Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Jennifer
"Either it isn't or it's not": NEG/AUX
contraction in British dialects
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Jennifer, (2002) ""Either it isn't or it's not": NEG/AUX contraction in
British dialects" from English world-wide : a journal of varieties of English 23 (2) pp.251-282,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins North America Inc ©
Staff and students of the University of Roehampton are reminded that copyright subsists in this extract and
the work from which it was taken. This Digital Copy has been made under the terms of a CLA licence
which allows you to:
* access and download a copy;
* print out a copy;
Please note that this material is for use ONLY by students registered on the course of study as
stated in the section below. All other staff and students are only entitled to browse the material and
should not download and/or print out a copy.
This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied to or made by you under the terms of this
Licence are for use in connection with this Course of Study. You may retain such copies after the end of
the course, but strictly for your own personal use.
All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be destroyed and/or
deleted if and when required by the University of Roehampton.
Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution (including by e-mail)
is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder.
The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the work and neither
staff nor students may cause, or permit, the distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work, or any
other derogatory treatment of it, which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.
This is a digital version of copyright material made under licence from the rightsholder, and its accuracy
cannot be guaranteed. Please refer to the original published edition.
Licensed for use for the course: "ELA020X125S - Words and Sentences 2".
Digitisation authorised by Susan Scorey
ISSN: 0172-8865
Your order details
Your shipping address:
Our Order Ref: 01404128-001
Your Ref: MCL - ELA020X125S
Despatched on: 26/1/2016
University of Roehampton - EHESS
United Kingdom
Your item details
UIN:
ETOCRN123910370
English world-wide : a journal of varieties
Title:
of English.
JOHN BENJAMINS NORTH AMERICA,
Publisher:
INC.
ISSN:
0172-8865
Year:
2002
Volume:
23
Issue:
2
Pages:
251-282
Author name(s): Tagliamonte, S.| Smith, J.
Article title
"Either it isn't or it's not": NEG/AUX
words:
contraction in British dialects
Comments
University of Roehampton - EHESS
United Kingdom
Copyright Statement
Unless out of copyright, the contents of the document(s) attached to or accompanying this page are protected by copyright. They are supplied on condition that, except to
enable a single paper copy to be printed out by or for the individual who originally requested the document(s), you may not copy (even for internal purposes), store or retain
any electronic medium, retransmit, resell, or hire the contents (including the single paper copy referred to above). However these rules do not apply where:
1. you have written permission of the copyright owner to do otherwise;
2. you have the permission of The Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, or similar licensing body;
3. the document benefits from a free and open licence issued with the consent of the copyright owner;
4. the intended usage is covered by statute.
Breach of the terms of this notice is enforceable against you by the copyright owner or their representative.
This document has been supplied under our Copyright Fee Paid service. You are therefore agreeing to the terms of supply for our Copyright Fee Paid service, available at:
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/atyourdesk/docsupply/help/terms/index.html
The British Library, On Demand, Boston Spa, Wetherby, United Kingdom, LS23 7BQ
OnDemand.bl.uk
DOCUMENT SUPPLY
Boston Spa, Wetherby
West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ
www.bl.uk
Please note the following:
D
This is the best copy available
D
This article has a very tight binding
D
Some pages within the original article are
advertisements and have therefore not
been sent
Advertisement pages: .................. .
~ Some pages within the original are blank
~
and have therefore not been sent
Blank pages: . ~~~ ........ .
D
D
The article you require is on different pages
to those that you quoted
Other ................................................. .
AEB-11 Version 2 I 04/14
"Either it isn't or it's not"
NEG/ AUX
contraction in British dialects *
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
University of Toronto and University of York [UK]! University of York [UK]
The source dialects in Britain are critical to disentangling the history and
development of varieties in North America and elsewhere. One feature
which appears to provide a critical diagnostic, particularly for situating
dialects geographically in Britain, is negative (NEG) vs. auxiliary (AUX) contraction with be, have and wilL Use of AUX contraction is said to be more
prevalent in northern varieties. Using the comparative method and quantitative methodology, this paper provides a quantitative analysis of this feature
in eight British communities, two in the south, six in more northern areas.
The comparative cross-variety approach provides a number of different lines
of evidence which can then be used for testing similarities and differences
across varieties. First, there is a dramatic difference between NEG!A UX contraction with be compared to the other auxiliaries that is consistent across all
the communities. In every location be has AUX contraction, and in each case
it has higher rates of AUX contraction than will or have. Second, all the Scots
varieties have categorical AUX contraction with be, just as would be expected
from the historical record. However, there is a marked difference across the
same varieties with wilL Third, in the four locales where there is variation
between NEG and AUX contraction the choice of form can be explained by the
influence of the preceding phonological environment. In sum, NEG!AUX contraction is a poor diagnostic for distinguishing varieties of British English on
broad geographic grounds. In contrast, at other levels of grammar (morphology
and syntax) there are broad similarities across northern varieties. We conclude that the type oflinguistic feature targeted for investigation plays a
critical role in determining the similarities and differences amongst varieties.
* The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Economic and Social Research
Council of the United Kingdom (the ESRC) forresearch grant #ROOO239097, "Back to the Roots:
The Legacy of British Dialects" and the Arts and Humanities Research Board (the AHRB) for
research grant AN6093!APNII081 "Vernacular Roots: A database of British dialects".
English World-Wide 23:2 (2002), 251-ull.
0172-8865/ E-ISSN 1569-9730 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
ISSN
252
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
1.
Introduction
In recent years the search for socio-historical explanations for the differences
between world varieties of English has come to the forefront of research in
language variation and change. Trans-Atlantic connections between Britain and
North American in particular have played a major role in these developments
(Clarke 1997a, 1997b; Montgomery 1989,1994,1997; Poplack and Tagliamonte
2001; Schneider 2002). The source dialects in Britain are critical to disentangling the history and development of varieties North America and elsewhere.
Until now, however, there have been few large-scale quantitative investigations
of non -standard British dialects, and almost no investigations of dialects spoken
in the exact areas in Brita~ which formed the major founding populations of
the North American migrations.
Against this backdrop we are currently engaged in a longitudinal research
program studying regional dialects in the British Isles (Tagliamonte 2000-2001,
2001-2003). The main goals of our research are: (1) to collect representative
samples of speech from elderly speakers of selected communities and produce
machine-readable corpora; (2) to carry out statistical analyses of linguistic
features characteristic of the local dialects; and (3) to compare and contrast our
findings with similar analyses in North America. The latter goal is critical in so
far as trans-Atlantic connection is concerned since North American dialects are
the product (at least in part) of original dialects transported from Britain.
To this end one of our first challenges is to provide a detailed analysis of key
featur,~s of British dialects and further to identify those which can be circumscribed to particular dialect regions (e.g. Tagliamonte and Smith 2000). Such
analyses can provide critical information for understanding the processes
through which linguistic features were transported to North America, and
further for providing an explanation for distinct or parallel patterns from one
variety to another. Indeed, contrastive linguistic patterns in Britain offer
important diagnostics for disentangling systems of grammar (Poplack and
Tagliamonte 2001).
One feature which appears to provide a critical diagnostic, particularly for
situating dialects geographically in Britain, is negative (NEG) vs. auxiliary (AUX)
contraction, as (1):
NEG!AUX contraction
(1)
in British dialects
contraction
That isn't the'person he wants. (WHL: k)!
AUX contraction
b. It's not arithmetic now, Mrs. Fitzgerald. (MPT: d)
NEG
a.
The literature presents a strong case for believing that there is a north-south
trajectory to this linguistic feature. According to Swan (1980: 159) the forms
with n't are more common in Southern British English, while in Scotland and
Northern England, "forms such as '11 not are' preferred to forms such as won't'
(see also Aitken 1984; Beal 1993; Haegeman 1981; Miller 1993; Quirk et al.
