Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype?

J A Maidment

Page 1 of 8

Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype?

J A Maidment
Department of Phonetics & Linguistics, University College London
Paper presented at the 4th New Zealand Conference on Language & Society, Lincoln University,
Christchurch, New Zealand, August 1994.
If any of you have read any British newspaper regularly or listened to British radio over the past
two or three years, there is a good chance that you have come across the term Estuary English.
There have been articles on this topic in The Times Educational Supplement, The Sunday Times,
The Guardian to my knowledge. And there has even been a piece on it in The New York Times.
There have been items on Estuary English on BBC Radio 4, the BBC World Service and the
London Broadcasting Corporation.
The term Estuary English was coined in 1983 by David Rosewarne, who at the time was a
postgraduate student of Applied Linguistics at Birkbeck College in the University of London, and
first appeared in print in an article by Rosewarne which appeared in the Times Educational
Supplement in 1984. This article, together with a very similar, but slightly expanded article which
appeared the magazine English Today in January 1994, forms the total (as far as I know) of what
Rosewarne has made public in print about his ideas. The other source of information about EE in
print is a book by Paul Coggle, called Do you speak Estuary?, published by Bloomsbury in 1993.
I shall base my talk on these sources, together with some ideas and concerns outlined in an as yet
unpublished discussion document entiltled "Transcribing Estuary English" by John Wells, who is
professor of Phonetics in the University of London. The document was circulated to colleagues in
the department of Phonetics & Linguistics at UCL in February 1994.
Rosewarne's 1984 TES article was entitled "Estuary English" and bore the headline:

David Rosewarne describes a newly observed variety of

English pronunciation
Rosewarne, in this article, defines EE as follows:
Estuary English is a variety of modified regional speech. It is a mixture of non-regional and local
south-eastern pronunciation and intonation. If one imagines a continuum with Received
Pronunciation and London speech at either end, EE speakers are to be found grouped in the
middle ground.
In this talk I shall look at three aspects of the EE phenomenon.
1. the phonetic and phonological features claimed for Estuary English
2. the adequacy of the published treatments of Estuary English leading to the question "Does
EE really exist?"
3. the reaction of the British media and public to Estuary English

The phonetic and phonological features of EE

l

Word-final and preconsonantal glottal replacement

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/maidment-ipasam.htm

990208

Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype? J A Maidment

l
l
l
l
l
l
l

Page 2 of 8

L-vocalisation and associated vowel neutralisations

Diphthong shift
GOAT allophony
Yod coalescence
Realisation of /r/
Tonic prepositions
Tone and pitch features

Features absent in EE but normally found in Cockney

l
l
l
l

TH-fronting
H-drop
Monophthongal MOUTH vowel
Intervocalic word-internal glottal replacement

A summary of the main claims about the phonetics and phonology of EE can be seen in the above
list. We will look at one or two of them in detail, but I am afraid we shall have to reject some of
the claims towards the end of the list as being either vacuous or simply untrue.
Glottal replacement:
This is a process which replaces [t] with [?] when it occurs in other than syllable initial position.
The rule can be expressed as follows:
substitute [?] for [t] when BOTH preceded by a vowel or /l/ or /n/ AND followed by end of word
or a consonant other than /r/
In fact [t] is rarely preceded by /l/ in Cockney or EE because, as we shall see /l/ in preconsonantal
position is usually replaced by a vowel.
Examples: bit=[bI?], football=[fU?bOo], belt=[beo?], Cheltenham=[tSeo?n@m], bent=[ben?],
Bentley=[ben?li]
but not in: best *[bes?](Not possible in any accent), twenty *[twen?i], water *[wO:?@], mattress
*[m{?r@s] (All possible in Cockney)
These examples are from John Wells' discussion document, mentioned before. Speakers who
otherwise would be judged to speak undoubted RP can however be heard to produce glottal
replacement of exactly this kind and glottal replacement of [t] is common the popular speech of
many cities far removed from the supposed domain of EE: Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester and
New York to name a few. So glottal replacement is certainly not a defining characteristic of EE.
EE glottal replacement, however, does differ from that in Cockney in being confined to the
environments already discussed. Cockney speakers often use [?] for [t] in all environments where
it is not syllable initial. Cockney speakers also sometimes extend glottal replacement to affect [p]
and [k] as well as [t].
Before leaving the subject of glottal replacement, I would like to mention the claim by Rosewarne
that [d] is also subject to this process. This, I think, is simply an error, although the claim appears
in both his 1984 and his 1994 articles. The only speakers of British English that I have ever heard
who replace [d] with [?] come from Yorkshire. This is a consequence of what is sometimes known
as Yorkshire Assimilation which changes voiced plosives to their voiceless counterparts at the end
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/maidment-ipasam.htm

