The Historical Evolution of Earlier African American English: An Empirical Comparison of Early Sources [Reprint 2012 ed.] 9783110907971, 9783110173017

Citation preview

The Historical Evolution of Earlier African American English

W DE G

Topics in English Linguistics 38

Editors

Elizabeth Closs Traugott Bernd Kortmann

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Historical Evolution of Earlier African American English An Empirical Comparison of Early Sources

by

Alexander Kautzsch

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York 2002

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, Berlin. A doctoral thesis accepted by the University of Regensburg, printed with the financial support of the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek —

CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Kautzsch, Alexander: The historical evolution of earlier African American English : an empirical comparison of early sources / by Alexander Kautzsch. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2002 (Topics in English linguistics ; 38) Zugl.: Regensburg, Univ., Diss., 2000 ISBN 3-11-017301-8

© Copyright 2002 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Dedicated to the memory of my Aunt Irmgard Karl (*1941 f2001)

Acknowledgments

I was motivated for this project, which in its original version was a Ph.D. thesis handed in at the University of Regensburg, German, by Prof. Edgar W. Schneider's expertise in the diachronic and synchronic study of African American English. I would like to thank him for his invaluable advice in the earlier stages of my research and his insightful comments on later drafts of this dissertation. Moreover, he encouraged me to present preliminary results at two NWAVE (New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English and other Languages) conferences, which has also provided very valuable input to my work. Further I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Michael Montgomery, professor emeritus of the University of South Carolina at Columbia. He revised an earlier version of chapter 6, which I handed in to American Speech for publication. His motivating remarks are actually responsible for a considerable reorganization of this project in connection with the use of letters as linguistic data. He also informed me about the whereabouts of the original manuscripts of the letters I am using. I am also very grateful to Prof. Elizabeth Traugott and Prof. Bernd Kortmann, the two editors of this series, who have rated this book worthy for being published here. Prof. Traugott's critical remarks on possible or necessary revisions have contributed a lot to the quality of this final version. Many thanks also go to the Mouton de Gruyter crew around Birgit Sievert, who have patiently shared their expertise in layouting matters. In addition, I owe a special debt to some people who have given their practical help. I wish to thank Holger Saurenbach, one of Edgar W. Schneider's student assistants, who meticulously identified zero forms of the copula and of relative markers in all of my sources. Gisela Wagner of the University of Regensburg's computer center taught me how to use OCR software, which ultimately enabled me to work on electronic versions of my texts. Susan Pintzuk of the University of York, England, provided me with last minute information about how to handle her VARBRUL software package. Last but not least, Jamie Kohen, Lektorin of English at the Department of English and American Studies at the University of Regensburg, proofread the manuscript in no time and suggested stylistic improvements. Needless to say, I am responsible for any remaining shortcomings. Of course, little could have been achieved without the sources I am using and my thanks also go to the people who have contributed to preserve earlier stages of AAE. These are first and foremost the nineteenth century writers of the letters and the people who told their life stories during interviews. But also

viii

Acknowledgements

the interviewers and publishers of these written and oral conversations deserve to be credited. Finally, I am indebted to my wife Katja, who was pregnant with our first child in the final stage of the dissertation early in 2000, and now has turned out to be the best of all mothers to our son Simon. Both of them kept me in a cheerful mood throughout this project and managed to remind me that there was a world outside of my PC. Regensburg, March 2002

Contents Acknowledgements

..

List of abbreviations Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Education: where it all started 1.2 The synchronic description of AAE and its comparison to other varieties of English 1.3 The debate about the origins of AAE 1.4 The sociohistorical background for the evolution of AAE 1.5 The divergence of AAE from other varieties of English 1.6 Sources for the historical reconstruction of AAE 1.7 The aims of the present project 1.8 A final note on terms Chapter 2 Data and methods 2.1 Mississippi samples from the ex-slave narratives Rawick (1977 / 1979) [WPA MS] 2.2 The Virginia WPA project [WPA VA] 2.3 The ex-slave recordings [ESR] 2.4 Samples from Hyatt's hoodoo interviews [HOODOO 1 and H00D002] 2.5 Linguistic evaluation of the subcorpora 2.6 Methodological possibilities of a combined corpus of Earlier AAE 2.6.1 Comparison of subcorpora 2.6.2 Studying change in progress - apparent time analyses 2.6.3 Analysis by state 2.6.4 Gender differences 2.7 Summary Chapter 3 Negation patterns in Earlier AAE 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Verbal negation 3.2.1 The distribution of ain 7 and its standard counterparts 3.2.1.1 Verbal negation by subcorpus 3.2.1.2 Verbal negation in apparent time 3.2.1.3 Verbal negation by state 3.2.1.4 Verbal negation by gender 3.2.2 The functions of ain't. 3.2.2.1 The functions of ain't by subcorpus

vii xiv 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 12 20 22 24 28 . 32 32 33 35 38 39 40 40 41 41 41 47 51 53 54 55

χ

Table of contents 3.2.2.2 The functions of ain't in apparent time 56 3.2.2.3 The functions of ain't by state 59 3.2.2.4 The functions of ain't by gender 60 3.3 Multiple negation / Negative concord 61 3.3.1 Overall frequencies of negative concord and standard negation 62 3.3.1.1 Negative concord and standard negation by subcorpus 62 3.3.1.2 Negative concord and standard negation in apparent time... 62 3.3.1.3 Negative concord and standard negation by state 64 3.3.1.4 Negative concord and standard negation by gender 64 3.3.2 Variability of negative auxiliaries in indeterminate contexts.... 65 3.3.2.1 Variability of negative auxiliaries by subcorpus 67 3.3.2.2 Variability of negative auxiliaries in apparent time 70 3.3.2.3 Variability of negative auxiliaries by state 73 3.3.2.4 Variability of negative auxiliaries by gender 77 3.4 Negative attraction 78 3.4.3 Never+did+V(in[) 80 3.5 Negative postposing 81 3.6 Summary 83

Chapter 4 The copula in Earlier AAE

89

4.1 Introductory remarks 89 4.2 Methodological considerations 90 4.2.1 Setting the stage for an analysis: identifying count and don't count items 93 4.2.1.1 The copula in past tense environments 93 4.2.1.2 Habitual BE2 and non-finite BE 94 4.2.1.3 Clause final and emphatic copula 94 4.2.1.4 There + copula / here + copula 94 4.2.1.5 This + copula 96 4.2.1.6 Questions 97 4.2.1.7 What / it / that (WIT) 97 4.2.1.8 Negation 99 4.2.1.9 Am 99 4.2.1.10 Are 104 4.2.1.11 Phonological environments 107 4.2.1.12 Survey of copula usage in Earlier AAE 108 4.2.2 Full, contracted and zero forms of the copula 109 4.2.2.1 Straight vs. Labov (and Romaine) 112 4.2.2.2 Differences between is and are contraction and deletion... 113 4.2.2.3 Comparison across data sets 113

Table of contents xi

4.3 The variability of is in Earlier AAE 4.3.1 Possible constraints on is realization 4.3.2 Variability of is by subcorpus 4.3.2.1 Subject type by subcorpus 4.3.2.2 Following grammatical environment by subcorpus 4.3.2.3 Phonological environment by subcorpus 4.3.2.4 VARBRUL analysis of is in the combined corpus 4.3.3 Variability of is in apparent time 4.3.4 Variability of is by state 4.3.5 Variability of is by gender 4.4 Summary Chapter 5 Relativization in Earlier AAE 5.1 Methodological remarks 5.1.1 Relativization in Standard and Nonstandard English 5.1.2 Humanness of the antecedent head 5.1.3 Category of the antecedent head 5.1.4 Adjacency of relative marker and antecedent head 5.1.5 Summing up the factors for the present analysis 5.2 Relativization by subcorpus 5.2.1 Humanness of the antecedent 5.2.1.1 Frequency of relative markers by environment 5.2.1.2 Comparison of relative markers across environments 5.2.2 Category of the antecedent 5.2.2.1 Frequency of relative markers by environment 5.2.2.2 Comparison of relative markers across environments 5.2.3 Adjacency of antecedent and relative marker 5.2.3.1 Comparison of relative markers across environments 5.2.4 Summary 5.3 Relativization in apparent time 5.3.1 Humanness of the antecedent 5.3.1.1 Subject relatives 5.3.1.2 Non-subject relatives 5.3.2 Category of the antecedent 5.3.2.1 Subject relatives 5.3.2.2 Non-subject relatives 5.3.3 Adjacency of antecedent and relative marker 5.3.3.1 Subject relatives 5.3.3.2 Non-subject relatives 5.3.4 Summary 5.4 Relativization by state

115 115 119 120 126 133 136 139 147 152 154 156 156 157 162 166 166 167 171 173 174 175 176 176 178 178 179 181 182 184 184 185 187 187 188 189 189 190 191 193

xii

Table of contents

5.4.1 Humanness of the antecedent 5.4.1.1 Subject relatives 5.4.1.2 Non-subject relatives 5.4.2 Category of the antecedent 5.4.2.1 Subject relatives 5.4.2.2 Non-subject relatives 5.4.3 Adjacency of antecedent and relative marker 5.4.3.1 Subject relatives 5.4.3.2 Non-subject relatives 5.4.4 Summary 5.5 Relativization by gender 5.5.1 Humanness of the antecedent 5.5.1.1 Subject relatives 5.5.1.2 Non-subject relatives 5.6 Summary 5.6.1 Subject relatives 5.6.2 Non-subject relatives 5.6.3 VARBRUL analysis of subject and non-subject that, what, and zero Chapter 6 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE 6.1 Two sources of written Earlier AAE 6.1.1 Letters from Liberia (and Alabama) [LAL] 6.1.1.1 Validity of transcripts 6.1.2 Letters written during or after the Civil War (Freedmen' s Bureau Letters [FBL]) 6.2 Manuscript letters as linguistic data 6.3 Negation 6.3.1 Verbal Negation 6.3.2 Negative concord 6.3.3 Negative attraction 6.3.4 Negative postposing 6.3.5 Summing up 6.4 The copula 6.4.1 The copula in special contexts (there, here, this, WIT) 6.4.2 Full, contracted and zero forms of am, are, and is 6.4.3 Summing up 6.5 Relativization 6.5.1 Humanness of the antecedent 6.5.2 Category of the antecedent 6.5.3 Adjacency

195 195 196 197 197 198 200 200 201 202 203 204 204 205 206 208 209 209 212 212 212 215 219 221 224 224 226 230 231 233 234 234 237 242 242 245 247 250

Table of contents

6.5.4 6.6

Summing up

Summary: Written sources of Earlier AAE

xiii

251 253

Chapter 7 Conclusions

254

Appendix 1: Informants by subcorpus Appendix 2: Informants by year of birth Appendix 3: Informants by state Appendix 4: Historical demographics of the American South Appendix 5: Detailed listings of negated auxiliaries in indeterminate contexts by sub-corpus

259 266 269 272 283

Notes

291

References

311

Index

328

List of abbreviations AAE AAVE AK AL ANSE BEV ColSoc DC EPA ESR FBL FL FWP GA HOODOOl H00D002 IN KY LA LAGS LAL LAMSAS MD MS NC SC SE TN TX VA WPA WPA MS (A) WPA MS (M)

African American English African American Vernacular English Arkansas Alabama African Nova Scotian English Black English Vernacular Colonization Society Washington, D.C. East Palo Alto (locality of Rickford's data) Subcorpus of ex-slave recordings (Bailey, Maynor and Cukor-Avila 1991) Subcorpus Federal Bureau Letters (Berlin et al. 1982-1993) Florida Federal Writers' Project Georgia Subcorpus of early interviews in Hyatt (1970-1978) Subcorpus of late interviews in Hyatt (1970-1978) Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States Subcorpus of Liberian and Alabama Letters (Miller 1978; Wiley 1980) Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada, viz. the Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States Maryland Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Samaná English Tennessee Texas Virginia Works Progress Administration / Works Projects Administration Subcorpus of ex-slave narratives from MS (Rawick 1977/1979; interviewer: Austin) Subcorpus of ex-slave narratives from MS (Rawick 1977/1979; interviewer: Moore)

Abbreviations

WPA VA WV

xv

Subcorpus of ex-slave narratives from VA (Perdue, Barden and Phillips 1976) West Virginia

Chapter 1 Introduction

The study of African-American English (AAE) has a relatively short history of about 40 years, but it has been a field of enormous prominence from its outset. As a result, aims and goals of scholars who deal with African American English differ widely. Figure 1 surveys the main issues that the academic study of AAE is comprised of. synchronic description comparison to white vernaculars

comparison to English-based creóles Figure 1.

education origins THE STUDY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH

divergence

sources for historical reconstruction

socio-historical evidence

The study of African American English

These topics are largely interwoven, but a basic classification might distinguish between synchronic and diachronic interests. These appear on the left- and right-hand sides of figure 1., respectively. Education rather belongs to synchronic issues, while divergence can be seen from both synchronic and diachronic angles. On the one hand, the major trends in the field have been surveyed in many publications (cf., for example, Schneider 1989: 1-41 ^ Winford 1997: 305-13; Ewers 1996: 1-11; Rickford 1998: 154-163), on the other hand, the massive number of publications on AAE2 makes a state of the art report automatically incomprehensive. Therefore, this introduction will only give a very sketchy survey of the central issues of the study of AAE. But this will ultimately suffice to account for the motivation of the present study in the light of previous research.

2

1.1

Introduction

Education: where it all started

Educational issues actually initiated academic interest in AAE. In the 1960s it was realized that black children in northern urban ghettoes did much worse in school than their white peers. Thus, the government financed "compensation programs", in which black students should be taught standard English "by means of structural drills and techniques adopted from foreign language learning" (Schneider 1989: 12; cf. Bereiter et al. 1969). This approach was mainly based on Basil Berstein's "deficit hypothesis", which assumed that black children were "culturally deprived" (cf. Bereiter and Engelmann 1966; Schneider 1989: 12). But the "compensation programs" failed and linguists alternatively suggested that black children only spoke a home dialect different from their white peers, which made it difficult for them to understand the teaching material that was mainly aimed at white students. This acceptance of the difference of AAE from white dialects led to the concept of bidialectalism, which implied that it was necessary to teach black children standard English as an additional dialect (cf. DeVere 1971; Schneider 1989: 13). This approach was also bound to fail. It seemed that the reading failure of black children in urban ghettoes was not the result of linguistic differences between the variety of English they spoke and the variety of English which was necessary to command in order to get along in the US society, but rather a result of differences "in acceptance or rejection of school as an institution" (Labov 1973:100; cf. Schneider 1989:14). The debate about the education of black children gained prominence in the wider public through two official events: the Ann Arbor, MI, court decision in 1979 and the Oakland, CA, School Board's resolutions in 1996 and 1997. Both resulted in the demand that teachers should become aware of the unique structures of the English spoken by African Americans and take these into account when teaching the standard. Especially, the recent Oakland decision has brought AAE - or rather "Ebonics", as it was named by the press - back into public discussion and resulted in a heated debate about the acceptance of AAE. This was mainly due to the fact that many people misinterpreted the School Board's decision as implementing AAE as the classroom language, which was obviously not the case.3 Both the Ann Arbor case and the Oakland decision were mostly praised by linguists, but some also criticized them; see, for example, Fasold (1981: 186) for comments on the former and McWhorter (1998: 201-261) on the latter. The gist of their critique is that it is not possible for linguists to solve obvious social problems of US society because the children's bad performance in school rather mirror their cultural exclusion from European American society, for which linguistic differences are only a symptom.

Synchronic description and comparison to other varieties of English

1.2

3

The synchronic description of AAE and its comparison to other varieties of English

From the perspective of the history of the study of AAE it emerges that it was only possible to address educational issues when adequate descriptions of the English spoken by African Americans were available. Schneider (1989:16-19) reports that there are basically three types of sources for the synchronic empirical study of AAE. The first type consists of "regional sub-projects" of the Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada, viz. the Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States (LAMSAS) and the Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States (LAGS).4 This material has been used by dialect geographers for an assessment of the status of AAE and they concluded that it did not differ greatly from the speech of comparable whites. In this respect, however, some caution is necessary, since the linguistic atlas data are mostly comprised of lexical, phonological and morphological material, yet it seems that the "structures most relevant to the determination of the status of Black English are syntactic in nature" (Schneider 1989: 17). Kretzschmar (1999), however, reports that ongoing projects at the Linguistic Adas Project at the University of Georgia will provide a good basis for the study of AAE by grouping all African-American data together which were collected by the same methods in LAMSAS. The other two types of empirical sources for AAE are "a number of large sociolinguistic projects carried out in the 1960s in northern cities" (Schneider 1989: 16), most prominently Labov's Harlem (Labov et al. 1968) and Shuy, Wolfram and Riley's Detroit projects (Shuy, Wolfram, and Riley 1967, 1968), and "a large number of smaller and more independent projects". Among the more recent ones are, for example, the East Palo Alto project of Rickford and his associates (cf. e.g. Rickford 1998; Blake 1997), the North Carolina Language and Life Project5 of Wolfram and his associates (e.g. Wolfram, Hazen, and Tamburro 1997, Wolfram, Thomas, and Green to appear), CukorAvila's "Springville" study (e.g. Cukor-Avila 1995, 2001), or Weldon's Columbus, Ohio, project (e.g. Weldon 1994). What all these projects have in common is that they take an intermediate position as far as the status of AAE is concerned. All would possibly agree with the fact that AAE is a variety of English that differs in some ways from other varieties of English.6 These projects yielded many descriptions of grammatical features that might distinguish AAE from other varieties of English. For an overview of these features see Fasold (1981), Schneider (1993), Rickford (1999a), and Cukor-Avila (2001), among others. In order to assess the differences between the English spoken by African Americans and by European Americans, it is necessary to compare them. In this context, Mufwene (1999) reminds us that "one of our common mistakes"

4

Introduction

is or was the comparison of AAE to standard English (255), although it is actually only valid to investigate the differences between AAE and "southern dialects of the same regional and socioeconomic background" (Schneider 1989: 22). There is in fact a voluminous number of publications which have taken this into account and compare AAE to southern white vernaculars.7 And it seems that Schneider's (1989: 22) conclusion still holds: "The results of these studies are fairly homogeneous. They clearly indicate that there are consistent differences between black and white speakers ..., yet in most cases these differences are superficial and quantitative". Besides the comparison of AAE to white vernaculars, comparisons to Creoles of the Caribbean and Liberia and to Gullah, a creole spoken on the Sea Islands off the coast of South Carolina and Georgia, have claimed that AAE is in some respects very similar to creolized varieties of English. The main emphasis has rested on comparisons of the absence of the copula (e.g., Singler 1991a, Liberian Settler English8; Rickford and Blake 1990 and Rickford 1992, Bajan; Winford 1992a, Trinidadian Creole; cf. Rickford 1998 for a comprehensive survey), the TMA system (e.g. Singler 1984, Liberian Settler English), or habitual invariant be (e.g., Rickford 1986). In some cases, the similarities found between AAE and creóles as well as to white Southern vernaculars have been used to argue in favor or against the hypothesis that AAE was originally a creole. But similarities or differences between two varieties at one point in time do not imply that parallels did or did not exist in earlier stages.

