|Adjectives |

|Singular |% |Plural |% |

|/рi:z/ |13 |/рejz/ |23 |

|/рis/ |11 |/рi:z/ |2 |

|/рi:z ji:r/ |9 |/рejz ji:r/ |7 |

|/рis ji:r/ |2 |/рi:z ji:r/ |4 |

|/рat/ |15 |/рej/ |49 |

|/рat р?r/ |3 |/рej р?r/ |2 |

|/рi-ki:/ |43 |/рi-ki:/ |10 |

|/рi-ki: р?r/ |4 |/рi-ki: р?r/ |3 |

| |100 | |100 |

|Pronouns |

|Singular |% |Plural |% |

|/рis/ |10 | | |

|/рi:z/ |4 | | |

|/рis ji:r/ |2 | | |

|/рis ji:r ji:r/ |25 |/рej/ |100 |

|/рat/ |22 | | |

|/рat р?r/ |2 | | |

|/рat р?r р?r/ |34 | | |

|/рi-ki:/ |1 | | |

| |100 | | |

The paradigm as outlined in Tables 1, 2 presents few morphological

problems. The two pairs of forms /рi:z/ and /рis/ and /рejz/ and /рi:z/ do,

however, need examination. In the singular of the adjective, the two forms

/рi:z/ and /рis/ are both frequent, being used mostly in unstressed and

stressed position respectively. However, some 30 per cent of the

occurrences of each form do not follow this tendency, so it does not seem

profitable to set up a stressed: unstressed opposition, particularly since

such a division would serve no purpose in the case of /рat/ and /рi-ki:/.

With the ‘first compounds’, the form /рi:z ji:r/ outnumbers /рis ji:r/ in

the ratio 1 in the adjective position.

When functioning as a pronoun, /рi:z/ is rare as a simple form and

never occurs at all either within a first compound (although ‘first

compounds’ are so rare as pronouns that no generalization can usefully be

made, see Table 2) or within a ‘second compound’, where only /рis ji:r

ji:r/, never /рi:z ji:r ji:r/, is found. Thus /рis/ seems to be more

favoured as a pronoun, and /рi:z/ as an adjective; this, of course, is only

a tendency.

In the plural, the position is more clear-cut. The normal adjective

plurals are /рejz/ and /рejz ji:r/, which outnumber /рi:z/ and /рi:z ji:r/

by a large margin (see Table 2). Such cases of the latter as do occur may

perhaps be ascribed to Standard English influence, since /рi:z/ is clearly

used normally as a singular rather than a plural form. The absence of any

reflex of /рejz/ as a plural pronoun is discussed below.

The other forms present little morphological difficulty. There is only

one occurrence of /рi-ki:/ as a pronoun, although as an adjective it almost

outnumbers /рi:z/ and /рat/ together, so it seems to belong primarily to

the adjectival system. The normal singular pronouns are either the simple

forms or the ‘second compounds’, the ‘first compounds’ being most unusual.

In the plural of the adjective, the simple forms are much more

frequent than their equivalent ‘first compounds’, whereas in the plural of

the pronoun, there is apparently only the one form /рej/. The status of

this form is discussed below.

The following are examples of those demonstatives which are not

further discussed below. The uses of /рat/ as a singular adjective, of /рi-

ki:/ as a singular or plural adjective, and of all the pronouns are fully

exemplified in the syntactic section, and thus no examples are given here.

/рi:z/

I come down “here to live in this little old “street.

Well; “this year, I done a bit “lighter.

Now “this season, tis “over.

This was coming “this way.

/рis ji:r/

There’s all this here sort of “jobs going on to “day.

I was down “there where this here “plough was up “here.

Iрejzl

These places be alright if you know where you’m “going to.

They got to pay the “wages to these people.

I do a bit of “gardening . . . and likes of all these things.

/рej/

What makes all they “hills look so well?

Where “Jim was sent to, they two “met.

“They won’t have all they sort of people up there.

Tell “Cooper to “shift “they “stones “there.

We may now turn to the functions of those forms whose uses are

identifiably different from those of Standard English.

