Over the past few decades, studies of dialect levelling have concluded that phonological convergence amongst varieties of British English is rife. This review attempts to demonstrate the opposite, in the variety of English spoken in Liverpool. Despite various media reports predicting the death of Liverpool English, evidence is provided here that the variety appears to be resisting the innovation of ‘T-glottalling’, a feature which is frequent elsewhere, and instead shows signs of divergence from any kind of supra-local regional norm.

LITTLE BRITAIN is a television comedy show in the UK. Recurring characters appear in its episodes enacting situations that can be said to satirize British society. It was first aired by the BBC in February 2003. Little Britain has quickly amassed a loyal following and has grown significantly in popularity. It has won a number of prestigious comedy awards including ‘Best Comedy Performance’ and ‘Comedy Programme or Series Award’ at the BAFTAs (British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards, 2005). The humour in Little Britain has therefore been successful. Moreover, it is not based purely on visual comedy, being originally launched on BBC Radio 4 then transferred to television. Its humour originates in the language used. Schema theory, a useful tool for analysing much situational comedy, can shed light on the construction and interpretation of humour in Little Britain

In 1986, I was interviewed by a long-standing colleague and friend, Arnold Pitt, for the British journal The Esperanto Teacher. As editor of that periodical he referred to the journal I had recently begun to edit, English Today, as ‘the other ET’. His interview questions began with English worldwide, and ended with his key concern, Esperanto as a (or the) world’s auxiliary language. I have always had a strong fellow feeling for ‘Esperantism’. Many artificial languages have been ‘manufactured’ for commendable philanthropic reasons, but only Esperanto has had any kind of impact on the world, and, to my mind, it is admirable in its cosmopolitanism. That said, however, my views on the pre-eminence for good and/or ill of English and, sadly, the limited prospects of Esperanto have not changed in the twenty years since that interview. The interview is therefore reprinted here with some further reflections [in square brackets]. Comments are welcomed.