1.3

The debate about the origins of AAE

This leads us to a short survey of possible origins of AAE, one of the questions that "loom[s] large in the discussion of the development of African-American Vernacular English" (Rickford 1998: 154). Traditionally, there were two camps of scholars, creolists and dialectologists, that had opposing views. The one group held that AAE started out as a full-fledged creole similar to the ones spoken, for example, in the Caribbean today. The other group saw AAE just as a dialect of English which the newly arrived slaves acquired from their masters or the white people they worked with.9 Note, however, that this dichotomy is not a categorical one. The dialectologists have never "excluded the possibility of a previous creole stage of Black English, especially with respect to the initial stages of slavery, nor have they denied the existence of African or creole remnants in the present-day dialect" (Schneider 1989: 25). On the contrary, most creolists concede that some influence of white speech on black "is clearly to be expected, but the degree and importance of this influence is thought to be relatively limited" (Schneider 1989: 25).10

The debate about the origins ofAAE 5 The debate between creolists and dialectologists is still going on today. Most recently, two volumes were published which represent the two attitudes at the end of the twentieth century. Rickford (ed., 1999) is a compilation of articles written by the creolist John Rickford, who today represents a moderate version of the creolists' view, while Shana Poplack (ed., 1999) has assembled a group of scholars who aim at documenting the "English History of AfricanAmerican English". Rickford summarizes his stance as follows: Creole speech might have been introduced to the American colonies through the large numbers of slaves imported from the colonies of Jamaica and Barbados, where creóles were common. In these regions the percentage of Africans ran from 65 to 90 percent. And some slaves who came directly from Africa may have brought with them pidgins or creóles that developed around West African trading forts. It's also possible that some creole varieties - apart from well-known cases like Gullah - might have developed on American soil. (Rickford 1999b: 327) On the contrary, the aims of Poplack and her associates are as follows: The "creole-origins" position, based on suggestive parallels between features of AAVE and certain English-based creóles, has until quite recently been the dominant view. The papers assembled in this volume support an alternative hypothesis, that the grammatical core of contemporary AAVE developed from an English base, many of whose features have since disappeared from all but a select few varieties (African American and British-origin), whose particular sociohistorical environments have enabled them to retain reflexes of features no longer attested in Standard English (StdE). This scenario suggests that the many grammatical distinctions between contemporary varieties of AAVE and American and British English are relatively recent developments, possibly initiated during the post-Civil War period, as suggested by Mufwene [1999], in a social context highly propitious to racial segregation and divergence. (Poplack 1999: 1; italics in the original). The different attitudes towards the development of AAE are thus still a matter of degree and largely depend on the focus of the respective investigation. Note in this context that Rickford refers to the possibilities that "creole speech might have been introduced" and that "some creole varieties might have developed on American soil". Elsewhere he argues "that at least some of the predecessors of modern AAVE arose from a restructuring process similar to that which produced the English-based creóles" (Rickford 1998: 189). Quite differently, the group around Poplack emphasizes that the development of the "grammatical core of contemporary AAVE" is entirely English. To some extent, it seems, these two opinions are complementary to each other. If the grammatical core is

6

Introduction

English, which all articles in Poplack (ed., 1999) seek to show11, creole influences are not denied in "fringe" sections of the grammar, such as remote stressed been and the like. The overall picture that emerges is that it is very likely that in earlier days AAE was much more heterogeneous than its relatively homogeneous appearance today would have us assume; and an integrative approach that takes into account both sides is most likely to deliver the mot accurate assessment of the status and the evolution of AAE.

1.4

The sociohistorical background for the evolution of AAE

In this context, recent studies of the sociohistorical background for the origins of AAE have attempted to draw a picture that includes varying conditions for the slaves' language acquisition within the former colonial area of the US South (Rickford 1997, Winford 1997, Mufwene 1999). The nature of the contact between black and white is responsible for the extent to which slaves learned approximations of white dialects or restructured the English they used. Although the nature of this contact is hard to estimate, sociohistorical evidence might at least hint at the potential possibilities of the interaction of black and white. Rickford (1997), Winford (1997), and Mufwene (1999) agree on one central aspect concerning the evolution of AAE, namely that it is not tenable to assume that in colonial times the US South12 as a whole provided homogeneous conditions for the contact between blacks and whites. Regional differences in and temporal change of settlement patterns, demographics, and economics of this area suggest varying conditions. From a temporal perspective four "phases" need to be considered (Winford 1997: 314): the seventeenth century, the eighteenth century, the nineteenth century until reconstruction, and the post-reconstruction period. At the beginning of colonization in the seventeenth century "Africans were scattered and integrated within a European majority" (Mufwene 1999: 237). This refers both to Virginia (founded in 1607) and South Carolina (founded in 1663). Nothing suggests the development of a pidgin or creole (Mufwene 1999: 237), although Winford (1997: 315) assumes that "creolized forms of English" (from the Caribbean or Africa) "existed side by side with the English dialects in at least some areas". Caribbean influence at this early stage is the issue on which Mufwene (1999) disagrees with both Rickford (1997) and Winford (1997). Rickford (1997: 249) reports that "slaves brought in from the Caribbean colonies where Creole English is spoken were the predominant segments of the early black population in so many American colonies". Although Mufwene concedes that in the late seventeenth century many slaves were imported from St. Kitts and Barbados, he supposes that neither group spoke a creole when they arrived in the US colonies. On St. Kitts no creole

Sociohistorical background for the evolution ofAAE

7

basilect could have developed before the middle of the eighteenth century. And Barbados was only a trading place for slaves, who did not stay long enough to acquire any kind of vernacular (cf. Mufwene 1999: 238-241). For the eighteenth century it is necessary to make a regional distinction between the coastal areas of South Carolina and Georgia (founded in 1733) and the remaining area. With the growing cultivation of rice and indigo in coastal South Carolina and Georgia (Winford 1997: 315), slave labor became more and more important. Thus, a setting emerged that is similar to the one in the Caribbean, and it was likely that this context gave rise to Gullah (Mufwene 1999: 243, Winford 1997: 315). At the same time the slaves in the piedmont areas of Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina may have continued to learn the settlers' dialects because there massive numbers of Scotch-Irish settlers mainly founded small farms (Winford 1997: 315), on which the contacts between blacks and whites were probably fairly close. Winford (1997: 315-316) supposes that at this stage there existed "various second-language varieties", which ultimately provided "the broad base on which AAVE continued to evolve". In the nineteenth century the evolution of textile industries resulted in a strong demand for cotton (Mufwene 1999: 247) and, connected to this, in an "expanding settlement of the Lower South, particularly the Gulf states" (Winford 1997). "Planters moved from the Chesapeake former colonies and the hinterlands" of Georgia and South Carolina to Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, and "brought or imported their slaves from the same regions" (Mufwene 1999: 247). Winford (1997: 316) reports that, on the whole, 250,000 slaves were relocated between 1820-1850. This led to a first spread of the "relatively stable AAE vernaculars", which, as opposed to Gullah, were all "very similar" (Mufwene 1999: 247).13 Finally, the Civil War (1861-1865) and the abolition of slavery led to a new world order but brought only little economic improvement for former slaves. Especially the Jim Crow Laws (1877) in the southern states "disfavored African-Americans in the competition for jobs and for welfare entitlements" (Mufwene 1999: 248) and gave rise to the "establishment of a generalized, most severe form of segregation" (Mufwene 1999: 248). Thus, limited interaction between African and European Americans was the norm and provided the setting for linguistic divergence outside the Gullah-speaking area (noted first by Viereck 1995) (Mufwene 1999: 248). "One of the consequences of the Jim Crow Laws" was the northward and westward migration of AfricanAmericans, which "started with the Black Exodus of 1879, when 20,000 African-Americans moved to Kansas" (Mufwene 199: 250). Later, almost one million African Americans left the South during the Great Migration (1910— 1930) and by the 1970s about 6 million had "outmigrated" (Mufwene 1999:

8

Introduction

250). Of those who had left, a large majority had to live in urban ghettoes, socializing among themselves, and interacting "with other populations only at work" (Mufwene 1999:250). It is quite possible that in connection to this some linguistic patterns started to be used as signs of identity or "ethnic markers" (Mufwene 1999: 251) within the relatively homogeneous urban African American communities all across the US.14 Thus, it seems that part of the differences between AAE and Southern White English today are due to separate evolutions over the past century, which means that on the whole the sociohistorical backgrounds support the hypothesis that AAE has been diverging from white vernaculars primarily since the beginning of the twentieth century. 1.5

The divergence of AAE from other varieties of English

Labov and Harris (1986: 2) were the first to state that "[t]he English spoken by Black Philadelphians is quite distinct from that of Whites, and the differences appear to us to be increasing". This result was replicated several times by Labov and his associates (Ash and Myhill 1986; Myhill and Harris 1986, Graff, Labov, and Harris 1986) as well as independently, based on data from Texas, by the research group around Guy Bailey (Bailey and Maynor 1987, 1989). Further, Rickford (1999c) reports similar findings from East Palo Alto.15 From this angle, "existing differences between black and white speech are accounted for not by decreolization but by a process that might be considered as contemporary 'neocreolization'" (Schneider 1989: 21). The central linguistic features that are assumed to be divergent are invariant be (Bailey and associates) and third singular and possessive -s, and the copula (Labov and associates), while Rickford (1999c) analyzed all of them. On the contrary, some features are also reported to remain stable or in fact converge with the white ones, as for example plural and past marking (Rickford 1999c). The fact, however, that black speech is becoming different from white in some respects has larger implications because this indicates that the segregation of the ethnic groups in the US is still great, although attempts have been made to integrate black people into mainstream US society. If divergence on the whole "could ultimately be proven correct, both the social and the linguistic consequences to be drawn would be great, indeed" (Schneider 1989: 21). Rickford (1999d: xiii), on the contrary, tries to emphasize the positive side of this development: "Accelerated AAVE use ... and scathing criticism of those who "talk white" are part of a symbolic statement of today's young people of awareness and pride of their African American identity." But he also calls for greater time depth in the consolidation of the findings: "... although we have very nice work going on in modern-day speech communities, we have a real challenge to go back in time, both to the historical records and as far as

Sources for the historical reconstruction ofAAE

9

possible to all of the other available evidence to see what was going on" (Rickford 1987: 60).

1.6

Sources for the historical reconstruction of AAE

Rickford's last statement does not necessarily refer only to the diachronic investigation of the divergence claim, but can also be read in a more general way, namely that there is a certain need for data that can be used in order to account for the historical evolution of AAE. Along similar lines, the common practice of comparing present-day AAE to present-day white southern vernaculars or English-based creóles in order to make inferences on the possible origins of AAE does not stand on solid ground. Such an approach would imply that language varieties hardly change through time. The obvious prerequisite for the investigation of historical development of AAE is first of all the documentation of temporal development within AAE on the basis of early sources and the comparison of the results drawn from these data to present-day AAE. Further steps would include similar procedures for Southern white vernacular, which has already been done to some extent by Bailey (1997), and English-based creóles. Only then does it become possible to make reasonable conclusions about the historical development of AAE and its putative parallels to other varieties of English. For some time the problem about such an approach was the dearth of available data. Some ten years ago, Schneider (1989: 2-3) stated: Our factual knowledge of earlier forms of Black English is highly unreliable and anecdotal. It is based on a very limited amount of material the reliability of which is more than questionable, such as literary representations of the dialect in earlier centuries, travelers' reports, diaries, letters, newspaper announcements, and the like. If we ask for substantial descriptions of earlier stages of the black dialect based on a large amount of valid material, all we can notice is an absence of reliable data. However, in the last two decades some sources have been unearthed that provide us with various types of material that have turned out to be reliable to some extent. Apart from literary attestations, the first source used was the exslave narratives (Rawick 1972), on selections of which, e.g., Brewer (1974) and Schneider (1982, 1983, 1985, 1989) are based. Further, Bailey and his associates have discovered audio-recordings of former slaves, which have been analyzed in a variety of publications (e.g., all articles in Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991, most articles in Poplack, ed. 1999, Schneider 1989,1997a). Viereck (1988, 1989) and Ewers (1999) investigated interviews with hoodoo priests (Hyatt 1970-1978), and Poplack (1999: 3) reports that "[collections of personal correspondence of eighteenth- and nineteenth century African Ameri-

10

Introduction

cans are currently being unearthed and mined for the light they can shed on earlier stages of African American English" (Kautzsch 2000, Montgomery 1999; Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse 1993; Montgomery and Fuller 1996; Van Herk 1998, 1999a). Finally, "researchers have begun focusing on the language of the 'African American Diaspora' - synchronic recordings of transplanted varieties of African American English - as a means of reconstructing the diachronic status of AAVE" (Poplack 1999: 4). These recordings are primarily analyzed by Poplack, Sankoff, and associates (e.g., Sankoff and Poplack 1987; Poplack and Tagliamonte 1989, 1991, 1994; all articles in Poplack, ed. 1999).16

1.7

The aims of the present project

There is, however, one aspect that is striking: Except for the ex-slave recordings, all of these sources have been used only in isolation, and this leads us to the aims of the present project. In order to provide a broad basis for the description of the historical evolution of AAE I will analyze several early sources in combination. The first part of this study deals with sources that represent spoken Earlier AAE. They are selections of written ex-slave narratives (Rawick 1977/79; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976), of Hyatt's early and late interviews with people involved in hoodoo (Hyatt 1970-1978), and of the ex-slave recordings (Bailey at al. 1991). Chapter 2 will give a detailed account of these sources, identify the selections I have made, and assess the methodological possibilities of this combined corpus or Earlier AAE. In this context, one of my claims will be that it is possible to use written transcriptions of interviews as representations of speech. Chapters 3 to 5 are the analytical parts based on the "spoken" subcorpora. There, I will investigate the evolution of three grammatical structures of Earlier AAE, viz. negation patterns, the copula, and relativization. Finally, in chapter 6, I will add two sets of early letters written by African Americans in the nineteenth century, that is, selections from Wiley 1980, Miller 1978, Berlin et al. 1982,1985, 1990,1993) and compare the three grammatical patterns mentioned above across Earlier African American speech and writing. In the first place, this study will deliver results that contribute to the description of the historical evolution of Earlier AAE, but naturally it will also touch upon the origins issue and the divergence hypothesis. In more general terms, this project can of course also be understood as a methodological model for the historical analysis and documentation of other nonstandard varieties.

A final note on terms 11

1.8

Afinalnote on terms

I have silently used the terms African-American English and Earlier AfricanAmerican English above without commenting. By means of these terms I refer to varieties of English spoken by African Americans in the present and past. In using Earlier AAE for varieties of the nineteenth and early twentieth century I follow Schneider's (1989) 'Earlier Black English Vernacular". The second possible term is Early AAE used by Brewer 1974 and Poplack and associates (Poplack, ed. 1999). Neither Earlier AAE nor present-day AAE can be regarded as one single variety but rather as a bundle of varieties that vary along regional and social lines. The present-day variety of AAE that is spoken by the "socioeconomically lower class" of African-Americans (Schneider 1989: 5) is usually referred to as African American Vernacular English. However, in recent publications AAVE and AAE seem to be used interchangeably, the former probably stressing the working-class setting, the latter emphasizing that it is not a straightforward task to identify the vernacular exactly. Table 1.

Internet search hits for "African American English", "Black English", and "Ebonics" in five search engines

altavista.com google.com lycos.com metacrawler.com17 yahoo.com

"African American English" 1,025 701 1,007 42 349

"Black English" "Ebonics" 5,832 3280 15,689 45 2,037

14,491 8,439 13,519 81 5,593

Finally note that these terms are almost entirely academic ones. Most African Americans would possibly name their speech "Black English" or - in line with the latest discussion in the media - "Ebonics". This tendency is actually supported by an internet search I did for web-sites on AAE (cf. table 1.). Interestingly, "African-American English" only yielded a minority of hits, while "Black English" and even more so "Ebonics" delivered most of the hits by far.

Chapter 2 Data and methods

As noted above, this study will first analyze five sources of Earlier AAE that are likely to represent speech. As a first set of data I use a selection of ex-slave narratives collected by the WPA project in the 1930s. These are still worth studying, I think, especially if one focuses on Rawick's (1977/79) second edition of The American Slave. The second subcorpus comprises a selection of a previously unanalyzed edition of narratives collected in Virginia, which participated in the national project only to a very limited extent. These interviews were edited and published independently by Perdue, Barden, and Phillips (1976) under the title Weevils in the wheat: interviews with Virginia ex-slaves (reprinted 1992). The next part of my corpus is the set of taperecorded ex-slave narratives published by Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991) in The Emergence of Black English. On the one hand, these recordings can be seen as a very valuable source in their own right, but I think they are even more important as a basis for comparison to other similar sources. Finally, I will include two samples from transcriptions of recorded interviews which were collected among hoodoo priests and people involved in magic by the white folklorist Harry Middleton Hyatt. The first part consists of interviews conducted in the 1930s and early 1940s, while the second part comprises interviewsfromthe 1970s. Hyatt published his early and late transcripts together as Hoodoo - Conjuration - Witchcraft - Rootwork (Hyatt 1970-1978). In the following sections I will describe these "spoken" subcorpora in more detail and give an outline of my methodology. 2.1

Mississippi samples from the ex-slave narratives Rawick (1977/1979) [WPA MS]

Part one of the present corpus is the first of two centered around the activities of the Federal Writers' Project (FWP) in the 1930s. The FWP was a subdivision of the Works Progress Administration (WPA; renamed as Works Projects Administration in 1939; Maynor 1988: 119, fh. 1), which succeeded the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) in 1935. The main aim of the FERA was to support people who had become unemployed during the great depression in the 1920s. But when fundings decreased because of low productivity, they changed their concept and name and continued as the WPA. Their structural change was mirrored by the fact that from then on only people who were "qualified in the fields of Arts, Music, Drama, and Writing" were employed (former FERA Director Henry L. Hopkins,

Mississippi samples from the ex-slave narratives

13

quoted after Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: xiv). The task of people working for the Federal Writers' Project was to participate in various projects which in the first place were supposed to yield "a comprehensive and panoramic American Guide, a geographical-social-historical portrait of the states, cities, and localities of the entire United States" (Yetman 1967: 544). With regard to the present study, there was one activity of the FWP that is of some importance for the reconstruction of earlier stages of AAE: the collection of ex-slave narratives. Asking former slaves about their experience of the "peculiar institution", however, was not a national or federal project from the outset. Rather, this type of field work started in 1929, more or less simultaneously at Fisk University, Nashville, Tennessee, and Southern University, Louisiana, in order to add a new dimension of evidence to conservative American historical research. At Fisk University, it was a student, Andrew P. Watson, who began to interview elderly former slaves between 1927 and 1929. As a result of his research, a volume titled God Struck Me Dead: Religious Conversion Experiences and Autobiographies of Negro Ex-Slaves was published in 1945, and reprinted as Volume 19 of Rawick 1972 (Perdue 1976: xi). Another book which was reprinted in Rawick 1972 as Volume 18 is called Unwritten History of Slavery and appeared originally in 1945, too. It contains 37 interviews from Tennessee and Kentucky, conducted by an Ophelia Settle, who was also based at Fisk University in the Social Science Institute. Southern University in Louisiana was the second locality where ex-slave narratives were collected. There, students of the historian John B. Cade handed in 82 interviews in 1929 and 1930. Cade seems to have been so fascinated by the idea of studying 'history from below' that he did a similar project at Prairie View State College from 1935 to 1938, during which 400 (!) interviews are said to have been collected. Unfortunately, - at least to my knowledge - these remain unpublished to the present day and are housed in the Southern University Archives at Scotlandville, Louisiana (cf. Perdue 1976: xii). In 1934 a first attempt was made to receive official funding for this kind of project: Lawrence D. Reddick at the Kentucky State Industrial College at Frankfort obtained money from the FERA to conduct a pilot study in which 12 African American interviewers were sent to the Ohio River Valley to interview former slaves. At a second stage, 500 African American fieldworkers should interview all ex-slaves in the south. This project, however, did not get beyond the planning stage. Nonetheless, Reddick's efforts yielded a total of 250 interviews conducted in Indiana and Kentucky. Of the whereabouts of this material we only learn that it is or was in Reddick's possession (cf. Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: viii).

14

Data and methods

After the FWP was created, the collection of ex-slave narratives started in the local Writers' Projects in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Virginia. Only after John Lomax, at that time widely known as a field collector of folk song, was appointed National Advisor on Folklore and Folkways for the FWP in 1936 did the ex-slave narrative collection gain momentum. April 1937 could be regarded as its official starting date. This was when Lomax sent out his instructions on conducting interviews and handling dialect to 18 southern states (cf. Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: xiii-xv). In these instructions and in later ones Lomax repeatedly demanded that the interviewers record speech accurately, but at the same time he asked for some standardization of dialect in order to provide easy access to the average reader (cf. Rawick 1972: 173178).18 So far we have no idea of how many interviews were conducted on the whole. What we do know, however, is that 17 states sent in over 2,200 narratives. These were to be published by a unit of the Library of Congress, which was established in 1939 under the lead of Benjamin A. Botkin. But this group "only" managed to sort and arrange the interviews by state and alphabetically by informant and finally placed 17 bound volumes in the Rare Book Room of the Library of Congress. After a small publication of some excerpts by Botkin (1945), the ex-slave narratives lay dormant until George P. Rawick heard of their existence and published them in 1972. From the outset, this publication was both celebrated and criticized. On the one hand, this material is unique as regards content and form. On the other, it is probably partly problematic in such respects as, for example, informant-interviewer relationship and subsequent editing of the transcripts. Some scholars hold the opinion that ex-slaves interviewed by white southerners probably may not have told them their whole story but rather what the "master class" expected. Furthermore, it has been shown by Maynor (1988), for example, that passages with unwanted contents were changed or deleted by the people who were in charge of sending the interviews to the national office in Washington. The usefulness of the ex-slave narratives as linguistic data depends on a variety of issues. I will shortly discuss the necessary restriction of investigations to certain levels of language as well as problems of subsequent editing of the narratives, of how well they represent natural speech, and, in connection to this, the selection of interviews. The first issue to be considered when using the transcribed ex-slave narratives for linguistic investigations is the question of which levels of language can be studied in a reliable fashion. If spoken data are not phonetically transcribed but written in regular orthography, it is always problematic, though not entirely impossible, to analyze them on phonological grounds. This is

Mississippi samples from the ex-slave narratives 15 supported by extra-linguistic evidence through a statement in Lomax's instructions: In order to make this volume of slave narratives more appealing and less difficult for the average reader, I recommend that truth to idiom be paramount, and exact truth to pronunciation secondary, (quoted in Rawick 1972: 176) Along these lines Lomax also asked the interviewers to produce a unified graphical representation of dialect. According to this, interviewers were told to avoid transcriptions like "ah" for "Γ or "bawn" for "born", but on the other hand the dialect transcribed should also be standardized so that, for example, "de" was suggested to be used for "the" throughout (cf. Rawick 1972,1: 178). I agree with Schneider (1989: 48-49) that "it would be problematic to delve into phonological questions on the basis of these materials" but "a study of morphological and syntactical features is not seriously affected". The next very serious issue concerning the reliability of the ex-slave narratives is that in some cases the local editors or typists in the respective states changed the contents or omitted material before sending the transcripts to Washington. This was discovered by Rawick himself when shortly after his 1972 publication appeared he returned to the narratives in the Rare Book Room, read them again and reported: ... I was most struck by the fact that for many states we had only a small number of narratives. Most particularly, I noted that there were only 174 pages of narratives for Mississippi, a total of twenty-six interviews. This total, I felt, could hardly represent more than a mere sample .... I surmised either that the project had been deliberately curtailed by those who did not want such material in existence or that the bulk of the collection had never been sent to the national offices of the Federal Writers' Project... and might still be somewhere in Mississippi. Both guesses turned out to be correct. (Rawick 1977, vol. 6: xxi). Rawick immediately started to collect all extant narratives in the archives of the states that had participated in the earlier project. This effort yielded another 22 volumes in two Supplement Series of ex-slave narratives, partly published in 1977 (Series I: vols. 1-12) and 1979 (Series Π: vols. 1-10). For linguistic analyses, then, it seems necessary to select the interviews only from Rawick's Supplement Series, especially since Maynor (1988) expressed serious doubt about the reliability of the earlier volumes (Rawick 1972). She compared interviews which had been published both in Rawick 1972 and 1977/9, found evidence for editing19, and concluded that the "versions of the narratives published by Rawick in 1977/79 are probably more reliable than the versions published in 1972" (Maynor 1988: 118).

