Is a Day out of Hawick a Day Wasted ? A Study of Bidialectalism in Young Hawick Females Alice Rawsthorne 1

This study investigates young female speakers from Hawick in southern Scotland. The main focus is to identify whether bidialectal-like shifts occur in the young female speakers’ use of local dialect features, depending on the dialect of their conversation partner. It compares dialectal feature production in 5 participants’ conversations with a Hawick insider and outsider, analysing the phonological, lexical, and morphological variables θ>h, know/ken, and negation. The results show that 3 of the 5 recorded participants demonstrated bidialectal-like style shifts in feature production depending on their conversation partner, whilst the other 2 participants showed less significant shifts. Furthermore, this study uses quantitative and qualitative comparisons of the linguistic features under study to position the participants on a monodialectal-bidialectal continuum. It suggests possible explanations for intra-speaker variation in bidialectalism, including degree of closeness between the speakers, socioeconomic background, and community inclusion. The article points to a need for wider research in the field of bidialectalism to identify influences on monodialectal and bidialectal speakers in different geographical areas.


The Linguistic Situation in Scotland
The linguistic situation in Scotland is complex and varied, with much debate as to whether the historically dominant language variety, Scots, should be defined as a language, dialect, or somewhere in between (McArthur 1998:138-159, Leith 1997:150-158).What can be agreed on, however, is that Scots and Scottish English varieties are unique, with Scotland often described as a "dialect island" (Crystal 2003:328) which is "the most divergent in the Anglophone world" (Maguire 2012:20), making it a dialectologist's paradise (Görlach 1985:3).
However, Scots is not just a historic dialect; it is still widely used today.The 2011 Scotland Census showed that, on average, 37.7% of the population consider themselves to be either able to understand, speak, read, or write Scots, or to hold a combination of these skills (Scotland's Census 2011).The census surveyed Scotland's entire population (5,295,403 people) and was the first to explicitly include Scots in the language questions in the aim to "paint an important picture of the characteristics of our population" (Scotland's Census 2011).These data must be viewed with caution, as the term "Scots" was not defined in the census and may have been differently interpreted by participants (Eunson and Murray 2009:7).However, they can be used as an approximate indicator of Scots or Scottish English dialects in different areas.
Geographical and social variation in Scots usage seems to be demonstrated in the census, "since different types of people use it in different regions, depending on many factors such as the size of town and distance from major cities, the social class and social network make-up of the locality" (Johnston 1997:438).An area in which Scots is represented particularly strongly is the town of Hawick in the Scottish Borders, where 47.9% of the 14,294 residents claim to have some understanding of or to use Scots, which is 10.2% higher than Scotland's average (Scotland's Census 2011).These patterns are also reflected when looking specifically at speech, with 46% of Hawick residents claiming to speak Scots, compared to the national average of 30% (Scotland's Census 2011).

Bidialectalism
Bidialectalism is the ability to produce and use "two regional or social dialects of a language, one of which is commonly the standard language" (OED online 2014).In this study, the two dialects which participants are expected to produce are Hawick Scots and Standard English.Anderson (2011) studied a Pennsylvania Dutchified English and Standard English bidialectal speaker, concluding that "bidialectals are fully capable of maintaining and skilfully wielding two distinct systems of linguistic features" (Anderson 2011:241) with clear code-switching and no overlapping of features.The mutually exclusive nature of this example of bidialectalism would suggest that the ideal image of bidialectalism for this project would be one in which participants produced only a Standard English variant when talking to an English conversation partner and only the Hawick variety with a Hawick conversation partner.However, in Anderson's (2011) study of a bidialectal speaker, obstruent devoicing occurred in both of the participants' dialects, suggesting that it is not essential for all speakers to clearly code-switch between all features to be considered bidialectal.The assumption that bidialectalism requires mutual exclusivity has also been disputed by Smith and Durham (2012:68).An alternative model consisting of a style-shifting continuum may be more realistic.In this model, demonstrated in Figure 1, "monolectal" (also referred to as "monodialectal") and "bidialectal" speech types are at opposite poles, and it is possible for speakers to move within the continuum space.In the continuum paradigm of style-shifting, "bidialectal speakers would be expected to switch between very high and very low rates of the vernacular form" (Smith and Durham 2012:67), as opposed to categorically shifting in their use of a feature.This may also be described as "code-drifting" (Britain 2007:111).It is this continuum model which is adopted in the current study.

