The changes described above are often referred to as being characteristic of Estuary English, a term coined by David Rosewarne in 1984. He defines it as follow:

‘Estuary English’ is a variety of modified regional speech. It is a mixture of non-regional and local Southeastern English pronunciation and intonation. If one imagines a continuum with RP and London speech at either end, ‘Estuary English’ speakers are to be found grouped in the middle ground (Rosewarne 1984: 29).

Since the appearance of Rosewarne’s article, Estuary English has been discussed among laypeople and linguists with increasing frequency and unreduced controversy, although linguists have tended to adopt the term as shorthand rather more sceptically than have the general public. Journalists and literary authors make frequent use of the term to label a number of different and divergent trends. For example:

(1) socio-phonetic changes within the accents of Southeastern England in the direction of a supra-local regional accent.

(2) the social spread of London working-class variants into higher social classes, including the advanced version of RP.

(3) the situation-related use of London working-class variants by speakers who are otherwise speakers of RP.

(4) the retention of Southeastern regional accent features by speakers who would otherwise have been expected to become speakers of adoptive RP.

(5) the occurrence of variants which are (rightly or wrongly) associated with the Southeastern England in accents in which they were not used before.

The existence of these developments, with the exception of (5), is not disputed by linguists; what they dispute is the practice (a) of subsuming all these developments under the same name, (b) of choosing a new name to describe them, and (c) of choosing the particular name ‘Estuary English’. With regard to the choice of name, Trudgill (1999) remarks:

This [Estuary English] is an inappropriate term which [...] has become widely accepted. It is inappropriate because it suggests that we are talking about a new variety, which we are not; and because it suggests that this is a variety of English confined to the banks of the Thames Estuary, which it is not. (Trudgill (1999: 80)

With regard to choosing a new name, Wells (1997) remarks:

Estuary English is a new name. But it is not a new phenomenon. It is the continuation of a trend that has been going on for five hundred years or more – the tendency for features of popular London speech to spread out geographically (to other parts of the country) and socially (to higher social classes). (Wells 1997: 47)

Here, Wells touches on one of the central aspects of the Estuary English controversy. To the layperson, the situation has changed in such a way (and/or is brought to his/her attention in such a way) that it is perceived as a new phenomenon requiring a new name. For the linguist, on the other hand, the current linguistic situation is just another phase within a longer historical process which does not merit a distinct designation, at least no more so than any other phase in the development of any particular accent.