16 Data and methods A third issue concerns the question of how well the transcripts of ex-slave narratives represent natural speech. As mentioned above, Lomax had repeatedly instructed the interviewers to record the narratives as authentically as possible. But in a number of cases the interviews were "typed in the standard language or in indirect speech", which shows that "some of the interviewers did not accept the respective part in the instructions" (Schneider 1989: 50). A likely explanation for this is a lack of willingness to produce dialect transcripts on the side of the interviewers. A second reason might be a lack of ability to write in nonstandard English, but this has been convincingly argued against by Schneider (1989: 49) because "the staff of the FWP consisted of trained and experienced writers whose professions qualified them fully to write down the text of an interview on the spot...". Thus, in order to find reliable narratives it is necessary to choose on the basis of the interviewers' ways of rendering dialect in their transcripts. But even if the narratives display a number of nonstandard features, doubts have been raised about their representativeness of Earlier AAE by Maynor (1988), Wolfram (1990), Montgomery (1991), and Dillard (1993). Maynor (1988) compared Rawick's two publications with "taped interviews with thirteen former slaves" (Maynor 1988: 116), which are now widely known as the ex-slave recordings, and concluded that "neither of these collections [i.e. the two Rawick sets] should be considered anything approaching verbatim records of speech" (Maynor 1988: 118). This demand is based on the distribution of the present tense forms of be across grammatical persons. Maynor (1988) found that despite some parallels the differences between the tapes and the written narratives make "the representation of the present tense of be in the WPA narratives ... questionable" (116). Parallels are for example that "are is never used in the first person singular and almost never in the third person singular" (Maynor 1988: 116). As far as differences are concerned, Maynor found a "capricious use of am" (Maynor 1988: 116) outside the first singular only in the written narratives. Further, "the distribution of is and zero ... raises questions" because is is used in first person singular contexts and zero occurs at higher rates in the third person singular than in the second person singular and in the plural (Maynor 1988: 116). Maynor's objections on the whole are valid. However, Schneider (1997) convincingly argues that "[e]ven if indirect and distorted in detail, the slave narratives are renderings of real ex-slave speech" (36). He distinguishes between four textual layers which the narratives are composed of: (1) "verbatim notes taken on the spot during the interview", (2) "statements remembered and taken down accurately after the interview", (3) '"filling material invented' by the writer", and (4) "portions created by a fieldworker ... that were never said" (Schneider 1997: 37). Schneider considers the second issue to

Mississippi samples from the ex-slave narratives

17

be the most important one for linguistic analyses because this is the stage at which the fieldworker produced a full text from his/her notes. He is confident that "we can expect a fairly high to average degree of correspondence between this part of the record and the words as originally spoken" (37). Further, the third issue does not refer to "fully fabricated" language, either, but rather to "imagined language ... based upon a single historical experience" (37). Thus, the narratives are at least impressions of natural speech written down during or shortly after a conversation and it is very likely that an interviewer who was willing to record dialect was able to produce a close rendering to speech. As a result from the above discussion, the first obvious step in selecting interviews for linguistic analyses is to exclude Rawick (1972) on account of its minor reliability as opposed to Rawick (1977/79). Second, it is necessary to find interviewers who reliably recorded what they heard. Schneider (1989), for example, performed a pretest on the use of be in various interviews, in order to be able to rate the interviewers' "willingness to record dialect forms in general" (54). Quite differently, I will assess the fieldworkers' ability by extralinguistic considerations in combination with intuitive judgments of the naturalness of the language represented. It seems appealing at first to select interviewers on an ethnic basis, that is, to use only those interviews conducted by African Americans. The assumption here is that black fieldworkers might have been better than whites because their relationship to the informants was possibly closer and interethnic tensions did not play a role during the interview. In the "General Introduction" to the Supplement Series Rawick (1977: xliii-xliv) names all African American interviewers he could identify in each state. Table 2 lists them together with the references for the interviews they conducted. However, all of them turned out to be of little linguistic value because they are either written in the third person singular or in essentially standard English. Schneider (1989: 59) reports similar results from his pretest for interviews from Rawick (1972) and provides two explanations for the black interviewers' lack of willingness to transcribe dialect: First, ... many blacks, especially educated blacks, have a negative attitude toward black dialect. Second, in the difficult economic situation of the 1930s ..., a black staff member of the FWP may have been more inclined than a white to demonstrate one's ability to write in Standard English rather than produce a transcript of EBE [Earlier Black English] (Schneider 1989: 59)

18

Data and methods

Table 2.

Survey of African American interviewers in Rawick (1977/79)

Comment both Standard Supplement Series I, vol. 1, pp.19 and 76 English Standard Supplement Series I, vol. 1, p.254 English all Standard Supplement Series I, vol. 3, pp. 62, 111, English 134 Supplement Series I, vol. 5, pp. 80, 82, 89, all Standard English 116,169,229 Supplement Series I, vol. 1, pp. 77,212, all 3rd person 239, 254,438 Supplement Series I, vols. 6-10, pp. 183, 313, 361, 532,575,1183,1328,1349, Ethel L. all 3rd person 1471,1474,1731,1854,1883, 2206, Fleming 2339, 2387 Supplement Series I, vols. 6-10, pp. 877, both 3rd person 1158 Will Strong both Standard Supplement Series I, vols. 6-10, pp. 1532, English 1536

State Interviewer Samuel S. Taylor AK Pamella Anderson Minnie B. GA Ross Anna IN Pritchett Louise AL Porter

MS

References (Rawick 1977/79)

Thus, the only option that remains for a selection are white interviewers who were willing to preserve black speech in their transcripts. This naturally increases the likelihood of interracial bias during the interviews, especially when considering the social and ethnic conflicts in the Southern US in the 1930s. But it has also been shown that whites were quite capable of successfully interviewing blacks, as for example Henry Faulk, one of the interviewers of the ex-slave recordings of the Archive of Folk Song (cf. 2.3), who gives detailed accounts of his fieldwork in an interview with Jeutonne Brewer (Brewer 1991). Further, Rawick himself (1977: xxxi) states that "[a] few interviewers seem to have been particularly concerned about and competent in the rendering of speech patterns", and also Ken Lawrence20 in his introduction to the Mississippi Supplements in Rawick (1977/79) mentions two ladies who were "district supervisors" and "experienced writers". Their names were Maijorie Woods Austin and Edith Wyatt Moore, both located in Mississippi: Austin in Meridian, Moore in Natchez. In collecting ex-slave narratives, they "sought detail and color and encouraged the ex-slaves to volunteer anecdotes" (Lawrence 1977/79: lxxxv-lxxxvi). When elaborating on dialect usage in the Mississippi narratives, Lawrence stresses that "[n]one of the dialect in these narratives can be considered authentic" because "[t]he interviewers had been instructed in the 'proper' renderings, and most strove to comply" (Lawrence 1977/79: xciv).21 But this does not seem to apply to Austin and Moore. A

Mississippi samples from the ex-slave narratives 19 strong awareness of the existence of varieties of English is neatly documented for Austin. She wrote a protest letter to the FWP headquarters in Washington, DC, questioning the standardization of dialect as suggested in Lomax's instructions: Never in my life have I ever heard a negro say de for the. To spell it so gives the wrong eye-sound. If they drop the t, they say der (deh.) However, since "de" seems to be part of Washington's idea, fine, I'm using it - under protest. ... I have changed uv to of wherever possible. It depends on the content. Sometimes negroes say uv for of and again they use er for of, it depends on the next word, (quoted after Lawrence 1977/79: xciv-xcv), [italics are mine]. Edith Wyatt Moore's willingness to produce natural transcripts of speech is not documented in her correspondence. But after Lawrence's evaluation of her work and after reading her interviews, it is safe to assume that she took her job as seriously as Austin did. The results are transcripts that my intuition rates as very reliable. In order to support this, the passage below illustrates Moore's capability of rendering black speech: I was born one night an' de very next mawin' my pore little Mammy died. Her name was Lucindy. My pa was William Davenport. When I was a little mite dey turned me over to de granny nurse on de plantation what tended to de picanninnies. She got a woman to nuss me who had a young baby so I didn't know no difference. Any woman what had a baby 'bout my age would wet nurse me sol growed up in de quarters en wuz ez well en happy ez any other chile. (Charlie Davenport; Rawick 1977/79: 558) The text contains a variety of nonstandard grammatical features like what as relative marker, multiple negation va. I didn't know no difference, or regularized past tense forms like in I growed up. Further, Moore also tried to preserve nonstandard pronunciation for example in mawnin', nuss, or chile. However, the presence of, for example, standard who or any also hint at the fact that she did not exaggerate nonstandard usage, which was reported to be a severe problem in Rawick's (1972) first publication of the ex-slave narratives (cf. Maynor 1988; and note 19 above). Thus, I include all 17 narratives recorded by Moore and Austin in my selection from Rawick (1977/79). Six ex-slaves were interviewed by Moore (5 men, one woman) and eleven by Austin (7 men, 4 women). The informants were born between 1833 and 1862. Six of them came from AL, two from GA, seven from MS, one from NC, and one from WV, but were all interviewed in Mississippi. For a more detailed list of Austin's and Moore's interviewees used here, see appendix 1.

20

2.2

Data and methods

The Virginia WPA project [WPA VA]

The second set of data is a selection of ex-slave interviews conducted in Virginia in the 1930s. In 1936 the national office of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) approved a project that was to document African American history in Virginia. "By the time the national project began" in April 1937, the Virginia Writers' Project had already collected a "considerable number of interviews" (about 60) and the whole research was "virtually completed by midsummer 1937" (Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: xx). The project leader, Roscoe Lewis, however, did not send all of his material to Washington, and only 15 narratives from Virginia were published in The American Slave (Rawick 1972, vol. 16). So far Lewis's reasons for holding back most of the 300 (!) interviews conducted have not become clear (Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: xx). Lewis possibly wanted to make the narratives available to a larger audience, which he could not guarantee by sending them to Washington. Similarly, Carolyn Dillard, Director of the Georgia Writers' Project, reported to the National Director Henry G. Alsberg in April 1937: "Enthusiasm about making these interviews has somewhat waned since we had no definite plans for publication..." (quoted in Yetman 1967: 552). Almost 40 years later, a group of historians, with Charles L. Perdue in the lead, started a project that now claims to have published "all of the extant exslave material" collected in Virginia in the 1930s in Weevils in the Wheat (Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: xxxvi). The narratives from Purdue's "Virginia project" seem promising as an improved documentation of earlier African American speech especially because there was one female interviewer, who, as we will see, was apparently a particularly gifted and successful fieldworker. A further reason supporting the quality of this collection might be that almost the entire staff of interviewers were African Americans. Thus, interethnic tensions between interviewer and interviewee were probably low. However, as has been shown above (2.1), for social reasons black interviewers were not likely to produce verbatim transcripts of their dialect. In WPA VA, however, standardized and third person narratives are rare, but their quality would have to be assessed in more detail in a separate study. For the present purpose I restrict my selection to the interviews of one outstanding fieldworker. Perdue and his associates discovered "about 450 pages of interview material - all or part of 159 interviews representing 157 informants". Weevils in the Wheat now contains "penciled notes and handwritten accounts of interviews ... and one transcription from an aluminum disk recording"22 plus "some material from The Negro in Virginia, both published and manuscript versions" (Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: xxxvi). Perdue, Barden, and Phillips's editorial methods as a whole appear absolutely thorough: they tried to present the interviews in a form as close to the

The Virginia WPA project 21 originals as possible. To this end, they plausibly assumed that "penciled notes are older than penciled interviews, that penciled interviews are older than typed interviews, and that material contained in the first draft of The Negro in Virginia is closer to the original than material on the same subject in subsequent drafts". When there are "both notes and finished interview for an exslave, we have presented both. Where we have a penciled interview and a typed interview, we have used the penciled copy". They left "misspellings, grammatical errors, errors in capitalization, and errors in punctuation where [they] felt no confusion would result." (Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: xxxix). Editorial additions and emendations appear within brackets, while comments by workers appear in parentheses. Thus, Weevils in the Wheat constitutes the most reliable verbatim representations of the interviews available. The background information about the Virginia project and about the publication of the narratives includes two major issues that establish the high linguistic value of this collection. First, the collection of narratives in Virginia began in 1936, about one year before the interviews published in Rawick's volumes were conducted. This means that Lomax's instructions for the standardization of dialect, which were sent out in April 1937 (cf. 2.1), did not play a major role in the collection of narratives in Virginia. Thus, we can assume that those interviews that contain dialect do so on a very natural and idiosyncratic basis. Second, judging from Perdue, Barden, and Phillips's editing procedures, which are based on an assessment of the temporal sequence of the manuscripts and typescripts available, the Virginian narratives as published here are as close to the original interview as possible. Thus, subsequent editing, as in the case of Rawick (1972), does not play a role here. However, similar to Rawick's volumes, those narrative that are not based on audio recordings result from penciled notes which were taken directly during an interview and combined to produce a text later. Thus, we are facing the same problem here as with Rawick's publications and other narratives of this type: probably not all interviewers were equally willing to use dialect in writing. Thus, in selecting informants I follow earlier practice and choose on the basis of the quality of the fieldworker from extra-linguistic evidence. One interviewer, Susie R. Byrd, especially stands out; in written accounts she describes how she moved into the neighborhood of her informants, made herself acquainted with them, and arranged regular group meetings, during which the members of the ex-slave community told stories, sang songs, and had meals together. Byrd took notes and when possible recorded the stories on aluminum disks. Two written records of hers were found in which she gives insight into her daily work (Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: xxxv; xxxviii;

22

Data and methods

Appendix 8): Roscoe Lewis occasionally joined these ex-slave meetings and brought a recording machine. As indicated above, it is not possible to say which of Byrd's interviews were actually transcribed from aluminum disks and which were simply taken on the spot. But the mere fact that some of them are based on audio-material makes this source enormously valuable. In short, Byrd comes very close to what we call a participant observer today. Therefore, we can assume quite safely that the usual problems affecting the reliability of slave narratives are considerably reduced in her case. My selection comprises a total of 35 narratives, that is, all interviews conducted by Susie R. Byrd24, plus the one transcription by Perdue of the narrative recorded on aluminum disk mentioned in note 22. 22 of the ex-slaves here were women and 13 men. 31 of them were born between 1835 and 1863, while the birth years of the others remain unknown. For a detailed listing of these interviews see appendix 1.

2.3

The ex-slave recordings [ESR]

The third part of my corpus are the well-known recordings of ex-slaves, the transcriptions of which were published in Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (eds. 1991). They are an indispensable source for the present study because they represent the earliest available spoken evidence of AAE. Before their publication statements about Earlier AAE speech could only be made on the basis of written material, as for example the written ex-slave narrative. Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991b) have extensively described the recordings as far as their content, reliability and validity, fieldwork and composition of the transcripts are concerned. Thus, I will only give a short survey of these factors. These ex-slave recordings, which have been widely used for linguistic analyses, are part of the "Recordings of Slave Narratives and Related Material", stored at the Archive of Folk Song of the Library of Congress. Because of linguistic considerations, Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (eds. 1991) excluded some of the material from publication: recordings of "unnamed singers", all interviews with ex-slaves who give nothing but their names and ages25, and one interview with a woman called Irene Williams, which is actually an "oral performance". Further, Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila had to dismiss two more interviews (with Annie Williams and an unnamed "colored fellow") because of bad sound quality (cf. Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 4).26 In addition, I exclude Wallace Quarterman from my analysis because he is a speaker of Gullah from the Sea Islands off the coast of South Carolina and Georgia (cf. Rickford 1991a). Thus, there remain 10 taped interviews with 11 former slaves (6 men, 5 women), who were born between 1844 and 1861 and interviewed between 1935 and 1974. Four informants each were born in

The ex-slave recordings

23

Alabama and Texas, one each in the states of Virginia and Louisiana, and one in Liberia. One interview each was conducted in Maryland, Louisiana, and Florida, three in Alabama and four in Texas. For a survey of the relevant data see appendix 1 and Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991b: 6) Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila stress that it is not the transcripts which they see as the basis for linguistic analysis but rather the audio material itself: the transcripts only "serve as a guide to the contents of the recordings" (1991b: 14). They are the "product of nearly four years of work" and went through five stages of auditing. After listening to them twice, background noise was filtered out. During the fourth auditing, Bailey and Maynor included the comments of the contributors to the prospective volume (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila, eds. 1991), who had been asked to compare the first drafts of the transcripts to the tapes. Finally, Bailey compared the transcripts of the filtered and unfiltered versions (cf. Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 14-15). The editors indicate doubtful parts of the material by underlining them in the transcripts. Parts which were hard to hear are marked as "[unintelligible]". Moreover, Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila refrained from using "quasi-phonetic spelling" (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 16) because phonological variation could not really be grasped by this technique. Thus they decided only to indicate the "absence of initial unstressed syllables and final consonants with an apostrophe" as well as "morphological and syntactic variation" (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 16). Besides the obvious advantages of the ex-slave recordings, Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991b) consider five factors which touch upon their validity and reliability as a source of Earlier AAE. The first obstacle to the statistical representativeness of this sample is its size, which is probably too small to base valid conclusions on (cf. Rickford 1991a). Second, the interviewees may have been "those who had relatively good relationships with whites" because those with poorer relationships to whites would not have been willing to be interviewed (cf. Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 6-7). Third, the house servants are overrepresented, and it has been widely held that their vernacular was much closer to the language of their masters than the field hands' speech (cf. Dillard 1972). But Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila argue that the social gap among the slaves did not have such an enormous impact on the slaves' speech habits as has been widely assumed (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 7-10). A further issue that might have affected the speech of the informants is the fact that many of them were free tenants for most of their lives. The linguistic consequences here are complex because the tenancy system was responsible for geographical stability, contributed to a weakening of possible class distinctions within the African American community, and increased black and white

24

Data and methods

day-to-day contact on an economic basis. Thus, it is likely that after emancipation we find a situation that "provided a variety of language learning and language contact environments" (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 11). The last important factor for the reliability of ESR is the interview situation. Since none of the fieldwork "was done primarily for linguistic purposes", the results appear to be less accurate than those of modern sociolinguistic fieldwork (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 12). Still, some of the interviewers belonged to "the best known folklorists in the United States (e.g., the Lomaxes and Zora Neal Hurston)" (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 13) or were people with a deep understanding of southern and black culture (like John Henry Faulk) (cf. Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 3, see also Brewer 1991). However, the interviews remain somewhat less reliable than present day recordings because early equipment was awkward to handle and impossible to conceal. Furthermore, too much concern from the local authorities about whites conducting interviews in a black community and partly paternalistic behavior of some of the interviewers could have spoiled the naturalness of the interview (cf. Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991b: 13). Nonetheless, these recordings are an invaluable source for the reconstruction of Earlier AAE , especially when comparing them to other types of linguistic data from the same period, such as the ex-slave narratives, both from Virginia and elsewhere, or Hyatt's 1930s interviews with people involved in hoodoo.