Case Study: Bidialectalism in Shetland
The type of bidialectalism study presented in this article has been carried out previously by Smith and Durham (2012), with a focus on speakers from Shetland.Smith and Durham (2012:58) discovered that within a young adult group, "half used the local forms in line with the older generations, whilst the other half used standard variants almost exclusively".In order to identify whether this was due to young speakers displaying bidialectalism or a loss of Shetland dialect features, the "dialect speakers" from the initial study were reinterviewed by a Swiss-American outsider of the community in a formal hotel setting, whereas the "standard speakers" were interviewed in an informal setting by a Shetland dialect speaker (Smith and Durham 2012:58).Their production of local features in each case was compared: if speakers were bidialectal, the standard speakers would be expected to increase their use of Shetland dialect forms when talking to an insider, and the dialect speakers would use fewer dialect forms when speaking to an outsider.
The dialect features analysed were lexical (ken vs. know), phonological (hoose vs. house), morphosyntactic (be perfect), and phonetic (th-stopping) (Smith and Durham 2012:61).The selection of specific features allowed for quantitative analysis of the speakers' language in different sociolinguistic contexts.For example, on analysing the results of the speakers' use of ken and know, Smith and Durham (2012) found that whilst dialect speakers in their study reduced their use of the nonstandard form ken with an outsider, the standard speakers did not demonstrate a significant increase in ken production when conversing with the insider, usually opting for the standard know form.This suggests that the dialect speakers are able to style-shift but the standard speakers are not.
The results of ken and other analysed features in the study showed that "only some of the young speakers are bidialectal: the remaining speakers use no dialect forms" (Smith and Durham 2012:57).This led Smith and Durham (2012:80) to conclude that "the dialect in Lerwick may well be subject to dialect obsolescence", particularly as young speakers are commonly the innovators of new language patterns.Therefore, the shift towards a more standard Scottish variety and away from the Shetland dialect may be a pattern which continues into the future, eventually leading to dialect death.

Visualising Bidialectalism
Given Smith and Durham's (2012) findings and the monolectal-bidialectal continuum presented by Hazen (2001), it would be possible for a speaker to produce Hawick features with an English partner but still be towards the bidialectal end of the continuum, providing that statistically significant decreases in Hawick features

Monolectal
Bidialectal Style-shifting continuum are realised when conversing with the English conversation partner as compared to a Hawick conversation partner.This type of shift is visualised in Figure 2. Bidialectal speakers would be expected to show a substantial increase or decrease in their production of local features, depending on their conversation partner.However, forms of both the local and non-local variants may be present in all cases.Hence, the two forms are not mutually exclusive.

Why Do Speakers Style-shift?
As shown in Smith and Durham's (2012) study, speakers often style-shift depending on whether their conversation partner is an insider or an outsider.According to Bell's theory of audience design, "speakers accommodate primarily to their addressee" (1984:145).This could be for a variety of sociolinguistic reasons: to gain social acceptance (Giles et al. 1991), minimize the social distance between the speakers, establish a lower social status, or increase the effectiveness of conversation (Turner and West 2010).
However, the addressee is not the only possible influence on style-shifting: for example, some studies have found a correlation between heightened attention paid to speech and formal speech styles (e.g., Dressler 1974, Vanedek andDressler 1975).Nevertheless, these correlations have been considered weak (Bell 1984:149); and further studies have, in fact, found the reverse to be the case (Rickford 1979, Wolfram 1981).Consequently, attention is regarded by Bell (1984:150) to be an unsatisfactory explanation for style-shifting, for which reason it will not be applied to this study.
Additional influences on style-shifting could include education or mobility.Bell (1984:158) argues that "in learning or losing styles, the crucial factor proves to be access to a range of interlocutors".Thus, if a speaker has only had exposure to a limited range of interlocutors, perhaps due to not attending university and/or living predominantly in the same geographical location amongst the same social group, they may style-shift less due to their smaller linguistic range of possible conversation partners.This will be considered in more depth in Section 6.

