Thanks to Ed for suggesting this post.
The first thing is to distinguish between the modern Potteries accent, which I suppose I still have, although modified after 45 years’ non-residence, and the traditional dialect. Both have a phonology that is different from RP, but whereas the modern accent is an approximation to RP, with certain differences that are common to many other regional accents, the traditional dialect has no direct relationship to RP, but is the descendant of the north west Middle English dialect of the area.
The modern accent’s distinctive features are
(1) The non-existence of a velar nasal phoneme: all occurrences of [ŋ] are homorganic allophones of /n/ preceding a velar plosive. Thus ‘singer’ rhymes with ‘finger’ (/-ɪngə/), and ‘singing’ is pronounced phonemically /ˈsɪngɪng/.
(2) The three RP vowels /ʊ, uː, ʌ/ are replaced by two, with different distributions. The short one is often represented by /ʊ/, but this is not very close to the phonetic reality. I’ve written about this before, here. It is not enough to say that /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ are neutralised because some RP /ʊ/ words have Pottery /uː/, e.g. ‘book’, and many other words spelled -oo-.
(3) The distribution of /æ/ and /ɑː/ is different. Basically, /ɑː/ is restricted to stressed – whether primary or secondary – word-final position (e.g. ‘spa’, ‘bra’, ‘Panama’) or pre /lC/ or /rC/, when the /l/ or /r/ is deleted (e.g. ‘palm’, ‘farm’). There are exceptions – e.g. ‘father’, ‘banana’, but this is the general position (my idiolect has only about a dozen words with /ɑː/ which do not fulfil the two conditions).
(4) The distribution of /h/. There is uncertainty about its occurrence or non-occurrence (so what’s new?) I once heard the Chairman of the City of Stoke on Trent’s Education Committee begin a speech with the words “First hof hall, HI would like to say ow appy HI ham to be ere, this hevening”.
Phonetically, of course, there is a lot of difference between Pottery and RP.
Traditional dialect next week.