2.4

Samples from Hyatt's hoodoo interviews [HOODOOl and H00D002]

The last two parts of my corpus comprise a selection of interviews with people involved in hoodoo. These interviews were conducted in the late 1930s and early 1940s and in the 1970s by Harry Middleton Hyatt, an American Episcopal priest. Between 1970 and 1978 this material was published in five volumes with a total of more than 4,000 pages, containing 1,606 (!) interviews with one white and 1,605 black informants. Hyatt had been involved in the study of folklore for a long time. While collecting material for his Folklore from Adams County Illinois (FACI; Hyatt 1935), he realized that in the United States a lot of folklore concerning magic and superstition could be found. Thus, he decided to limit the scope for his subsequent project to witchcraft and rootwork performed by black people (Hyatt 1970-1978, Introduction to vol. ΠΙ: XIV). This restriction to black informants is based on the fact that in the South it was not possible for him to work among blacks and whites at the same time because of social tensions. Thus, he began with interviewing black people because he thought "that

Samples from Hyatt's hoodoo interviews

25

blacks, with less educational opportunities than whites, would preserve more witchcraft traditions and current practices" (Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. ΠΙ: XIV). The area where he did his research comprised a total of 13 states (New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, DC, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida).27 But, this choice was not exclusively based on assumptions on where to find the best material but also to some extent on essentially private needs because this was the area where Hyatt's wife could be with him (Hyatt 1970-1978, Introduction to vol. I: XV; cf. also Introduction to vol. ΠΙ: XIV). Although Hyatt knew that he "lacked both scientific training and guidance out in the field", he obviously did very well (Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. IV: Π). He mentions three experiences in his life which were essential for his success: the study of family history, church work in the slums of several cities, and the collection of folklore for FACI. He believed that these "helped [him] to understand how to deal with real people in face-to-face situations" (Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. V: I), to accept them as individuals, and to understand their feelings and fears. Hyatt's main concern for the interviews themselves was to establish a situation "as natural and familiar as possible" (Bell 1979: 16) because only then would the informants be able to talk about delicate matter like hoodoo. Thus, he always chose a "private black home or a downtown Negro hotel" as "recording site". But also other factors contributed to a relaxed atmosphere. First, Hyatt regarded himself as someone who wanted to learn from his informants (Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. ΠΙ: XVII). Second, he was not a Southerner, which convinced his informants that he did not want to spy on or arrest them (cf. Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. I: XXXI). Third, Hyatt always employed a local contact man, often a taxi driver, whose job it was "to locate and informally interview those whom he felt might make good informants" (Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. V: IV). The people actually had no reason to mistrust Hyatt and could comfortably tell him what he wanted to know. A further reason for the people's willingness to tell Hyatt about their practices might have been the fact that he paid them according to the amount and quality of their information (cf. Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. ΙΠ: XVI; vol. V: ΠΙ). Hyatt recorded his initial interviews by means of an Ediphone, which was capable of scratching speech on aluminum disks. Its big disadvantage was that it had a speaking-tube, rather than a microphone, which was not very sensitive. One had to speak very precisely and had to be very close to the tube in order to avoid background noise. Thus, Hyatt just repeated into this speaking-tube everything his informants said, which, as he admitted himself, was a veiy awkward procedure. Later, Hyatt traded in the Ediphone for a Telediphone2 ,

26

Data and methods

which came with a microphone, but also consisted of two large cases, recorder and amplifier, and thus added to Hyatt's transportation problem (Hyatt 19701978: Introduction to vol. I: XX). Nonetheless, the Telediphone was an enormous improvement on Hyatt's interviewing technique: All these and other reliefs permitted me to think during an interview and to participate in it. I could also concentrate upon the speaker: study him, follow his story carefully, seek details and ask for repetition. (Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. I: X) Finally, Hyatt even started to conceal the microphone under an old black hat in order to avoid his informants acting out in front of the microphone (cf. Hyatt 1970-1978: Introduction to vol. V: IV). After Hyatt had finished his fieldwork, the interviews were transcribed by an expert transcriber (Hyatt 1970-1978, Introduction to vol. I: I). Unfortunately, the original recordings were destroyed after transcription because of storage problems, which may have been one reason why Hyatt went back to Florida in the 1970s to do some fieldwork again: he wanted to prove that he could do it. The circumstances for these late interviews differed a little from the earlier ones. First, Hyatt restricted himself to the state of Florida. Second, he recorded his interviews by means of a cassette recorder, which most likely increased the quality of the data. Third, it had become more difficult to find people who were willing to talk about witchcraft. A reason for this may be that in the 1970s black people were better off than in the 1930s/40s, so that there was no need for them to earn extra money by telling a white priest their stories. Finally, Hyatt himself reports that he approached his informants in a different way in the 1970s than he had done in the 1930s/40s: The second time around I was much more interested in the individual as a total personality; I was less interested in collecting a mass of separate rites. ... There were fewer workers to be interviewed, but I could interview the few in much more depth and detail than I had previously. (Hyatt 1970-1978; Introduction to vol. 5: VIII). This change of attitude is also mirrored in the way these late interviews are edited: they are long dialogues with one white and thirteen black informants (cf. part 2 of volume V). The early interviews had mostly been split up according to content; that is, Hyatt grouped small parts of interviews by various informants under the heading of a certain rite or spell. In fact, in the early data there are only 119 complete interviews out of the 1606 (cf. Ewers 1996: 19; Hyatt 1970-1978: vols. 2 and 3). All interviews from the 1930s and 1940s are published in volumes one to four and in the first part of volume five of Hyatt (1970-1978). The later inter-

Samples from Hyatt's hoodoo interviews 27 views appear in part two of volume five. For the rest of this study, the two sets will be referred to as HOODOOl and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 . On the whole, the HOODOO interviews seem to lend themselves neatly to linguistic investigations for two reasons. First, the transcripts seem to be highly reliable because they were done by one person from audio material, which could be replayed or discussed when passages were unclear: "There are places where you have to go back, sometimes two times, and play it to get the exact wording" (Hyatt 1970-1978: vol. V: 4699). Moreover, Ewers (1996) compared some of the surviving recordings to the transcriptions and found "close correspondence between the transcribed material and the sound recordings" (28). Second, Hyatt's fieldwork must be regarded as very good. He tried to create "a situation as natural as possible", hired a contact man, accepted his informants as individuals, chose the interview venues appropriately, did not conceal his purposes, and even hid his microphone. Moreover, he was often seen as a colleague by his informants and the topics they were talking about very often involved emotions. Taken together, almost all of the prerequisites for a sociolinguistic interview were met. Despite these qualities, one objection may be raised against the value of Hyatt's fieldwork and that is racial bias. Informants might feel uncomfortable when talking to a white person and their speech habits might be influenced by the interviewers speech (cf. Shuy et al 1968: 119). But it has been shown that this problem does not affect the data here (Ewers 1996: 25-30). First, the informants occasionally call Hyatt honey, mah boy or brother, which indicates that they seemed to trust him and were relaxed during the interviews. Second, it appears that Hyatt's speech influenced his informants' speech only marginally in the case of word choice. For instance, Hyatt reports that: "In the following rite he [an informant] begins with the word urine because I had evidently used it..., but he soon returns to his usual chamber lye" (Hyatt 1970-1978: 1970). Hyatt's influence on the informants copula usage has been studied by Ewers (1996: 30) and she concludes that "in most cases where Hyatt does use a standard fee-form, the informants' answers/comments directly following these passages either do not contain any ¿¿-form at all or, on the contrary, the informants even use a nonstandard form". In my selection of informants I largely follow Ewers (1996), who chose old or at least middle aged speakers - 50 to 70 years old - with a low level of education and a minimum length of interview (51).29 There are two reasons why I did not select a different set of informants. First, for my subsequent analyses of temporal developments it is necessary to know the age of the informants, at least roughly. But because age did not play a major role for Hyatt, the age of only 135 informants out of 1,605 can be inferred from textual evidence in HOODOOl and for only 9 in H 0 0 D 0 0 2 (Ewers 1996: 40, 55),

28

Data and methods

which obviously restricts choices. Second, the basic setup of Ewers' samples from HOODOO 1 and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 matches the other sub-corpora in my study and facilitates comparison. However, I excluded two of Ewers' informants (newyowol and marymal, a woman from New York and a man from Maryland) from HOODOOl from the analysis. They were recorded by Ediphone, which produced only low quality recordings (cf. above). Therefore, their interviews cannot be regarded as reliable data, especially when considering that the Telediphone recordings alone can provide a more realistic sample. This means that from HOODOOl I use 49 informants (27 men and 22 women), all of whom were born between 1850 and 1890. They are distributed over 10 Southern states (AL, AK, FL, GA, LA, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA) and Washington, DC. The H 0 0 D 0 0 2 sample comprises 5 informants born between 1909 and 1920, who were all interviewed in Florida but originated from FL, AL, and SC.30 For further details see and appendix 1. 2.5

Linguistic evaluation of the subcorpora

The five sets of data described above add up to about 469,500 words, by 117 people from mostly uneducated, rural backgrounds originating from 14 southern states (AK, AL, FL, GA, LA, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA, DC, and WV). Their birth years range from the 1830s to 1920 (cf. Table 3). When taken together, these subcorpora are large and variable enough for the study of variation in the English spoken by African Americans in the American South in the period under scrutiny. Before explaining the analytical possibilities of such a broad sample of Earlier AAE, I will shortly elaborate on the practical prerequisites of presentday corpus sampling and the issues of the representativeness and validity of these sources. As is well known, corpus linguistics or empirical linguistics can basically be seen as a linguistic method that uses real life data to describe and account for language phenomena. This technique dates back to the first half of the twentieth century and is closely connected to the linguistic school widely known as structuralism. But this empirical branch of linguistics became a little outdated and was overtly attacked, when Noam Chomsky entered the field in the late 1950s. In his early works (Chomsky 1957, 1965) he sharply criticized the use of corpora for linguistic analyses because in his opinion any corpus was partial and skewed and therefore, or above all, performance data are a very improper representation of what he was interested in: the competence of an idealized native speaker.

Linguistic evaluation of the subcorpora Table 3.

29

Overview of sub-corpora used

Sub-corpus WPAMS (Rawick 1977/79, selection) -32,000 words WPAVA (Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976, selection) ~ 42,500 words Ex-slave recordings (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991) - 33,500 words HOODOOl (Hyatt 19701978, selection) - 245,500 words H00D002 (Hyatt 19701978, selection) - 116,000 words

Informants / text types 17 (Moore: 5m, If; Austin: 7m, 4f) • transcript of sp.lg. by prof. writers (f) 35 (22f, 13m) • transcripts of narratives • 1 transcript from audio-rec. in 1976

Birth dates 18371862

Interview dates 1937 1 undated

Birth places MS, SC, AL, NC, GA, WV 2?

Interview location MS

18361863

1937 2 possibly 1939 13 undated

VA INC

VA

10 narratives by 11 1844people (6m, 5f); 1861 • 1 speaker of Gullah excluded • ling, transcripts of audio-rec. (filtered) in 1980s/90s 49 (27m, 22f) 18551890 • transcripts of (partly recorded interestiviews (1940s, mated) expert, non-ling.) 5 (3m, 2f) • transcripts of cassette recorded interviews (1970s, expert, non-ling.)

19091920 (partly estimated)

10 from GA, VA, GA, MD, 1935-1944 TX, LA, TX, LA, AL, FL 2 from 1974 AL, Liberia

late 1930s to AL, AK, early 1940s FL, GA, LA, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA, DC 1970s FL, AL, SC

AL, AK, FL, GA, LA, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA, DC FL

TOTAL - 4 6 9 , 5 0 0 WORDS

Since his criticism seemed to be valid to some extent at that time, the use of empirical data for language studies became somewhat despised in certain linguistic circles. But from the 1980s onward, modern computer technologies facilitated a renaissance of corpus linguistics since part of Chomsky's criticism

30

Data and methods

waned when it became possible to store huge amounts of data and analyze them much faster by means of linguistic software applications as opposed to mere reading half a century ago. But even with these practical tools at hand, some of the objections against using corpora still have to be kept in mind when compiling or using corpora for linguistic analyses: the fact that a corpus is partial - i.e. that it does not contain all possible utterances of a variety - and therefore skewed, can not really be ignored. But with carefully sampled modern corpora ranging from 1 million (as for example the Brown, LOB, Frown, or FLOB corpora) to 100 million words (as for example the British National Corpus), this concern is becoming less problematic. Moreover, it has been shown that, for example in the analysis of phenomena with considerable frequency, it is not really necessary to use extremely large corpora because the patterns in which they function materialize in smaller-sized corpora as well (cf. e.g. Biber 1993, de Haan 1992). However, Chomsky's second objection concerning the validity of performance data to model competence has had some impact on late twentieth century corpus linguistics: today it is widely accepted if not required that a corpus for a certain variety should be compiled carefully in order to render such a sample a close approximation of the variety under scrutiny, or as McEnery and Wilson (1996) put it: In building a corpus of a language variety, we are interested in a sample which is maximally representative of the variety under examination, that is, which provides us with as accurate a picture as possible of the tendencies of that variety, including their proportions. (McEnery and Wilson 1996: 22) Applied to the corpus used in the present study, this would mean that the subcorpora I will use in the subsequent analyses should have been sampled carefully in order to be able to represent earlier stages of AAE. Thus, according to modern corpus linguistic theory, such a corpus should comprise an evenly distributed amount of linguistic data from people selected randomly according to their regional origin, social class, age, and gender. According to Crowdy (1993), it is even essential for informal language sampling to be based on demographic principles. That such a corpus for the present study is mere utopia is obvious: When dealing with historical data one has to be content with what is available. In the case of the present project, the availability issue becomes even more important. First, the aim here is to study a nonstandard historical variety of English, which minimizes sources to a tiny amount. Second, part of my data are written or taped records of speech (WPA VA, WPA MS, ESR, HOODOOl, and HOOD002), which are also not easy to find. Third, the written part of my corpus (cf. Chapter 6) of nonstandard Earlier AAE is limited by the socio-historical

Linguistic evaluation of the subcorpora

31

fact that most of the slaves in the US were not allowed, or even prohibited by law, to learn reading and writing. In short, the data available on the whole here are fairly limited - as opposed to other language varieties - which makes careful sampling in its modern sense fairly difficult if not impossible. This means that for historical informal data sampling procedures have to be adapted to the natures of the particular sources and this leads us on to the serious issues of the representativeness and validity of the sub-corpora used here. In this context, representativeness refers to the capability of a certain source of covering as many of the facets of the English spoken by African Americans as possible. Validity asks how trustworthy these sources are in containing the natural speech of African Americans. Bailey (2001) lists quite a number of "sources of data on Earlier AAVE". He convincingly rates the representativeness of the complete WPA ex-slave narratives as "good", the hoodoo texts as "fair" only, since the sample is restricted to hoodoo people, while the ex-slave recordings get a "poor" because of their small size (cf. Table 4). Table 4.

Bailey's (2001) ratings for the WPA narratives, the hoodoo texts, and ESR

Source complete WPA narratives hoodoo texts ESR

Representativeness good fair poor

Validity poor good good

As far as the validity of these sources is concerned, Bailey labels both the exslave recordings and the hoodoo texts as "good", while the complete WPA narratives are held to have a low validity for a study of Earlier AAE. What do these ratings mean for the representativeness and validity of the data I use for the present study? Since I only use selections from these sources, the representativeness rate might drop a little for each of my subcorpora. But taken together, the five sets I am using may reasonably well represent a wide range of Earlier AAE. The more serious question, however, is the one about validity. I agree with Bailey that the problems about the validity of the ex-slave recordings and the hoodoo texts are minor ones. But his rating of the WPA narratives as a whole is probably too negative. It is possible to arrive at a good or at least fair validity rate if one consciously selects interviews from the WPA narratives, and towards that end, the "quality of fieldwork" method, as I applied it here, is very likely to deliver good samples.31 The ex-slave narratives in Perdue, Barden, and Phillips (1976) (WPA VA), which do not occur in Bailey's list, would have to be rated as representative for Earlier AAE in VA only. Their validity may vary according to fieldwork quality but can still be

32

Data and methods

assumed to be higher than the total of the ex-slave narratives published by Rawick. The fact that I have selected interviews from Perdue at al. (1976) reduces the representativeness of my selection as opposed to the whole volume, but, along the lines indicated above, considerably increases the validity of the interviews I use. From the perspective of modern corpus sampling, the sub-corpora for the present study might not be optimally compiled, since almost every part has its own sampling preferences and neither delivers an evenly distributed amount of speech from speakers of AAE. Nonetheless am I convinced that I was able to show in the paragraphs above that, by combining these different sources, both representativeness and validity of my total corpus for Earlier AAE can be rated as "good" at least and that is something that the sub-corpora rated separately cannot attain. 2.6

Methodological possibilities of a combined corpus of Earlier AAE

The broad set-up of the data described above opens up very interesting possibilities for linguistic investigations. In the present section I will outline the basic design of the analyses in chapters 3 to 5, which will follow a certain pattern throughout. A first step will be the comparison of the subcorpora. Second, the data will be used to describe diachronic developments. Third, the regional distribution of variants will be taken into account. And finally, variation across gender will be demonstrated where possible. 2.6.1 Comparison of subcorpora A comparison of certain linguistic features across subcorpora is capable of assessing how similar or different the sets of data are. On the one hand, linguistic similarities may demonstrate that the choice of informants as described above has indeed yielded a reliable sample of Earlier AAE. On the other hand, cases in which the subcorpora differ from each do not necessarily hint at the fact that the choice of informants is not reliable. Instead, it is likely that diversity across subcorpora stems from unsystematic grouping of the informants by data set. It will be shown that a more reasonable picture of variation within Earlier AAE emerges when the informants are rearranged systematically according to other extra-linguistic factors such as decade of birth, state, or gender (cf. 2.6.2 to 2.6.4, below). Further, it has been hinted at above that the use of transcribed interviews as sources for spoken data is to some extent problematic. By contrasting the data from my subcorpora to data from modern-day sociolinguistic interviews, it will be possible to assess to what degree my data can be seen as representing speech.

Methodological possibilities of a combined corpus of Earlier AAE

33

2.6.2 Studying change in progress - apparent time analyses When we study linguistic performance in apparent time, we usually assume that it is possible to analyze a sample of speakers from different age groups at a certain point in time and regard their different ages as being representative of different temporal stages in the development of a variety. This is, of course, connected to the assumption that the language of a speaker does not change considerably through time. The problem with this approach is two-fold: first, we can not be absolutely sure that the linguistic habits of a speaker does not change through time; second, we do not know exactly when the formative period in language acquisition is over. That is, we cannot exactly calculate the period represented by a speaker born in year x. Did s/he acquire his/her full competence at the age of 5 or 6 or 10? We simply don't know. However, in historical linguistics and the study of language change we need some device to account for change over time, especially if we do not have enough real time data to represent the periods under scrutiny. And this is why the apparent time construct - despite its obvious limitations - has to be applied, especially since its validity has been convincingly established, for example by Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991c), Thibault and Daveluy (1989), Trudgill (1988), and Yeager-Dror (1989). Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991c), for example, compared apparent time data from their "telephone survey of Texas with real time data from the Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States" collected some 15 years before the survey. As a result they report: Whenever the apparent time data in the telephone surveys clearly suggests change in progress, the atlas data show substantially fewer innovative forms. Whenever the apparent time data suggest stable variation, the atlas data are virtually identical to that from the more recent surveys. (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991: 241). On account of the nature of the data used in the subsequent analyses, the fashion in which I apply the apparent time model here is somewhat different from its traditional use. As mentioned above, the usual way is to observe different age groups simultaneously at one point in time and when "the observations are extrapolated as temporal, the result is an 'apparent-time' study" (Chambers 1998: 193). Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991c), for example, distinguish between four age-groups: 18-29, 30-44, 45-61, and 6295. Since the data in my sub-corpora were collected at different points in time (1930s, 1940s, 1970s), such a procedure is not possible here. Instead, I distribute all informants from the five sub-corpora according to their birth years. This assembles speakers who had about the same language acquisition period, irrespective of the time they were interviewed. I am aware of the fact that this classification is to some extent imprecise because of the uncertainties

34

Data and methods

involved in the temporal details of first language acquisition hinted at above. Alternatively, one could, for example, add 5 years to all informants' birth years in order to get closer to their language acquisition periods. But this would include assumptions that cannot be proved for each individual. To refer to the birth years, I think, is the most unbiased way of studying change in progress in such a rich set of data. Table 5 surveys informants and amount of data per decade. The informants are distributed in ten-year-steps starting in 1833 and ending in 1924.32 A list of the informants for the respective periods can be found in appendix 2. Table 5.