990208

Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype? J A Maidment

Page 3 of 8

of word before a word beginning with a voiceless consonant. Thus, a word like bad, may well find
itself in environment where the final [d] is replaced by [t] and the [t] in its turn may be replaced by
[?]. Examples of this would be [b{? taIm] and [gU? TIN]. However, no-one has claimed (as far
as I know) there is any connection between EE and the Yorkshire accent. To be fair to Rosewarne,
there is one other situation in which a [d] may be replaced by [?], but this affects only the word
had in the collocation had to. Many speakers of many British accents pronounce this phrase [h{?
tu:]. Such a pronunciation parallels the devoicing of the final consonants in the first word of the
phrases has to and have to.
L-vocalisation:
Examples: milk=[mIok], mill=[mIo]
Some possible EE vowel neutralisations before [o]
l
l

u: / U (fool = full = [fUo], but foolish not = fullish)

i: / I@ (real = reel = [rIo], but fear not = fee)

Some Cockney vowel neutralisations probably not part of EE:

l
l
l
l
l
l

i: / I (feel = fill = [fIo])

e / 3: (weld = world = [weod])
Q / @U (doll = dole = [dQo])
u: / U / O: (pool = pull = Paul = [pOo])
eI / { (veil = Val = [v{o])
aI / A: (dial = Dahl = [dAo])

Like Cockney (and some other English accents) EE exhibits l-vocalisation. The rule is:
/l/ is realised as a back, closeish rounded vowel in positions before a consonant with or without
an intervening word boundary or in absolute utterance final position before a pause
[o] symbolises a sound very like what most speakers of English produce for w. Indeed, both
Coggle and Rosewarne use [w] to symbolise the sound.
The effect that [o] has on preceding vowel qualities and on the loss of contrast between vowels
may be restricted in EE. The neutralisations which Cockney exhibits before an [o] are much more
extensive, it is claimed.
Diphthong shift:
The diphthongal vowels of FACE, PRICE and GOAT in EE are supposedly as shown below.
These are also what would be expected of a Cockney speaker.
l
l
l

FACE vowel: [aI]

PRICE vowel: [AI]
GOAT vowel: [VU]

GOAT allophony:

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/maidment-ipasam.htm

990208

Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype? J A Maidment

Page 4 of 8

In common with speakers of many other accents, EE speakers are said to exhibit salient differences
of the quality of the vowel of GOAT in general environments compared to pre-lateral or pre-[o]
environments. This type of allophony is not usually recognised to be part of RP.
GOAT vowel --> [QU] before [5] or its reflex [o]
Examples:
l
l

row=[rVU]
roll=[rQU5] or [rQUo]

Yod coalescence:
Most accents allow the coalescence of alveolar plosive and following palatal approximant (yod) to
produce a postalveolar affricate. RP is an accent which tends to confine this to unstressed
environments. So: constitute [kQnstItSu:t], did you [dIdZu] are all right in RP. EE is said to
allow such coalescence in a much larger set of environmnents and specifically before stressed
vowels as seen below.
l
l

Tuesday=[tSu:zdi]
reduce=[r@dZu:s]

