray our social
class every time we open our mouths. What is the position of class in the UK in 2018? In his article
on the differences in discourse of the television review pages of British newspaper, The Daily Mail,
from 1971 to 2013, Michael Toolan (2016), found that occurrences of reference to social class had
declined by more than two-thirds over the 42 years. Has discourse around social class become less
relevant over time? Or more taboo? Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1994: 36), suggest that with the
waning of traditional lifestyles, class does not disappear, but becomes emancipated, as people are
able to mix more across class divisions. So is a class based study relevant? In 2011, the BBC
undertook the Great British Class Survey. The public were questioned people on economic, social
and cultural capital. The survey established seven classes, of which, the top, Elite Class, consisted of
6% of the population, high in all three capitals, one of which, economic capital, included savings and
assets (Savage et al., 2013). Typical professions in this class were executives, directors and barristers
– those we might call, by economic capital alone, upper-middle-class. Trudgill’s (1974) study, divided
the Norwich population into 6 classes, the highest of which was ‘middle-middle-class’. Neither study
explicitly covered those with inherited wealth.
Traditionally, the British aristocracy have been a small group of people who owned a large
proportion of the real estate of the country - very often leaders of society, through politics or
industry. The terms Lady and Gentleman, originally referred to people of means. As class became
more specifically defined in the 19th Century, gentleman came to mean a form of social approval and
behaviour (Crossick, 1991: 164). Today there is still a semantic difference between a man and a
gentleman, and a woman and a lady. In the last 100 years, the aristocracy has seen great reductions
in the proportion of land and property they own. Their class status, however, does not change.
Sometimes aristocrats end up virtually penniless, but remain upper-class. Internationally, the term,
upper-class, is often used to merely denote wealth and possibly power, (Wright, 2009), but in the
U.K., class and money do not always go hand in hand. The upper-class is a group one is born into, or
marries into. There is almost no chance of entering it in any other way, except perhaps through
schooling or certain careers, but even then, entry to the circle would be almost impossible without a
suitable marriage. The upper-class is a tighter social network than the middle-class, whose members
are often separated from their geographical origins due to relocation for work. Upper-class network
strength (Milroy and Milroy, 1992) is strong because traditionally this group has socialised together,
through their education, politics, the military, country pursuits, house parties, summer seasons,
Royal court, and of course, through inter-marriage. We can hypothesise, therefore, that there must
be speech features which they have in common. The upper-classes generally speak with a version of
the prestige form of British English, Received Pronunciation (RP) (Roach, 2004), regardless of the
locations of the estates they own or live in, so an aristocrat in Scotland or Ireland is almost as likely
to speak in RP as one in the Home Counties. The Royal Family and H.M. the Queen are at the top of
the titled aristocracy. Like all language, RP and the speech of the monarch continue to evolve (Wells,
1999), (Wales, 1994), (Harrington, Palethorpe and Watson, 2000). Today’s young aristocrats do not
speak like their grandparents did, any more than anyone speaks exactly like earlier generations or as
they did many years previously. Whether the speech of the young upper-class of today is closer than
it used to be, to that of their contemporaries in other social classes, is for another study.
British and international television audiences delight in British-made ‘period drama’. The
term ‘period’ can apply to any point in the past that is not now, but usually means mid-20th Century
and earlier. TV series’ such as Downton Abbey, Mr Selfridge, Poldark, Victoria and The Crown, have
all been highly successful, and all feature the upper-class (Arnell, 2017). Makers of quality period
drama, usually strive to ensure the accents of the characters approximate the speech style of that
period. Directors will tread a fine line between historic accuracy and acceptability to a contemporary
audience. Some of the historic phonological change in speech is well known outside the world of
Linguistics and many drama schools have excellent accent teaching, which equips an actor to
accurately reflect a style or a period in time. Some scriptwriters are good at writing authentic period
speech, but there are instances on screen when a character from the 19th Century uses 21st Century
dialogue.
In examining the discourse of any community, we can choose to focus on various parts; the
phonology, the syntax, the semantics, grammar, lexis and more. In this study we observe the use of
three parts of speech;-
1) Pragmatic markers, those features whose purpose is not to convey their literal meaning, but to be
organisational within discourse, to elicit response, or to serve other, metalinguistic functions.
2) Key adverbs and adjectives with frequent occurrence.
3) Unusual lexical items.
LITERARY REVIEW
Apart from the fairly recent work on comparing the phonology of the working-class cast of
scripted TV reality show ‘The Only Way is Essex’ or TOWIE, with that of the upper-middle-class cast
of ‘Made in Chelsea’, or MIC (Levon and Holmes-Elliott, 2013), comparatively little has been written
about the discourse of those higher up the social scale than the middle-class. We will start this
review therefore, with a discussion of previous studies of pragmatic markers, adverbs and
adjectives, and note any class distinctions.
Pragmatic markers develop through internal lexical semantic change. After some
disagreement among linguists as to how to treat them, because they serve little semantic purpose
and can be exempt from syntactic analysis, in relatively recent years they have been taken more
seriously (Lewis, 2006). Various names have been given to them, such as Discourse Markers,
Discourse Particles and Pragmatic Particles. This paper will use the term, Pragmatic Marker (Brinton,
1996: Ch. 2). Schiffrin (2001: 55), refers to the work on cohesion, by Halliday and Hasan (1976), who,
without yet using the terms discourse marker or pragmatic marker, looked at expressions which
conveyed conjunctive relations. Examples include because and I mean, as well as actual
conjunctions, such as and and but. Schiffrin proposed that markers are non-obligatory dependent
elements which parenthesise speech units and which show relationships between adjacent
utterances, or those across a wider section of discourse (Schiffrin, 2001: 57). She also compares
these views with those of Fraser (1990), who says that there is a separation between content and
pragmatic meaning, in that the choice of marker can be taken either as literal or intentional, i.e. to
indicate the speaker’s intention (Schiffrin, 2001: 59). Brinton (1996: Ch. 2), defines pragmatic
markers as ‘multifunctional features of oral discourse, which appear frequently and are often
stylistically stigmatised and negatively evaluated’, yet she makes the point that a discourse without
them, whilst grammatically perfectly correct, may appear slightly over-direct and rude. Another
interpretation is to consider pragmatic markers as short, recurrent linguistic items that have little
lexical import (Andersen, 2001: 39). They are multi-functional and optional, and can be swapped or
removed without affecting meaning, having no independent status. Examples include, in certain
contexts; really, well, I mean and you know. (Andersen, 2001: 21, 42).
TYPES OF PRAGMATIC MARKER
Ease of definition, in examining discourse, has led many linguists to choose to study gender
variation over class (Johnstone, 2001). Janet Holmes (1995), highlights the greater use of politeness
by women and directness by men, and suggests this is to do with women caring more about the
effect their words are having on the hearer. Hedges and Boosters are described by Holmes (1995: Ch
3) and Robin Lakoff (1975), who said that both are likely to be used more by female speakers. A
‘hedge’ is where a statement is softened. Examples include perhaps, a bit, seems, didn’t you, I
suppose. A ‘boost’ (or intensifier), is where a statement is reinforced. Examples include really (as an
adverb), so, just, and absolutely. Erman (2001), defined three categories of pragmatic marker; Text -
those which organise discourse, such as I mean and you know, Social – those which demand a
response, such as wouldn’t it, and Metalinguistic – Hedges and boosters as above, and
approximators, such as or something. In her study of discourse particles, Karin Aijmer (2002: Ch. 5),
described the hedges; sort of, sort of thing and kind of, as having low codability and involving a
constant comparison of ongoing knowledge with expectation. Sort of can mean type of, but often
works as a hedge. It operates similarly to rather, but often more as an approximator (Aijmer, 2002).
Aijmer also looked at really and states that it does not often refer to reality. It has different
functions, depending upon where it occurs in a discourse (Aijmer, 2002). In her American age-based
variation study, Barbieri (2008), found that sort of and really were both more used by younger
speakers. Coates (2013: Ch. 2), analyses the range of functions carried out by hedges in women’s
talk. Among the hedges, she looks at I think and I don’t think, sort of, I mean, and really (in its hedge
capacity). She suggests that a desire to avoid the directness of male speech, is a reason to hedge.
According to Coates (2013), women’s conversation is collaborative and hedges can be protective,
both for speaker and hearer. She challenges Lakoff’s (1975) view that women use hedges as a way of
being more feminine and less assertive, as an over-generalisation, but her research backs up that of
others, indicating that hedges are more used by women. To this we could suggest that hedges are
politeness strategies, and that the reason they are used more by women is due to women’s greater
conversational ability. We might expect to see a higher proportion of hedge use in socially adept
males, which might include some of our upper-class speakers. Space fillers, such as sort of, I think,
and of course, serve a function of buying time - holding the attention, perhaps while the speaker is
constructing their next point (Holmes, 1995: Ch. 3). I think can be a hedge or a booster and
Dancygier (2012), describes it and its negative I don’t think, as stance markers, in that they make
clear the position of the speaker, whether hedge or booster. According to Holmes (1995: 96), Sort of
can be described as a solidarity marker, used more by women, but when used by men it is often in
the context of expressing approximation. The multifunctional terms You know and I mean were
studied by Fox Tree and Shrock (2002). You know was found to invite addressees’ inferences, while
the self-referent I mean focuses the attention on the speaker. You know, a popular PM in Scotland,
was also looked at by Macauley (2002 i), who found it was used as much by middle-class as working-
class speakers, more so by women and less so by adolescents. Another form of marker is the
repeated intensifier, as in very, very. It allows the speaker to emphasise a point, whilst also, like all
markers, allowing time to formulate what comes next. We might also expect lexical doubling to be
about maintaining a flow and holding attention. As Tannen (1989: Ch 3) describes, repetition