1985). Trudgill (1978: 13) provides the most succinct statement when he
observes that the frequency of AUX contraction increases "the further north one
goes". However, with the exception of Hiller (1987), Brown and Miller (1980)
and Krug (1994), these statements are based on observation rather than
quantitative study. Moreover, the literature is generally reticent and often
"vaguely speculative" (Hiller 1987: 532) as it is not "known for sure which
contractions are employed often and which are hardly ever used" (Krug
1994: O. To date "no attempt at an overall coverage of the potentially most
frequent contractions has yet been undertaken" (Krug 1994: 1).
Of course, any claim for a "north-south divide" in Britain has a complex
cultural base (Wales 2000). At least in part due to this reason, the literature is
generally unclear about where the dividing line between north and south
actually is, and dialectologists in particular differ in their views. Moreover, this
boundary seems to have moved further south in recent decades (Trudgill
1990: 33-4, 63-5). Thus, although the literature presents a strong case for
believing in a north-south trajectory for the relative frequencies of AUX versus
NEG contraction (i.e. "the further north one goes ... "), it would seem that the
ideal means to test it would be to conduct a comparison between the polar
extremes of north versus south. Our research program presents an ideal
opportunity to investigate this as we have at our disposal data from two
communities situated in the southern part of the British Isles (Tiverton in the
southwest and Henfield in the southeast) and six in what can reasonably be
construed to be "north" (York, Wheatley Hill, Maryport, Cullybackey, Cumnock
The information in parentheses contains first, the codes for community and second, the
speaker identification symbol. The corpora in the present investigations are: TIV = Tiverton;
HEN =Henfield, YRK =York; WHL =Wheatley Hill; MPT =Maryport; CLB =Cullybackey;
CMK = Cumnock; BCK = Buckie. The speakers are identified by single characters unique to
each individual.
1.
253
254
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
and Buckie). 2 As we shall see, there are actually surprising parallels between the
extremes of north and south. Moreover, although the literature does not suggest
it, there are marked inter-variety differences within the "northern" cohort.
2.
The data
This investigation is based on fieldwork and data collection conducted in eight
different communities, as indicated on the map in Figure 1.
Five of the corpora we target for investigation in this paper come from
previously-collected dialect· materials - Buckie, Wheatley Hill, Tiverton,
Henfield and York. 3
Tiverton is a small town in mid-Devon. In this area, the industry has always
been primarily agricultural and, for many residents, continues to be today
(Godfrey and Tagliamonte 1999).
Henfield is a small village (pop. 5000) on the far south-east coast of
England. Traditionally it was an agricultural area but now the economic base is
mostly centred around the service industry. Due to its attractive location, a large
housing development was built within the village in recent years.
York is a city in northeast England. It is the urban centre for the local area
and a major tourist destination (Tagliamonte 1998).
Wheatley Hill is a village in County Durham in northeast England. It was
once an insular mining community, but in the last few decades many of the
mines nave closed down, forcing the inhabitants to find work in nearby urban
centres (Martin 1999).
Buckie is a small town on the far northeast shore of Scotland. Despite the
decline in the traditional fishing industry, the community has been able to
maintain its cultural cohesiveness due to the maintenance oflocal employment
provided by the oil industry (Smith 2000).
The next three corpora were collected under the auspices of a project
Unfortunately, our current archive does not permit study oflocations where a transition
between north and south would be expected, such as in the Midlands, the home counties and
south-central England. Study of this feature in these areas is clearly needed. As we shall see,
however, data from the Midlands does not necessarily support the idea that there is a
transitional area.
2.
3. We refer to these corpora by the names of the communities where the data were
collected.
NBG/AUX
contraction in British dialects
Henfield.
Figure 1. Communities investigated in AUx/NBG study.
specifically targeting communities in the borderlands of the Irish· sea Northern Ireland, north-west England and southwest Scotland (Tagliamonte
2001-2003). These communities are Maryport, Cumnock and Cullybackey.
Maryport, Cumbria, is an ex-trading port on the north Cumbrian coast
about 27 miles from Carlisle with a population of 11500. It was settled around the
mid-18th century and developed along with the main industries of coal mining,
fishing and ship building. In recent years these traditional industries have dramatically declined. Unlike some areas of Cumbria, Maryport was not included in the
255
256 Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
tourist boom of the last century and continues today to be off the traditional
tourist route, which has helped to retain its own special character.
Cumnock is a small ex-mining town in Ayrshire (pop. 11000) in south-west
Scotland. The nearest substantially sized town is Ayr, sixteen miles to the west.
The area has been settled for at least 800 years. In the 18th century there were
substantial industrial developments, and a railway link established Cumnock as
a growing mining community in the 19th century. The collapse of this industry
in the 1980s has resulted in high unemployment and a breakup ofthe traditional fabric of the community.
The village ofCullybackey (pop. 2500) is situated 4 miles north-west from
the town of Ballymena in CQunty Antrim, Northern Ireland. The main industries are agriculture, retail, and manufacturing service. The Environmental
Improvement Plan for the area states that "despite its picturesque setting,
Cullybackey has not developed its potential as a leisure/tourist destination, or
stopping off point".
With the exception of the York English corpus, which reflects a relatively
standardized variety of (northern) British English (Tagliamonte 1998, 2001;
Tagliamonte and Lawrence 2000; Tagliamonte and Ito 2002) all these materials
come from communities which were specifically selected due to their peripheral
geographic location or isolated socio-political circumstances. In each locale we
interviewed the most insular speakers from the oldest generation at the time of
the fieldwork. Crucial to the enterprise of collecting representative dialect data,
in all the peripheral communities the fieldworker was an in-group community
member.4 Each corpus comprises tape-recorded conversations representing in
many cases hundreds of thousands of words (see Table 1) which include
discussions about local traditions, narratives of personal experience, local gossip
and informal discussions. While there are undoubtedly formality effects
operating within the context of the interview situation, these are within normal
parameters of conversational interaction. None of our material contains
dramatic style-shifting or the self-conscious speech that appears to be present
in fieldwork sites where the interviewers were alien to the community (Schilling-Estes 1998). Indeed, the "broad" dialectal quality of these materials along
with their generally informal tone makes us confident that the speech faithfully
reflects the typical discourse found in each community and brings us as close as
4· The only exception is Cumnock where the second author carried out the interviews.
Although not native to this particular village, she shared salient cultural characteristics with
community members.
NEG! AUX
contraction in British dialects
Table 1. Speaker sample an9 corpus size. (Sample criterion: born, raised, lived in the
areas all their lives)
male
female
total speakers
total words
7
4
12
3
20
12
18
4
2
4
17
3
23
5
23
5
9
8
29
6
43
17
41
9
96472
125000
1200000
206320
401376
198086
349428
300000
Tiverton
Henfield
York
Wheatley Hill
Maryport
Cullybackey
Cumnock
Buckie
we can get to the vernacular norms of the regional dialects.
The speaker sample and total number of words in each corpus is shown in
Table I. All the speakers are over 60 and were born and raised in the community.
To return to the linguistic variable under investigation, given Trudgill's claim
about NEG/AUX we would expect a north-south divide in the use of this variable:
more NEG contraction in Tiverton and Henfield and more AUX contraction in
York, Wheatley Hill, Maryport, Cullybackey, Cumnock and Buckie.
In addition to the proposed geographic effect on the use of NEG/ AUX
contraction, a number of other constraints are attested. In the next section we
consider each of these in turn.
3.
Contemporary research on NEG/AUX contraction
3.1 Type of auxiliary
There are three auxiliaries which can undergo contraction in English - be, have
and will (Zwicky 1970: 331), as in (2-4).
be
(2)
contraction
But she's not that daft, though, Geoff. (MPT: %)
NEG contraction
b. 1 said "I know it isn't gonna affect you." (MPT: %)
AUX
a.