Hawick: Geography, History, and Language
The key participants in this study all originate from Hawick, located in the Scottish Borders.As with many Borders towns, Hawick natives "have a pride in their town still reinforced by rugby loyalties and old festivals based historically on the guarding of the town limits, and a pride in their local vernacular goes with the territory" (Johnston 1997:444).Their strong traditions bring the town together and are perhaps why there is a sense of town patriotism illustrated by local idioms such as "A day out of Hawick is a day wasted".
Linguistically, Hawick is a Teviotdale sub-variety of Southern Scots (Johnston 1997:444).In this dialect area, "Scots speakers are plentiful up and down the social scale, [and] many upper-middle-class members codeswitch radically" (Johnston 1997:439).Johnston (1997) suggests that in these types of communities, workingclass members, two of whom are analysed in this study, may code-drift between Scots and mixed styles.A few Standard Scottish English (SSE) monolectals are also thought to be present among the middle-class children of middle-class parents (Johnston 1997:439).This is relevant to the present study, as 3 of the participants recorded Hawick partner English partner are lower-middle class and therefore have the potential to be monolingual SSE speakers.However, "middleclass but upwardly mobile speakers retain a Scots register for family and friends" (Johnston 1997:444).Bidialectalism should not, therefore, be ruled out as a possibility in the case of the middle-class participants.
Based on previous linguistic and historical literature on Hawick, as well as comments made by Hawick speakers during the recordings, it is clear that for Hawick natives "their vernacular is first and foremost local" (Johnston 1997:444).When asked what variety they speak, many of the participants' first reaction was "Hawick", as opposed to Scots, English, or Scottish English.Johnston (1997:445) even suggests that his Hawick informants' ability to "translate" or code-switch from Hawick to English and vice versa could be viewed as evidence of bilingualism.However, the reasonably high degree of mutual intelligibility between English and Hawick speakers does not warrant a view of Hawick and English as being two separate languages, but it does warrant a bidialectal analysis.

Hawick and Dialect Death
As with many traditional dialects of English, there is concern that Southern Scots dialects such as Hawick are being "'captured' by neighbouring speech communities with greater cachet and influence" (Johnston 1997:433), resulting in a loss of traditional features.This is often referred to as "dialect levelling" and may lead to complete death of the dialect if more standard features replace the local ones (Cheshire et al. 1999).If this is the case in Hawick, it may be predicted that features of the Hawick dialect such as ken, θ>h, and negation with -nae (all of which will be discussed further in Section 3.3) will not be prominent in the participants' speech.Whether or not the "Borderer's local pride will keep any variety of this type of Scots alive will be a fruitful topic of future study" (Johnston 1997:445), and one which will be explored in this project.

Overview
The methodology for this project is similar to that of Smith and Durham's ( 2012) study on bidialectalism in Shetland, as each participant was interviewed for at least 45 minutes by a Hawick insider and outsider to elicit possible bidialectal behaviour.The native insider will henceforth be referred to as Francesca.Francesca has known each Hawick participant for at least 12 years as they attended the same school.Participants were also recorded speaking to an English outsider originally from the East Midlands, known here as Alice, who uses the Standard English forms for all analysed features.The recording of Francesca speaking to an insider is also analysed for comparison.
In contrast to Smith and Durham's (2012) research, the formality of each recording was kept the same: a casual home setting was used for every recording.This was a deliberate decision to encourage as close to a spontaneous speech style as possible, so that differences between features could be compared "based on the presumed dialect … of the interlocutor" (Anderson 2011:222), rather than being influenced or emphasised by formality level.