accomplishes social goals. It is probably true to say that most pragmatic markers are multi-functional
and agree with Cheshire (2007), when she states that there is no reason to assign one function over
another. We can hear the use of the marker and observe any reaction to it, but we can’t be sure
what motivated the speaker to use it, consciously or unconsciously.
ADVERBS AND ADJECTIVES
Adverbs and adjectives can behave as pragmatic markers. In his Scottish study, Macauley
(2002 ii), found that, in general, adverbs were used more than twice as frequently by middle-class
speakers than by the working-class, and that there were significant differences across class. Very, for
example, was almost only used by the middle-class speakers. Quite was used more than twice as
much by the middle-class, and it was four times as common when used in an emphatic context
(Macauley, 2002 ii). Quite can also express limitation and in this capacity it can be categorised as a
‘downtoner’. Intensifiers, described by Ito and Tagliamonte (2003), as adverbs which maximise or
boost meaning, are an area of grammar which constantly evolve, as speakers look for a
contemporary way to express themselves. In their York study of a 1998 corpus, Ito and Tagliamonte
(2003), found that very and really were the most used intensifiers, and that very was giving way to
really, the younger the speaker. This age variation was corroborated by Barbieri (2008), in her
American study. In the same study, examining intensifiers, Barbieri dismissed analysing quite and
rather, on the grounds that they were ‘relatively uncommon in conversation’, and because they had
the dual function of intensifier and downtoner (Barbieri, 2008). Erman’s (2013), study of
adverb/adjective combinations refers to Allerton (1987). She categorised intensifier adverbs, as
absolutive, to emphasise a superlative adjective, such as the word, absolutely, and scalar, such as
very and rather, which can be used with scalar adjectives, such as big and little. There are also scalar-
absolutive adjectives, such as different and beautiful. Erman found that adverb/adjective
combinations fall into collocational patterns, i.e., they occur regularly with particular words. In her
study of adjectives and gender in the 450 million word Bank of English corpus, Moon (2014), found
that beautiful was the most frequent collocate with young woman, followed by attractive and pretty,
illustrating that women are judged by appearance. Corpora help us to measure the usage of
language to a depth not possible before computers. We can look at word frequency, the different
senses in which a word or particle can be used, and the variation between usages across social
groups. Biber, Conrad and Reppen (1998: 50), show how the use of big, great and large is different
across contexts. They show how big is often used for size, large for quantities, but that great is the
most versatile, and can be used for size, quantities and also intensity and relationships, to which we
can add the context of subjective opinion. They also look at little and small (Biber, Conrad and
Reppen, 1998: 93), and observe that little usually occurs in relation to animate nouns, and small in
relation to size. Stubbs (2002: 162), describes little and small and big and large, as occurring in
complementary distribution. Little, as opposed to small, is used to refer to girl six times more
frequently than it is to boy, which might suggest that little is generally more associated with females.
Little can be used in an approving context, as in cuteness, or disparaging, as in strangeness or
repulsiveness. This is not the case with small (Stubbs, 2002: 163).
CONTEXT
In examining the speech of a social group, it is wise to consider the environment in which
they live, as this is likely to have an effect upon their lexis. English compositionists tell us that our
identity is partly shaped by our locations and environments (Dobrin and Weisser, 2002), so it must
follow that a person who has always existed in a privileged atmosphere, may have a personal lexis
that not only includes some words unique to their community, but they may have more frequent
recourse to use words of grandeur, joy and pleasure, reflecting their lifestyle. If someone has been
brought up on a grand estate with large rooms filled with rare artworks, this has to have had an
effect on the way they speak. Van Dijk (2006), shows that there are two models for the way a person
communicates; A mental model, from which past experience creates their personal lexis and speech
patterns, and a context model, which shapes the way they communicate, due to circumstances,
register, environment, etc.
Taking all of the above into consideration, we can hypothesise that some of the findings in
this study will repeat previous results, but also that we may discover patterns of variance, which may
show, for example that the upper-class have their own preferred pragmatic markers, adjectives and
adverbs, and that we might see greater use of lexical items connected with the lifestyles of the
speakers.
DATA AND METHODS
A BBC TV series, The Aristocracy, was broadcast in 2002. Its four episodes narrated the
changes in the fortunes of the British aristocracy through the 20th century. It addressed the decline
in the power of the Landed Gentry, through political and social change and losses due to war. The
heavy financial burdens of running a large estate, increased taxation and in many instances,
profligacy and mismanagement, all combined to place intolerable pressure on the continuation of
formally luxurious lifestyles. 25 aristocrats, with an average birth year of 1925 (See Appendix), were
interviewed by parties unseen, and encouraged to talk about their families, social lives and
upbringing. Their responses were conversational and appeared to be as close to natural
reminiscence and personal viewpoints, as it would be possible to be, in this environment, speaking
to, or in the presence of, an interviewer and a film crew. Of the 25 participants, 15 were male and 10
were female. The interviews were carefully transcribed, and all but one word in the entire corpus,
was audible and noted. The transcript was organised into speaker and gender. Frequent pragmatic
markers, adjectives and adverbs were identified and counted, along with key words, i.e. words which
occurred with more than usual frequency (Scott, 1997).
The British National Corpus (BNC), was launched in the 1990’s. It was a joint project by
Oxford University Press, the University of Oxford, Lancaster University and the British Library. Its
purpose is to capture the use of English in the U.K. at a moment in time. Its spoken English version,
in dialogue and monologue, is a corpus of 8,240,507 words, (noted as corpus from here on), which
this essay uses to compare with the transcript of the speech of the aristocrats in the TV series (noted
as transcript from here on). Within the BNC corpus there were 2,448 male speakers and 1,360
female speakers. The male/female speaker balance was roughly 64%m to 36%f. The male speakers
spoke 4,949,938 words, and the females spoke 3,290,569. To researchers for the frequency of a
word in the corpus, results are displayed per million words and by number of speakers. By dividing
the figure per million by 1,000, we arrive at a per thousand word figure. Numbers of speakers of a
word can be converted to a percentage, of the overall total and gender total. The transcript from the
TV series is a corpus of much smaller volume. There is a total number of 12,015 words, from 15 male
speakers and 10 female. The male/female speaker balance is 60%m to 40%f. The male speakers
spoke 8,362 words and the females spoke 3,653. When analysing the frequency of a word, results
were divided by 12.015 to obtain an overall figure per thousand, and by 8.362 and 3.653, to obtain
respective gender figures per thousand. The two corpora were then able to be compared.
In order to test for reliability, control words were chosen. The five most common spoken
words in the BNC spoken corpus were compared with their use in the transcript. Those words are
the, I, you, it and and. If the comparison between our two corpora is a reliable one, we would expect
to note similar usage between the transcript and the corpus, for these five words. The results show
this to be broadly the case, with one significant exception, you, and other small differences, which
are hypothesised in the Results section. Generally, we can assume from the control, that the
following findings are reliable, given certain constraints.
There are some limitations to using the TV series data. Whilst all the speakers are from the
upper-class, the environment in which they are speaking is somewhat unnatural, in that there is a TV
crew present, and they are being encouraged to reminisce, so the discourse is more storytelling than
conversational. Also, the samples from each speaker range in word count from as few as 54 to as
many as 1,415, which can mean that a repeated feature from one of the larger samples may have
undue prominence, and an important feature which occurs in a small sample, could be disregarded.
By examining both the number of instances per thousand words and the percentage number of
speakers using a word, this study aims to address any imbalance, given the size of the transcript. A
statistical quantitative analysis was not conducted, due to the relatively small sample.
The results are divided into four sections; Pragmatic markers, Adverbs/Adjectives, Control
words and Unique lexical items. In the first 3 cases a bar chart is shown, to illustrate a comparison
between the corpus and the transcript. Where possible, gender difference is shown. Regarding
register, all the participants in the series were interviewed individually, with the exceptions of the
two sisters from the Lygon family, who were interviewed together, responded together and
conversed with each other as part of the response, and the Earl and Countess of Wemyss, whose
contribution was very small but of a similar nature. Additionally, some of the interviewees chose to
read out some material within their responses.
NOTE – Participants in the TV series, abbreviated name forms.
Alistair, Sir Charles, Christopher, Countess, Duchess, Duke, Earl, Hugh, James, John, Sir Josslyn, Lady
Aberdeen, Lady Clive, Londonderry, Mairi, Margaret, Marquess, Mary Ann, Mary W, Patrick,
Peregrine, Ravensdale, Richmond, Sisters (Dorothy and Sibell)
RESULTS
The main body of this section shows a series of bar charts, two for each discourse feature,
which compare the figures of the BNC corpus and the TV series transcript. The top chart shows the
number of instances of use of a feature, in each group, per thousand words. The bottom chart shows
the percentage of speakers using the feature. Where possible, each chart also shows gender
variance. Possible significance is suggested where there is an obvious difference between the two
corpora. In the top chart a feature can appear prominent in the transcript because it may have been
used on several occasions by the same speaker, so both charts should be read together, because the
bottom chart will show the percentage of speakers using that feature. For all results it must be
borne in mind that there are only 25 speakers in the upper-class group, and that no definitive claim
can be made beyond suggesting possible significance.
PRAGMATIC MARKERS AND ADVERBS
I mean ….
(1) It was an open secret. I mean, the world of Westminster and Mayfair knew… (Duke)
(2) I mean, people always assume that children are deaf, I think…. (Mary W)
All instances of I mean, across both corpora were noted. This includes the less common
grammatically accurate corrective usage, as in a sentence like ‘..three, I mean, four’…
I mean, per thousand