257
258
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
have
(3)
AUX
contraction
a. And I've no been so mobile since. (CMK: A)
NEG contraction
b. I don't know her, I haven't seen her. (CMK: A)
(4)
AUX
will
contraction
a. He'll not be better again Margaret, no. (CLB: e)
NEG contraction
b. And you won't have the same interest. (CLB: e)
According to Selkirk (1981: 1'14), "the possibilities for encliticisation of not vary
considerably" according to the auxiliary involved.s Moreover each form "seems
to have its own preferences" (Selkirk 1981: 114).6
In fact, the two contractions are said to "vary freely" with the auxiliary be
(Selkirk 1981: 114). On the other hand, have is said to have a distinct preference
for NEG contraction (Quirk et al. 1985: 123; Selkirk 1981: 114). This is corroborated by quantitative analysis where n't forms are found to be favoured, both for
has (85.37%) and have (91.04%) (Hiller 1987:536). It is also supported by
acceptability judgements (Greenbaum 1977:99). Thus, the results of observation, grammaticality judgements and corpus-based analyses all converge with
respect to auxiliary have. Similarly, will is also said to prefer NEG contraction, as
does would. For example, I won't occurs 99% of the time in the spoken data
analysed by Hiller (1987: 536) and at a rate of 95% in Kjellmer's (1998: 181)
written data?
However, given the regional differentiation attested for NEG/AUX contraction in Britain it would be reasonable to assume that the tendencies reported for
the different auxiliaries are contingent on the geographic location of the source
5. We refer to the linguistic feature under investigation as "NEG/ AUX contraction"; however,
it operates on main verb be and have as well.
6. Note, in addition, that the speech of the same speaker in (2), (3) and (4) shows
alternation between A ux and NEG contraction with the same auxiliary in the same discourse.
In contexts of had and would, NEG contraction occurs near exclusively. In other words,
'd not for had notor would notis not used (Hiller 1987:535; Kjellmer 1998: 181; Quirk et al.
1985: 122). The fact that AUX contraction does not occur in these contexts is explained in at
least two ways: (1) it is avoided due to the ambiguity of I'd, which could represent I would or
I had (Quirk et al. 1985: 122); (2) it is avoided due to the phonological clash between [t] and
[d] in it'd and that'd (Kjellmer 1998: 181).
7.
NBG/AUX
contractipn in British dialects
data. For example, the pre~erence for AUX contraction with will is reported for
Scots (Aitken 1984: 106; Haegeman 1981:23; Quirk et al. 1985: 122) and Tyneside
English (BealI993: 199). Similarly, AUX contraction with be is mentioned as the
preferred form for Scottish English (Aitken 1984: 106). Further, Scots varieties
are said to have a distinct ranking of the three auxiliaries, with be most likely to
occur with A UX contraction, then will and finally have (Brown and Miller 1980).
3.2 Sentence type
The behavioUr of NEG/AUX contraction across dialects may also be differentiated
by distinct patterns in certain types of constructions, particularly interrogatives
and tag questions. Moreover, in some localities, the difference between NEG vs.
AUX contraction is functionally different in specific syntactic configurations.
Interrogatives
In Scots (Aitken 1984: 106; Murray 1873:216) and Tyneside English (Beal
1993: 199) questions are normally formed without contraction at all, i.e.
auxiliary+subjecHnot, as in (5).8
(5) She'll be ten on her birthday. Or is it nae eleven? (BCK: r)
The typical pattern elsewhere, on the other hand, is with NEG contraction, i.e.
auxiliary+n't+subject, as in (6).
(6) Haven't you got yourself a girlfriend yet? (YRK: TM)
Thus, we would expect a geographic split in the use of NEG/AUX contraction in
interrogatives in our eight communities: no contraction in the north; NEG
contraction in the south.
Tags
Tag questions, as in (7), present a different situation for northern dialects.
Unlike interrogatives more generally in these constructions, there are two
options: uncontracted auxiliary+subjecHnot, as in (7a), and NEG contraction,
as in (7b) (Miller 1993: 114).
8. Some communities differ in the phonological rendition of the overt negator not and the
cliticised form n't. In Cullybackey and Cumnock, the non-cliticised form is no and the
cliticised form is nae. In Buckie, the non-cliticised form is nae and the enclitic is na. In this
analysis all these forms are referred to as not (non-clitic) or n't (enclitic).
259
260
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
(7) a. She's late, is she not. (information)
b. She's late, isn't she. (confirmation)
In this case however, the variants are said to be functionally distinguished. The
two structures represent "fine distinctions between questions asking for
information [7a] and those asking for confirmation" (7b) (BealI993:203). Such
nuances are "absent from the syntax of Standard English" (Beal 1993:203).
However, they must be taken into account when analyzing NEG/ AUX contraction across varieties. 9
3.3 Internal constraints
Outside of interrogatives and questions, a number of internal grammatical
constraints operate to constrain the choice between NEG or AUX contraction.
Type of subject
There is a tendency for AUX contraction to occur with a preceding pronoun,
including here and there, as in (8) (Quirk et al. 1985: 122; Zwicky 1970: 331).10
(8) a. They're no bad. (CMK: e)
b. She's nae sixty yet. (BCK: a)
Noun phrase subjects, on the other hand, appear with NEG contraction (Hiller
1987; Quirk et al. 1985: 123), as in (9):
(9). a. Mothers' Unions aren't supposed to have a lot of money. (MPT: w)
b. Well, we can't because Fred isn't here. (YRK: @)
Phonological environment
There is also a reported tendency for AUX contraction after vowels, as in (10),
and NEG contraction after consonants, as in (11) (McElhinny 1993: 375).
(10) a. The money's not too bad. (CLB: f)
b. He's not out at night again. (TIV: d)
9. Tag questions may also function as facilitators and softeners; however, analysis of these
discourse-pragmatic functions is beyond the scope of the present investigation.
10.
AUX
Hiller (1987) singles out there is in particular, saying that it is more likely to appear with
when compared to other preceding grammatical contexts.
NEG/AUX
contraction in British dialects
(ll) a. The young 'uns aren't coming up. (MPT: @)
b. It isn't there now. (MPT: d)
However, the effects of type of subject and phonological environment are
intertwined. All pronouns in English except it are vowel-final. Thus, a tendency
for A ux contraction with preceding vowels may as easily be the result of the type
of subject as of the phonological environment. The two must be disentangled in
order to assess whether the underlying constraint is one or the other or whether
both influence NEG!AUX contraction.
It is clear that phonological effects are important, however. For example,
Hiller (1987: 539) argues that AUX contraction is blocked in contexts where the
resulting phonological configuration produces a marked consonant cluster, i.e.
[zr], [rr], [tfr], [sr], as with are after these, there, which or pronouns ending in
sibilants. Similarly, Kaisse (1985: 98) reports that A ux contraction "is more
acceptable if the host word ends with a voiceless consonant".
Following complement/verb type
The type of following complement has also been noted to be a factor in the
variation between NEG!AUX contraction. Hiller (1987:544) reports that postverbal contexts such as adjectives and nouns, as in (12), promote AUX contraction more than complement clauses or progressives, as in (13).
(12) a. They're not too bad actually, no. (YRK: T)
b. It's a low brig it's no a high yin. (CMK: d)
(13) a. You're not taping all this rubbish, are you? (TIV: d)
b. He said "No, you're not taking her home, you're married." (YRK: B)
However, this may just as easily be an effect of verb type, whether main or
auxiliary, since main verbs occur with postverbal adjectives and nouns and
auxiliary verbs occur with complement clauses and progressives. Like the
interaction between preceding phonological environment and subject type,
cross-tabulation of these two is necessary in order to evaluate whether just one
or both of them is the relevant effect.