1833-44 1845-54 1855-64 1865-74 1875-84 1885-94 1905-14 1915-24

Informants and sample size by year of birth WPAMS WPAVA ESR HOODOOl H 0 0 D 0 0 2 Total Words (rounded) 4 5 1 10 35,500 5 3 11 1 20 36,000 7 15 3 14 39 81,000 13 13 54,000 14 14 100,500 7 7 36,000 2 2 52,000 3 3 64,000 -

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

—

—

-

-

What emerges from the table is that every decade has a substantial amount of data, with a minimum of 35,500 words in the first decade. This means that the five subcorpora taken together promise to document temporal changes or stable variation through time on a very thorough basis. As side-effects it might also be possible, on the one hand, to document general processes or mechanisms of linguistic change. On the other hand, this approach will also be able to test the hypothesis, brought forward, for example, by Bailey (1987; 1993), Bailey and Thomas (1998), Labov (1998), and Mufwene (1999), that AAE as we know it today is a phenomenon that did not develop before the late nineteenth century. Interestingly, Bailey (1997) argues for a similar time frame for the development of today's Southern American English as spoken by whites. Unfortunately, my corpus does not include informants for the period around the year 1900, but this is a shortcoming one can live with considering an otherwise enormously close-knit timeline of almost one century, as visualized in Figure 2, which shows the informants' birth year ranges in each subcorpus.

Methodological possibilities of a combined corpus of Earlier AAE

35

• H00D002 • HOODOOl AESR XWPAVA XWPAMS

1820

Figure 2.

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

Overview of birth years by sub-corpus

2.6.3 Analysis by state As early as 1972, Labov observed that AAE consists of a "whole range of language" varieties (Labov 1972b), and also Troike (1973), known to me only through Mufwene (1999: 250), "calls for the study of regional variation in AAVE" (Mufwene 1999: 250). More recently, Rickford (1997), Winford (1997, 1998), and Mufwene (1999) have extensively surveyed the sociohistorical circumstances in the southern states of the US from early colonization up to the early twentieth century. The common denominator of these articles seems to be that different settlement patterns, different economic and agricultural structures, as well as "demographics suggest varying linguistic developments of the colonies" (Mufwene 1999: 245). Along these lines it is highly unlikely that AAE was a homogeneous variety from the outset. A more realistic picture might be to see it as a conglomeration of regional varieties that developed according to the different "ecologies" (Mufwene, e.g., 1999) in the respective settlement areas. This regional diversity has been shown by Schneider (1989: 227-256) on the basis of 20 linguistic features in his sample from the ex-slave narratives (Rawick 1972), which covers nine southern states. He found that "the core of the Deep South" - that is, MS, AL, GA, and SC - "is a very homogeneous region", which is "linguistically set off in particular from [its] northern neighbor, Tennessee" (255). North Carolina is also separated from its neighbors (SC and TN) to some extent. Of the three "western states" in Schneider's sample (MO, AK, TX), MO and AK are relatively similar to TN, while TX "repeatedly prefers the form of the range of the southern states", that is MS, AL, GA, and SC (255).

36

Data and methods

Obviously, my combined subcorpora also lend themselves neatly to testing regional diversity in Earlier AAE, especially since they include, for example, informants from LA and VA, two states which, to my knowledge, have not been investigated linguistically before in the context of Earlier AAE.33 Table 6 surveys the number of informants and the amount of data available for each state. Table 6.

Informants and sample size by state35

State WPAMS WPAVA ESR HOODOOl H 0 0 D 0 0 2 Total Words (rounded) 23,500 TX 5 5 61,000 LA 1 8 9 AK 1 1 2,500 MS 7 7 15,500 TN 6 6 41,000 AL 6 1 1 41,000 3 11 GA 2 6 8 34,000 FL 1 3 2 6 36,000 SC 10 2 119,000 12 NC 1 2 2 5 16,000 VA 32 1 7 40 69,000 WV 1 1 3,700 DC 1 1 1,000 MD 4 4 6,800 On account of textual evidence, I had to relocate one of the ESR informants and six of Ewer's (1996) informants from both HOODOOl and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 : Charlie Smith (ESR) was born in Liberia and introduced by the interviewer as "Charlie Smith, old-time slave of Bartow, Florida." (Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991: 107). But he came to Texas in his early childhood and probably acquired his version of AAE there ("He raise me, in Texas, Galveston, Texas where I was raised in." Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991: 107). Thus, I include him in the Texas sample. FLORWOME seems to have spent considerable time in her youth in AL: "Mama use to bring us from Alabama to Gran'ma on Christmas. (Uh huh.) Yo' see, that's the only time we use to come to Florida." (Hyatt 1970-1978: 4547). She appears as AL_fA in my data. - VIRGW08 is relocated to NC (NC_fl). Cf. Hyatt's description at the beginning of the interview: "Norfolk, Va., Wed., June 16, 1937 informant 494A - Mrs. Griffin at B e r k l y - f r o m Bertie Co., N.C. - R.D. [root doctor]." (Hyatt 1970-1978: 1309), [my italics].

Methodological possibilities of a combined corpus of Earlier AAE

-

37

GEORMA2: "My informant is from South Carolina." (Hyatt 19701978: 895) SC_m9. FLORMA1: "Now, dose herbs ah've got but dey don't grow in dis country hardly evah; dey grows out in mah country, South Carolina.... (Were you born in Beaufort?) Ah was born right out in Beaufort side, right under de three cedar tree in [on] de ole King Parrish Place." (Hyatt 1970-1978:1414) SC_mlO. FLORMANA: Hyatt asks this informant: "Have you been back to South Carolina in recent years - back in your old country where you were brought up?" (Hyatt 1970-1978:4525) SCmA. - FLORMANC: "Ah have not bin [been] tuh So' Ca'lina since then. ... ah "magine ah was about nine yeah ole. About nine yeah ole." (Hyatt 1970-1978: 4615). SC_mB. For a detailed list of informants by state see appendix 3. Obviously, all states except three (AK, WV, MD) and except Washington, DC, are represented in my corpus by a reasonable amount of data and/or informants. Thus, a second step in each analysis below will be an attempt at finding linguistic similarities between states. One factor that might help to explain possible connections is the demographic set-up of states with respect to the numeric relationship between blacks and whites. That is, it might be expected that in states with a high proportion of African Americans the rate of typical non-standard linguistic forms is higher than in states with lower proportions of the black population. The assumption behind this is that African Americans who had closer contacts to whites were possibly more likely to acquire a closer approximation of white speech. Of course, demographics can only indicate the degree of contact that was possible and not the contact between ethnic groups that actually took place on a permanent basis. It is very likely that segregation between blacks and whites persisted irrespective of demographics (cf. e.g. Wolfram, Hazen, and Tamburro 1997). Further, it has been shown by Kautzsch and Schneider (2000) that even micro-demographics, that is, population proportions on county level in this case, sometimes suggest stronger regional linguistic differences than there actually are. Thus, on the whole a clear correlation between black and white population figures and linguistic patterns is not to be expected. However, it might be useful to have the demographic details at hand when comparing the data by state. Table 7 surveys the range of black population percentages by state for 1830 to 1920, which is roughly the period covered by my overall corpus (cf. 2.6.2., above). Demographic data are drawn from two publications of the U.S. Bureau of the Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1918,1976). The figures in both are identical. Appendix 4 includes the demographic details for the respective states from the first census in 1790 up to 1970 by decade.

38

Data and methods

Table 7. TX37 1631%

Range of black population percentages by state from 1830 to 192036

LA 3959%

MS 4959%

TÑ 1826%

AL 3948%

GA 4147%

FL 3350%

SC 5161%

NC 3038%

VÄ~ 3043%

2.6.4 Gender differences A commonplace in sociolinguistics is the assumption that female speech differs from male speech, at least in western cultures.38 More precisely, it has been shown in many studies of varieties of English (and other languages) that "[i]n stable sociolinguistic stratification, men use a higher frequency of non-standard forms than women" (Labov 1990: 205). Some studies confirm these gender differences in AAE (e.g. Wolfram 1969; 1970: 253; Anshen 1969; Shuy, Wolfram, and Riley 1967, 3: 19, 34; Labov 1972b; Tagliamonte and Smith 1999: 16139), others find no such correlations between gender and the use of stigmatized nonstandard forms (Fasold 1972: 215-16; Brewer 1974: 151). Schneider (1989: 257-259) analyzed 20 variables of Earlier AAE along the lines of gender and comes to the conclusion that "there are some sex-related language differences in EBE [Earlier Black English], yet not with all variables and not in all cases in a uniform direction" (259). Table 8.

Gender distribution across sub-corpora (number of informants and amount of data) male female total Ν words Ν words words Ν WPA MS 12 (25700) 5 (6300) 35 (32000) WPA VA 13 (42500) (12000) 22 (30500) 17 ESR 6 (16000) 5 (17500) 11 (33500) HOODOOl 27 (121000) 22 (124500) 49 (245500) H00D002 3 (80000) (116000) 2 (36000) 5 Total 61 (254700) 56 (214800) 117 (469500) (52%) (54%) (48%) (46%)

In my subcorpora male and female informants are distributed as shown in Table 8. Although the amounts of data contributed by male and female speakers differ considerably in three subcorpora (WPA MS, WPA VA, HOOD002), this disproportion in sample size is evened out when using all five sets in combination (54% male as opposed to 46% female). Therefore, a third step in some of the analyses below will be an investigation across gender.

Summary

2.7

39

Summary

By combining a variety of different sets of data, the following analyses of three grammatical structures of Earlier AAE are likely to deliver at least four types of results. First, it will be shown to what extent the five sources can be regarded as being representative of speech. Second, it should be possible to document change in progress within Earlier AAE over a period of almost one century in apparent time. Third, my corpus is capable of documenting regional variation within Earlier AAE, and fourth, an analysis across gender is also quite promising. All in all, the data I have assembled here seem to be capable of expanding our knowledge of Earlier AAE considerably. I agree with Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991a: ix-x) in that it is necessary "to address a number of important issues about the construction and interpretation of linguistics texts that are generally ignored in creole studies, dialectology, and variation studies", that is, "we need to consider our texts from a variety of points of view" and "to examine those texts in light of other relevant evidence". Thus, for the present study in particular it is important to be aware of the heterogeneity of the sources and to introduce as many factors as possible into the interpretation of the findings.

Chapter 3 Negation patterns in Earlier AAE

3.1

Introduction

The present chapter studies various negation patterns found in the five "spoken" subcorpora (WPA VA, WPA MS, ESR, HOODOOl, and HOOD002). Section 3.2. on verbal negation first analyses the distribution of ain't and its standard counterparts. Then I will study the distribution of ain't according to its various functions. Sections 3.3. to 3.5. deal with negation patterns which include indeterminate items. The combination of (negated) auxiliary and type and position of indeterminate item, i.e. the standard ones any, anything, etc. or the nonstandard ones no, nothing, etc., delivers three basic patterns: negative concord, negative attraction and negative postposing, which together were labeled "negative transfer" by Labov (1972a). Thus, 3.3. on the one hand studies the application of negative concord - where a negated predicate is followed by one or more nonstandard indeterminates - as opposed to the standard pattern. On the other hand, a study that to my knowledge has not been conducted before will analyze the variability of negated auxiliaries in indeterminate contexts, both standard and nonstandard. The findings here will cast some light on the use and choice of certain auxiliaries with certain indeterminates in AAE and also indicate a change through time. The last two parts deal with the application of mainly standard English negation patterns, negative attraction (3.4.) and negative postposing (3.5.). A final summary (3.6.) compares the various possibilities for negation with indeterminates, both standard and nonstandard, and sets out to describe the factors that are responsible for this variability. These factors that might influence variability actually determine the structure of each chapter. This means that I will first of all look at the data grouped by subcorpus, which in my opinion is only good as a starter but cannot be taken to explain variability and changes on a larger scale. Things begin to become interesting, indeed, when all subcorpora are put together and sorted by a factor other than "subcorpus". In my analyses, these factors will be "apparent time", "state", and "gender". That is, I will show that with some patterns we clearly see a change of preferences through (apparent) time, in some cases regional differences account for the variability of a feature in the total corpus, and in still others there are gender tendencies that are responsible for a certain patterning of the data.

Verbal negation 41 3.2

Verbal negation

3.2.1 The distribution of ain't and its standard counterparts 3.2.1.1 Verbal negation by subcorpus In analyzing verbal negation patterns in affirmative sentences in the subcorpora, I counted the absolute frequencies of full verb negation, copula negation, and negation of perfectives as exemplified in (1) to (27) below. The frequencies are shown in Table 9. Examples40 for full verb negation, copula negation and negation of perfectives full verb negation do/doej+NECH-V(inf) (1) I don' like to talk 'bout back dar. (CHARLES CRAWLEY, Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 79) ain't (present)+V(inf) (2) I hop' ya ain't wanna kno' much mo' 'cause I 'bout through. (ISHRAEL MASSIE; Perdue et al. 1976: 210; WPA VA) (3)

..., dese ole white folks think us poor colored people is made to wuck an ' slave fer dem, look! dey ain' give you no wages worth nothin'. (MINNIE FOLKES; Perdue et al. 1976: 95; WPA VA)

+

negation of perfectives

ain't (copula, past)

1835 -44 1845 -54 1855 -64 1865 -74 1875 -84 1885 -94 1905 -14 1915 -24

copula negation \

ain't (past) + V(inf)

ain't (pres.) + V(inf)

full verb negation

ain't (copula, present)

Table 21.

22 (31,9) 32 (53,3) 36 (35,6) 21 (60,0) 49 (65,3) 18 (90,0) 9 (50,0) 10 (52,6)

2 (2,9) 0

24 (34,9) 16 (26,7) 38 (37,6) 2 (5,7) 1 (1,3) 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

7 (38,9) 2 (10,5)

M & & > S C 00 δ + 8 (11,6) 5 (8,3) 10 (9,9) 10 (28,6) 24 (32,0) 2 (10,0) 2 (11,1) 5 (26,3)

Ν 69 60 101 35 75 20 18 19

This takes us to the two functions that have been reported in the subcorpora analysis to be the predominant ones: ain't (copula, present) and ain't (perf., pres.) + V(pp). Table 21 indicates a steady change of frequencies of these two functions, which is depicted in Figure 4. The figure shows that ain't (copula, present) on the whole is the more popular function throughout the period under study and it seems that the increase in frequency of one of the two is directly connected to a decrease in frequency of the other. Thus, in the first decade, both appear almost equally often. Then ain't (copula, present) starts to take the lead (1845-1854), but in the time around the beginning of the Civil War, the two approximate each other again. From after the Civil War until the 1890s it seems that ain't (perf., pres.)+V(pp) will be lost eventually, but its usage increases after the turn of the century only to drop again to about the 10 percent mark.

58

Negation patterns

Figure 4.

Frequencies of ain 't (copula, present) and ain 't (present+V(pp)) over time

At the same time ain't (copula, present) does the opposite and ends at about 50 percent in the last decade. Surprisingly, this seems to be something like a final equilibrium in the struggle between the two functions because, if we consider Weldon's (1994) figures (cf. Table 20: 53.8% ain't (cop. pres.) and 10.1% ain 'f+V(pp)) we see that they are virtually identical to mine from this last decade (52,6% and 10.5%, respectively). Maybe - and I know that I am only speculating - this can be seen as a linguistic reflection of steady relocation and mixing of African Americans from various parts of the American South before and after emancipation, which only came to an end in the first half of this century. This apparent time study, I think, also has implications on a more general level. What we see here is in fact an extraordinary documentation of the mechanisms of language change over time. Due to the limitation of the corpus we do not know anything about the functions of ain't before 1835, but we are faced with no less than eight (!) different functions in the first period (18351844). Then the past copula function is no longer used, reducing the variability of ain't to seven different functions for two decades (1845-1864). After this the two full verb negation patterns with ain'M-V(pp) are lost and then ain't is no longer used as a (minor) variant of don't and didn't. These losses reduce the functions of ain't to only two or three around the turn of the century. But it appears from what we see in the last decade and know from present-day AAE that something started again in the realm of full verb negation: ain't for didn't will start to rise. What we have seen is that once a variety develops certain variants - in this case they are not variants of form, like e.g. -s and -th for third person singular in Early Modern English, but of function - there comes a time when the number of variants becomes reduced to those used most frequently.

Verbal negation 59 This, however, does not mean that the process terminates at a given point in time. Speakers may as well rediscover an old function and start using it again, which strongly reminds us of a similar rediscovery of certain phonemes in New Zealand English as documented by Gordon and Trudgill (1999). They call those features "embryonic variants", i.e. they have been present in a variety for a long time but only recently have they started to be used more frequently. Thus, in AAE ain't for didn't could easily be labeled an "embryonic variant of a function of ain't".54 What is indeed interesting is that the variants to which the functions of ain't were whittled down around the turn of the century were exclusively English auxiliary usages. But the variant that is being boosted today - the "embryonic variant" ain't for didn't - is not found in any other dialect of English and we might indeed see this linguistic development as an act of identity within the post-1920s African American community.55 Similarly, Gordon and Trudgill (1999) identified certain phonemic variants in New Zealand English as being rediscovered if they did not have a specific regional English connotation but rather a neutral one, so that they could become sounds typical of New Zealand English. 3.2.2.3 The functions of ain 't by state From the statewise distribution of the functions of ain't in Table 22 we see that ain't (copula, present) clearly is the predominant pattern in seven out of ten states (GA, SC, TN, TX, LA, NC, FL). In AL, VA, and MS ain't (perf., pres.)+V(pp) is of about equal weight, which makes these three states more similar to each other than to the rest. Similarly, judging by the second important function of ain't in the remaining seven states, they can be grouped in one area where ain't got is the runner-up (GA, SC, TN, LA, NC) and another where ain't (perf., pres.)+V(pp) is the second most popular (the two "newer" states of FL and TX). Admittedly, the data for FL and TX may be insufficient to delimit a linguistic area consisting of these two states. Moving on to the minor functions of ain't it can be shown that the two instances for ain't (copula, past), which died out very early (cf. 3.2.2.2), come from MS and TX. Next, ain't (perf., pres.)+V(pp) for full verb negation seems to be restricted to VA, with an additional 4 tokens from MS and AL. Finally, ain't for both don't and didn't occurs in VA, GA, and SC; TX and FL add two instances to the former, AL one to the latter. Thus, the function being rediscovered today is a residue basically from the older states of VA, AL, GA, and SC. Again, if we try to connect this to demographics, we see that states which deliver this pattern include both black majority states (SC) and minority states (VA). Thus, once again population statistics are not a very important factor here.

60

Negation patterns

Table 22.

The functions of aiti 't by state

full verb negation +

AL GA 1 (2,9) FL 1 (5,3) SC 1 (2,1) TN

negation of perfectives

+

CO .s β δ > VA 2 (1,6) MS

copula negation

S·

3

/-Ν CU

Οι ^ & •S '-S· ,s > J κ > β + δ > δ + . 6 13 9 (7,3) (4,9) (10,6) 3 (7.3) 1 1 (3,5) (3,5) 2 (5,7)

1 (2,1)

TX 2 (12,5) LA NC

δ? r•ί* s09 •δ S β Û41 (33,3) 14 (34.1) 12 (41,4) 20 (57,1) 11 (57,9) 28 (58,3) 18 (62,1) 11 (68,8) 36 (69,2) 11 (78,6)

è

e s•s ä « α.

1 (2.4)

1 (6,3)

!•ϊ* +« S

•Säe δ &> 41 (33,3) 18 (43,9) 10 (34,5) 5 (14,3) 6 (31,6) 4 (8,3)

2 (12,5) 5 (9,6) 1 (7,1)

gη j-e s«o > δ + 11 (8,9) 5 (12,2) 5 (17,2) 7 (20,0) 1 (5,3) 14 (29,2) 11 (37,9)

Ν 123 41 29 35 19 48 29 16

11 52 (21,2) 2 14 (14,3)

3.2.2.4 The functions of ain't by gender Table 23.

The functions of ain't by gender

full verb negation tà U

copula negation 1

negation of perfectives 4-Ϊ ai h «

ain't (cc

past)

ain't (co

present)

V(pp) Ί

ain't +

ain't +

+V(inf)

ain't (pa

+V(inf)

ain't (pr

ci. d /-V R* & S3 S,> i l 3. s+i > Ν f 3 (1,5) 6 (2,9) 9 (4,4) 10 (4,8) 102 (49,3) 44 (21,3) 33 (15,9) 207 m 4(1,9) 4(1,9) 7 (3,4) 102 (48,8) 2 (1,0) 52 (24,9) 38 (18,2) 209 (χ =4.22; not significant for the three main categories) he/she > NPs > relative pronouns121. However, Labov Deletion delivers a different hierarchy: indefinite pronouns (83%) > NPs (63%) > relative pronouns (38%) > he/she (29%) Nevertheless, this hierarchy is not completely different from the one gained by Straight Deletion: the only subject type that considerably changes its position from the second rank to the fourth is he/she, the relative order of the remaining three subject types is identical. A comparison across studies concerning the subject types of indefinite and relative pronouns is hard to obtain since these are always conflated in an "other pronouns" category - probably together with demonstratives - , which in the hierarchies calculated by Rickford et al. (1991: 74) ranges between personal pronouns and NPs with Straight Deletion and at the end of the hierarchy with Labov Deletion. In principle, it would be very interesting to see if analyses of creóles and modern sources of AAE display these more detailed hierarchies, too. Of course, it would be necessary in such studies to calculate by both formulas. I will now move on and test if contracted is has hierarchies of subject types similar to zero. From Table 66 we learn that he/she (145) favors contraction to a higher degree than NPs (146) do regardless of the formula applied.122

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 125 (145) Yes. She's in the young bunch. (Harriet Smith, Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991: 80) (146) God's gwine 'rod dem wicket masters. (MINNIE FOLKES, Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 94) The only exception is again WPA VA where no token of contracted is (Straight) is found after he/she and therefore NPs favor contraction more than the personal pronouns. Table 66.