Participant Selection
The 5 selected participants are limited to the single social group of females aged 20-21.The motivation behind selection stems from the established principle that young females are innovators of linguistic change (Labov 2001:261-293).As linguistic innovators, the young female Hawick group may offer an insight into the potential future linguistic situation.

Background on Participants
Each participant completed a questionnaire on her background.The participants share several characteristics: they consider themselves to be fluent in English, were all born in Melrose Hospital in the Scottish Borders, grew up in Hawick, and attended the same school until at least age 17.Differences which may impact on their language use are described below.

Anna
Anna has lived in Hawick since birth and currently works as a hairdresser whilst studying Beauty Therapy at a college in the Borders.Her parents were born in Hawick and work locally.She considers herself to be working class and to speak, read, write, and understand Scots.However, she would only write Scots in text messages.

Francesca
Francesca has been studying at Edinburgh University and living in Edinburgh for 4 years.She returns to Hawick at least twice a month.Her father, who was born in Hawick, is very involved in local rugby, and her mother works in a Borders school.Francesca is lower-middle class and can speak, read, write, and understand Scots, but she would only read Scots in poetry or fiction and only herself write in Scots in an informal situation, such as social media or texting.

Grace
Grace's parents are both originally from Edinburgh, which presents a contrast with the rest of the group; however, they lived in the Borders for the duration of Grace's schooling.At the time of recording, Grace was living in Hawick after having lived in Edinburgh for 2 years to study at college in Fife.She considers herself to be lower-middle class and to be able to speak, read, write, and understand Scots.

Harriet
Harriet's father was born in Hawick, and her mother is from Jedburgh, a neighbouring town.She considers herself to be working class.Harriet has studied at Edinburgh University for the past 4 years and has spent the majority of her summers working in Edinburgh too.She only has limited ability in speaking, reading, writing, and understanding Scots, and she would not consider herself to use it in an everyday context.

Olivia
Olivia's parents are both from the Scottish Borders.She also studies at Edinburgh University; however, she frequently returns home at weekends and during the summers.At the time of recording, she was preparing to move back to Hawick for a teaching placement in a local primary school.Olivia is able to speak and understand Scots but would not choose to read or write it.

Features
The phonological, lexical and morphological features analysed in this project are: (1) θ>h ( 2) ken (3) negation These three features were selected as they are discrete variables, allowing reliable quantitative analysis.Each feature was analysed according to the following descriptions, with chi-squared tests applied to the results to test for statistical significance.

Phonological Feature: θ>h
The θ>h feature has been selected for analysis as it is becoming "more common over time" (Johnston 1997:507) in Scottish English varieties.This feature refers to the alternation of Standard English [θ] with [h] "in initial and intervocalic position, including before /r/ (that is in thing, nothing, three)" and is attested in "all Southern and Central Belt varieties up to Perthshire" (Johnston 1997:507, see also Zai 1942:200 and Wilson 1915:30).As final /θ/ is retained in all Scottish varieties rather than becoming /h/ (Johnston 1997:507), final /θ/ is not analysed.For example, hing [hɪɳ] and hink [hɪɳk] are possible Hawick pronunciations of "thing" and "think", but mih [mɪh] is not a possible pronunciation of "myth" (Scott 2014:95).
Given the specific phonological environments in which this feature occurs, the analysis of θ>h is lexically restricted in this study to think, thing, everything, nothing, and anything, each of which were identified with both [θ] and [h] in the recordings.The lexical item something is excluded from analysis due to issues in identifying unstressed occurrences and variations, such as summin, summan, and summing.Examples such as three or thin are not spoken by participants in any of the recordings and cannot therefore be analysed.