3.4 Effect of discourse
Yaeger-Dror (1997: 1) found that NEG contraction "is conditioned by interactional and other register variables". Specifically, AUX contraction occurs in
informational register discourse, but NEG contraction in interactional contexts.
2.61
262
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
She explains that the "focal import" of the negative in informational registers
requires non-contraction, but in interactional contexts the negative is contracted to aid "social agreement". Such a constraint seems intimately linked to
formality (Quirk et al. 1985: 122), where AUX contraction is said to be more
common in formal discourse while NEG contraction is more common in more
informal discourse. Unfortunately, given the consistent informal nature of our
data, we cannot rigorously test either of these effects.
The ensuing analyses of our British dialect data will investigate the internal
and geographic constraints on NEG/ AUX contraction discussed earlier.
4. Method: The variable context
Extracting every NEG/ AUX construction from all the speakers in Table 1 produced 4095 tokens. However, as with any study of variable phenomena,
accurate delimitation of the variable context is critical, as inclusion or exclusion
of certain contexts may skew the data, which will in turn sway the results. This
is particularly important for NEG/ AUX contraction, where numerous anomalies
must be taken into account, particularly well-circumscribed contexts where
there is little or no variation.
4.1 First person subjects
First per-son singular of the verb be (I am) does not have a NEG contraction form
in standard English, as "there is no completely natural informal contraction of
am I not ... in negative sentences" (Quirk et al. 1985: 129). However, several
non-standard forms exist: I amn't in Scottish English (especially in tag questions) (Quirk et al. 1985: 129; Miller 1993: 114); I aren't in declarative sentences
in some non-standard dialects (Trudgill 1990: 105)Y However, these data
revealed only 7 tokens of aren't with first person singular and none of amn't.
Although the use of ain't, as in (14), is pervasive in some dialects (e.g.
Cheshire 1982), there were only 12 instances in this databaseY Ten of these
were from Tiverton and two from Wheatley Hill.
11.
The question tag aren't I is widely used in British English (Quirk et aI. 1985: 128).
Thus, these data contrast markedly from the Early African American English data
considered by Walker (2001) where ain't is a highly frequent form.
12.
NEG!AUX
(14) a.
b.
contraction in British dialects
I ain't going thro~gh there, that was where all the snakes was! (TIV: a)
Your expenses ain't greater than your income. (WHL: @)
Aside from these, there was categorical use of AUX contraction in first person
singular be (n=359), as in (15).
(15) a. I'm not that kind of girl! (YRK: 1)
b. I'm not interested in Coronation Street. (TIV: f)
Accordingly, all first person contexts were removed from the analysis.
4.2 Null subjects
Numerous constructions with no overt subject (n= 53), as in (16), occurred in
these data.
(16) a.
b.
c.
Hadn't a bike, no, just a barrow. (MPT: n)
They looked at me and thought, "won't pick on him". (YRK: %)
Haven't seen a bloody tulip yet! (BCK: S)
As there is no host subject to which the auxiliary may cliticize these all appeared
with NEG contraction. Due to their categorical status, they too were excluded
from the data.
4.3 Auxiliary deletion
In extracting the NEG!AUX data we also discovered a number of cases of auxiliary deletion rather than contraction, as in (17).
(17) a.
b.
Well, there 0 no many able to dance. (CMK: F)
He says there 0 no much difference. (CLB: f)
These were restricted to existential constructions in the present tense in both
singular and plural and confined to the communities ofCumnqck (n= 15) and
Cullybackey (n= IS). These contexts were removed from consideration for this
analysis, though they warrant further investigation in their own right.
4.4 Tag questions
The data also contained a large number of tag questions (n=59S), as in (1S).
263
264 Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
(18) a. She's climbing up and walking round thingies, isn't she. (BCK: $)
b. Peter's in Crediton, isn't he? (TIV: f)
c. You'll be at Shotton, won't you? (WHL: e)
d. You've got fifty, haven't you? (YRK: I)
These only ever appeared with NEG contraction, thus they were excluded from
the analysis. 13
4.5 Interrogatives
There were III interrogatives in the data. Of these, 65% appear with NEG
contraction, as in (19). The other 35% appear as Aux+subjecHNEG, as in (20).
(19) a.
b.
(20)
a.
b.
c.
Haven't you got yourself a girlfriend yet? (YRK, TM)
Isn't it insurance you paid? (YRK: 00)
Is this just nae bad grammar? (BCK: e)
Have you not seen the book written by Mr Collin? (YRK: 00)
So, why will you not give us a mortgage? (WHL: t)
As was stated above, the literature predicts that southern varieties use question
forms as those in (19), while northern varieties use the construction in (20).
Thus, it would be expected that the more northern varieties in our sample
would account for the cases of Aux+subjecHNEG questions. However, this is
not the case. Table 2 shows the distribution of these forms by community. 14
Table 2. Distribution of interrogatives with auxiliary+subject+negative by community
TN
HEN
YRK
WHL
MPT
CLB
CMK
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
0/0
o
10 10
22
50
23
47 38
58 12
17 18
7
9
4
13
BCK
N
Contra the available literature on the subject, the northern varieties'
questions are not categorically Aux+subjecHNEq. Why would this be? Closer
examination of the data reveals an interesting distinction amongst the varieties.
We may conclude that all tags in the Scottish context were the "type seeking confirmation".
13.
In this and all ensuing tables the communities are ordered according to their latitude,
i.e. south to north (see Figure 1).
14.
NBG/AUX
contraction in British dialects 265
In Cullybackey, Cumnock and Budde, the different types of questions are
functionally distinct. In these communities the contexts in which NEG contraction is used are all rhetorical questions which do not require a specific answer,
as in (21):
Interviewee: Harry and me watches the rally there, Schumacher and
that there, isn't that right Harry? If I - if I didnae get sorted out,
Harry sorts me out here.
Interviewer: That's good. Harry here - Harry's in with his nice wee
dog. (CLB: f)
b. Interviewer: Oh, that's Jean, isn't it?
Interviewee: Dainty, isn't she? Isn't she dainty? Dainty, look at her.
Look at the feet crossed and all, e? (BCK: a)
c. Now, who's right? And who isn't? Presbyterians, we scoff at the
Virgin Mary. (CMK: q)
(21) a.
These contrast with examples such as (22), where a specific answer is required.
(22) a.
b.
c.
Interviewee 1: Aye, and his wife's down in a cottage he bought during
the miner's strike - sitting in two acres of ground in Barnsley.
Interviewee 2: Well, are they no separated?
Interviewee 1: They're talking about it. They were talking about separating. (CMK: m/o)
Interviewee 1: She'll be ten on her birthday. Or is it nae eleven?
Interviewee 2: No,.ten. (BCK: r/q)
Interviewee: Yes. Yes. You haven't made any jam yet. Are they not
ready for jam? Are they not Interviewer: No, they're not just ready yet. No. (CLB: n)
This is precisely the distinction Beal (1993) reports for tags in Tyneside English as
well as Scots more generally. However, as far as we are aware, it has never been
reported for interrogatives in main clauses. Yet our data reveal that the same
pragmatic distinction applies to interrogative constructions in Cullybackey,
Cumnock and Buckie. 15
15. We note, however, that the examples from Cullybackey, Budde and Cumnock are all
with isn't. Thus, it may be the case that contraction can occur with is rather than are. As there
are no are contexts in these varieties, this cannot be tested.
266 Sali Tagliarnonte and Jennifer Smith
In contrast, Maryport and York employ both question types to seek specific
information, as in (23):16
(23) a.