The last three items on the list of features claimed for EE are extremely dubious.
/r/ realisation:
I have doubts about this simply because I find it difficult to see what Rosewarne and Coggle are
getting at. Coggle seems to think that the usual target for EE /r/ is a labiodental approximant. I say
seems to think, though he does not actually say so, because he says that EE /r/ sounds like [w] and
also lists a number of celebrities: Jonathan Ross, David Bellamy, Derek Jameson, as users of this
/r/ variety. At least the first two of these definitely use a labiodental. But, a labiodental
approximant is well-known in speakers of all accents as a minor defect. It really is not clear if
Coggle is claiming that the large majority of current EE speakers use it. If so, I simply think he is
wrong.
Rosewarne's account of EE /r/ is equally puzzling. In both the 1984 and 1994 articles he describes
the production of /r/ so:
the tip of the tongue is lowered and the central part raised to a position close to, but not touching,
the soft palate
This seems to suggest a velar approximant articulation. This again is a well-known "deviant"
production of /r/ in speakers of many accents. Rosewarne gives examples of EE-speaking
celebrities who use this articulation. At least one of these, Paul Merton the comedian, does not, in
my experience, use a velar approximant articulation for /r/.
Nuclear prepositions:
Rosewarne claims that EE speakers are more likely to place the intonational nucleus on a
preposition. The same example he uses in both his articles illustrates this:

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/maidment-ipasam.htm

990208

Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype? J A Maidment

Page 5 of 8

Let us get TO the point

Speakers of many accents of English are likely to use nuclear accented prepositions in what are
known as counter-presuppositional utterances. A good example of this sort of utterance is:
Don't phone the fire brigade. The house isn't ON fire.
Here the speaker seeks to counter a presupposition that is guiding the hearer's behaviour. This sort
of utterance contrasts with what is known as a counter-assertive utterance (or more simply a
contradiction) where the speaker negates the hearer's explicit assertion of a proposition:
l
l

A: The house is on fire!

B: No, the house ISn't (is NOT) on fire.

Rosewarne ignores the possibility that the examples of EE nuclear prepositions he claims to have
observed are simply examples counter-presuppositional utterances.
Another use of nuclear-accented presuppositions which is fairly common is stylistically determined.
Announcements, especially over public address systems, seem for some reason to encourage their
use:
The train arriving ON platform 14 is the 16.00 FROM Cheltenham Spa.
Rosewarne again ignores the possibility of a stylistic explanation for the supposed EE occurrences
of this phenomenon.
Tone and pitch features:
What Rosewarne has to say about EE intonation is so vague and unsubstantiated that it need not
detain us very long. He says that:
there is a a rise/fall intonation that is characteristic of Estuary English
One would like to know what exactly marks this characteristic rise fall intonation off from the rise
falls one finds in most, if not all, accents of English. Is it the form of the rise fall? Its alignment with
the text perhaps? Is it its correlation with syntactic structures? Is it its frequency of occurrence? Its
supposed function? Rosewarne leaves us in the dark about all of these possibilities.
The other claim that Rosewarne makes for the prosody of EE is equally vague. This is that:
the pitch of intonation patterns in Estuary English appears to be in a narrower frequency band
than in RP
I would be very surprised if this were true for all supposed EE speakers and all RP speakers, but
until someone does some objective research into this, perhaps we had better pass on.
To summarise then: Coggle and Rosewarne make a number of specific claims about the phonetic
and phonological features which characterise a speaker as belonging to the EE community. The
only features that are supposedly unique to EE are very dubious. All the rest are found in Cockney,
or RP, or in some cases both.
We now leave behind the phonetics of the matter and pass on to the sociolinguistics of EE. And
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/maidment-ipasam.htm