2.5
2.2
1.96
2 1.75 1.77 1.79
1.64
1.5
0.5
0
Corpus all Transcript all Corpus male Transcript Corpus Transcript
male female female
% of speakers using 'I mean'

50 46.91
44.04 42.44
45 40 40 40
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
male female female
Figure 1 – I mean. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Fairly even usage across all groups. Slightly more used by women in the general public.
Not considered significant.
I think ….
(3) ….They were rather desperate, I think…. (James)
(4) ….I think we were each given an artificial dove to hold. (Sisters)
All instances of I think, in both corpora were noted. I think is a common feature of speech, and is
particularly used when remembering facts, as in an interview about the past. It is also a hedge, used
to soften impact, and a stance marker. Of the 67 instances of I think in the transcript, 37 were
followed by a pronoun, 6 were followed by a determiner 3 were obvious hedges and 15 were clause
ending, as either stance marker or hedge, 11 by women and 4 by men. The others were followed by;
From, If, In, Most, People, and So.
'I think', per thousand

9 8.49
8
7
5.68
6
5 4.31
4
3 2.34 2.32 2.37
2
1
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'I think'

100 90
90
80 76
66.67
70 59.22 59.68 58.38
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
male female female
Figure 15 – I think. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Greater usage by the upper-class speakers, particularly the women. Some of this may be to do with
the register of recollection. Would need to analyse natural upper-class conversation to see whether
this pattern repeats.
Suggestion of significance. Needs more data.
NOTE – The aristocrats, proportionately more often the women, also used I don’t think, both as a
hedge and a stance marker.
Well ….
(5) Well, this was going to be the restaurant block… (Sir Charles)
(6) ….well, if you’re going hunting the next day…. (Sisters)
Usage of well…. only at the start of a clause, as a PM, was extracted.
Well…., per thousand

5
4.38
4.5
4 3.51
3.5
3 2.54
2.33 2.16
2.5
2
1.44
1.5
1
0.5
0
male female female
Figure 2 – Well…. Instances per thousand words.
Although counts per thousand words in each corpus with the same collocates were examined, it was
not easily possible to extract from the BNC, the percentage of individual speakers who used well at
the start of a clause, so a chart for that is not shown. We can observe, however, that it is a PM used
more by women, in both corpora. We do not know how many instances of starting a sentence with
well…. in the transcript, were in answer to a question from the unseen interviewer.
For the purposes of this essay, not considered significant.
Sort of ….
(7) They are just a sort of a string of titles which I have…. (Alistair)
(8) ..They came on a sort of list… (Lady Clive)
All instances of sort of, across both corpora were noted. This includes its PM use, but also its ‘type
of’ use.
Sort of.., per thousand