And saying to me, you know, "wouldn't you like to do that?" No
way! Absolutely, no way. (YRK: d)
b. Interviewee: Have you not been to see a band there?
Interviewer: No. (YRK: L)
c. They'll say, "aren't you one of Young's girls?" And I'll say, "yes, I
am." (MPT: I)
d. Interviewee 1: That - is that not sea-shanty weekend?
Interviewee 2: That could be e - because Interviewee 1: I don't think it was. (MPT: elf)
Thus, the varieties in our sample exhibit a continuum. In Tiverton and Henfield
only NEG contraction is used in questions. In York and Maryport both NEG and
AUX contraction are used for questions and the questions have the same
pragmatic nuances. In the three Scots varieties however, two syntactic forms
exist, but they have different pragmatic meanings. I7
Finally, there are some contexts in which neither AUX nor NEG are contracted. There were 167 of these, as in (24), representing 3% of the data. These
constructions were used for emphasis, with both NEG and AUX (24a) or NEG
(24b) occurring with stress prominence.
(24) a.
b.
She would not marry him as long as her father was living. (BCK: a)
Intruders are not allowed in. (BCK: c)
In faGt, some commentators have suggested that an overt not is emphatic in
general. This is in part due to the fact that words which carry critical information may be prosodically prominent, in this case, an uncontracted negative
(not) (Cutler, Delphine and van Donselaar 1997). However, in other accounts,
NEG contraction is said to be the preferred form in emphatic contexts (Hiller
1987: 545). Thus, stress is actually ambiguous in assigning emphatic readings to
either NEG or AUX contraction. In any case the fact that neither NEG nor AUX
contraction occurred meant that these contexts were outside the variable
context and they have been removed from subsequent analyses.
Removing all questions, interrogatives, tags, first person subjects, null subjects
16.
Henfield has only one token of this structure.
We cannot comment on the distribution pattern for Wheatley Hill because there was
insufficient data.
17·
NEG/AUX
contraction in British dialects 267
and uncontracted forms we were left with 2755 tokens in which NEG!AUX
contraction could potenti.ally occur across dialects with no change in meaning.
In sum, a number of distributional factors have emerged. First, the proportion
of NEG!AUX contraction varies depending on location. Second, the proportion of
NEG/AUX contraction varies according to the auxiliary. Finally, according to at
least one source AUX contraction is said to be ranked according to be> will >
have in Scots varieties.
5.
Results
5.1 Distributional patterns of NEG vs. AUX contraction
Perhaps the most compelling question to ask is whether there is a north vs.
south split in the use of NEG! AUX contraction between the six communities in
the north and the two in the south. Table 3 shows the overall distribution of
AUX contraction across the eight communities under investigation.
Table 3. Overall distribution of AUX contraction by community
TIV
HEN
YRK
WHL
MPT
CLB
CMK
BCK
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
18 198
31 259
18 549
45 121
14 608
42 422
51 382
38 216
Consistent with the idea that northern British locales will have more
frequent AUX contraction than southern ones, four of the northern communities have high percentages of AUX contraction - Buckie has 38%, Cumnock
51 %, Wheatley Hill4S% and Cullybackey 42%. But, Maryport and York, which
are also northern, have substantially lower rates, 14% and 18% respectively,
patterning along with Tiverton in the south, 18%. Henfield in Sussex has an
overall proportion in between, 31 %. Thus, the expected north-south divide is
non-existent. Moreover, the communities are not patterning according to any
continuous north-south trajectory. Finally, we note that the overall rates of AUX
contraction, even in northern climes, are actually quite modest. NEG contraction is quite frequent.
However, the possibility OfNEG!AUX exists with three different auxiliaries
be, have and will. There may be very different patterns for individual auxiliaries
which may explain these overall proportions. In the next section, we separate
268
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
the data according to auxiliary type and show the distributions of each auxiliary
in turn.
Table 4 shows the overall distribution of AUX contraction with have across
communities.
Table 4. Overall distribution of AUX contraction with have by community
have
has
had
all
TN
HEN
YRK
WHL
MPT
CLB
CMK
BCK
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
0/0 N
% N
% N
3 34
0 8
0 10
1 67
17 6
0 18
0 71
11 19
78
0 26
0 10
0 91
0 26
0 107
10 10
50 4
2 58
8 36
0 12
0 51
0 24
0 5
0 28
52
2 91
3 168
0 37
0 234
7 72
3 99
0 57
The table reveals very little or no AUX contraction with have in any community. Note too that this is generally consistent for all of the forms of have have, has or had. Examples such as in (25) are pervasive.
(25) a. They havena been getting the break. (BCK: f)
b. Alma Terrace hasn't altered a great deal. (YRK: 0)
c. I hadn't seen me dad and spoken to him for over a year. (WHL: i)
Thus, there is actually no geographical differentiation in NEG!AUX contraction
with have at all, north and south are parallel in having NEG contraction.
Table 5 shows the overall distribution of AUX contraction with the two
forms will and would.
Table 5. Overall distribution of AUX contraction with will by community
would
will
TIV
HEN
YRK
WHL
MPT
CLB
CMK
BCK
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
0 40
0 24
0 52
0 21
o
0 26
70 10
0 151
6 70
1 168
91 64
0 89
88 32
o
o
4
166
50
54
22
As far as would is concerned, AUX contraction virtually never occurs.
Instead, the examples in (26) prevail.
NEG/AUX
contraction in British dialects
(26) a.
No my Daddy wouldn't let you put artificial manure to the spuds.
(CLB: n)
b. But they wouidna listen till it. (BCK: b)
c. My grandma wouldn't go in any shelters near the cinema. (YRK: a)
d. But see at school he wouldnae speak to you. (CMK: e)
This pattern is consistent with what is reported in many other quantitative
studies on AUX contraction for would (Hiller 1987:535; Kjellmer 1998: 181;
Quirk et al. 1985: 122).
An important observation, then, is that all the varieties do precisely the
same thing with regard to have and would: there is simply no AUX contraction.
Certainly, with these forms the idea that there is a north-south divide in Britain
is false. Instead, north and south are monolithic.
The distribution with wil~ however, presents an entirely complicating
perspective. The table shows that three communities have very frequent AUX
contraction: Cullybackeyat 91 %, Cumnock at 88% and Wheatley Hill at 70%.
These varieties typically contain examples such as (27).
(27) a.
b.
c.
Then I'll no get hurt, I'll no be choked. (CLB: b)
It'll no be a lot smaller but itis smaller, aye. (CMK: A)
He'll not be able to stop hisself, will he? (WHT: e)
Although all three varieties are in the "north", when all.the varieties are
considered there is no north-south divide. Two other "northern" varieties, York
and Maryport, pattern with Tiverton and Henfield in the south. Neither is it the
case that this is a generalized Scots pattern, because one Scots variety, Buckie,
has no AUX contraction at all, while Wheatley Hill, which has 70% AUX contraction, is in England and Culleyback, which has 91 %, is in Northern Ireland. In
fact, a surprising thing is that at the two extremes of north and south, the
patterns are identical- categorical use of NEG contraction in Buckie (north),
Henfield (south-east) and Tiverton (south-west). These varieties only use
examples such as (28).
(28) a.
b.
c.
I said "One thing, when I die, you winna have no debt." (BCK: g)18
He won't talk if ee do that. (TIV: a)
I won't say it, iil case anybody hears. (HEN: a)
Thus, although there is extreme regional differentiation with will it is not
according to the predicted north/south differentiation. What can explain this?
18.
Note that in Buckie, NEG contraction with will has the form winna.
269
2.70
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
The results for the verb be may provide further insight.
Table 6 shows the overall distribution of AUX contraction with be by
community, with separate proportions for is and are.