Percentages of contracted is after he/she and NPs

a) Straight Subject type

WPA VA he/she + contr. (%) (0) NP + contr. (%) (6) indef. pron. + contr. rei. pron. + contr.

WPA MS (67) (13)

ESR

WPA MS (89) (27)

ESR

(75) (33)

HOODOOl (69) (11)

HOOD002 (51) (15)

Total corpus (63) (17) (8) (17)

HOODOOl (96) (29)

HOOD002 (86) (19)

Total corpus (92) (26) (47) (28)

b) Labov Subject type

WPA VA he/she + contr. (%) (44) NP + contr. (%) (16) indef. pron. + contr. rei. pron. + contr.

(100) (53)

If we now include the percentages for indefinite (147) and relative (148) pronouns in the total corpus to the two hierarchies, the differences increase: Straight: he/she > NP = rei. pron. > indef. pron. Labov: he/she > indef. pron. > rei. pron. > NP (147) ... if anybody's in dere an' yo' want 'em to git killed... (GA_f7, Hyatt 1970-1978: 1550) (148) ... his hart's an' his [spirit] will go on the man who's tryin' tuh git away... (TN_f4, Hyatt 1970-1978: 1119) Although in both patterns he/she are the subject type that most favors contraction - and therefore the relative order of he/she and NPs holds - indefinite and relative pronouns change places.

126 The copula in Earlier AAE Comparing this to Rickford et al.'s (1991: 72) results, theirs are more homogeneous than mine: regardless of the formula they apply the hierarchy is always: personal pronoun > other pronoun > noun phrase This might again result from their combination of is and are as well as from their pooling of all non-personal pronouns. Nonetheless, what we can safely state is that personal pronouns (in my case she/he) favor contraction more than NPs do, regardless of the mode of calculation, while the hierarchy for zero is sensitive to the formula one uses. What is, however, easily overlooked in this search for factors triggering zero or contraction is again the fact that zero is not the most popular variable in any of these contexts and that full is on average figures as first choice after NPs (73,7%), indefinite (52,6%) and relative pronouns (72,4%), examples appear in (149) to (151), respectively. (149) Den some body called out: Captain Stier's, yo' niggah is dyin'. My marster called de doctah ... (Isaac Stier, Rawick 1977: 2059) (150) Yo' keep expectin' someone tuh come. No one is comin'. Tha' yo' invited them. (SC_mB, Hyatt 1970-1978: 4669) (151) I belonged to John Lee who is first cousin to General Robert E. Lee ... (WILLIAM LEE, Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 194) As already indicated above, the single frequencies for indefinite and relative pronouns are too low in WPA VA, WPA MS, and ESR to facilitate reliable comparison. However, if we take the subject types he/she and NP into account it appears that all subcorpora behave fairly similarly, although WPA VA has a rather unique distribution of is after he/she (55,6% full, 44,4% zero, which might also be due to low single frequencies) and ESR obviously underrepresents full is after NPs (46,7%). All in all, I think, this analysis has shown that the 5 subcorpora are so similar to each other with regard to subject type before copula is that taken together they are perfectly reliable as a source for Earlier AAE. 4.3.2.2 Following grammatical environment by subcorpus This section deals with probably the most intensively researched constraint on the AAE copula. As mentioned above, the grammatical category following the copula, especially zero, has often been used to prove or disprove connections

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 127 of AAE to creóles and/or African languages. The literature on this topic is massive, which makes it impossible to deliver a complete state of the art report on how this feature affects the choice of the copula within the framework of this analysis.123 Instead, I will first of all present the findings for each environment from my subcorpora in terms of Straight frequencies. After this, it is necessary to look at hierarchies of contexts triggering both zero and contraction (both in Straight and Labov figures) and compare them to present-day AAE exemplified by the data from EPA (Rickford et al. 1991). The data from my subcorpora are presented in Table 67. For examples sentences see 4.3.1. Table 67. Foil. gr. gonna full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν V-ing filli

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν adjective full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν

Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by following grammatical context and subcorpus WPAVA WPAMS ESR

HOODOOl

H00D002

Total

3 (27,3) 4 (36,4) 4 (36,4) 11

5 (6,9) 12 (16,7) 55 (76,4) 72

1 (2,6) 6 (15,8) 31 (81,6) 38

9 (7,4) 22 (18,2) 90 (74,4) 121

34 (20,1) 66 (39,1) 69 (40,8) 169

22 (45,8) 11 (22,9) 15 (31,3) 48

72 (28,7) 90 (35,9) 89 (35,5) 251

60 (42,9) 4 69 (66,7) (49,3) 2 11 (33,3) (7,9) 6 140

26 (54,2) 12 (25,0) 10 (20,8) 48

117 (48,1) 97 (39,9) 29 (11,9) 243

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11 (68,8) 4 (25,0) 1 (6,3) 16

3 (25,0) 5 (41,7) 4 (33,3) 12

2 (33,3) 4 (66,7) 0

13 (68,4) 3 (15,8) 3 (15,8) 19

18 (60,0) 9 (30,0) 3 (10,0) 30

0

6

128 The copula in Earlier AAE Table 67 (cont.)

participle full

(%) contr.

6

2

67 (65,7) 33 (32,4) 2 (1,9) 102

16 (76,2) 2 (9,5) 3 (14,3) 21

92 (66,7) 40 (29,0) 6 (4,3) 138

10 (76,9) 2 (15,4) 1 (7,7) 13

3 (23,1) 10 (76,9) 0 13

35 (43,8) 4 39 (57,1) (48,8) 3 6 (42,9) (7,5) 7 80

18 (34,6) 30 (57,7) 4 (7,7) 52

66 (40,0) 85 (51,5) 14 (8,5) 165

11 (91,7) 0

9 (81,8) 2 (18,2) 0

7 (87,5) 1 (12,5) 0

11

8

93 (62,8) 49 (33,1) 6 (4,1) 148

69 (92,0) 3 (4,0) 3 (4,0) 75

189 (74,4) 55 (21,7) 10 (3,9) 254

6 (85,7) 0

(%) zero

(%) Ν locative full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν NP full (%) contr.

1 (14,3) 7

(%) zero

(%) Ν -

1 (8,3) 12

3 (50,0) 3 (50,0) 0

0

0

2

0

gonna

The first thing that is striking in my data is that there is no token of is before gonna in WPA MS and ESR. WPA VA also delivers only 11 tokens total in this category but the tendency there is that all three forms of is appear almost equally often, which in contrast to the two Hoodoo corpora is somewhat surprising, since they indicate that zero before gonna is the most frequently used variable by far (76,4% and 81,6%, respectively). -

V-ing

The second context is V-ing, where we notice a fair amount of variation across subcorpora. In WPA VA and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 full is is first choice (66,8% and 45,8%, respectively), in WPA MS and ESR it is contracted is that appears more often than the two other forms (41,7% and 67,7%, respectively), while HOODOO 1 is the only subcorpus where zero ranks on top of the list (40,8%), although contracted is follows at a distance of only 3 tokens (39,1%). As a

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 129 result of this diversity, the three forms are pretty equally distributed in the combined corpus as a whole (28,7% full, 35,9% contracted, 35,5% zero). -

adjective

Before adjectives the picture is a little less diversified but we still see crosscorpora variation. Full is is the most frequently used variable in WPA VA, WPA MS, and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 (68,4%, 60,0% and 54,2%, respectively), while HOODOOl and ESR display contracted is in most cases (49,3% and 66,7%, respectively). What all five sets have in common, however, is that zero ranks last (only in WPA VA zero and contracted is appear equally often). -

participle

In this category, which usually is not regarded as a separate one in traditional copula studies but either excluded or pooled with adjectives, the tendencies are rather straightforward: full is is the most popular variable by far in WPA VA (85,7%), HOODOOl (65,7%), and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 (76,2%). In WPA MS half of the six tokens appear after full is, while the two tokens from ESR trigger contraction, but these are obviously not enough to allow for valid conclusions. Thus, is actually seems to behave similarly when preceding either adjectives or participles, with full forms preceding them most of the time followed by contracted is and zero. However, in the combined corpus the percentage for full is before participles is almost 20 percent ahead of full is before adjective. And this, I think, neatly shows that my establishing a separate category for participles is well justified. -

locative

With locatives, all subcorpora except WPA VA prefer contracted is; percentages range from 48,8% in HOODOOl to 76,9% in WPA MS. In WPA VA the major variable is the full form (76,9%). But the overall picture is not as clearcut as it seems: ESR, for example, does not have any full forms in this context, while WPA MS has no tokens for zero. Moreover, zero is is once again similar to adjectives and participles - the least frequent variable in the overall corpus. -

NP

Finally, NPs exhibit the most homogeneous pattern: without exceptions it is full is that appears at a very high rate in all subcorpora adding up to a total of 74,4% in the combined corpus. Nevertheless, the percentage range for full is is pretty large, too: HOODOOl has 62,8% while H 0 0 D 0 0 2 has 92,0%. Contracted is is second choice in WPA MS, ESR, and HOODOOl, while in

130 The copula in Earlier AAE H 0 0 D 0 0 2 it has the same frequency as zero and in WPA VA there are no contracted tokens at all. To conclude, we have seen that the cross-subcorpus comparison of the distribution of full, contracted, and zero is results in a less homogeneous picture than the one for subject type. In the present environment diversity can be documented on two levels: on the first, subcorpora display different preferences for a certain variable within one context (V-ing, adjective); on the second level, it also appears that even if all subcorpora agree on a certain variable in a certain environment they do so at fairly different rates (locative, NP). For now, I will turn to surveying the hierarchies of following grammatical context after zero and contracted is and will again contrast Straight and Labov results. The reason for this comparison is that Rickford et al. (1991) have shown that different hierarchies result from the different calculation methods: Labov and Straight Contraction show "diametrically opposed" (71) orderings, while Labov and Straight Deletion display opposite relative positions of locatives and adjectives in the hierarchy, with adjectives ranging above locatives in Labov Deletion. Table 68.

Percentages of zero is by following grammatical environment

a) Straight Foil. gr. context gonna V-ing adjective locative NP participle

WPAVA WPAMS ESR 36,4 6,3 15,8 7,7 8,3 14,3

0 33,3 10,0 0 0 0

0 0 33,3 42,9 0 0

HOODOOl 76,4 40,8 7,9 7,5 4,1 1,9

HOOD002 81,6 31,3 20,8 7,7 4,0 14,3

Total corpus 74,4 35,5 11,9 8,5 3,9 4,3

HOODOOl 82,1 51,1 13,8 17,1 10,9 5,7

HOOD002 83,8 57,7 45,5 11,8 50,0 60,0

Total corpus 80,4 49,7 23,0 14,1 15,4 13,0

b) Labov Foil. gr. context gonna V-ing adjective locative NP participle

WPAVA WPAMS ESR 50,0 20,0 50,0 33,3 100 100

0 44,4 25,0 0 0 0

0 0 33,3 42,9 0 0

Table 68 surveys rates of zero is by following grammatical context. If we set aside participles for a moment, the two formulas deliver almost identical hierarchies for the first three ranks in the combined corpus: the order gonna > V-

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 131

ing > adj. obtains in both. But unlike Rickford et al.'s findings, where adjectives and locatives change position, in my corpus the order of locatives and NPs is reversed when using a different formula. This means that by Labov Deletion, locatives become the least likely following grammatical category to be preceded by zero is in my total corpus. By Straight Deletion the "traditional" order loc > NP is obtained. Table 69.

Percentages of contracted is by following grammatical environment

a) Straight Foil. gr. context gonna V-ing adjective locative NP participle

WPAVA WPAMS ESR 36,4 25,0 15,8 15,4 0 0

0 41,7 30,0 76,9 18,2 50,0

0 66,7 66,7 57,1 12,5 0

HOODOOl 16,7 39,1 49,3 48,8 33,1 32,4

HOOD002 15,8 22,9 25,0 57,7 4,0 9,5

Total corpus 18,2 35,9 39,9 51,5 21,7 29,0

HOODOOl 93,1 79,9 57,1 56,3 37,2 34,3

HOOD002 97,4 54,2 45,8 65,4 8,0 23,8

Total corpus 92,6 71,3 51,9 60,0 25,6 33,3

b) Labov Foil. gr. context WPAVA WPAMS ESR gonna V-ing adjective locative NP participle

72,7 31,3 31,6 23,1 8,3 14,3

0 75,0 40,0 76,9 18,2 50,0

0 66,7 100 100 12,5 100

Table 69 surveys hierarchies for Straight and Labov Contraction and Figure 6 delivers a visual representation of all four hierarchies. Straight Contraction in the combined corpus almost shows the reverse hierarchy to Straight deletion. However, NPs do not rank first but second to last. On the contrary, Labov Contraction shows an ordering very similar to Labov and Straight Deletion with gonna and V-ing on top of the list, but the order of the remaining categories is different for each: in Labov Contraction their ordering is adjective > locative > NP, in Labov Deletion adjective > NP > locative, and in Straight Deletion adjective > locative > NP. What this means for the relationship between the Straight and Labov Deletion and Straight and Labov Contraction is that differently from Rickford et al.'s relatively neat findings, in my corpus it seems as if hierarchies reflect chance to some extent.

132 The copula in Earlier AAE

Figure 6.

Straight and Labov Deletion and Contraction of is in the combined corpus

Next, I will discuss the hierarchies for the separate subcorpora, starting with Deletion. Due to a dearth of data, WPA MS and ESR cannot be considered, but the remaining three display an extraordinary amount of diversity. The two Hoodoo corpora display identical hierarchies when using Straight Deletion. But with Labov Deletion it is only the upper end of the hierarchy (gonna > Ving) that both share; the rest is loc. > adj. > NP for HOODOOl and NP > adj. > loc. for H 0 0 D 0 0 2 , the exact opposite. Moreover, WPA VA has a somewhat unique ordering: gonna > adj. > NP > loc. > V-ing for Straight Deletion and NP > gonna = adj. > loc. > V-ing for Labov Deletion. This means that on the one hand it differs to some extent from the rest of the subcorpora, especially since V-ing ranges at the bottom of the list and NP ranges higher than locative. On the other hand, when formulas are changed, WPA VA shows a type of hierarchy modulation that is not found in the remaining subcorpora: NP is moved from the third to the first rank. If we now compare the total patterns of Contraction to the ones of each subcorpus, we learn that the only subcorpus that mirrors the ranking of the total corpus exactly is HOODOOl in Labov Contraction. For the rest the hierarchies are extraordinarily variable. I will not go into further details here because I am not in a position to explain these different preferences, neither for Contraction nor for Deletion

The variability of is in Earlier AAE

133

hierarchies. But an analysis on temporal and geographical grounds (4.3.3 and 4.3.4) will shed some light on these somewhat confusing results. 4.3.2.3 Phonological environment by subcorpus In this last section in which my data are sorted by subcorpus, I will analyze the effects of the phonological environment on the surface form of copula is. As discussed above, it is only necessary to distinguish between consonants and vowels in the case of is (for examples sentences see 4.3.1). I am very much aware of the fact that a phonological study of my corpus is problematic since most of it relies on written/transcribed material and therefore on the quality of the fieldworker/transcriber. However, since are is excluded from this study and so are all tokens of is surrounded by sibilants, the remaining tokens of is are no longer exposed to phonological environments in which we might expect a high degree of misinterpretation. Table 70 documents a very obvious result for the preceding context: 75,3 percent of consonants in the total corpus are followed by full is, which mirrors a tendency to keep a CVC structure. Such a result would be completely biased if one included instances like it's, that's or what's, which occur in massive numbers and have contracted is almost categorically. Although in the subcorpora the percentages for full is range from 42,9% (ESR) to 88,1% (WPA VA), contraction and zero have lower frequencies after consonants throughout the whole set. After vowels, the picture is similar, although not as clear-cut as with consonants. First choice in the combined corpus is contracted is that appears after vowels in 52,9 percent of all cases. However, the other two variables are not too far behind and in fact have an almost identical frequency of about 23 percent in the combined corpus. If we have a look at the details by subcorpus here, we see that WPA VA is the only one where it is not contracted is (30,6%) but the full form (47,2%) that is the most popular variable. The overall preference for contraction, however, again shows a tendency for CVC structure. Reasons for WPA VA's behavior of preferring VVC structures here are hard to find. If we now compare the performance of contracted is after consonants and vowels and do the same for zero is, we see first of all that contraction is more likely after vowels regardless of the formula one uses. This holds true for both the overall corpus and each subcorpus (Straight figures are in Table 70, Labov figures in Table 71). For zero once again we get reversed results if formulas are changed: Labov Deletion favors consonants while Straight Deletion favors vowels. This is not surprising since in the Straight Deletion formula - as noted before - full forms are added to the denominator and therefore reduce the percentage of zero after consonants, in which context full is plays a major role. I think from this

134 The copula in Earlier AAE analysis it becomes obvious that the Labov formulas unnecessarily complicate results, while the Straight formulas create an absolutely logical and expected picture concerning syllable structure: the most likely variable of is after consonants is the full form, after vowels it is contracted is. Table 70. Prec. phon. consonant full

(%) contracted

(%) zero

(%) Ν vowel full

(%) contracted

(%) zero

(%) Ν Table 71. Prec. phon. context zero consonant vowel contraction consonant vowel

Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by preceding phonological context and subcorpus WPAVA WPAMS ESR

HOODOOl

H00D002

Total

37 (88,1) 2 (4,8) 3 (7,1) 42

16 (76,2) 3 (18,8) 2 (12,5) 21

6 (42,9) 5 (35,7) 3 (21,4) 14

225 (71,0) 33 (10,4) 59 (18,6) 317

109 (85,2) 2 (1,6) 17 (13,3) 128

393 (75,3) 45 (8,6) 84 (16,1) 522

17 (47,2) 11 (30,6) 8 (22,2) 36

20 (39,2) 26 (51,0) 5 (9,8) 51

3 (20,0) 10 (66,7) 2 (13,3) 15

69 (17,5) 235 (59,7) 90 (22,8) 394

43 (27,9) 62 (40,3) 49 (31,8) 154

152 (23,4) 344 (52,9) 154 (23,7) 650

"Labov" percentages of zero and contracted is by preceding phonological context WPAVA WPAMS ESR

HOODOOl

HOOD002

Total corpus

60,0 42,1

40,0 16,1

37,5 16,7

64,1 27,7

89,5 44,1

65,1 30,9

11,9 52,8

23,8 60,8

57,1 80,0

29,0 82,5

14,8 72,1

24,7 76,8

For the discussion of following phonological context I will only use the Straight results as they appear in Table 72. First of all, the results reflect a general tendency in English for words to be more likely to begin with a consonant than with a vowel: there are 907 following consonant tokens and only 265 following vowel tokens in my corpus.