Lexical Feature: Ken
Ken is the traditional Scots lexical equivalent of know (Picken 1818:111), which is still widely used in modern Scots (Miller 1993), and it is a common variant in Hawick (Scott 2014(Scott :1098)).Similarly to know, ken can be used as either a discourse marker or a lexical verb (Smith and Durham 2012:71).Examples from the English partner conversations are shown in (i)-(iv), of which (i) and (iii) show ken and know used as lexical verbs, whilst (ii) and (iv) show their uses as discourse markers.
(i) Everybody kens everybody in Hawick.(Anna 00.04.44) (ii) College came about then you just forget about it ken.(Grace 00.30.11) (iii) I don't know why you'd ever drink up there.(Harriet 00.28.56) (iv) Like, you know, it sucks.(Francesca 00.00.43)Ken has been argued to mark "interactional solidarity" (Macaulay 1991:160) amongst Scottish English speakers.Therefore, higher rates of ken may be displayed in Hawick-Hawick interactions due to the subconscious desire to show social coherence within the linguistic community.Every occurrence of ken and know spoken by the Hawick participants, both as lexical verbs and discourse markers, is analysed in this project.
However, in the Hawick recordings, two other negation forms occur: der /dɛ:/ (don't) and kar /kɑ:/ (can't).These forms do not appear to be represented in the Scots and Scottish English literature but were produced by every Hawick participant in this dissertation.These variants could either represent Hawick specific negation or under-researched Scottish English negation.
For the purpose of this study, auxiliary verb + n't will be considered the Standard English form (Crystal 2010:329), whilst Hawick forms will include clitic -nae and the more unusual negated forms der (don't) and kar (can't).

Limitations
To keep this project narrow and focussed, only 5 participants were recorded in order to be able to analyse each individual and investigate their language use in detail whilst taking into account their social differences.It was anticipated that this would consequently provide more precise and thorough results.However, the restricted sample size means that there are several limitations of this research project.In particular, it is not possible to state conclusively whether the results reflect the wider linguistic community in Hawick or whether they are specific to the small sample of this friendship group.Similarly, it is not possible to judge whether the patterns identified are exclusive to young females and not males, nor to compare them to other studies on bidialectalism in Hawick, as this is a previously unresearched topic.

Data Collection and Results Analysis
Each recording was analysed in turn, and each occurrence of the key Hawick (H) and English (E) features was noted in an Excel spreadsheet, including additional information, as shown in Table 1.The totals of each feature by conversation were then collated and compared, converting the raw figures into percentages in order to clearly compare each speaker's production of Hawick and English forms (see the results graphs in Section 5).

Hypotheses
The following hypotheses are proposed for this study: (1) The Hawick speakers will be bidialectal, shown by significant shifts in local feature production depending on their conversation partner.
(2) The participants will demonstrate different extents of bidialectalism depending on the amount of time spent away from Hawick.Those who spend more time outside of Hawick will be closer to the bidialectal end of the spectrum, due to "their access to a range of interlocutors" (Bell 1984:158).
The hypotheses will be discussed in relation to the results in Section 5.

Results
Hypothesis 1: The Hawick speakers will be bidialectal, shown by significant shifts in local feature production depending on their conversation partner.
If the young Hawick speakers recorded are bidialectal, the predicted results would show "significantly different rates of use across the two interviews" (Smith and Durham 2012:68) when comparing their production of local features.Figure 3 shows a hypothetical graph of bidialectal shifts.On the other hand, if dialect death is underway, the percentage production of Hawick features would be low or absent across the board.The following sections will assess the extent to which speakers style-shift between the three features: θ>h, ken, and negation.

Phonological Feature: θ>h
This section details the production of morpheme-initial Hawick [h] and Standard English [θ] in the lexical items think, thing, nothing, everything, and anything.
As can be seen from Figure 4, Grace, Anna, Francesca, and Olivia show significant shifts between Hawick [h] and Standard English [θ] depending on their conversation partner: Grace demonstrates a 22% reduction of [h] when talking to Alice (p<0.05),Anna has a 34% decrease (p<0.001),Francesca decreases by 50% (p<0.001),and Olivia shows the most substantial fall in production at 57% (p<0.001).

Lexical Differences: Ken
Harriet does not produce ken with either conversation partner.However, the remaining participants show at least a 45% use of ken with the Hawick partner and a fall in production when speaking to Alice.Grace, Francesca, and Olivia show highly significant shifts from ken to know (p<0.001), which could be explained by Macaulay's (1991:60) view that ken shows "interactional solidarity" within the insider group.Harriet's lack of ken production here could be the result of no longer being part of the Hawick friendship group, instead being more rooted in Edinburgh society.Figure 5 shows the production of Hawick ken versus Standard English know.