Table 6. Overall distribution of AUX contraction with be by auxiliary and community
is
are
TIV
HEN
YRK
WHL
MPT
CLB
CMK
BCK
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
% N
38 61
57 21
84 67
79 28
56 103
58 62
97 32
100 16
36 122
93 41
96 73
98 45
100118
100 44
100 59
100 24
Wheatley Hill (97% and 100%), Cumnock (both 100%), Cullybackey (96%
and 98%) and Buckie (both 100%) have categorical or near-categorical AUX
contraction, as in the examples in (29).
(29) a. The driver's nae gan naewhere. (BCK: d)
b. It's not every day that your husband goes up in flames. (WHT: a)
c. If they're no gambling they're eating. (CMK: B)
d. They're not for doing nothing for another week. (CLB: i)
Henfield has proportions somewhat lower (84% and 79%). However, Maryport
(is 36%; are 93%), York (is 56%; are 58%), and Tiverton (is 38%; are 57%) are
different. Here, AUX contraction occurs, but it is highly variable with NEG
contraction, as in (30).
(30) a. Well it isn't my daughter's husband now. (HEN: a)
b. Children aren't allowed to buy anything now. (TIV: c)
c. This isn't going to help you this weather. (MPT: n)
d. We aren't in need of that kind of help. (YRK: M)
This result dearly pinpoints NEG/AUX variation to the verb be and is consistent
with Selkirk's (1981: 114) observation that auxiliary be is unique with respect to
NEG/AUX contraction.
To summarize the distributional analysis in Tables 3-6, Figure 2 provides
a graphic view of the overall distribution of be, will and have by community.19
It is informative to view these results in light of Wales' (2000: 4) questions:
19. Due to the infrequency of AUX contraction for would (1 % in Culleybackeyonly), it has
been removed from the figure for illustration purposes.
NEG/AUX
contraction in British dialects
100
90
80
70
.is
.are
• will
o have
.has
.had
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TrV
HEN
YRK
WI-L
MPT
CLB
CMK
BCK
Figure 2. Overall distribution of AUX contraction with 'be' (is and are), will and 'have'
(have, has, had) by community.
"If there is a north-south divide in England, where is it? Is it the same for
everyone? How do we recognise it? What are its characteristics? Are there any
linguistic consequences?" First of all, what can account for the differences
between locales in Britain? It is not north/south. The extremes of north and
south on some counts are identical. There is virtually no AUX contraction
outside of be in Tiverton (southwest) and in Buckie (far north). Nor is it Scots
vs. English. The hypothesized Scottish ranking frequency of be first, followed by
will and then have (Miller 1993), is visible only in Cumnock (Scotland) and
Culleybackey (Ireland). While this result provides good linguistic evidence for
the link between the lowlands of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the fact that
Buckie (Scotland) does not share this constraint ranking argues against a panScots interpretation. Neither can the differences be explained by the peripheral
vs. mainstream status of the locales either. York is an urban centre and a major
tourist destination, whereas Maryport, Henfield and Tiverton are small,
geographically removed locales. Yet York patterns along with all of these on a
number of counts - relatively low rates of AUX contraction with be, NEG
contraction with will. Nor are these results due to idiosyncratic speaker usage.
We checked each of the individual's patterns to make sure they were consistent
with the group pattern. Indeed, what is remarkable from this graphic picture is
the favoured status of AUX contraction with be across all communities.
Recall that the literature on this feature also consistently suggests that
discourse level constraints such as formal vs. informal styles, informational vs.
interactional talk, or emphatic vs. non-emphatic contrasts explain the difference
271
272
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
between NEG and AUX contraction. However, the categorical or near-categorical
regional distributions of many of the NEG/AUX variants suggest otherwise. If
such effects were in operation, then some varieties would have to be construed
as being consistently formal with informational discourse, others consistently
informal/interactional. Moreover, some would be entirely emphatic and some
not. Thus, the contrasts across varieties militate against a discourse level
phenomenon being the (primary) underlying mechanism which explains this
variable.
However, the array of communities in Figure 2 misses out the critical
transition zone between north and south - the Midlands. Would data from
this area shed further light on this feature? We are fortunate in having had the
opportunity to consult the Freiburg English Dialect Corpus (FRED). Examination of a 200000 word sample from Ironbridge, near Birmingham, and data
from an elderly speaker from Nottingham (8173 words) revealed that AUX
contraction was negligible for all the auxiliaries, while NEG contraction prevailed. Preliminary quantitative results for the Ironbridge sample, presented in
Table 7, shows the overall distribution of AUX contraction. 20
Table 7.
AUX
contraction in Ironbridge
%
is
are
will
would
have "
has
had
22
14
0
S
0
0
Here, too, AUX contraction is virtually localised to auxiliary be, but with
rates of AUX contraction (22% and 14%) substantially lower than any of the
locales in our archive. Although the data here are sparse, they suggest that the
Midlands may be a focal area for NEG contraction. If so, then it is perhaps the
peripherality of our materials, located in distinct dialect regions of the southwest and southeast which leads to their parallelism with the northern varieties,
Thanks to Susanne Wagner for spending time with the first author extracting not's and
n't's from the Freiburg English Dialect Corpus (FRED) corpus on a visit to the University of
20.
Freiburg's English Department in February 2002.
NEG/AUX
contraction in British dialects 273
rather than their geographic location. This leads to yet another possibility: that
the more peripheral vari~ties are adhering to older and perhaps more conservative variants. If so, then the historical record should provide further insight.
5.2 A historical perspective
According to most commentators, AUX contraction first appeared in the late
16th century as in (31) (Barber 1976; Jespersen 1917: 117; Strang 1970).
(31) a.
You'll think it strange if I should marry her. (1594, Shakespeare,
King Henry VI, III, ii, 123)
b. Captain I'll be no more. (1601, Shakespeare, All's Well, IV, iii, 336)
c. There's some great matter she'ld employ me in. (1591, Shakespeare,
Two Gentlemen of Verona, Iv; iii, 3)
d. He's to travel now presently. (1600, Ben Jonson, Every Man in His
Humour, IV, iv, 1454)
e. I've thrown my cast, and am fairly in for't. (1698, Farquhar, Love
and a Bottle, III, i, 160)
NEG contraction, on the other hand, does not appear in writing until the middle
of the 17th century, as in (32) (Barber 1976:254; Brainerd 1989; Pyles and Algeo
1993:203; Strang 1970; Warner 1993:208).
For that nobody minds, or if they do, they won't pay it in. (1663,
Pepys, Diary, 9th Nov)
b. No, no, the Divel he isn't so good a Scholar. (1675, Duffett, Psyche
Debauch'd, IV, iii, 113)
c. . . .if my Father should send a hundred to get me with Child in a civil
way, I wouldn't be afraid. (1674, Duffett, The Mock Tempest, Iv; ii, 15)
d. He did nothing, but I am afraid he would if you hadn't come. (1674,
Duffett, The Mock Tempest, IV, ii, 176)
(32) a.
Ruixue (2001) observes that while "contracted forms like you're and I'll are
found in Shakespeare, we can hardly find negative contractions". In speech, on
the other hand, NEG contraction is assumed to have appeared earlier than in
writing (Barber 1976:264; Jespersen 1917: 117; Strang 1970: 151). This means
that the two forms "must be about equally old" (Pyles and Algeo 1993: 203).
From the earliest attestations (ca. 1621), NEG contraction appears in writing
for speakers of non-standard English, and only later amongst the educated
(Brainerd 1989: 191).
As to geographical constraints in the historical record, a number of observa-
274 Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
tions can be made. Murray (1873:216) and Grant and Dixon (1921: 116) cite
the forms wunna and winna with NEG contraction, as in (33), for Scots.
