Regional variation of pronunciation in the south-west of England
Статья - Разное
Другие статьи по предмету Разное
Rogers is quite surprised to read of a science-fiction play (BBC, 15 March 1978) entitled Stargazy in Zummerland, describing a future world in which the population was divided between industrial and agricultural workers, the latter probably using some form of south-western speech, following a time-honoured stage tradition already perceptible in King Lear (disguised as a rustic, Edgar speaks broad Somerset).
To sum up, after to, do (auxiliary), or a modal, the formula of the free infinitive is
intr. V > infin. + -y/0
where intr. implies genuine intransitives, ODVs and even ergatives. As a dialect-marker, -y is now on the wane, being gradually replaced by 0 due to contact with Standard English.
1.2 Of + DO
The other typical feature of south-western dialects is not mentioned by Wakelin, although it stands out much more clearly in the SED data. This is the optional use of o/ov (occasionally on) between a transitive verb and its DO. Here are some of the many examples. Stripping the feathers off a dead chicken (Orton and Wakelin) is called:
pickin/pluckin ov it (Brk-loc. 3);
trippin o en (= it) (D-loc. 6);
pickin o en (Do-loc. 3);
pluckin(g) on en - (W-loc. 9; Sx-loc. 2).
Catching fish, especially trout, with ones hand (Orton and Wakelin) is called:
ticklin o/ov em (= them) (So-loc. 13; W-loc. 2, 8; D-loc. 2, 7, 8; Do-loc. 2-5; Ha-loc. 4);
gropin o/ov em (D-loc. 4, 6);
ticklin on em (W-loc. 3, 4; Ha-loc. 6; Sx-loc. 3);
tickle o em (Do-loc. l) (note the absence of -in(g)).
The confusion between of and on is frequent in dialects, but although on may occur where of is expected, the reverse is impossible. The occasional use of on instead of of is therefore unimportant. What really matters is the occurrence of of, o or ov between a transitive verb and the DO. The presence of the -in(g) ending should also attract our attention: it occurs in all the examples except tickle o em, which is exceptional since, when the SED informants used an infinitive in their answers, their syntax was usually identical with that of Standard English, ie without of occurring before the DO: glad to see you, (he wants to) hide it (Orton and Wakelin).
Following Jespersen, Lyons makes a distinction between real transitives (/ hit you: action > goal) and verbs which are only syntactically transitives (/ hear you: goal < action). It is a pity that the way informants were asked questions for the SED (What do we do with them? - Our eyes/ears) does not enable us to treat the transitive verbs see Orton and Wakelin and hear (Orton and Wakelin) other than as ODVs.
The use of of as an operator between a transitive verb and its DO was strangely enough never described by Barnes, and is casually dismissed as an otiose of by the authors of the SED, even though nothing can really be otiose in any language system. Rogers points out that Much more widely found formerly, it is now confined to sentences where the pronouns en, it and em are the objects. This is obvious in the SED materials, as, incidentally, it is in these lines by Barnes:
To work all day a-meken ha/Or pitchen ot.
Nevertheless, even if his usage is in conformity with present syntax, it is important to add that, when Barnes was alive, o/ov could precede any DO (a-meken ov ha would equally have been possible). What should also be noted in his poetry is the extremely rare occurrence of o/ov after a transitive verb with no -en (= -ing) ending, which, as we just saw, is still very rare in modern speech:
Zoo I dont mind o leven it to-morrow.
Zoo I dont mind o leven ot to-morrow.
The second line shows a twofold occurrence of o after two transitive verbs, one with and one without -en.
This -en ending can be a marker of a verbal noun, a gerund or a present participle (as part of a progressive aspect form or on its own), and o may follow in each case.
VERBAL NOUN
My own a-decken ov my own (my own way of dressing my darling).
This is the same usage as in Standard English he doesnt like my driving of his car.
GERUND
That wer vor hetten on (that was for hitting him).
. . . little chance/O catchen on.
I be never the better vor zee-en o you.
The addition of o to a gerund is optional: Vor grinden any corn vor bread is words to Standard English.
PROGRESSIVE ASPECT
As I wer readen ov a stwone (about a headstone).
Rogers gives two examples of the progressive aspect:
I be stackin on em up.
I were a-peeling of the potatoes (with a different spelling).
PRESENT PARTICIPLE ON ITS OWN
To vind me stannen in the cwold, / A-keepen up o Chrismas.
After any present participle, the use of o is also optional:
Where vok be out a-meken ha.
The general formula is thus:
trans. V > V + o/0
which can also be read as
MV (main verb) > trans. V + o/0 + DO.
Here, o stands for o (the most common form), ov and even on. In modem usage, the DO, which could be a noun or noun phrase in Barness day and age, appears from the SED materials to be restricted to personal pronouns. For modern dialects, the formula thus reads:
MV > trans. V + o/0 + pers. pron.
The o is here a transitivity operator which, exactly like an accusative ending in a language with case declensions, disappears in the passive. Consequently, the phenomenon under discussion here has to be distinguished from that of prepositional verbs, which require the retention of the preposition in the passive:
We have thought of all the possible snags. >
All the possible snags have been thought of.
The use of o as a transitivity operator in active declaratives is also optional, which represents another basic difference from prepositional verbs.
Exactly the same opposition, interestingly enough, applies in south-western dialects also:
[1] He is (a-) eten o cekes > What is he (a-) eten?
[2] He is (a-) dremen ocekes > What is he (a-) dremen ov?
What remains a preposition in [1] and [2] works as the link between a transitive verb and its DO. The compulsory deletion of the operator o in questions relating to the DO demonstrates the importance here of the word order (V + o + DO), as does also the words triggering of deletion by passives.
Though now used in a more restricted way, ie before personal pronouns only, this syntactic feature is better preserved in the modern dialects than the
-y ending of intransitive verbs, but, in so far as it is only optional, it is easy to detect the growing influence of Standard English.
2. Diachrony as an explanation of these features.
Although the above description has not been purely synchronic, since it cites differences in usage between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is actually only by looking back at even earlier stages of the language that we can gain any clear insights into why the dialects have developed in this way.
Both Widen and Wakelin remind us that the originally strictly morphological -y ending has since developed into a syntactic feature. It is a survival of the Middle English infinitive ending -ie(n), traceable to the -ian suffix of the second class of Old English weak verbs (OE milcian > ME milkie(n) > south-west dial. milky). Subsequently, -y has been analogically extended to other types of verbs in south-west dialects under certain syntactic conditions: in the absence of any DO, through sheer impossibility (intransitive verb) or due to the speakers choice (ODV or ergative). The only survival of medieval usage is the impossibility of a verb form like milky being anything other than an infinitive. Note that this cannot be labelled an archaism, since the standard language has never demonstrated this particular syntactic specialization.
So far no explanation seems to have been advanced for the origin of otiose of, and yet it is fairly easy to resort to diachrony in order to explain this syntactic feature. Let us start, however, with contemporary Standard English:
[3] They sat, singing a shanty. (present participle on its own)
[4] They are singing a shanty. (progressive aspect)
[5] I like them/their singing a shanty. (gerund)
[6] I like their singing of a shanty. (verbal noun)
Here [5] and [6] are considered nominalizations from a synchronic point of view. As far as [4] is concerned, Barnes reminds his readers that the OE nominalization ic waes on hunlunge (I was in the process of hunting, cf Aelfrics