4.5
4 3.83
3.5
2.91
3 2.51
2.5
2
1.5 1.14 1.16 1.07
1
0.5
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'sort of'

80
70 67
60
60
50
50
38.97 38.44 39.93
40
30
20
10
0
male female female
Figure 3 – Sort of. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Used twice as often in aristocratic discourse, more so by men than women.
Possible significance.
Really ….
(9) I never saw class, really, as an issue. (Patrick)
(10) …We couldn’t really swim very well, I think. (Sisters)
All instances of really, across both corpora were compared. Interpretation of the context of really,
can be as fine as emphasis and intonation. Both of the above examples are probably hedges, but can
be substituted for the word ‘truthfully’.
Really, per thousand

6
5.2
5
4.08
4 3.59
3
2.11
2 1.71
1.41
1
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'really'

90
80
80
68
70
60
60 56.1
51.13 48.37
50
40
30
20
10
0
male female female
Figure 4 – Really. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Greater usage by the aristocrats, women in particular.
NOTE - In the 49 instances within the transcript, 18 were intensifiers. The remaining 31 examples
were a mixture of hedges and truths, sometimes hard to tell apart.
Quite ….
(11) ….My great grandfather, who was quite a keen shot….. (Sir Josslyn)
(12) ….I remember Sarah and I going to a party at a castle quite near here…. (Mary W)
All instances of quite, were compared. As with really, quite can be a matter of intonation, and
sometimes it is hard to categorise its use as either intensifying or scalar. In many instances quite can
be substituted by very. In (11) and (12) above, was the great-grandfather a very keen shot, or just OK
at it? Was the castle very near, or not far away?
Additionally, in the upper-class examples, there were a few instances of what appears to be
understatement, where very would have been a more usual word. The Duke, when describing his
lawyer complimenting him on running his estate profitably, reports he thinks he’s ‘quite good at it’.
The Earl, when walking on the roof, describes a large hole down to the floors below by saying ‘quite
a dangerous place there. You might walk over and get killed’.
Quite, per thousand

3 2.74
2.5
2 1.83
1.43
1.5
1.04 1.03 1.06
1
0.5
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'quite'

70
60
60 56
53
50 45.56 45.67 45.37
40
30
20
10
0
male female female
Figure 5 – Quite. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Greater usage by the upper-class speakers and more so among women.
NOTE - The 22 instances within the transcript were split 14 to 8 in favour of intensifiers, but within
these there were many examples where interpretation would depend on intonation.
Rather ….
(13) …After weeks of rather wet and dreary cold weather… (Sir Charles)
(14) Actually, it’s worked out rather well…. (Lady Aberdeen)
All instances of rather across both corpora were compared. Rather bears similarities to quite. It can
be intensifier or hedge, and again could be interpreted differently due to intonation. Apparent
intentional meanings in the transcript were about evenly split. There were also two instances of
rather in its preference capacity.
Rather, per thousand

2.5
2.03
2 1.75
1.5
1.09
1
0.5 0.33 0.36

0.24
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'rather'

70
60
60
48
50
40
30
30 24.71 26.06
22.28
20
10
0
male female female
Figure 6 – Rather. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Considerably greater use by the upper-class speakers. Used twice as often and by twice as many
aristocratic men over the women.
Very ….
(15) House has a very fine Charles the Second staircase… (James, reading)
(16) His cousin, Winston Churchill, was very annoyed with him….. (Mairi)
Very, per thousand

7
6.08 6.22
5.75
6
5
4
3 2.3 2.4
1.9
2
1
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'very'

100
87
90
80 76
70 60.42 61.15 59.12 60
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
male female female
Figure 7 – Very. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
A common intensifier, used by the majority of people, but proportionately considerably more so by
the upper-class speakers, and used more by the men.
Absolutely ….
(17) It was awful. Absolutely ghastly…. (Londonderry)
(18) …A lot of absolutely stupid distinctions between regiments…. (Ravensdale)
Absolutely, per thousand

1 0.92
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.18
0.2
0.1
0
Corpus Transcript
% of speakers using 'absolutely'

30 27
25
20
20 16.89 17.28
16.67
15
10
10
0
male female female
Figure 8 – Absolutely. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Only 1 female aristocrat used absolutely, so the gender split has not been included in the first chart.
Overall, however, it appears to be a more common adverb among the upper-class, men in particular.
Doubled Intensifiers
(19) ....wonderful, wonderful titian red hair and very, very pale skin. (Christopher)
(20) ….He’s not just a very, very good tailor… (Patrick)
Double intensifiers per thousand

0.9 0.82
0.8 0.75 0.72
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.07 0.1
0.1 0.04
0
male female female
% of speakers using double

intensifiers
35
30
30 28 27
25
20
15 11.03
9.24 10.03
10
5
0
male female female
Figure 9 – Double intensifiers. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Feature appears considerably more frequent in the upper-class. It was used by 7 of the 25 speakers
in this group. Fairly even gender balance.
ADJECTIVES
Big ….
(21) ….so much of our furniture was quite big… (Hugh)
(22) We can look in, beyond the big dining-room. (Countess)
All but one of the 9 instances of big in the transcript were used to convey size;- Chapel, Dining Room,
Furniture, Houses (twice), Rooms, Silver Plates and Towns. The one exception was ‘big gambler’. In
addition, but not counted in these results, there was one bigger also used with Room, and one
biggest, used with Grant. Both examples were spoken by men.
Big, per thousand

0.9 0.82
0.8 0.75 0.72
0.67
0.7
0.6 0.55 0.53
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'big'

40
33 33.9
35 30.62
28 28.8
30
25
20
20
15
10
5
0
male female female
Figure 10 – Big. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Fairly even usage across both corpora. Greater number of instances per thousand words among the
upper-class, and a more common feature of women’s conversation within the general public, but
probably beyond that, nothing else can be claimed.
Not considered significant.
Little ….
(23) Somebody from the tea room would take him his little tray of tea… (Mary Ann)
(24) I think we were perhaps a little extravagant. (Margaret)
All instances of little across both corpora were compared. Of the 17 instances in the transcript, 8
were used to convey size; Boy, Girls, Notice, Spy Hole, Tray, Valley and Window (twice). 4 were used
disparagingly; Clerk, Man (twice) and Short Neck, one was a hedge; Extravagant, and one was
indicating narrowness; ‘little option’. ‘A little bit’, i.e. slightly, occurred twice.
Little, per thousand

3
2.46
2.5
2
1.41
1.5
1.07
0.87 0.96
1 0.83
0.5
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'little'

60
50
50
37.97 39.85
40 36 36.93
30 27
20
10
0
male female female
Figure 11 – Little. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
A feature more common to women in both groups. Used slightly more by the upper-class, women in
particular.
Wonderful ….
(25) Absolutely wonderful. I can behave like the pig I am! (Peregrine)
(26) …. And then she had a wonderful pearl necklace and long earrings…. (Mairi)
Wonderful, per thousand

1.6
1.37
1.4
1.16
1.2 1.08
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 0.07 0.05 0.08
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'wonderful'

60
53
50
40
40
30
20
20
7.01 6.29 8.31
10
0
male female female
Figure 12 – Wonderful. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Used 16 times more often by the upper-class speakers, and by twice the percentage of men over
women.
Beautiful ….
(27) …. Lily, who is the beautiful lady in this rather unusual pastel portrait. (Christopher)
(28) Beautiful dress, don’t you think? (Duchess)
Beautiful, per thousand