(33) I winna insure ye, if you dinna mend yer manners. (1818, Scott, Heart of
Midlothian, Ch.4)
However, the same author produces AUX contraction with will as well, as in (34):
(34) Weel, weel, neibor, I'll no say that ye mayna be right. (1818, Scott, Heart
of Midlothian, Ch. 8)
From this, we can conclude that both variants for will were available in the
Scottish varieties. This may account for the fact that there is a split in use of
NEG/A ux contraction with. will in the northern communities. Culleybackey
(Ireland), Cumnock (Scotland) and Wheatley Hill (England) have high
frequencies of AUX contraction with wil~ yet Buckie, a Scots variety, has none.
It may be that where both alternatives have been attested for centuries, as with
wil~ the individual communities are left to select one variant or the other.
AUX contraction with the verb be on the other hand seems to have always
been high (or categorical) in Scots communities. For example, in contrast to his
observations for win when Murray (1873) cites the example hey's no with AUX
contraction for this verb, as in (35), he does not mention the possibility of NEG
contraction.
(35) He's no an ill body in the main. (1818, Scott, Heart of Midlothian, Ch.44)
This, too, is consistent with our results which reveal categorical or nearcategorical AUX contraction with be in Wheatley Hill, Culleybackey, Cumnock,
and Buckie.
In sum, this diachronic perspective does not support the idea that contraction of the different forms (NEG vs. AUX contraction) had different trajectories
in time. This means that any discrepancies between communities cannot be
assumed to represent different points in ongoing grammatical change from one
form to another. There is some suggestion that the choice between forms was
socially conditioned, but this levelled out by the 18th century (Brainerd
1989: 191). Nevertheless, these historical observations do substantiate the
hypothesis that A UX contraction with be in northern areas has always been the
preferred, if not the only, variant. In contrast, will seems to have had a long
history of variability, at least in Scottish varieties. In this, the historical record
and our results corroborate each other.
However, even for be, robust variability between AUX and NEG contraction
NEG! AUX
contraction in British dialects
is the norm rather than the exception for four of the communities, two southern (Tiverton and Henfield) and two northern (Maryport and York). What can
explain this?
5.3 Testing internal constraints
Earlier, we detailed a number of factors constraining the use of NEG/AUX
contraction, including function of the amci1iary, preceding phonological
environment, following complement and verb type. However, subject type and
preceding phonological environment interact tremendously due to the fact that
pronouns are vowel-final. Indeed, cross-tabulation of subject type with phonological environment (not shown here) revealed that the underlying effect was
phonological, i.e. it had to do with whether the noun phrase ended in a vowel
or a consonant rather than with the type of subject involved. Further, the effect
of the following complement interacts with the status of the verb, whether
auxiliary or main verb, due to the fact that auxiliaries tend to occur with
participial forms whereas main verbs appear primarily with full noun phrases
and adjectives. Again, cross-tabulation between these two (not shown) revealed
that verb function was the underlying effect, not the following complement.
Thus, at least two constraints operate on NEG/AUX contraction - preceding
phonological environment and verb status.
Table 8 shows the results of four independent multivariate analyses of the
contribution of these factors to the probability of AUX contraction with be in
Maryport, York, Henfield and Tiverton, the four locales where NEG/AUX
contraction is variable ..
The table reveals that only preceding phonological environment exerts a
statistically significant effect on the choice of AUX contraction. Vowels favour
AUX contraction over consonants across the board - with a factor weight of .84
in Maryport, .66 in York, .61 in Henfield and .76 in Tiverton. Thus, in all the
varieties the choice between NEG or AUX contraction is phonological. With the
exception of Henfield, notice too that although the verb status of be is not
statistically significant, the pattern in constraint ranking for copula vs. auxiliary
environments is consistent across the board: AUX contraction is more likely
with be when it is an auxiliary. More importantly, on both measures the
communities exhibit parallel results: a statistically significant effect of preceding
phonological environment with the constraint ranking of vowels favouring over
consonants and, excepting Henfield, a consistent (non-significant) ranking of
auxiliary contexts over copula contexts.
275
276 Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
Table 8. Four independent multivariate analyses (VARBRUL) of the contribution of
factors to the probability of AUX contraction by community
Maryport
Input probability
.53
Ns
163
preceding phonological environment
vowel
.84
consonant
.23
Range
61
copula or auxiliary
auxiliary
[.71]
copula
[.46]
York
Henfield
Tiverton
.57
164
.83
95
.44
79
.66
.34
.61
.42
.76
.37
32
19
39
[.55]
[.49]
(82%)
(100%)"
[.68]
[.49]
Due to the fact that AUX contraction is categorical (100%) in Henfield. for this corpus we can present
the proportions only.
a
6.
Discussion
We have now presented an analysis of NEGIAUX contraction across eight
varieties of English, two of which are located in southern England as opposed to
six in the north. This puts us in a position to return to the original hypothesis
which spurred this study: that the further north one goes in Britain, the more
AUX contraction one gets. This observation seemed to present an ideal test for
distinguishing varieties in Britain, particularly on a north/south dimension. We
extrapolated from this observation to suggest that if this is true, then the two
extremes of north and south should exhibit divergent patterns. However, our
results reveal not only that this is not the case but also that the regional pattern
of NEG/AUX contraction in British dialects presents quite a complicated picture.
Therefore, we regretfully conclude that NEG/A ux contraction is a poor diagnostic for distinguishing varieties of British English on geographic grounds and
thus for tracking the origins of transported dialects of English. In fact, this
feature is not a good litmus test for any of the extra-linguistic dimensions that
are measurable with this array of regional representation: not north-south, not
east-west, not Scots vs. English. No clearcut north-south divide on this feature
is visible. While the transition zone in the Midlands and home counties might
provide critical new evidence, the fact that the two extremes of Britain often
pattern in tandem is a strong piece of evidence against any north-south dimension to this variable. In order to understand this linguistic feature more fully
further evidence is clearly required, both from points across the Midlands and
NEG/AUX
contraction in British dialects
other central dialects in Scotland, but also from urban samples, from formal vs.
informal speech and also from different generations in the same community.
However, the comparative cross-variety approach provides a number of
different lines of evidence which can be used for testing parallels and contrasts
across varieties. The results of this analysis enable us to make the following
observations. Perhaps most importantly, we have discovered that there is a
dramatic difference between be and the other auxiliaries that is consistent across
all the communities. In every location be has AUX contraction and in each case
it has higher rates of AUX contraction than will or have. In this, all the varieties
appear to be following the same pattern, not just the Scots varieties and not just
northern varieties. Given this perspective it is interesting to note that be is the
primary location for NEG!AUX variability in American English (Yaeger-Dror,
Hall-Lew and Deckert 2001, in press) and for Early African American Vernacular English (Walker 2001). Thus, the grammatical environment where regional
British dialects exhibit the most variation overall shows the same behaviour in
North American English. It is true, however, that all the Scots varieties have
categorical AUX contraction with be, just as they would be expected to do
historically. However, in contrast to what might also be expected, there is a
marked contrast across the same varieties with will (NEG contraction in Buckie,
AUX contraction in Cumnock and Culleybackey). In this case it appears that
each of the Scots communities has selected one variant or the other, not a single
variant across the region, nor variability. Finally, we have been able to pinpoint
the grammatical environment (be) and the locales where there is variation
between NEG and AUX contraction (Tiverton, Henfield, York and Maryport). In
these cases, the choice of form can be explained by the influence of the preceding phonological environment. Not only is this factor statistically significant in
each community, it also has the same constraint hierarchy.