Morphological Differences: Negation
Figures 6 and 7 show each participant's breakdown of English negation (-n't suffix) and Hawick negation (-nae suffix and der/kar lexical forms).Even Harriet, the most standard speaker of the sample, occasionally produces Hawick der as well as -nae when speaking to the Hawick partner.For Grace, Anna, Francesca, and Olivia, the der/kar feature is more frequent than -nae when talking to an insider; however, it is the most suppressed or reduced Hawick form, with up to a 66% reduction when conversing with an outsider.Analysis of the recordings demonstrates that speakers' negation types change over short lengths of time when conversing with a Hawick speaker.It only takes Francesca 10 seconds to use all three of the negation types being analysed: (1) I der ken (00.08.02) (2) Aye it doesnae really make sense (00.08.09) (3) They wouldn't be able to practise (00.08.12) Figure 8 shows each speaker's rate of use of Hawick features, that is, both -nae and der/kar combined as a percentage of the overall negation features (nae, der/kar, and n't).It illustrates that, in contrast to the other features analysed in this paper, every participant produces Hawick negation with both partners.Grace, Olivia, and Francesca have statistically significant decreases in Hawick feature production with the English speaker (p<0.001), with Olivia demonstrating the highest percentage shift at 95.6%.The choice of verb also influences negation type: forms of have show the highest proportion of Standard English clitic -n't, whereas could and would are negated in the majority of instances with the Hawick/Scottish English suffix -nae (see Table 2).The reasons for this are unclear but would be interesting to explore in future research.Throughout this section, Olivia, Grace, and Francesca's results seem to support Hypothesis 1, as statistically significant shifts occur in the production of local features depending on the conversation partner.However, the shifts are smaller and often insignificant for Anna and Harriet, perhaps due to their working-class backgrounds.

Discussion of Each Participant
Hypothesis 2: The participants will demonstrate different extents of bidialectalism depending on the amount of time spent away from Hawick.Those who spend more time outside of Hawick will be closer to the bidialectal end of the spectrum, due to "their access to a range of interlocutors" (Bell 1984:158).

Harriet
Figure 9 shows that Harriet mainly uses Standard English features in her speech, regardless of conversation partner.This opposes Hypothesis 2, as Harriet is the participant who spends the most time outside of Hawick, yet she is not strongly bidialectal, if at all.Harriet admits to distancing herself from Hawick forms after moving to Edinburgh, converging instead with Standard English speaking students from different geographical and dialectal backgrounds in order to integrate with social groups.A further influence on Harriet's low Hawick feature production when talking to Francesca could be their degree of closeness: although Francesca and Harriet are good friends, they do not see each other as much as the other participants.This may help to explain Harriet's speech production, as she is more likely to be towards the monodialectal end of the spectrum, as an SSE speaker, because she is not currently a member "of any tight local networks" (Johnston 1997:439) in Hawick.Instead, Harriet mainly socialises in Edinburgh with non-Hawick students.This suggests that closeness to Hawick and non-Hawick communities may have more influence on style-shifting than the range of interlocutors accessed.

Anna
Unlike the other participants, Anna has never lived outside of Hawick; therefore, her high levels of Hawick features are perhaps to be expected, as shown in Figure 10.Only her reduction in θ>h is statistically significant, suggesting that Anna may be a Hawick dialect speaker toward the monodialectal end of the spectrum, who occasionally style-shifts if conversing with an outsider.Interestingly, both Anna and Harriet are from a workingclass background and display patterns towards the monodialectal end of the continuum, so social class may influence bidialectalism for these speakers.However, Anna is towards the monodialectal end of the Hawick dialect, whereas for Harriet the dialect is Scottish Standard English.This could be because, living and working in Hawick, Anna is likely to have been exposed predominantly to dialect-speaking locals.Therefore, she can be assumed to have had a narrower range of interlocutors than Harriet.Consequently, there may be no need for Anna to dialect-shift in her daily life as she is generally understood by her interlocutors when speaking in Hawick dialect, whereas Harriet may feel required to maintain an SSE dialect for comprehension purposes.