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 135 But this is not the central concern here. What we see from the percentages for the variants of is is that the result is less straightforward for following phonological segment than for preceding. This is obviously connected to the fact that both full and contracted is end in a consonant, which cannot be influenced by a following phonological segment whatsoever. And since full and contracted is are the most frequent variables in the whole corpus (934 out of 1172), it is more than likely that they will figure prominently both before vowels and consonants (combined percentages are 75,1% before consonants and 94,4% before vowels). Table 72. Foil. phon. consonant full

(%) contracted

(%) zero

(%) Ν vowel full

(%) contracted

Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by following phonological context and subcorpus WPA VA WPA MS ESR

HOODOOl

H00D002

Total

38 (61,3) 13 (21,0) 11 (17,7) 62

29 (49,2) 23 (39,0) 7 (11,8) 59

9 (40,9) 9 (40,9) 4 (18,2) 22

219 (39,2) 199 (35,6) 141 (25,2) 559

98 (47,8) 45 (22,0) 62 (30,2) 205

393 (43,3) 289 (31,8) 225 (24,8) 907

16 (100) 0

0

0

7 (53,9) 6 (46,1) 0

16

13

67 (45,6) 6 71 (85,7) (48,3) 1 9 (14,3) (6,1) 7 147

56 (68,3) 21 (25,6) 5 (6,1) 82

146 (55,1) 104 (39,3) 15 (5,6) 265

(%) zero

(%) Ν

Moreover, it is also not surprising that, on the contrary, zero appears less often before vowels: in this environment, the CV structure can be obtained by either filli or contracted is. Before consonants, zero occurs in one fourth of all cases and thus contributes to reducing consonant clusters, especially after vowelfinal subjects. Zero after vowel-final subject results in, for example, he 0 big (VC), after a consonant-final subject (the man 0 big) zero would produce a consonant cluster. In my combined corpus the former pattern (zero between vowel and consonant) applies 150 out of 225 instances (67%). Finally, the details by subcorpus that deserve some comment deal exclusively with zero since full and contracted is are the predominant patterns throughout. Zero before vowels does not occur at all in the two WPA sets, while in the two Hoodoo sources its rate is 6,1 percent. In ESR it appears at a

136 The copula in Earlier AAE

14,3 percent rate, but there are not enough tokens for a valid conclusion. Before consonants we see that zero has a fairly wide range across subcoipora (from 11,8% in WPA MS to 30,2% in H00D002) and this might in fact deserve further analyses to see if this tendency for consonant cluster reduction has connections to temporal or regional factors. 4.3.2.4 VARBRUL analysis of is in the combined corpus In order to back up the results from the "percentage comparisons" in the previous sections I will now analyze my combined corpus by means of VARBRUL (Pintzuk 1986-1988).125 This software delivers probabilities for the occurrence of grammatical variants in certain contexts. Since an initial run with my detailed factor values produced knock-out factors, that is, there were a number of empty cells, I have set aside the personal pronouns other than he/she and have added the small number of plural NPs that appear in nonstandard concord with is to the NP class. As a result, VARBRUL is run with the dependent variable is, which can be represented by full, contracted or zero is, and the four factor groups of subject type (he/she, NP, indeterminate pronoun, relative pronoun), following grammatical environment (gonna, V-ing, adjective, participle, locative, NP), and preceding and following phonological context (consonant and vowel in each). For the sake of transparency I will also deliver factor weights based on the Labov formulas, although they appear to produce theoretically biased outcomes due to the combination (C+D in contraction) and omission (F in deletion) of certain forms under certain conditions, and ultimately make it more difficult to compare the outcomes. The results of both VARBRUL runs appear in Table 73. The factor weights indicate that a variant is favored or disfavored in a certain environment. The threshold is .5 if one uses IVARB, the program that calculates probabilities for two variables, and .33 if one uses TVARB, the program for three variables (Pintzuk, p.c.).126 Starting with subject types, we see both discrepancies and similarities between the two modes of calculation. Labov and Straight agree in the facts that he/she subjects favor contraction (Straight: .67; Labov: .87) and that indefinite pronouns favor zero in both (Straight: .52; Labov: .87). The discrepancies result from an explicit treatment of full is in Straight mode: here it appears that NP subjects (.53) and relative pronoun subjects (.56) strongly favor full is, while indefinite pronouns do so only slightly (.34). Such a result is not obtainable from the Labov mode, which in turn results in NPs favoring zero (.60). Relative pronouns are disfavored by both zero and contraction.

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 137 Table 73.

VARBRUL analysis for is in the combined corpus

subject type he/she NP indef. pron. rei. pron foil, gramm. gonna V-ing adjective participle locative NP prec. phon. consonant vowel foil. phon. consonant vowel Input probability

full

zero (Straight)

contracted (Straight)

LabovDel. LabovContr.

.06 .53 .34 .56

.27 .25 .52 .16

.67 .22 .13 .28

.47 .60 .87 .47

.87 .22 .36 .20

.04 .17 .41 .51 .32 .67

.87 .53 .23 .11 .25 .11

.09 .30 .36 .38 .43 .22

.89 .58 .33 .19 .26 .29

.93 .73 .42 .32 .51 .20

.42 .26

.33 .32

.25 .42

.66 .45

.40 .59

.29 .37 .52

.43 .25 .21

.28 .38 .28

.53 .35 .41

(.51) (.47) .62

0 selected as not significant bold type = favored

As far as preceding phonological environment is concerned, the Straight and Labov results agree: zero is favored by consonants (Straight: .43 / Labov: .53), contraction by vowels (Straight: .42 / Labov: .59). Füll is is also preferred by consonants. With following phonological environment there is a slight disagreement between the two modes of calculation: both have zero as favoring consonants (.43 and .53, respectively), but contraction is slightly favored by vowels in Straight mode, while Labov contraction is slightly favored by consonants. Note, however, that the factor values for Labov contraction were selected as not significant. In principle, these findings correlate with what has already been stated in the "percentage study" above. Moving on to following grammatical environment, there is again both agreement and disagreement between Straight and Labov mode. Similar results are firstly that both gonna and V-ing strongly favor zero (Straight: gonna .87; V-ing .53; Labov: gonna .89; V-ing .58). Secondly, locatives favor contraction in both modes (Straight: .43; Labov: .51).

138 The copula in Earlier AAE

The first very striking difference between Straight and Labov modes is the fact that the latter sees gonna and V-ing being strongly correlated with contraction (gonna .93; V-ing .73), which is not the case at all in Straight mode (gonna .09; V-ing .30). The second discrepancy affects adjectives and participles: in Straight mode both favor full is (.41 and .51, respectively) and, to a lesser extent, contracted is (.36 and .38, respectively), which cannot be inferred from the Labov columns where both disfavor zero (adj: .33; part.: .19) as well as contraction (adj: .42; part.: .32). Despite these partly very contradictory results - and I have to state once more that I prefer the unbiased Straight ones - there is one constraint for which the two formulas deliver comparable factor weights, namely zero is in connection with the crucial following grammatical environment, which might connect AAE to creóles. As shown above, zero is strongly favored by gonna and V-ing, but at the same time it is disfavored by the remaining four potential environments. As regards NPs, this small likelihood (Straight: .11; Labov: .29) of being preceded by zero is in line with creóles which display an overt copula in this environment (as far as we know). But the low factor weights for zero to appear before adjectives (Straight: .23; Labov: .33) and locatives (Straight: .25; Labov: .26) is fairly untypical for creóles (more so for adjectives than for locatives, cf. Table 49 at the beginning of this chapter). Yet, an explanation might be at hand in favor of the creole connection on the basis of Winford's (1992a) model for the Caribbean English Creole copula system. In his figure 6 (Winford 1992a: 48), he distinguishes between upper and lower mesolect, which basically differ concerning adjective and locative: the lower mesolect has zero copula in both environments, while the upper mesolect alternates between zero and forms of be. Thus, if Earlier AAE has parallels to creóles, it must be already in the upper mesolect stage in a decreolization process. Nevertheless, there are some problems with this connection. The process of decreolization implies that the variety that is in such a process was a fully fledged creole at some point in time, but this is something that we do not know for AAE. My data, however, do not really support this idea for two reasons. The first is that we would expect zero to be present at a much higher level than it actually is, even if many speakers had already reached the upper mesolect level, but it is actually full and contracted copula forms that abound. Secondly, I think the diversity across my subcorpora in some environments has shown - and will show in the following sections - that Earlier AAE was not a monolithic, homogeneous variety (which is supported by sociohistoric and demographic factors in Winford 1998, Rickford 1997, and Mufwene 1999) on which decreolization could have worked. It is more likely

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 139

that some areas had a more creolized variety than others. For the time being it suffices to state that in my corpus as a whole zero copula is in fact sensitive to the crucial following grammatical category (which must have had its origins outside English), however, it is the English forms of the copula that clearly represent the majority. 4.3.3 Variability of is in apparent time The study of full contracted, and zero is in apparent time will be restricted to following grammatical environment and zero before consonants because a preliminary analysis of all constraints showed that these two categories yielded the most robust results. Percentages here will only be calculated by the Straight formulas. For examples sentences see 4.3.1. To begin with, Table 74 and Figure 7 illustrate the usage of full, contracted, and zero is from the early nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. As a reference for present-day AAE I included Rickford et al.'s (1991) East Palo Alto (EPA) data. Table 74.

full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν

Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is in apparent time

183344 28 (54,9) 16 (31,4) 7 (13,7) 51

184554 30 (55,6) 16 (29,6) 8 (14,8) 54

185564 75 (41,7) 72 (40,0) 33 (18,3) 180

186574 81 (49,1) 45 (27,3) 39 (23,6) 165

187584 128 (41,4) 110 (35,6) 71 (23,0) 309

188594 42 (36,2) 62 (53,5) 12 (10,3) 116

190514 72 (59,5) 24 (19,8) 25 (20,7) 121

191524 80 (49,7) 40 (24,8) 41 (25,5) 161

EPA 232 (32,5) 227 (31,7) 256 (35,8) 715

What we get for the nineteenth century up to about 1880 is a fairly clear picture where full is is the dominant variable followed by contracted and zero is throughout. After that contracted is takes the lead for a short period. But at the beginning of the twentieth century its frequency decreases, even slightly below that of zero, and from then on we see a parallel increase of both zero and contraction up to the present. At the same time, full is undergoes a steady decline from 1833 to 1894 and - after its peak at the very beginning of the twentieth century - continues to drop. All in all then, we observe that zero, the one variable that is not paralleled in other varieties of English, is present all the time at a very stable though relatively low rate, which indicates that it must have been present from a pretty early stage onwards. And from the late nineteenth century it starts rising constantly to become at least a variant equal127 in frequency to the two others that used to outnumber it.

140 The copula in Earlier AAE

Figure 7.

Overview of the distribution of full, contracted, and zero is in apparent time

Drawing parallels to the functions of ain't in 3.2.2., where ain't as a variant for didn't started rising after the turn of the twentieth century, it seems that something similar happened to zero is: it is also a non-English variant that is becoming more and more popular in AAE, and again this might indeed be connected to the establishment of a unique linguistic identity within the African American community. For a theory of language change in general this means that in some cases it is possible for a variety to give up preferences for certain formal variants of a linguistic feature, maybe in order to redistribute anew these preferences among the variants. In our case here, an initially clear quantitative distinction between full, contracted, and zero is has gone lost in present-day AAE, which might in fact represent a starting point for subsequent changes. Following grammatical environments of the copula have been shown to differ across sub-corpora both within particular contexts and in their hierarchies for triggering zero and contraction. Therefore, I will now test if this diversity can be explained by changes through (apparent) time. Table 75 and Figure 8 survey the distribution of is by following grammatical context over a period of almost one century. The picture that emerges from this temporal distribution is also very diversified and indicates that the variability of is by subcorpus seems to reflect diachronic developments to some extent. I will describe the findings for each context separately.

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 141 Table 75. Foil. gr. gonna full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν V-ing full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by following grammatical context in apparent time 183344

184554

185564

186574

187584

188594

190514

191524

1 (33,3) 1 (33,3) 1 (33,3) 3

0

0 1 (9,1) 10 (90,9) 11

2 (5,7) 8 (22,9) 25 (71,4) 35

2 (25,0) 1 (12,5) 5 (62,5) 8

0

2 (33,3) 4 (66,7) 6

2 (114) 3 (16,7) 13 (72,2) 18

1 (7,1) 13 (92,9) 14

1 (4,2) 5 (20,8) 18 (75,0) 24

3 (42,9) 3 (42,9) 1 (14,3) 7

14 (32,6) 17 (39,5) 12 (27,9) 43

9 (27,3) 5 (15,2) 19 (57,6) 33

14 (17,5) 30 (37,5) 36 (45,0) 80

4 (14,3) 20 (71,4) 4 (14,3) 28

4 (30,8) 5 (38,4) 4 (30,8) 13

18 (51,4) 6 (17,1) 11 (31,4) 35

6 (60,0) 2 (20,0) 2 (20,0) 10

17 (47,2) 17 (47,2) 2 (5,6) 36

19 (48,7) 16 (41,0) 4 (10,3) 39

24 (41,4) 30 (51,7) 4 (6,9) 58

9 (34,6) 14 (53,9) 3 (11,5) 26

9 (52,9) 6 (35,3) 2 (11,8) 17

17 (54,8) 6 (19,4) 8 (25,8) 31

5 (55,6) 3 (33,3) 1 (11,1) 9

18 (72,0) 6 (24,0) 1 (4,0) 25

12 (63,2) 7 (36,8) 0

32 (71,1) 12 (26,7) 1 (2,2) 45

7 (41,2) 10 (58,8) 0

9 (64,3) 2 (14,3) 3 (21,4) 14

7

3 (42,9) 4 (57,1) 0

(%) Ν 7 adjective full 13 (68,4) (%) contr. 4 (%) (21,1) zero 2 (10,5) (%) Ν 19 participle full 2

(%) contr.

0

(%) zero

0

(%) Ν

2

19

17

0 0 7

142 The copula in Earlier AAE Table 75 (cont.) locative 3 full

0

6 (75,0) 2 (25,0) 0

3

8

6 (40,0) 7 (46,7) 2 (13,3) 15

10 (71,4) 4 (28,6) 0

(%) contr.

0

(%) zero

(%) Ν NP full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν

14

10 (43,5) 11 (47,8) 2 (8,7) 23

7 (35,0) 12 (60,0) 1 (5,0) 20

19 (47,5) 18 (45,0) 3 (7,5) 40

0

5 (62,5) 9 1 (100,0) (12,5) 2 0 (25,0) 8 9

13 (81,3) 2 (12,5) 1 (6,3) 16

15 (41,7) 18 (50,0) 3 (8,3) 36

33 (84,6) 4 (10,3) 2 (5,1) 39

31 (66,0) 14 (29,8) 2 (4,3) 47

20 (71,4) 8 (28,6) 0

24 (50,0) 21 (43,8) 3 (3,6) 48

28

45 (81,8) 9 (16,4) 1 (1,8) 55

In the gonna context the result is pretty straightforward as has already been foreshadowed by the cross-corpora comparison. Zero is is the most popular variable throughout and on the whole its proportion steadily increases. Contracted and filli is occur much less frequently than zero. They do indeed show some ups and downs in their graphs (a) but contracted is is more frequent than full for almost the entire period under study. With verbal -ing forms after is (b) things become a little more complex. What we see is basically a struggle between zero and contraction, in which zero starts out at a very low level at the temporal beginning of the corpus and reaches its peak after the Civil War; after this zero declines towards a low at the end of the nineteenth century, but rises again to become the second most popular variant at the temporal end of my corpus. Contraction, on the other hand, shows exactly the opposite behavior, with a low after the Civil War and a peak towards the end of the nineteenth century. But it is the least frequent form before V-ing around 1920. Finally, full is declines from 1833 to about 1890 but then rises again to become top of the list at the beginning of the twentieth century. Before adjectives and participles zero is the least favored variant of is throughout, and full is outnumbers contraction most of the time. On the whole contraction increases and full is declines with both until around 1890. From then on this development is reversed. When locatives follow the copula, zero again is only a low frequency variant for the whole time span. Contraction rises until about 1890 but sharply decreases after the turn of the century, when full is becomes the most frequently used form.

The variability

of is in Earlier AAE

gonna

143

V-ing

b)

a) adjective

c)

participle

d) locative

• 8.

Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by following grammatical context in apparent time

And finally, with NPs zero occurs at a very low level, while full and contracted is always develop in opposite ways, that is, a decline of the füll form is paralleled by an increase of contraction and vice versa. But most of the time full is outnumbers contracted is considerably, although at the end of the temporal envelope of my corpus they approach each other again.

144 The copula in Earlier AAE What do these observations imply then for the temporal development of the copula system of AAE? The first general observation is that very frequently there is a steady development of all three variants in the nineteenth century until about 1890. Then, we often witness some kind of break towards the end of the nineteenth century and then in some cases again a turning point towards the present. Note especially the peaks and lows in the decades of 1885-94 and 1905-14 in graphs (a) to (f). It seems as if this general tendency is very much in line with the divergence claim that present-day AAE is a phenomenon of the late nineteenth or early twentieth century (e.g. Bailey 1987; Mufwene 1999). Further, the development of zero might shed some light on the creolist hypothesis. Thus, in a study with a considerable time depth like the present one, it should be possible to document changes away from a creole system towards a more English one. That is, we should be able to watch zero is decline. But this is not the case in any environment except maybe NPs.128 On the contrary, this analysis in fact suggests that zero on the whole increases during the period under scrutiny, especially after gonna and V+ing, but also with adjectives and partly with locatives. Upward movements of this type cannot be attributed to a process of decreolization. This discussion of zero before various grammatical environments leads us to a look at hierarchies of following context per formal variant, which are surveyed in Table 76 and Figure 9. The first thing that can be noticed in the temporal development of the zero hierarchy is once again that gonna is the most dominant context throughout. Second, Figure 9 a) neatly displays the steady up and down movement of the relative frequencies of V-ing, which appears for the first time after zero is in the second decade, where it still lags behind adjectives. But from the next decade onwards, V-ing will remain the second most frequent context for zero is. Adjectives have a fairly large share in the first two decades but later drop and remain at a relatively low rate as compared to gonna and V-ing, which does not really support creole parallels in the first place, because a creole pattern would be expected to treat adjectives like verbs and therefore without copula to a much larger degree. Locatives do not appear after zero is until the third decade, but this may as well be due to the small amount of tokens there, which is probably also the reason why NPs start out at a very high level. If we compare locatives and NPs, it is always the locatives which are ranked higher. However, the relative ordering of adjectives and locatives is variable. If we only take those decades into account where both are present, we get two decades with adjectives > locatives and two with locatives > adjectives. In one period (1875-1884) they are almost identical.

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 145 Table 76. Percentages of zero and contracted is by following grammatical environment in apparent time a) Zero Foil. gr.

183344 gonna 33,3 V-ing 0 adjective 10,5 participle 0 locative 0 NP 13,3

11,1 0 0

185564 72,2 27,9 5,6 4,0 8,7 8,3

186574 90,9 57,6 10,3 0 5,0 5,1

187584 71,4 45,0 6,9 2,2 7,5 4,3

188594 62,5 14,3 11,5 0 0 0

190514 92,9 30,8 11,8 21,4 25,0 1,8

191524 75,0 31,4 25,8 0 6,3 3,6

184554 33,3 42,9 20,0 33,3 25,0 28,6

185564 16,7 39,5 47,2 24,0 47,8 50,0

186574 9,1 15,2 41,0 36,8 60,0 10,3

187584 22,9 37,5 51,7 26,7 45,0 29,8

188594 12,5 71,4 53,9 58,8 100,0 28,6

190514 7,1 38,4 35,3 14,3 12,5 16,4

191524 20,8 17,1 19,4 0 12,5 43,8

184554 66,7 14,3 20,0

b) Contraction Foil. gr.

183344 gonna 33,3 V-ing 57,1 adjective 21,1 participle 0 locative 0 NP 46,7 • gonna

• V-ing

• adjective

• participle

• locative

•NP

1833-44

1845-54

1855-64

Zero is

1865-74

1875-84

1885-94

1905-14

1915-24

a) • gonna • V-ing • adjective •participle • locative • N P

120 100 80

Contracted is

60 40 H

111

20 0 1833-44

1845-54

1855-64

1865-74

1875-84

1885-94

1905-14

iti ι

b>

Figure 9.

oj

1915-24

Percentages of zero and contracted is by following grammatical environment in apparent time

146 The copula in Earlier AAE

What this means for possible similarities to creole languages is still not clear. On the one hand, zero is extremely frequent in one environment that has its parallels in creóles, gonna, and starts out relatively frequently before adjectives which can also be seen as creole heritage. Moreover, we see that in general zero was sensitive to following grammatical context throughout. And although hierarchies differ slightly from decade to decade, especially with non-verbal complements, this sensitivity does not seem to change.129 On the other hand I think the main counter-argument is that zero is not on the decline. In fact it rises with two environments: adjectives and V-ing, with the latter even at an extraordinary rate. Moving on to contraction, the hierarchy charts in Figure 9 b) do not reveal any steady pattern whatsoever for certain following environments favoring or disfavoring any form of the copula. They do not even display tendencies opposite to zero as the Straight hierarchies for the combined corpus in 4.3.2.2 have suggested. On the contrary, this temporal line of differing hierarchies very well has the capacity to show that the occurrence of contracted is in AAE is not sensitive to following grammatical environment. The second pattern that will be tested for temporal change is the performance of zero is before consonants. As we have seen in 4.3.2.3, the usage of zero in this context ranges from 11,8% in WPA MS to 30,2% in H 0 0 D 0 0 2 . Table 77.

full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν

Distribution of full, contracted and zero is before consonants in apparent time 183344 19 (50,0) 14 (36,8) 5 (13,2) 38

184554 22 (50,0) 14 (31,8) 8 (7,2) 44

185564 56 (40,6) 50 (36,2) 32 (23,2) 138

186574 70 (52,2) 30 (22,4) 34 (25,4) 134

187584 92 (38,0) 83 (34,3) 67 (27,7) 242

188594 29 (33,7) 46 (53,5) 11 (12,8) 86

190514 45 (57,7) 12 (15,4) 21 (26,9) 78

191524 48 (39,0) 35 (28,5) 40 (32,5) 123

Table 77 and Figure 10 show that on the whole there is a steady increase of zero before consonants with one harsh break around 1890 but an immediate turning point right afterwards, so that at the end of the time-line under scrutiny zero is occurs before a consonant in one third of all cases. Note that this development for zero is is similar to what has been reported for all three variants for following grammatical environments above. And to some extent this pattern is also true for full and contracted is here.