However, none of these findings are intuitively obvious and certainly were
not for the linguists that thought that AUX contraction increased the further
north you went. The type of large-scale comparison we have done here puts it
all in perspective. In so doing, we have provided a graphic demonstration of the
complexity of the British dialect situation. However, this is not to say that there
are no broad regional similarities amongst some varieties for other features of
grammar. In the morphological component, we have been able to establish
broad supra-regional patterns amongst the same northern varieties we have
examined here, but for patterns of verbal concord (Tagliamonte and Smith 2000,
2001). Further, in an ongoing analysis of relativizers, the northern communities
are also patterning remarkably the same (Tagliamonte 2002). Thus, perhaps the
277
278 Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
most important conclusion for the broader concerns of the comparative
endeavour is that the type oflinguistic feature targeted for investigation plays a
critical role in determining the similarities and differences amongst varieties.
Those that operate on one level of the grammar may not behave like those of
another. This may prove to be fundamental to cross-variety comparisons in the
on-going search for transatlantic connections.
References
Aitken, Adam J. 1984. "Scottish accents and dialects". In Peter Trudgill, ed. Language in the
British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 94-114.
Barber, Charles Laurence. 1976: Early Modern English. London: Andre Deutsch.
Beal, Joan. 1993. "The grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English". In James Milroy
and Lesley Milroy, eds. 1993: 187-213.
Brainerd, Barron. 1989. "The contractions of not: A historical note". Journal of English
Linguistics 22: 176-96.
Brown, E. Keith and James Miller. 1980. "Scottish English". End of Grant Report to the
Social Science Research Council.
Cheshire, Jenny. 1982. Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, Sandra. 1997a. "On establishing historical relationships between New World and Old
World varieties: Habitual aspect and Newfoundland Vernacular English". In Edgar W.
Schneider, ed. Englishes Around the World. Vol. 1: General Studies, British Isles, North
America. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 277-93.
- - - . 1997b. "The search for origins: Habitual aspect and Newfoundland Vernacular
English". Journal ofEnglish Linguistics 27: 328-40.
Cutler, Anne, Dahan Delphine and Wilma Van Donselaar. 1997. "Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language". Language and Speech 40: 141-201.
Godfrey, Elisabeth and Sali Tagliamonte. 1999. "Another piece for the verbal -s story:
Evidence from Devon in Southwest England". Language Variation and Change 11:
87-121.
Grant, William and James Main Dixon. 1921. Manual of Modern Scots. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenbaum, Sydney. 1977. "Judgement of syntactic acceptability and frequency". Studia
Linguistica 31: 83-105.
Haegeman, Lilliane. 1981. "The use of will and the expression of futurity in Present-day
British English. Part 1: Future time expression in a corpus of Standard British English" .
. D. Phil. dissertation, University College, London.
Hiller, Ulrich. 1987. "She isn't studying vs. She's not studying: An investigation into the
choice between the two contracted variants of negated English auxiliaries". Die Neueren
Sprachen 86: 531-53.
NEG/AUX contraction
in British dialects
Jespersen, Otto H. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Ejnar
Munksgaard.
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology. Orlando:
Academic Press.
Kjellmer, Gtiran. 1998. "On contraction in Modem English". Studia Neophilologica 69:
155-86.
Krug, Manfred Gunter. 1994. "Contractions in spoken and written English". M.A. Thesis,
University of Exeter, England.
Martin, Danielle. 1999. "Copula variability in a northern British dialect: Contraction,
deletion and inherent variability". Unfinished MA thesis, University of York.
McElhinny, Bonnie. 1993. "Copula and auxiliary contraction in the sp~ch of White
Americans". American Speech 68: 371-99.
Miller, James. 1993. "The grammar of Scottish English". In James Milroy and Lesley Milroy,
eds.1993:99-138.
Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy, eds. 1993. Real English: The Grammar ofEnglish Dialects in
the British Isles. New York: Longman.
Montgomery, Michael B. 1989. "Exploring the roots of Appalachian English". English WorldWide 10: 227-78.
- - - . 1994. "The evolution of verbal concord in Scots". In Alexander Fenton and Donald
A. MacDonald, ed. Studies in Scots and Gaelic: Proceedings of the 3td International
Conference on the Languages ofScotland. Edinburgh: Canongate Academic Press, 81-95.
- - - . 1997. "Making transatlantic connections between varieties .of English". Journal of
English Linguistics 25: 122-41.
Murray, James A. H. 1873. The Dialect ofthe Southern Counties ofScotland: Its Pronunciation,
Grammar and Historical Relations. London: Philological Society.
Poplack, Shana and Sali Tagliamonte. 2001. African American English in the Diaspora: Tense
and Aspect. Malden: Blackwell.
Pyles, Thomas and John Algeo. 1993. The Origins and Development of the English Language.
Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.
Ruixie, Bai. 2001. "Evolution of not-negation: A syntactic perspective". http://
snowwhite7711.home.chinaren.comlevolution.htm.
Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 1998. "Investigating 'self-conscious' speech: The performance
register in Ocracoke English". Language in Society 27: 53-83.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2002. "The English dialect heritage of the southern United States". In
Raymond Hickey, ed. Transported Dialects: The Legacy ofNon-Standard Colonial English.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth o. 1981. The Phrase Phonology of English and French. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Smith, Jennifer. 2000. "Synchrony and diachrony in the evolution of English: Evidence from
Scotland". D. Phil. dissertation, University of York.
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen.
Swan, Michael. 1980. Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
279
280
Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith
Tagliamonte, Sali. 1998. "Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of
York". Language Variation and Change 10: 153-91.
- - - . 2000-2001. "Vernacular Roots: A database of British dialects". Research Grant. Arts
and Humanities Research Board of the United Kingdom (AHRB).
---.2001. "Comelcamevariation in English dialects". American Speech 76: 42-61.
---.2001-2003. "Back to the Roots. The legacy of British dialects". Research Grant.
Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom (ESRC).
- - - . 2002. "Variation and change in the British relative marker system". In Patricia
Poussa, ed. Relativisation on the North Sea LittoraL Munich: Lincom Europa.
- - - and Rika Ito. 2002. "Think really different: Continuity and specialization in the
English adverbs". Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 236-66.
- - - and Helen Lawrence. 2000. '" I used to dance, but I don't dance now': The HABITUAL PAST in contemporary English". Journal of English Linguistics 28: 324-53.
- - - and Jennifer Smith.·2000. "Old was; new ecology: Viewing English through the
sociolinguistic filter". In Shana Poplack, ed. The English History of African American
English. Oxford, Malden: Blackwell, 141-71.
- - - and - - - . 2001. "Back to the Roots: The Legacy of British Dialects". Paper
presented at NWAV 30 (New Ways of Analyzing Variation Conference). Raleigh, North
Carolina, October 2001.
Trudgill, Peter, ed. 1978. Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London: Edward Arnold.
- - . 1990. The Dialects ofEngland. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wales, Katie. 2000. "North and South: An English linguistic divide". English Today 61 , 16: 4-15.
Walker, James. 2001. "The 'ain't' constraint in Early African American English". Paper
presented at 3rd UK Language Variation and Change Conference (UK-LVC3). York,
UK. July, 2001.
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Yaeger-Dror, Malcah. 1997. "Contraction of negatives as evidence of variance in register'9pecific interactive rules". Language Variation and Change 9: 1-36.
- - - , Lauren Hall-Lew and Sharon Deckert. 2001. "It isn't an ideal solution". Language
Variation and Change 13:
- - - , - - - and - - - . in press. "Be contraction in American English: Evidence from
different registers". In Randi Reppen, Douglas Biber and Susan Fitzmaurice, eds. Using
Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1970. "Auxiliary reduction in English". Linguistic Inquiry 1: 323-36.
NEG!AUX
contraction in British dialects
Authors' addresses
Sali Tagliamonte
130 St George Street
Department of Linguistics
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
M5S3HI
Canada
email: [email protected]
Jennifer Smith
Dept. ofLanguage & Linguistic
Science
University of York
Heslington
YOlO 5DD
Great Britain
email: [email protected]
281