Francesca
As shown in Figure 11, Francesca uses the highest proportion of Standard English features of all the participants when talking to the English partner, and her feature shifts are highly statistically significant.Francesca's percentage differences in local feature production over the two recordings are substantially higher than those of Anna and Harriet but lower than those of Olivia and Grace.However, there is still a strong case to be made for Francesca being bidialectal, based on significant shifts in feature production, such as a 50% decrease in θ>h with the English conversation partner.
Francesca has lived in Edinburgh for 4 years, but regularly visits Hawick and sees Hawick friends.Consequently, she has maintained her link to the Hawick community and dialect.The chosen Hawick partner for Francesca's recording was Anna, because Anna had the strongest dialect features, which may therefore explain the largest contrast in Francesca's speech compared to the other participants.With this in mind, it may have been expected that Francesca's results would show a higher percentage of Hawick features with Anna if she was to accommodate substantially.However the slightly lower levels may be influenced by other factors such as awareness of recording or conversation topic.

Grace
In contrast to Harriet and Anna, there is reasonable evidence in support of Grace being a bidialectal Hawick and Standard English speaker: in every feature analysed, Grace makes a statistically significant shift in feature production to accommodate to her conversation partner (see Figure 12).This could be influenced by her background.Grace lived in Edinburgh between the ages of 18 to 20, during which time she commuted to Fife to attend college.She has since moved back to the Borders to study at a nearby university campus.As a result, over the past 2-3 years, Grace has been exposed to a wide range of linguistic influences and interlocutors.
During her first year at college, she would spend the day in class in Fife, then return to Edinburgh to a flat of three other Hawick natives.Consequently, this may have encouraged Grace to maintain her Hawick dialect, whilst developing a more standard variety for use in outsider situations such as at college, in and around Edinburgh, and at university later on.This contrasts with Harriet, who has lived with non-Hawick flatmates since starting university.This style-shifting pattern is likely to have occurred over the past 2 years and seems to come naturally to Grace, resulting in her substantially shifting dialect features depending on her interlocutor's dialect.

Olivia
All of Olivia's results demonstrate statistically significant feature shifts, indicating a high degree of bidialectalism (see Figure 13).When conversing with the English partner, Olivia shows a 100% shift from ken  Teaching and often finds that she has to speak "properly" or in a more Standard English style to be understood when teaching on placements in Edinburgh schools.Furthermore, she may be conforming to a more standard speech style if this is expected by individuals working in the field of children's education.Consequently, her shift between Standard English and Hawick may be more conscious than that of other participants in this study, as she is aware of possible communication issues or of social and education prestige when speaking to outsiders.Additionally, Olivia's social background, as in the case of Grace and Francesca, is lower-middle class.This factor could potentially be linked to bidialectal ability in this study, as lower-middle-class participants are towards the bidialectal end of the spectrum, whereas working-class Harriet and Anna are more monodialectal.