The most striking feature of the demonstrative system is that, in the

singular adjective system at least, there is apparently a three-term

opposition /рi:z : рat : рi-ki:/, in contrast with the two-term system of

Standard English. It seems fair to say that the role of /рi:z/ is similar

to that of 'this' in Standard English (but see note on /рi:z ji:r/ below),

but any attempt to differentiate /рat/ and /рi-ki:/ proves extremely

difficult. There are a number of sentences of the type:

If you was to put “that stick in across “thicky pony . . .

where the two forms seem to fill the same function. The virtual absence of

/рi-ki:/ from the pronoun system, together with the fact that /рi-ki:/ is

three times as frequent as /рat/ as an adjective, would suggest that /рi-

ki:/ is the normal adjectival form in the dialect, and that /рat/ has a

greater range, having a function which is basically pronominal but in

addition adjectival at times. This is further supported by the fact that

when presented with sentences of the type:

He turned that “hare “three “times and “he caught it.

the informant claimed that /рi-ki:/ would be equally acceptable and could

indicate no distinction. Thus there are pairs of sentences such as

I used to walk that there “two mile and “half.

You'd walk thicky “nine “mile.

or again

That finished “that job.

I wouldn’t have “thicky job.

There are certain cases where either one form or the other seems to be

required. In particular, /рat/ is used when actually indicating a size with

the hands:

Go up and see the stones “that length, “that thickness.

while /рi-ki:/ is used in contrast with /t?-рr/, where Standard English

would normally use ‘one’ or ‘the one’.

Soon as they got it “thicky hand, they’d thruck(?) it away with the

“tother.

In the adjective plural, the contrast between /рi-ki:/ and /рej/ is

not a real one, since /рi-ki:/ is found only with numerals.

I had thicky “eighteen “bob a “week.

I expect thicky “nine was all “one “man’s sheep.

When presented with /рi-ki:/ before plural nominals, the informant

rejected them. It would therefore be preferable to redefine ‘singular’ and

‘plural’ in the dialect to account for this, rather than to consider /рi-

ki:/ as a plural form; this would accordingly neutralize in the plural any

/рi-ki:/:/рat/ opposition which may exist in the singular.

In the pronominal system, there is only one occurrence of /рi-ki:/:

My missis bought “thicky before her “died (a radio).

It is true that most of the occurrences of /рal/ as a pronoun do not

refer to a specific antecedent, e.g. I can’t afford to do “that, but there

are a number of cases where /рat/ does play a role closely parallel to /рi-

ki:/ above.

As “I was passing “that, and “that was passing “me (a dog).

As there are no other examples of /рi-ki:/ as a singular pronoun,

either simply or as part of a ‘first’ or ‘second compound’, and no cases at

all in the plural, it seems fair to say that any /рat/:/рi-ki:/ opposition

is realized only in the singular adjective, and that here too it is

difficult to see what the basis of any opposition might be. A list of

representative examples of /рat/, /рat р?r/, /рi-ki:/ and /рi-ki: р?r/ is

given below, in their function as singular adjectives, so that they can

easily be compared.

/рat/

All they got to “do is steer that little “wheel a bit.

You’d put in “dynamite to blast that stone “off.

Us’d go “in that pub and have a pint of “beer.

/рat р?r/

I used to walk that there “two mile and “half.

Good as “gold, that there “thing was.

/рi-ki:/

All of us be in “thicky boat, you see.

‘Thicky “dog’, he said, ‘been there all “day?’

Stairs went up “there, like, “thicky side, “thicky end of the wall.

Thicky place would be “black with people . . .

I travelled thicky old road “four “ year . . .

What’s “thicky “little “place called, before you get up “Yelverton?

Thicky field, they’d “break it, they called it.

He was going to put me and Jan “up thicky night.

“Never been through thicky road “ since.

/рi-ki: р?r/

Jim Connell carted home thicky there jar of “cyder same as he carted

it “up.

We got in thicky there “field . . .

The morphological status of /рi:z/ and /рis/ as singulars, and of

/рejz/ and /рi:z/ as plurals has already been discussed. Syntactically,

their use seems to correspond to Standard English closely, except in one

important respect: the ‘first compound’ forms are used in a way similar to

a non-standard usage which is fairly widespread, in the sense of ‘a’ or ‘a

certain’.