1.6
1.37
1.4
1.2
1 0.83
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2 0.07 0.05 0.1
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'beautiful'

25
20 20 20
20
15
9.19
10
6.46
4.94
5
0
male female female
Figure 13 – Beautiful. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Used by 20% of the upper-class speakers, compared with less than 7% of the general public.
Apparent greater frequency in female discourse.
Great ….
(29) They were great landowners. (Duke)
(30) ….Who was one of the great people in the theatre at that time. (Marquess)
All instances of great in both corpora were noted. Great has several meanings. It can be about size,
scale, importance and quantity and has an additional meaning, among younger people, that of
simple approbation. All examples from the transcript were in its adjectival capacity. Of the 24
instances, six referred to large size or large scale; Landowners, Mansions, Pot, Preparations, Sales,
Statues, six were evaluative: Friend, Hostess, Mistake, People, Sense, Thing, two referred to
grandeur; House, Pictures, and two referred to quantity: Excitement, Gambler. Two were titles:
Great-Grandfather and Great Hall. Three times it collocated with Deal, and twice with Fun.
Great, per thousand

2.5 2.27
2
2
1.5 1.37
0.5 0.37 0.4

0.3
0
male female female
% of speakers using 'great'

70
60
60
52
50
40
40
28.31 30.15
30 25
20
10
0
male female female
Figure 14 – Great. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.
Greater usage by the upper-class speakers. More common in men than women in both groups.
CONTROL WORDS
As a control, the five most frequently spoken words in the English language were compared between
corpora.
Pronoun, I
The personal pronoun, I, per

thousand
40 35.8
34.32
35 31.46
29.46
30 25.61 24.91
25
20
15
10
5
0
Corpus all Transcript all Corpus M Transcript M Corpus F Transcript F
Figure 16 – The pronoun I. Instances per thousand words.
Variation between the two groups is only 7%, indicating that it was used at a similar rate in both
corpora. More common in men in the upper-class, but in the women of the general public.
NOTE - There were 10 instances of the self-referring One, from 3 male and 2 female speakers, but
one of the women was responsible for half of the instances, so there is not enough data to make any
claim that this is a common upper-class feature, as others (Wales, 1994), may have believed.
Pronoun, You
You, per thousand

30
25.79
25
20
14.15
15
10
0
Corpus all Transcript all
Figure 17 – The pronoun You. Instances per thousand words.
This control word is showing a considerable difference between groups, but the probable
explanation is the environment of the interview. In normal conversation, we would refer to you
nearly as often as I, but in an interview, however, when the ‘you’ in the room, the unseen
interviewer, is not relevant to the narrative, we can expect fewer instances than in natural
conversation. You was spoken 82% more frequently in the general public group.
NOTE - You was used by 4 speakers to refer to themselves;
(31) …Then you shook hands with Neville Chamberlain… (John)
(32) They just pushed you around like a wheelbarrow… (Lady Clive)
Determiner, The
Total instances in transcript, 543
The, per thousand

50 45.19
45
39.36
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 18 – Determiner The. Instances per thousand words.
Variation between the groups is 15%. Perhaps more frequent because of the storytelling register of
the interviews.
Connector, And
And, per thousand

40 37.2
35
30
25.11
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 19 – Conjunction And. Instances per thousand words.
Variation between groups is 48%. Again likely to be explained by the storytelling register, and in this
case, and is likely to be used as a thinking time word, to connect thoughts. More natural
conversation involves shorter dialogue and greater interaction between speakers.
Pronoun, It
It, per thousand

