BY DR ALEX BARATTA
As George Bernard Shaw famously said, “It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him”. In 2026, this quote still has arguable validity, though it’s perhaps not about hatred per se. Rather, accent bias is more to do with believing that certain accents are a bad fit for specific professions and as such, the holders of such accents are placed under unfair scrutiny regarding their supposed ‘lack of fit’. Accent bias has only taken hold as a subject of research over the past ten years or so, though this is something that has been a part of British culture for centuries. Though hardly unique to Britain, accent bias nonetheless has specific implications for a country which is still quite class conscious, if not class divided. The linguistic reality concerning accents is that there is no specific phoneme (sound) which is inherently one thing or another. There is no sound, or combination of sounds, which is inherently sexy, ugly, (un)intelligent, (un) friendly, (un)trustworthy and so on. Instead, individuals who are stigmatised in society on the basis of race, class, ethnicity or even locality, will have their accent stigmatised in the process.
As an example, negative connotations regarding the Liverpool accent are based on the negative stereotypes about the city – and the inhabitants by implication – but not the sounds. The sounds are merely a proxy, albeit an influential one, for one’s local origins and/or class (unless one speaks ‘posh Scouse’, of course).
To take an example, words which end with the ‘k’ sound (as in back) are, realised with a broad Liverpool accent, as a velar fricative – think a strong ‘h’ sound (thus, I’ll be back sounds more like I’ll be bahhh). For some, this might sound (inherently) like clearing one’s throat – thus, a ‘bad’ sound. Yet the same sound in Spanish and German (respective examples include gente and Nacht) might be perceived by some as, respectively, ‘romantic’ and ‘commanding’, but not suggestive of congestion.
But the societal reality concerning accents is indeed that certain sounds are the issue. As such, the sounds as heard with Received Pronunciation, including phrases such as park the car are, historically at least, perceived as educated, civilised even. But the linguistic reality is simply based on power: if the capital of Britain had been built on the River Mersey and British accents had otherwise evolved the same way, then Scouse would have been the standard accent, leaving RP, well, perhaps not so well received at all.
Added to this is linguistic economy – the natural tendency for speakers to cut linguistic corners, as it were, and reduce parts of their speech. This is concerned with enunciation, beyond the aforementioned issues tied to pronunciation. For example, reduction involves producing a sound which requires less effort and is weakened, so that I ate an apple sounds more like I an unapple. Further, elision involves the removal of sounds that are otherwise ‘supposed’ to be pronounced. Consider article deletion in Yorkshire speech, such as I’m off t’shops, or Saturday being realised in parts of Manchester as sa’dih. And how about the dreaded glottal stop in British English, regarded as uneducated (think the Cockney speech in words such as bottle). In Arabic, however, this feature is regarded as educated and quite prestigious, thus avoided for casual speech. Again, there is nothing inherent and this is the linguistic reality; nothing to see here. But the societal reality often equates such practices – reduction and elision, for example – as ‘common’, ‘uneducated’ and even ‘lazy’. It’s none of these things; it’s simply that the masses are subconsciously obeying the natural linguistic tendencies for all languages, here English. Clearly, however, there can be no concept of ‘missing’ out sounds as part of enunciation unless we have a linguistic role model, which presumably does not delete such sounds. We do – RP.
RP, or its modern realisation of Standard Southern British English (SSBE), has long been held up as the standard for its pronunciation but also, its enunciation of ‘full forms’. This is because the speakers of a prestige accent variety in effect set the standard, perhaps even attempt to ‘fix’ their speech to be resistant to change. A large part of this when one is the linguistic standard setter is to indeed speak ‘clearly’ and thus avoid linguistic economy, but going against the natural tendency in language in the process. To label such speakers as pretentious would be unfair. Equally at fault, however, is to label those who follow the natural order as ‘common’ or ‘lazy’. The working classes in Britain often have the broadest realisations of regional accents, complete with linguistic economy, as their voices have traditionally not been heard, literally and figuratively, in contexts of authority. Thus, more reason to let linguistic nature take its course.
Of course, some RP varieties are susceptible to linguistic economy, certainly conservative varieties. This can be heard in words such as tyre, realised with only one syllable and realised more as taaah. While this is perhaps lightly mocked, it is not regarded as some character defect, as it is still the accent of authority. But this is due to its speakers’ societal power and authority, past and present, and not due to its phonological make-up.
Despite the linguistic reality, how biased are we still?
Imagine someone has passed the legal requirements to become a barrister – even attending a top law school and acing their exams. But what about the societal requirement? Would you prefer to be represented by a barrister who spoke RP, or a more general variety of a regional accent at least, versus someone who spoke with a broad regional accent? The answers to questions such as this, uncomfortable though they may be, tell us a little about attitudes to British accents in 2026.
My own research has uncovered clear evidence of accent bias in British teacher training, with a teacher from South London being told to write the word water with a capital ‘T’, in order to avoid ‘unprofessional’ language involving glottal stops. A teacher from the Midlands who taught primary school in the south was told it would be ‘best to go back to where you come from’ if she couldn’t use southern phonology for phonics teaching. And a teacher from Lancashire was threatened with having his interview for a PGCE stopped if he didn’t adjust his accent, on the basis that the children would complain about his accent as he taught English.
Accent is not a protected category, of course. But along with a growing number of linguists, I argue that it should be. Accent protection would be a clear way to protect class in Britain, the one aspect of British culture that, it seems, is left to fend for itself. And accent protection would of course provide added protection for categories such as race, given that our accent is a proxy for race, national origin, ethnicity and, of course, class. This is not about political correctness – it is linguistic correctness.
Dr Alex Baratta is an esteemed applied linguist whose research delves into the intricate realms of language and identity, shedding light on crucial topics such as linguistic prejudice and linguistic rights. His scholarly pursuits have led him to explore the nuances of accent-based discrimination within British teacher training, and more recently, to examine the evolving landscape of World Englishes.