990208

Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype? J A Maidment

Page 6 of 8

the first question which needs to be asked of Rosewarne and especially Coggle is: What exactly is
EE? Is it an accent of English or is it a dialect? There seems to be a good deal of confusion about
this in the writing of both writers. To be fair to Rosewarne he does say that EE pronunciation is
generally accompanied by certain vocabulary items, suggesting that he does make a distinction
between accent and dialect, but then he makes the claim that EE is marked by a greater use of
question tags. This is definitely a matter of syntax and not pronunciation and as such should be a
feature of dialect and not accent. Coggle's book is full of examples of supposed EE features which
are dialect-based and nothing to do with accent and the confusion can be summed up by quoting
one sentence from page 70:
It should now be clear that Estuary English cannot be pinned down to a rigid set of rules
regarding specific features of pronunciation, grammar and special phrases.
A much more worrying feature of the description of EE by Rosewarne is its naivety. The
impression left by Rosewarne's definition of EE quoted earlierand not dispelled by anything that he
writes later in either of his two articles is that the relationship between Cockney, EE and RP is
similar to that diagrammed below:
[Cockney][EE][RP]
Here EE appears to be marked off from both Cockney and RP by rigid boundaries. It would, with
a model like this, be possible to say whether a given speaker is an EE speaker or not, with 100%
certainty. I am sure that neither Rosewarne nor Coggle would subscribe to this model, but neither
really goes any way to providing a more realistic model of the relationships involved. Such a model
must take stylistic and register variation into account.
[I <---Cockney---> F] [I <---RP---> F]
[I <---EE---> F]
Above, we can see that a model more in touch with the realities of accent variation must recognise
that a speaker of a given accent has within his or her competence a range of styles from informal
(I) to formal (F) and that any overlap between accents may well be as diagrammed.
Let us take a specific example: that of H-drop. In a formal style, a Cockney speaker may avoid
dropping /h/, while in a very relaxed, informal style an EE speaker may drop the odd /h/. (Note we
are not concerned here with /h/ elision in unstressed pronouns and auxiliary verbs which occurs in
nearly all English accents). If this is the case, then the boundary between Cockney and EE becomes
extremely fuzzy unless style of speech is controlled for, especially if the same situation obtains for
all the variables which supposedly distinguish Cockney and EE.
To take another example, this time at the borders of EE and RP, let us look at /t/-glottaling. There
is no doubt that in informal styles RP speakers do this. If supposed EE speakers only avoid /t/
glottaling in formal speech, then we have the same situation of fuzzy overlap.
All this leads to the possibility that EE is no more than slightly poshed up Cockney or RP which
has gone "down market" in appropriate situations and that rather than there being a newly
developed accent which we should call EE, all that has happened over recent years is that there has
been a redefinition of the appropriateness of differing styles of pronunciation to differing speech
situations. For example, the perception may be that it is now more acceptable to use informal style
in broadcasting.
A further possibility is that the style/register fuzziness at the boundaries between EE and Cockney
and EE and RP is only valid for some pronunciation variables. This leaves the concept of EE
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/maidment-ipasam.htm

990208

Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype? J A Maidment

Page 7 of 8

intact, but recognises that sorting out whether a particular bit of speech counts as EE or whether a
particular speaker generally uses EE is no longer a simple cut-and-dried decision.
The final criticism that I have about EE from the sociolinguistic point of view is a relatively trivial
one. That is the name itself. Estuary English, if it exists at all, is not only spoken on or near the
Thames estuary. There is no real evidence that it even originated there.
Recent research by workers at the University of Reading, Paul Kerswill and Anne Williams, has
suggested that the accent of younger speakers in Milton Keynes which is a new city quite a long
way from the Thames Estuary has many of the features claimed for EE. Rosewarne and Coggle
claim that EE is taking over the southeast of England and is supplanting both RP and the more
localised accents of the area. An alternative explanation is that the perception of formality and
informality has changed and that, in this post-modern age, it is quite acceptable to pick and mix
accents. Perhaps, we ought to call this new trend Post-Modern English, rather than Estuary
English. This is a suggestion I make with my tongue only slightly in my cheek.
We now turnfrom the sociolinguistics of the phenomenon to the sociology (or perhaps the politics)
of it. In the discussion document already mentioned, Wells writes and I quote:
Rosewarne and Coggle have arguably done a public service by drawing attention to it (meaning
EE)
I would say it was very arguable in view of the reaction of the British public to the phenemenon. If
Rosewarne can invent new names, so can I. The publicity given to EE has given rise to a severe
outbreak of what I shall call the Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells Syndrome, or DTWS for short. For
those of you unfamiliar with this, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is a mythical figure, very probably
ex-military or married to such, retired, living in Tunbridge Wells in Kent, a town, so I'm told,
amply supplied with inhabitants of this sort. DTW's main hobby in retirement is writing outraged
letters to the local and national newspapers, complaining about everything imaginable, or at least
everything that might imaginably be tinged with slightest whiff of left wing, or even moderate
political views. One thing that DTW is hot on is the purity of the English language. The furore in
the press and on the radio about EE has really given DTW something to rage about. Here are just a
few quotes culled from various newspapers, some of them are from Coggle's book, others not.
l