30
24.39 25.14
25
20
15
10
0
Figure 20 – The pronoun It. Instances per thousand words.
Almost identical frequency of usage between groups. 3% difference.
Although there is some variance of usage of the five most common words, it can be explained by the
interview environment.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
This study also examined the following;
Because and its abbreviation, Cos. It was noted that the full version was used twice as often by the
aristocratic women, compared with the men, showing that they connected or explained their speech
more. Use of the abbreviated version was fairly equal between genders, and perhaps surprisingly,
the aristocrats used the abbreviated version only slightly less than the general public.
S’pose, the abbreviation of suppose. The BNC does not adequately separate out how many instances
of suppose are abbreviated, so on the face of it, s’pose occurred 0.67 times per thousand words in
the transcript, but only 0.0006 times per thousand in the corpus. If this was an accurate comparison,
it would be hugely significant, but although this feature was used by 32% of the aristocrats, often as
a tag at the end of a phrase, we cannot claim any significance in comparison with the BNC corpus
alone.
Same and Different. Same appeared to be used more by aristocratic women, both per thousand
words and percentage of speakers, when compared with aristocratic men and the general
population. With different there was less of a variance, but it followed the same pattern. The size of
the aristocrat transcript and the small difference between the two corpora meant that nothing else
could be claimed at this stage.
LEXICAL ITEMS
There were several instances, in the speech of the aristocrats, of uncommon lexical usage.
The following items were completely absent from the BNC corpus.
Blackguard
(33) ….He’s fallen for those plausible blackguards, the Nazis. (Londonderry)
Come out (as in ‘into the field’ [to hunt])
(34) I think he did come out once or twice. (Sisters)
Fist (in the context of grip/effort)
(35) ….Unless he thought I could make a reasonable fist of it. (Duke)
[Riding] habit
(36) And the way to clean your habit was to put it in a barrel of rainwater. (Sisters)
High liver. (as in liver of life).
(37) The sixth [baronet] was a big gambler and high liver. (Sir Charles)
Hoved (as a past participle of heave, rose up)
(38) ….When the great house hoved into sight. (James)
Inglorious
(39) The old aristocracy have had their day and it wasn’t that inglorious. (Londonderry)
Looking a right fright (as in to look bad)
(40) ….Here she is in it, looking a right fright, really. (Duchess)
Money for jam
(41) Shopping was money for jam, really. (Lady Clive)
Paroxysms.
(42) The whole room burst into violent paroxysms of laughter. (Christopher, reading)
Peccadillos
(43) ….In spite of his peccadillos. (Duke)
Pelt (as in a rage) (Akerman, 1842)
(44) Yes, we’ve all got pelts on. (Sisters)
Piffle
(45) Well, of course that’s absolute piffle. (James)
Screamingly
(46) ….A screamingly funny farcical comedy. (Marquess, reading)
Workaday
(47) ….Just ordinary workday things in it. (Duke)
DISCUSSION
The results clearly show some variance between the discourse of the upper-class group and
that of the general public. The degree to which we can claim apparent significance varies between
features. This section discusses the findings.
I mean as a self-referent marker showed fairly consistent use across corpora and gender,
and only slightly greater use by women in the general public, which partly challenges the research of
Coates (2013: Ch. 2), who said that it is a feature used more by women, possibly explained by the
tendency of women’s speech to be less direct. Compare this with I think, which works more as a
hedge or stance marker. This study found that this feature was also not used generally more by
women, as Coates (2013: Ch.2) claimed, but that it was fairly even at 60% across the general public
and upper-class men. Within the upper-class women, on the other hand, it occurred in the speech of
90% of them. An explanation could be the interview environment, where speakers are being
encouraged to recollect and draw on memory, which may be partly hazy. It is also of note that the
female aristocrats used I think at the end of clauses six times more frequently than the men. Female
speech showed this feature 0.3% of the time, compared with men’s 0.05%
(48) It was five days a week, I think, you see… (Margaret)
Lady Margaret Gretton was talking about opening their house to the public and saying how tiring it
was. She probably knew exactly that it was 5 days a week, so the use of I think and you see, are
apparent hedges here. If I think at the end of a clause is a particular feature of upper-class women,
could this come from an upbringing where a woman was expected to suggest her views hesitantly,
or is it a politeness strategy, or both? Looking back at example (4),
(4) ….I think we were each given an artificial dove to hold. (Sisters)
On the face of it, Lady Dorothy, one of the sisters, is using I think to recall an event. Looking closer,
however, this also appears more to be a hedge than a memory, because if you were being painted
for the family mural, which is the theme of this part of the interview, surely, even if you were a child,
as she was at the time, you would remember whether you were holding a real or an artificial dove?
Although the two corpora were not comparable in the case of I s’pose, it too occurred often at the
end of clauses. For this end tag usage of I think and I s’pose, examination of a larger upper-class
corpus, consisting of a greater number of women, would be useful, to see whether this is significant.
The control word, pronoun I, shows a pattern perhaps worthy of further exploration as well. Where
both corpora use the personal pronoun equally, the gender split is reversed. It is more used by men
in the upper-class and women in the general public. The lower usage by the upper-class women,
despite including all their examples of I mean, I think and I s’pose, may suggest that, when our
speakers were growing up, girls were discouraged from expressing their opinions too often, where
perhaps the opposite was true of upper-class boys. Staying with personal pronouns, some examples
of the impersonal you were observed among the upper-class speakers. Kitagawa and Lehrer (1990:
752), describe this as an act of informal camaraderie i.e. although it happened to me, I am re-telling
it as though it happened to you, to make you feel more involved. Finally on personal pronouns, many
observers, including Pennycook (1994), might imagine that the upper-class always use the neutral
third person, One, to refer to themselves. Only 20% of our speakers did so, so nothing can be
claimed.
In the edits that made it to the final cut of the interviews in the TV series, well…. at the start
of a phrase, although on average used fairly equally between corpora, was observed to be used
more by the upper-class women, than the men – a pattern that is similar to that of the general
public. It was notable that the upper-class men used the feature less than the general public,
perhaps suggesting that in the upper-class, a man is used to being listened to, and can launch
straight into what he needs to say, without having to start an utterance with a hedge.
The PM, sort of, was found to be used evenly across gender in the general population, but
more than twice as often by the aristocrats. The women who did use it, did so frequently, but in
contrast to the findings of Holmes (1995: 96), it was more a feature of the men’s speech. In
Barbieri’s (2008), American study, she found sort of, to be used more by younger speakers, but this
study finds it a common feature of the upper-class, born in the early 20th Century. Example (7), from
the Marquess of Aberdeen, who, despite leading a fairly middle-class lifestyle, and working as an
artist, had inherited several titles;
(7) They are just a sort of a string of titles which I have… (Alistair)
Perhaps this obvious hedge suggests modesty?
Really, quite and rather showed interesting patterns. This work did not separate them into
context so their complete usage was compared with the complete usage in the general public
corpus. All three were used more frequently per 1,000 words by the upper-class group, and by a
higher percentage of speakers. Really, whether intensifier or hedge, occurred more than twice as
often in upper-class speech and was spoken proportionately more by women – 80% to the men’s
60%. Usage of quite was also greater in the upper-class corpus, but the proportionate difference was
narrower between corpora, and although upper-class women were the greatest users, the men were
not far behind. The instances of quite as understatement and replacement for very, may be a
notable feature of upper-class speech. Rather appeared five times more frequently per 1,000 words
in the upper-class transcript, and was used by double the proportion of men over women. In both
corpora it is more likely to be used by men. Usage by the aristocratic women was average compared
with the BNC, so nothing can be claimed without a larger female corpus, but the results do suggest
that it is a frequent word among men in this social group. Really, quite and rather are multi-
functional. Quite was used as an intensifier more than as a hedge, really was used more often as a
hedge or in its capacity as a truth, rather than the intensifier it might be with today’s younger
speakers, and use of rather appeared more or less evenly split in interpretation. From this last point,
as rather is more common among males, we may suggest that it is an acceptable form of hedge for
upper-class men. In the struggle for dominance between very and really, (Ito and Tagliamonte,
2003), (Barbieri, 2008), it is noted that very wins out over really, 60% to 51% in the general public
and 76% to 60% in the upper-class of this age group.
Among the intensifiers, very, absolutely and doubled versions, there was greater usage by
the upper-class speakers. Some of this could be suggested as the speaker adding drama to the
narrative register, but there are patterns. Very, for example, exhibits a similar pattern to rather, in
that it is three times more common in upper-class speech and is spoken more by men. Similarly, the
proportion of upper-class female speakers was only average. Absolutely had only one female
speaker, so it was difficult to make any assessment, but it occurred six times more frequently per
1,000 words in the upper-class transcript, mostly spoken by men. Doubled intensifiers, as in; very,
very, or wonderful, wonderful, were used 10 times more frequently by the upper-class speakers and
slightly more frequently by the women. This contradicts the previous male pattern of intensifiers,
and requires further examination to discover whether this is a feature among the upper-class
women, who, when using an intensifier, often feel the need to double it.
Earlier, we saw how the size adjectives had different patterns of usage across gender (Biber,
Conrad and Reppen, 1998). This study found that big was used more by the upper-class speakers,
but not significantly so. Most of the time, it was used to convey size. Upper-class men and the
women of the general public were the two groups most likely to use it. The upper-class female
instances were not enough to make any observation. Little, on the other hand, again spoken more
frequently in the upper-class corpus, and used only half the time to convey size, was very much a
female word, as suggested by Stubbs (2002), and spoken more by women in both corpora. It may be,
with a larger sample of upper-class women, that their usage of big also matches that of the women
of the general public, but as it stands, both size adjectives are used somewhat more in the upper-
class, big by men, little by women.
Also earlier in this essay, following the theory of Dobrin and Weisser (2002), it was
hypothesised that words of joy and pleasure, might be used more by the upper-class, in comparison
with the BNC, to reflect their home environments. The results show that beautiful was used ten
times as frequently, by more than three times the number of speakers, wonderful was used sixteen
times more frequently, by six times the number of speakers and great was used five times more
frequently, by double the number of speakers. Again, with the caveat that the upper-class speech
was narrative and perhaps focused on stories that involved situations which were beautiful,
wonderful and great, these results do appear significant. Beautiful was more a feature of women’s
speech in both corpora, great was used by 60% and wonderful by 53% of upper-class men, but with
only 2 upper-class women using both beautiful and wonderful, claims about women’s use can be
only tentative.
To summarise, in comparison with the BNC corpus of the general public, this study finds the
following to be more common in upper-class speech;- Sort of, Rather, Very, Wonderful, Great, all
used more by men, and Really, Quite, Beautiful, all used more by women. Double intensifiers are
found to be used more or less equally between the genders and there is an indication that
Absolutely is more common in male speakers and Little more common with females. Whether the
greater female use of I think and I don’t think, particularly as a tag at the end of a phrase, is typical of