Discussion of Influencing Factors
When viewed as a group, the participants seem to form a monodialectal-bidialectal continuum which roughly corresponds to their social class, stretching from Olivia to Harriet.Lower-middle-class Olivia, Grace, and Francesca are more towards the bidialectal end of the spectrum, whereas working-class Anna and Harriet are towards the monodialectal end (see Figure 14).At the most bidialectal point of the continuum lies Olivia, who seems to have learned to style-shift between Hawick and Standard English to be better understood by pupils, due to her teaching placements.Next on the continuum is Grace, who shows substantial and significant shifts across all features, possibly influenced by living and studying in different places.Lower-middle-class Francesca lies in the middle of the group's continuum, demonstrating statistically significant shifts in all features analysed.This is followed by Anna, who is strongly rooted in Hawick culture and dialect, and only demonstrates statistically significant shifts in θ>h.Finally, working-class Harriet shows only small shifts in Hawick to Standard English features, and only her negation change is statistically significant.This scale of bidialectalism to monodialectalism supports Hazen's (2001) style-shifting continuum and shows how individual socioeconomic circumstances can affect dialect production in speakers.However, perhaps this monodialectal-bidialectal ordering of participants could link to Bell's (1984:158) argument that "access to a range of interlocutors" is a crucial factor in "learning or losing styles".Concerning Hypothesis 2, it does not appear that the amount of time spent away from Hawick with non-natives strongly influences the extent to which speakers are bidialectal.This is demonstrated by Harriet and Anna, who spend the most and least time outside Hawick, yet who are both at the monodialectal end of the continuum in different dialects.
Nevertheless, the findings suggest that speakers need to be part of both a Hawick and a non-Hawick community, such as Olivia, Grace, and Francesca, to be placed towards the bidialectal end of the spectrum.This is further supported by Anna, who uses predominantly Hawick forms: she is heavily involved in the Hawick community but not in external communities.Therefore, she is towards the monodialectal end of the spectrum.Harriet uses mainly Standard English forms and is part of a community in Edinburgh, whereas her links to the Hawick community are weaker than those of the other participants, resulting in her language production being towards the monodialectal end of the spectrum too.Therefore, participants who are actively part of a native and non-native Hawick community seem to be more likely to demonstrate bidialectal-like style-shifting.

Conclusion
Hypothesis 1, which predicts that the female Hawick speakers will be bidialectal, appears to be confirmed for 3 out of the 5 participants, as they demonstrate statistically significant shifts in feature production.Olivia, in particular, shows up to 100% shifts in production of local features depending on her interlocutor, providing strong evidence for bidialectalism, whilst Francesca and Grace show statistically significant shifts in the features analysed.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that participants would demonstrate different extents of bidialectalism depending on their exposure to non-Hawick speakers, but this is not directly supported by the results.Nevertheless, a correlation occurs between the participants' inclusion in Hawick and non-Hawick communities, and the degree to which they are able to style-shift, which would be an interesting area for future research.
An alternative reason for differences in bidialectalism was also suggested: the working-class speakers recorded were towards the monodialectal end of the continuum, whereas the lower-middle-class speakers were more towards the bidialectal end, suggesting that social class may have an impact on ability or likelihood of dialect shifting.
The linguistic subject of bidialectalism would benefit from further research on a larger scale than the present study to discover whether social class and community inclusion influence bidialectal behaviour.Additionally, it would be interesting to explore whether the monodialectal-bidialectal continuum is limited to certain communities like Hawick and Shetland or whether bidialectalism is a more widespread phenomenon throughout the UK, and perhaps throughout the world.

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: Participants' production of θ>h with Hawick and English partners.

Figure 5 :
Figure 5: Participants' production of ken with Hawick and English partners.

Figure 8 :
Figure 8: Participants' production of -nae and der/kar with Hawick and English partners.

Figure 9 :
Figure 9: Harriet's percentage production of Hawick and English forms depending on conversation partner.

Figure 10 :
Figure 10: Anna's percentage production of Hawick and English forms depending on conversation partner.

Figure 11 :
Figure 11: Francesca's percentage production of Hawick and English forms depending on conversation partner.

Figure 12 :
Figure 12: Grace's percentage production of Hawick and English forms depending on conversation.partner.

Figure 13 :
Figure 13: Olivia's percentage production of Hawick and English forms depending on conversation partner.

Figure 14 :
Figure 14: Percentage differences in local feature production depending on conversation partner.

Table 1 :
Data collection spreadsheet extract

Table 2 :
Negated verbs and the Hawick participants' percentage use of -n't or -nae suffixes and a 96% shift in Hawick to English negation.These large bidialectal-like shifts may be influenced by Olivia's university and work experiences.Olivia is close to her family and friends in Hawick.Moreover, like Grace, she lived with Hawick natives for a year in Edinburgh.Additionally, she is studying Primary School