It is not an accent...just lazy speaking that grates on the ear and is an extremely bad example
to our children
The spread of Estuary English can only be described as horrifying. We are plagued with
idiots on radio and television who speak English like the dregs of humanity.
It may be that the twilight of spoken English - the Wrterdmmerung - is far too advanced.
Is the appalling speech that buzzes about our ears today part of the general malaise?
God forbid that it becomes standard English. Are standards not meant to be upheld? We
must not slip into slovenliness because of a lack of respect for the language. Ours is a lovely
language, a rich language, which has a huge vocabulary. We have to safeguard it.
It is slobspeak, limp and flaccid: the mouths uttering it deserve to be stuffed with broken
glass.
It is London of course, but debased London: slack-jawed, somnabulent (sic) London.

I could go on with this catalogue, but I simply find it too depressing. At least one of the writers
quoted above would, in my opinion, be well advised to consult a psychiatrist at the earliest
opportunity. I think that it would be very difficult to justify treating anyone as a "slob" simply
because they use the odd glottal stop. There must be millions of decent, honest, intelligent men,
women, and children who use vocalised /l/? Are we to treat them with anything less than the
respect they deserve simply because of this? And as for "our children", does anyone really believe
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/maidment-ipasam.htm

990208

Estuary English: Hybrid or Hype? J A Maidment

Page 8 of 8

that they are at risk of being corrupted because they hear people around them saying /r@dZu:s/
rather than /ridju:s/?
Are Rosewarne and Coggle to blame for this? I must hasten to make clear that neither of them
express views anything like those that I've just been quoting. Both see EE as a positive or at least
neutral, but linguistically interesting, phenomenon. What they have done, however, by giving this
purported phenomenon a name and by publicising it in rather simplistic terms is, wittingly or
unwittingly (perhaps half-wittingly) built the image of an ogre which threatens the imagined static,
pure condition of the English language. Nothing is likely to enrage DTW more than the suggestion
that the standard language which he/she holds so dear, the grail of which he/she sees him/herself
the guardian, is being usurped by the usage of people who are NOT OUR CLASS. DTW is not
going down without a fight, you may be sure. And as in all fights, innocent bystanders are likely to
get hurt - innocent bystanders like sociolinguists and speakers of non-standard varieties of English.
The newspapers in Britain, of course, encourage debate of this sort, if it can be graced with the
name debate. It sells newspapers and feeds the prejudices of their readers. I guess that the same
sort of linguistic phenomena happen in all languages and in all societies of reasonable size and
complexity. Is it only in Britain that news of linguistic developments generates such venom?

References
l
l
l

Coggle P (1993) Do you speak Estuary? London: Bloomsbury

Rosewarne D (1984) 'Estuary English'. Times Educational Supplement, 19 October 1984
Rosewarne D (1994) 'Estuary English: tomorrow's RP' English Today 37.10.1 (January
1994), 3-8
Wells J C (1994) 'Transcribing Estuary English: a discussion document' Unpublished paper.
Dept Phonetics & Linguistics, University College London.

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/maidment-ipasam.htm

990208