the upper-class, will require a larger corpus, and more naturally occurring conversation.
Within the lexical items from the transcript that did not appear at all in the BNC corpus,
some words are probably on their way to extinction, like Blackguard, to make a Fist of something,
Hoved, Money for Jam and Screamingly. The riding expressions, to Come Out and a riding outfit to
be called a Habit, may still be used in hunting circles, and might be found in the upper-class today.
Possibly most interesting was Lady Dorothy’s ‘Yes, we’ve all got pelts on’, where pelt turns out to be
a colloquial word for rage. Coming from a family who loved hunting, to use a word for an animal’s
skin in this manner, illustrates the theory that our personal lexis reflects our personal environment.
CONCLUSION
This essay finds that there is an indication of identifiable features of British upper-class
discourse. In order to expand further on this research, a wider corpus would be required. A corpus of
12,015 words and a group of only 25 speakers, only 10 of whom were female, will obviously throw
up some inaccuracies. This study has not intended to claim anything other than to show a suggestion
of significance. With a greater number of speakers and a larger corpus, some of the current findings
may be contradicted. Alternatively, it is hoped that findings would be reinforced, and that this could
be one of the few pieces of work to start debate about what actually is upper-class speech. Another
issue already highlighted is that of the environment of the interview. A narrative register is
somewhat different from everyday conversation, so the comparison between corpora has not been
completely like-for-like, and certain features may have been exaggerated, that would not have
cropped up as frequently in the everyday conversation of even these upper-class speakers. It must
also be borne in mind that the television programme from which the transcript was taken, was the
version that made it to air. Within the footage that was not broadcast, there could be all sorts of
interesting features that would have further developed our findings. Moreover, more could be done
with the existing transcript. We have not looked at modals, syntax, phonology, or semantics, so
there could be many hours more research time for anyone wishing to further explore this particular
TV series. Within our findings, which have largely only examined every instance of particular lexis,
more could be done to break down the contexts of usage, allowing further subsequent patterns to
emerge.
The motivation for the research for this essay was two-fold. In one respect the upper-classes
are a mystery to us. In the UK we are all familiar with the soap-opera that is the Royal Family. Every
time anyone of that immediate family as much as changes their hairstyle or visits a hospital, it is all
over the newspapers, but who are the people in their social networks? Usually the aristocracy only
make the newspapers through scandal, politics or their properties. The rest of the time they are a
group we vaguely know exist and perhaps hear about through visiting those of their houses which
are open to the public, but they are largely unfamiliar to us, not just linguistically. This essay has
attempted to identify them as a group to be studied. The other motivating factor was the fascination
we have for the lives of the upper-class, through screen dramas. It is surely the role of linguists to
ensure that, within reason, when we are being presented, on television and in film, with a drama
which purports to be historically accurate, that its dialogue is as authentic as its costumes? We can’t
however, expect a drama about Queen Elizabeth I, to always use Early Modern English, much as we
might like, but for a drama set in the 20th Century, or in Victorian times, why not make the effort to
get the language right?
Most of the speakers in the transcript which has been used in this work are now sadly, no
longer with us. The features which have been identified and used by these speakers, are from a
particular period of recent history. As language change is continuous, were we to carry out exactly
the same study but with speakers who were born in the decades since the births of those in our
sample, there would be some variation in the results. Upper-class people of today do not speak
exactly like their parents or grandparents.
The purpose of this work was to observe upper-class speech from the 20thC, with a view to
perhaps continuing this research further and eventually providing an accurate representation of the
linguistic features of this section of society. It is hoped that the work has achieved some of its aims.
PRIMARY SOURCES
Corpus- BNCWeb,
< http://bncweb.lancs.ac.uk/cgi-binbncXML/BNCquery.pl?theQuery=spokentexts&urlTest=yes>, last
accessed 11th March 2018.
TV Series – Daisy Mason,
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOm818XDvvgf4twqaZIP14FL_IiIGE46V>, last accessed
11th March 2018.
Transcript of TV series available on request.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aijmer, Karin (2002), English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a corpus (Philadelphia: John
Benjamins).
Akerman, John, Yonge (1842), A Glossary of Provincial Words and Phrases in use in Wiltshire
(London: John Russell Smith).
Andersen, Gisle (2001), Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation (Amsterdam: John
Benjamins).
Arnell, Stephen (2017), ‘Why only upper-crust British TV dramas like The Crown and Downton Abbey
become hits in America’, The Independent, [ online text ],
<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/the-crown-the-night-manager-
golden-globes-downtown-abbey-julian-fellowes-the-gilded-age-a7594201.html>, accessed 26th
November 2017.
Barbieri, Federica (2008), ‘Patterns of age-based linguistic variation in American English’, Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 12 (1): 58-88.
Beck, Ulrich and Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth (1994), Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism
and its Social and Political Consequences (London: Sage).
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi (1998), Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language
structure and use (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Block, David, ‘Social Class in Applied Linguistics’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35: 1-19.
Brinton, Laurel, J. (1996), Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions
(Boston: De Gruyter).
Cannadine, David (2000), Class in Britain (London: Penguin).
Cheshire, Jenny (2007), ‘Discourse Variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that’, Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 11 (2): 155-193.
Coates, Jennifer (2013), Women, Men and Everyday Talk (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).
Crossick, Geoffrey (1991), ‘From gentlemen to the residuum’, in Language, History and Class, ed.
Penelope J. Corfield (Oxford: Blackwell) pp. 150-178.
Dancygier, Barbara (2012), ‘Negation, stance verbs and intersubjectivity’, in Viewpoint in Language:
A Multimodal Perspective, eds. Barbara Dancygier and Eve Sweetser (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press) pp. 69-93.
Dobrin, Sidney, I. (2002), ‘Breaking Ground in Ecocomposition: Exploring Relationships between
Discourse and Environment’, College English, 64 (5): 566-589.
Downes, William (1998), Language and Society, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Erman, Britt (2001), ‘Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on “you know” in adult and
adolescent talk’, Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1337-1359.
Erman, Britt (2013), ‘There is no such thing as a free combination: A usage-based study of specific
construals in adverb-adjective combinations’, English Language and Linguistics, 18 (1): 109-132.
Fairclough, Norman (2001), Language and Power, 2nd edn. (Harlow: Pearson Education).
Fox Tree, Jean, E. and Schrock, Josef, C. (2002), Basic meanings of “you know” and “I mean”’, Journal
of Pragmatics, 34: 727-747.
Fraser, B. (1990), ‘An Approach to Discourse Markers’, Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 383-395.
Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1976), Cohesion in English (London: Longman).
Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne and Watson, Catherine, L. (2000), ‘Does the Queen
speak the Queen’s English?’ Nature, 408: 927.
Holmes, Janet (1995), Women, Men and Politeness (Harlow: Longman).
Ito, Rika and Tagliamonte, Sali (2003), ‘Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering
and recycling in English intensifiers’, Language in Society, 32: 257-279.
Johnstone, Barbara (2001), ‘Discourse Analysis and Narrative’, in The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis, eds. Deborah Schriffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton (Oxford: Blackwell): 635-
649.
Kitagawa, Chisato and Lehrer, Adrienne (1990), ‘Impersonal Uses of Personal Pronouns’, Journal of
Pragmatics, 14: 739-759
Labov, William (1966), The Social Stratification of English in New York City, (Washington DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics).
Lakoff, Robin (1975), Language and Woman’s Place, (New York: Harper and Row).
Levon, Erez and Holmes-Elliott, Sophie (2013), ‘East End Boys and West End Girls: /s/- Fronting in
Southeast England’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 19 (2): 109-120
Lewis, Diana, M. (2006), ‘Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view’, in Approaches to
Discourse Particles, ed. Kerstin Fischer (Berlin: Elsevier).
Macaulay, Ronald (2002 i), ‘You know, it depends’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (6): 749-767.
Macauley, Ronald (2002 ii), ‘Extremely interesting, very interesting, or only quite interesting?
Adverbs and social class’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6 (3): 398-417.
Meyerhoff, Miriam, (2006), Introducing Sociolinguistics, (Abingdon: Routledge).
Milroy, Lesley and Milroy, James (1992), ‘Social Network and Social Class: Toward an integrated
sociolinguistic model’, Language in Society 21 (1): 1-26.
Moon, Rosamund (2014), ‘From gorgeous to grumpy: adjectives, age and gender’, Gender and
Language, 8 (1):. 5-41.
Pennycook, Alastair (1994), ‘The Politics of Pronouns’, ELT Journal, 48 (2): 173-178.
Roach, Peter (2004), ‘British English: Received Pronunciation’, Journal of the International Phonetic
Association, 34 (2): 239-244.
Savage, Mike, Devine, Fiona, Cunningham, Niall, Taylor, Mark, Li, Yaojun, Hjellbrekke, Johs., Le Roux,
Brigitte, Friedman, Sam and Miles, Andrew (2013), ‘A New Model of Social Class? Findings from the
BBC’s Great British Class Survey Experiment’, Sociology, 47 (2): 219-250
Schiffrin, Deborah (2001), ‘Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Content’, in The Handbook of
Discourse Analysis, eds. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton (Oxford:
Blackwell) pp. 54-75.
Scott, Mike (1997), ‘PC Analysis of key words - and key key words’, System, 25: 233-245.
Stubbs, Michael (2002), Words and Phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics (Oxford: Blackwell).
Tannen, Deborah (1989), Talking Voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational
discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Toolan, Michael (2016), ‘Peter Black, Christopher Stevens, class and inequality in the Daily Mail’,
Discourse & Society, 27 (6): 642-660
Trudgill, Peter (1974), The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Van Dijk, Teun, A. (2006), ‘Discourse, Context and Cognition’, Discourse Studies, 8 (1): 159-177.
Wales, Katie (1994), ‘Royalese: The rise and fall of the Queen’s English’, English Today, 39, Vol 10 (3):
3-10.
Wells, John (1999), ‘British English pronunciation preferences: A changing scene,’ Journal of the
International Phonetic Association, 29 (1): 33-50.
Wright, Erik, O. (2009), ‘Understanding Class: Toward an integrated, analytical approach’, New Left
Review, 60: 101-116.
APPENDIX
Participants in the series
Alistair Alistair, 6th Marquess of Aberdeen 1920-2002
Lady Aberdeen Anne, Marchioness of Aberdeen 1924-2007
Sir Charles Sir Charles Wolseley, Bt 1944-
Christopher Christopher Simon Sykes 1948-
Dorothy Lady Dorothy Heber-Percy 1912-2001
The Duchess Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire 1920-2015
The Duke Andrew, 11th Duke of Devonshire 1920-2004
Earl Francis, 12th Earl of Wemyss 1912-2008
Hugh Hugh, 8th Marquess of Hertford 1930-1997
James James Lees-Milne 1908-1997
John Sir John Leslie, Bt 1916-2016
Sir Josslyn Sir Josslyn Gore-Booth, Bt 1950-
Lady Clive Lady Mary Clive 1907-2010
Lady W Shelagh, Countess of Wemyss Data not available
Londonderry Alexander, 9th Marquess of Londonderry 1937-2012
Mairi Lady Mairi Bury 1921-2009
Margaret Lady Margaret Gretton Data not available
Marquess George, 7th Marquess of Anglesey 1922-2013
Mary Ann Hon. Mary Ann Wragg 1939-
Mary W Lady Mary Welfare 1946-
Patrick Patrick, 5th Earl of Lichfield 1939-2005
Peregrine Peregrine, 10th Earl of St Germans 1941-2016
Ravensdale Nicholas Mosley, 3rd Baron Ravensdale 1923-2017
Richmond Charles, 10th Duke of Richmond 1929-2017
Sibell Lady Sibell Rowley 1907-2005
Numbers of participants with recorded birth years, 23. Average year of birth 1925
NOTE – The author’s kind thanks to mentor Jenny Cheshire, for her invaluable support.