/рi:z ji:r/

He’d got this here “dog.

You’d put this here great “crust on top.

The ‘first compound’ is never used as an equivalent to Standard

English ‘this’, being reserved for uses of the type above, although there

is another form /рi:z . . . ji:r/, which is occasionally used where

Standard English would show ‘this’, eg Between here and this village “here

like.

In the plural, an exactly parallel syntactic division occurs between

/рejz/ (cf Standard English ‘these’) and /рejz ji:r/.

These here “maidens that was here . . .

I used to put them in front of these here “sheds.

They got these here “hay-turners . . .

In all the above examples, the ‘first compounds’, both singular and

plural, refer to items which have not been mentioned before, and which are

not adjacent to the speaker; they are thus referentially distinct from the

normal use of Standard English ‘this’.

Although we can fairly say that /рi:z/ and /рejz/ are syntactically

distinct from their equivalent first compounds, what of the other adjective

compounds /рat р?r/, /рi-ki: р?r/ and /рej р?r/? There seems to be no

syntactic division in these cases between them and their equivalent simple

forms, so it is perhaps not surprising that Table 2 shows them to be

without exception much less common than /рi:z ji:r/ and /рejz ji:r/, which

have a distinct syntactic role. Forms such as

Us got in thicky there “field

and

Good as “gold, that there “thing was.

do not seem any different from

Us “mowed thicky little plat . . .

and

He turned that “hare “three “times . . .

There is certainly no apparent correlation with any notional degree of

emphasis.

In the case of the singular pronouns, the ‘first compounds’ are

extremely rare, cf.

He done “well with that there. (/рat р?r/)

He went out “broad, this here what’s “dead now. (/рi:z ji:r/).

The basic opposition here is between the simple forms and the ‘second

compounds’ /рis ji:r ji:r/ and /рat р?r р?r/. Here the syntactic division

is fairly clear: the second compounds are used in certain adverbial

phrases, particularly after ‘like’, where the demonstrative refers to no

specific antecedent:

Tis getting like this here “here.

I’ve had to walk home “after that there there.

and also, with reference to a specific antecedent, when particular emphasis

is drawn to the item in question.

I’ve had the “wireless there, this here “here, for “good many years.

One of these here “crocks, something like that there “there.

In all other cases, the simple forms are used.

“This was coming “this way.

Then he did meet with “this.

That’s “one “bad “job, “that was.

/рat/ is used particularly frequently in two phrases, ‘likes of that

and ‘and that’.

He doed a bit of “farmering and likes of “that.

I got a “jumper and that home “now.

The last question is one of the most interesting. Is there really only

one form /рej/ functioning as a plural pronoun? At first sight, this would

seem improbable, given that there is a plural adjective form /рejz/ and

that the 'this':'that' opposition is maintained elsewhere in the system.

However, all attempts to elicit such a form failed, and there is at least

one spontaneous utterance where, if a form /рejz/ did exist as a pronoun,

it might be expected to appear:

There’s “thousands of acres out there would grow it better than they

in “here grow it.

Taking all these factors together, we tentatively suggest that the

opposition ‘this’:’that’ is neutralized in this position, even though this

seems rather unlikely, given the adjectival system.

But there is another point. It is in fact difficult to identify

occurrences of /рej/ as demonstratives with any certainty, because the form

is identical with that of the personal pronoun /рej/ (Standard English

‘they’ or ‘them’).

We may observe at this point that in the dialect, the third plural

personal pronoun forms are /рej/ and /?m/. The first form is used in all

stressed positions and as unstressed subject except in inverted Q-forms;

the second is used as the unstressed non-subject, and as the unstressed

subject in inverted Q-forms. Thus we find:

/рej/

“I had to show the pony but “they winned the cups.

I could chuck “they about.

That’s up to “they, they know what they’m a”bout of.

They’d take ‘em back of your “door for half-a-crown.

/?m/

They expect to have a “name to the house, “don’t ‘em?

Where do ‘em get the “tools to?

That was as far as “ever they paid ‘em.

I stayed there “long with ‘em for more than a “year.

When considering /рej/, we find a series of utterances such as the

following in which a division between personal and demonstrative pronouns

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10