Dissertation Version To Print

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation Version To Print

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rather Wonderful: A study of linguistic features of the British Aristocracy 1

A study of linguistic features

of the British Aristocracy

Rather Wonderful: A study of linguistic features of the British Aristocracy

12 DATA AND METHODS

explicitly covered those with inherited wealth.

three parts of speech;-

organisational within discourse, to elicit response, or to serve other, metalinguistic functions.

2) Key adverbs and adjectives with frequent occurrence.

3) Unusual lexical items.

adjectives, and note any class distinctions.

TYPES OF PRAGMATIC MARKER

what motivated the speaker to use it, consciously or unconsciously.

ADVERBS AND ADJECTIVES

adverb/adjective combinations refers to Allerton (1987). She categorised intensifier adverbs, as

Little can be used in an approving context, as in cuteness, or disparaging, as in strangeness or

register, environment, etc.

DATA AND METHODS

upbringing. Their responses were conversational and appeared to be as close to natural

occurred with more than usual frequency (Scott, 1997).

following findings are reliable, given certain constraints.

read out some material within their responses.

NOTE – Participants in the TV series, abbreviated name forms.

Peregrine, Ravensdale, Richmond, Sisters (Dorothy and Sibell)

can be made beyond suggesting possible significance.

PRAGMATIC MARKERS AND ADVERBS

grammatically accurate corrective usage, as in a sentence like ‘..three, I mean, four’…

I mean, per thousand

% of speakers using 'I mean'

Figure 1 – I mean. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.

Not considered significant.

(3) ….They were rather desperate, I think…. (James)

From, If, In, Most, People, and So.

'I think', per thousand

% of speakers using 'I think'

Figure 15 – I think. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.

this pattern repeats.

Suggestion of significance. Needs more data.

hedge and a stance marker.

(6) ….well, if you’re going hunting the next day…. (Sisters)

Usage of well…. only at the start of a clause, as a PM, was extracted.

Well…., per thousand

Figure 2 – Well…. Instances per thousand words.

For the purposes of this essay, not considered significant.

(8) ..They came on a sort of list… (Lady Clive)

Sort of.., per thousand

% of speakers using 'sort of'

Used twice as often in aristocratic discourse, more so by men than women.

(9) I never saw class, really, as an issue. (Patrick)

(10) …We couldn’t really swim very well, I think. (Sisters)

be substituted for the word ‘truthfully’.

Really, per thousand

% of speakers using 'really'

Figure 4 – Really. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.

Greater usage by the aristocrats, women in particular.

were a mixture of hedges and truths, sometimes hard to tell apart.

at it? Was the castle very near, or not far away?

Quite, per thousand

% of speakers using 'quite'

Figure 5 – Quite. Instances per thousand words / Speaker percentage use.

Greater usage by the upper-class speakers and more so among women.

(14) Actually, it’s worked out rather well…. (Lady Aberdeen)