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 147

Figure 10. Distribution of full, contracted and zero is before consonants in apparent time Considering the development of zero is before consonants from a phonological perspective, it appears that consonant cluster reduction130 steadily rises throughout the period under study, which is in general a natural phonetic tendency in rapid speech, but is often associated with creole languages. Once more, such an increase of zero is something one would not expect during a process of decreolization. 4.3.4 Variability of is by state In this section I will only focus on the regional distribution of is by following grammatical environment because this category yielded the most reliable results. For examples sentences see 4.3.1. Table 78 and Figure 11 survey the overall distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by state. In general, there are six states out of ten in which full is is the predominant variable (FL, GA, MS, NC, SC, and VA) with percentages ranging from 75,9 in VA to 43,3 in NC. Further, three states display a majority of contracted is (LA, TN, and TX), while there is one state with zero as the most frequent form of is (AL). The first group roughly matches the "old" settlement area in the eastern part of the US South, the second group is comprised of "newer" states in the western part of the South, while AL could in fact be a borderline case between the two areas (cf. Schneider 1989: 234-56, who also found some peculiarities in his data from AL). Of those six states which have full is as first choice, all but FL have contraction as second choice, which means that on the whole zero once more is the least frequently used variable in 8 out of 10 states. What we see here is that

148 The copula in Earlier AAE Earlier AAE seems to have been diversified to some extent but general tendencies are relatively homogeneous as far as the general distribution of the variants of is is concerned. Table 78. full % contr. % zero % Ν

Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by state TX 5 (26,3) 9 (47,4) 5 (26,3) 19

LA 57 (30,5) 98 (52,4) 32 (17,1) 187

MS 23 (56,1) 15 (36,6) 3 (7,3) 41

TN 49 (37,6) 61 (46,9) 20 (15,4) 130

AL 22 (30,6) 21 (29,2) 29 (40,3) 72

GA 65 (59,1) 23 (20,9) 22 (20,0) 110

FL 61 (56,5) 23 (21,3) 24 (22,2) 108

SC 136 (44,4) 91 (29,7) 79 (25,8) 306

NC 13 (43,3) 10 (33,3) 7 (23,3) 30

VA 104 (75,9) 18 (13,1) 15 (10,9) 137

Figure 11. Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by state If we have a closer look at the forms of is by following grammatical category,131 the picture becomes somewhat different (Table 79). I will first of all describe preferences for each following category by state and then go on to compare hierarchies of zero and contracted is across states. Table 79. Foil. gr. gonna full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν

Distribution of full, contracted, and zero is by following grammatical context by state132 LA

MS

0 1 (4,3) 6 0 (26,1) 16 0 (69,6) 23

TN

AL

GA

2 (18,2) 2 (18,2) 7 (63,6) 11

0

0

FL

1 (6,7) 4 1 1 (23,5) (16,7) (6,7) 13 5 13 (76,5) (83,3) (86,7) 17 6 15

SC

NC

0

0

VA

4 (36,4) 4 2 2 (6,7) (33,3) (36,4) 28 4 3 (93,3) (66,7) (27,3) 30 6 11

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 149 Table 79 (cont.) W-ing

fidi

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%)

5 (10,4) 31 (64,6) 12 (25,0) 48

3

7

8 (26,7) 14 (46,7) 8 (26,7) 30

1 (7,7) 2 (15,4) 10 (76,9) 13

7 (24,1) 7 (24,1) 15 (51,7) 29

16 (57,1) 7 (25,0) 5 (17,9) 28

13 (22,0) 12 (20,3) 34 (57,6) 59

11 (73,3) 2 (13,3) 2 (13,3) 15

8 (26,7) 18 (60,0) 4 (13,3) 30

5 (33,3) 6 (40,0) 4 (26,7) 15

8 (72,7) 3 (27,3) 0

14 (70,0) 5 (25,0) 1 (5,0) 20

24 (40,7) 26 (44,1) 9 (15,3) 59

0

0

8 2 (42,1) 11 0 (57,9) 0 0

13 8 (86,7) 2 0 (13,3) 0 0

2

19

2

15

7 2 (33,3) 14 0 (67,7) 0 0

5 (26,3) 14 (73,7) 0

21

2

19

7 (77,8) 1 (11,1) 1 (11.1) 9

20 (60,6) 12 (36,4) 1 (3,0) 33

7 (46,7) 8 (53,3) 0

18 (75,0) 5 (20,8) 1 (4,2) 24

7 (43,8) 8 (50,0) 1 (6,3) 16

Ν adjective full 18 (40,0) (%) contr. 24 (%) (53,3) zero 3 (%) (6,7) Ν 45 participle full 6 (%) (37,5) contr. 10 (%) (62,5) zero 0

3 1

2

11

(%) contr.

(%) zero

16

(%) Ν NP full

(%) contr.

(%) zero

(%) Ν

15

3 1 5 3 1 0 4 4

8

21 (63,6) 7 (21,2) 5 (15,2) 33

2 (20,0) 7 (70,0) 1 (10,0) 10

7 (70,0) 1 (10,0) 2 (20,0) 10

19 (55,9) 13 (38,2) 2 (5,9) 34

34 (91,9) 3 (8,1) 0

15 (55,6) 9 (33,3) 3 (11,1) 27

59 (64,8) 31 (34,1) 1 (1,1) 91

(%) Ν locative full

1

37

15 (65,2) 6 (26,1) 2 (8,7) 23 19 (67,9) 5 (17,9) 4 (14,3) 28

2

27 (100) 0

1

0

7

27

1

14 (82,4) 1 (5,9) 2 (11,8) 17

1 0 2 4 1 1 6

20 (83,3) 2 (8,3) 2 (8,3) 24

150 The copula in Earlier AAE With gonna preferences are relatively homogeneous: seven out of nine states show a predominance of zero is in this context, which ranges from 63,6% in TN to 93,3% in SC. The only exception is VA, where zero is the least frequently used variant (27,3%). MS has no tokens of is after gonna, thus there is nothing to inteipret. Moving on to V-ing, the distribution becomes less clear-cut. However, one could hypothesize on the existence of three areas that prefer different forms of the copula in this context: AL, GA, and SC favor zero, LA, TN and possibly NC, from where we get only 7 tokens, prefer contraction, while FL and VA have full is as the most popular variant. MS displays an equal number of tokens for contracted and full is and therefore has a somewhat intermediate status, although single frequencies are too low for a valid interpretation. Next, adjectives are most often preceded by full is in five states (FL, GA, LA, MS, and NC133), while the remaining four prefer contraction (AL, LA, SC, TN). This distribution makes zero the least likely variable in this context, although percentages range from 0% in GA to an extraordinary 26,7% in AL. This is especially noteworthy since GA was one of the states that had a considerable percentage of African Americans at that time (cf. appendix 3) and it is there where one would expect some amount of creolization. However, in the adjective context, which does not require a copula in creóles, there is not a single token from the GA informants. I will skip participles because single frequencies are to small to allow for a representative comparison of states. But in general it seems that zero is is avoided throughout while full is is favored. Locatives again pattern along two lines: four states prefer full is (AL, FL, SC, and VA) while three have contraction as the most frequent variant (GA, LA, and TN).134 Finally, before NPs, the distribution seems to be fairly homogeneous once more: seven out of nine states prefer full is in this context. Only AL and MS do not conform to this but have contraction as first choice. In Table 80 I group all states except NC and MS according to their first choice forms of is by following grammatical category. As a result it appears that three groups of states behave similarly to each other. First, LA and TN share preferences in all environments. Further, AL, GA, and SC also seem to be fairly homogeneous because they share preferences for gonna and V-ing and are variably grouped together in pairs in the remaining contexts. FL and VA have identical preferences in all environments except gonna. Unfortunately, these groups do not coincide with the ones I already established in the negation study (3.3.2.7).

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 151 Table 80.

States grouped by first choice forms of is by following grammatical environment gonna

W-ing

adj.

loc.

VA

FL, VA,

GA, FL, VA

AL, SC, FL, VA

contracted VA

LA, TN,

AL, SC, LA, TN

GA, LA, TN

full

zero

NP FL, VA, SC, GA, LA, TN AL

AL, SC, GA LA, TN, AL, SC, GA FL

Next, I will compare the hierarchies for zero is by state, which are surveyed by means of rank numbers for each environment in Table 81.135 Contracted is will not be discussed in more detail because here every state seems to have a somewhat unique pattern, which we have already observed in the apparent time study. Table 81. Foli. gr. gonna W-ing adjective locative NP

Ranking of zero is by following grammatical environment and state LA 1 2 3

TN 1 2 3

-

-

4

4

AL 2 1 3 4 5

GA 1 2 -

3 -

FL 1 3 5 2 4

SC 1 2 3 4 5

VA 1 4 2 3 5

As Table 81 suggests, there is a relatively homogeneous pattern for all states except FL and VA. In fact, LA, TN, GA, and SC have identical hierarchies, while in AL the ordering of gonna and W-ing is reversed. Note, however, that LA and TN have no tokens for zero before locatives and GA did not deliver any instances before adjectives and NPs. On the one hand this hints at the fact that zero is sensitive to the following grammatical environment on a relatively stable basis throughout the US South. On the other hand, FL and VA, which display a completely different pattern except for gonna ranking first - , indicate that we cannot assume Earlier AAE to have been monolithic. A clue to the differences between FL and VA and the remaining states might be demographics, but on account of the fact that in the remaining states the proportions of the black population range from 18-26% in TN to 51-61% in SC, such an approach remains fruitless. The demographic ranges represent the period of 1830 to 1920 (cf. 2.6.3). Despite the fact that there are 5 states that have similar rankings, it is important not to overemphasize these findings because percentages for the

152 The copula in Earlier AAE respective environments differ greatly, and what is more, zero is has been reported to be a minor variant in most of them, which means that a large part of the copula system - namely full and contracted is - is not sensitive to complement type. Summing up, it has been shown that it is to some extent possible to document regional diversity in Earlier AAE. First choice variants of is seem to pattern roughly along the lines of older (GA, MS, NC, SC, and VA) and newer (LA, TN, and TX) settlement patterns, while AL displayed a unique preference and FL joined the "older" states. Preferences for a variant of is by following grammatical environment also resulted in a regionally diversified picture. Here, LA and TN, AL, GA, and SC, as well as FL and VA display similar behavior. Finally, the comparison of hierarchies of zero by following grammatical environment yielded two major groups with almost identical (LA, TN, AL, GA, and SC) and entirely different orderings (FL, VA). The common denominator of these regional findings might be a distinction between the Deep South and the remaining Southern states within Earlier AAE, which again confirms on linguistic grounds that Earlier AAE was not monolithic. 4.3.5 Variability of is by gender This last section on the variability of full, contracted and zero is studies the distribution of these forms across gender. From Table 82 we learn that male and female overall usage differs only slightly, with men having a small preference for full is as opposed to contraction, while women use the two forms at an identical rate. Moreover, zero is the least frequent variant for both. But as a chi-square test indicates, the differences between female and male copula usage in general is not significant. Table 82. gender m eI

Full, contracted and zero is by gender is 216 44% 194 39%

'j 167 34% 196 39%

0 104 21% 112 22%

Ν 487 502

5^=3,266; n.s. In order to test if there are more subtle differences between male and female Earlier AAE copula usage, I will utilize the distribution by following grammatical context as a case in point (Table 83). The results here can be grouped in two categories. First, there are three contexts in which male and female speakers have identical preferences for copula usage, namely gonna (zero > contraction > full), participles (full > contraction > zero), and NPs (full > contracted > zero).

The variability of is in Earlier AAE 153 Table 83. gender gonna full contracted zero W-ing full contracted zero

Distribution of fidi, contracted, and zero is by following grammatical context by gender f

m

3(5%) 13 (21%) 46 (74%) 62

4(9%) 7 (15%) 35 (76%) 46

25 (23%) 47 (42%) 39 (35%) 111

39 (33%) 38 (32%) 41 (35%) 118 χ2=3,234; n.s.

adjective fidi contracted zero

49 (41%) 56 (47%) 14(12%) 119

56 (53%) 38 (36%) 12(11%) 106 ^=2,830; n.s.

participle fidi contracted zero locative full contracted zero NP fidi contracted zero

28 (61%) 17 (37%) 1 (2%) 46

34 (60%) 21 (37%) 2 (4%) 57

29 (44%) 33 (50%) 4 (6%) 66

28 (55%) 20 (39%) 3 (6%) 51

60 (63%) 29 (30%) 7 (7%) 96

55 (51%) 46 (43%) 7 (7%) 108

χ2=1,139; n.s.

^=2,810; n.s. In the remaining environments, the preferred forms of the copula differ across gender. Women have contracted is as first choice before V-ing, adjectives, and locatives, whereas men prefer zero before V-ing and full is before adjectives and locatives. However, testing these differences by means of chi-square, it

154 The copula in Earlier AAE

emerges that all of them are not significant. This means that also in this case variation across gender plays a very limited role. 4.4

Summary

This chapter yielded quite a lot of interesting findings on different levels. First, I think, I have plausibly shown that in any study of the copula of AAE it is necessary to identify tokens that should be included in and excluded from an analysis in order to provide maximum transparency as well as to reduce factors that have the potential to blur statistics. Along these lines it has been extensively argued that a combination of is and are cannot be supported. Only a study of is and its variants alone is capable of delivering reliable results (4.2.1). Second, I have reported in a fairly detailed fashion that the mode of calculating percentages for zero and contracted forms of the copula can seriously affect the interpretation of the results (4.2.2). Straight and Labov formulas deliver reversed results in many cases, and it has been argued that the Straight mode clearly represents the less biased approach to copula variability. Third, this analysis has also provided substantial evidence for the historical development of the AAE copula is. The most prominent results are as follows. Synchronic evidence of the fact that in AAE zero is is favored by personal pronoun (he/she) subjects more than by NP subjects can be backed up by historical evidence (Straight calculation). Since in creole studies the issue of "reversed results by mode of calculation" has not been addressed, parallels between AAE and creóles in this respect cannot be investigated (4.3.2.1). Preferences for a certain variable of the copula by following grammatical context differ across subcorpora, especially with Y-ing (two each favor full and contracted is, one favors zero) and adjectives (three prefer full, two contracted is), but also with others. This diversity of preferences might in fact mirror change in progress in the Earlier AAE copula system. The apparent time analysis has revealed a general tendency: All three variants of is display a steady development for roughly the period of 1830 to1890. After this time-span some kinds of breaks can be observed that are sometimes followed by further turning points towards the present. This basically supports the claim that modern AAE is a late nineteenth or early twentieth century phenomenon (e.g. Bailey 1987). Moreover, zero copula by complement type steadily increases throughout the period under study in almost all environments, which renders parallels of AAE to decreolizing varieties unlikely (4.3.3). A regional analysis has shown that there are different preferences for full, contracted, or zero is by state. The hierarchies of grammatical environments following zero copula another possible creole parallel - have been shown to differ across subcorpora as well as through time and by state. Although two out of three subcorpora yielded identical hierarchies (HOODOOl and H00D002, Straight formula;

Summary 155 gonna > V-ing > adj. > loc. > NP), a third set (WPA VA) differed greatly (gonna > adj. > NP > loc. > V-ing). Due to a dearth of data, the remaining two subcorpora (ESR and WPA MS) were not considered. From a temporal perspective, the hierarchies also differ slightly from decade to decade, especially with non-verbal complements, but the sensitivity of zero is to following grammatical environment does not seem to change. On a state-wise basis, it has been shown that the hierarchies are largely homogeneous across the US South for 5 out of seven states, but two differ. All in all, the copula system of AAE in the period under scrutiny on the one hand underwent temporal change, on the other it was regionally diversified to some extent. Both factors are obviously mirrored in the differing results from the subcorpora. Quite differently, gender does not play a major role in the copula variability in Earlier AAE. Finally, what is also necessary to keep in mind is that on the whole zero is the one non-English variable - has minority status as opposed to contracted and full is in most environments, which on a larger scale implies that slaves in the US South were quite capable of acquiring close approximations to some dialects of English.

Chapter 5 Relativization in Earlier AAE

This is the last analytical part based on the "interview corpora" WPA VA, WPA MS, ESR136, HOODOOl, and H00D002. It will focus on relativization, or more precisely the choice of relative markers, one part of the AAE grammar that has not been central in the origins discussion at all because present-day AAE does not display un-English relativizers like for example weh or wa, which are found in Gullah (Mufwene 1986). In fact, it seems that relative constructions in AAE have their origins exclusively in nonstandard varieties of English, which has convincingly been shown by Tottie and Rey (1997) and Tottie and Harvie (1999), who analyzed the ex-slave recordings (Tottie and Rey) and compared them to Earlier AAE as spoken in Samaná and Nova Scotia (Tottie and Harvie). Quite differently from these previous studies, which place their main focus on zero relativization, I will also document the distributions of overt relative markers and investigate temporal changes and geographical variation of the relative marker system. 5.1

Methodological remarks

Since relative constructions in English occur in many different ways and space prohibits comprehensive treatment here, it is necessary to restrict the scope of the present study. Therefore, I will follow Tottie and Harvie (1999) and analyze finite restrictive non-adverbial relative clauses only. To classify a relative clause as 'restrictive' or 'non-restrictive' is not always a straightforward task. Greenbaum and Quirk (1990: 364) define modification as 'restrictive' when "the head can be viewed as a member of a class which can be linguistically identified only through the modification that has been applied". If the modification is "additional information which is not essential for identifying the head" it is called 'non-restrictive'. But in cases like "I had a uncle, named Anthony, who was wid de Yankees" (Liza Brown; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 63), it is difficult to say if the relative clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. By intuition one might argue that it is restrictive because the informant refers to the one uncle who was with the Yankees. On the other hand, the first postmodifier "named Anthony" actually defines the head to an extent that the relative clause becomes non-restrictive if the informant has only one "uncle Anthony". Such cases, however, are in the minority and I did not count them as restrictive relative clauses.137

Methodological remarks 157 5.1.1 Relativization in Standard and Nonstandard English In Standard English restrictive relative clauses can be introduced by the relative pronouns who, whom, whose, which, and that, if the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause. If the relative pronoun is not the subject of the relative clause it can also be deleted, which is usually referred to as "zero relative". In this case, the two options are the relative marker as direct object (152) or prepositional object (153) (cf. Greenbaum and Quirk 1990: 369). (152) The boy 0 we met ... (153) The boy 0 the dog barked at... In nonstandard varieties of English what (154) can be used as a relativizer, too, and zero can additionally occur in subject position (155). (154) The man what came around the corner.... (155) The man 0 came round the corner was my daddy. For the present study I will not consider whom and whose because of their extremely low single frequencies in my combined corpus (whom: 2/1889 ~ 0,1%, whose: 7/1889 ~ 0,4%). However, I will keep which (1%) and who (6%) in my tabulations although they do not get beyond minority status, either (see Table 84); but their behavior in my subcorpora also yields some interesting results. Previous studies on present-day AAE are both superficial and divergent in reporting their findings for relativization. Light (1969: 65-66), who is only known to me through Schneider (1989: 218), mentions that, who and object zeroes but claims that there are no subject zeroes. Labov and Cohen (1973: 227) have provoked surprise by stating that which is the dominant pronoun (cf. Schneider 1989: 218; Tottie and Harvie 1999: 199). Dillard (1972: 59) claims that if there is an overt relative pronoun it is what, but he is actually more fond of seeing AAE as having no underlying relative pronouns (68).138 Quite recently, Martin and Wolfram (1998: 32) stated that a "notable difference between AAVE and many other English vernaculars is AAVE speakers' ability to form bare subject relative clauses". But this is not tenable because there are too many dialects of English that use subject zeroes, too, as has been convincingly argued for by Tottie and Harvie (1999: 202-203). Unfortunately, all these studies do not provide quantitative results. A notable exception is McKay's (1969) study. Her results are listed in Table 84 together with a variety of other sources that deliver quantitative material for several varieties of English. This table is designed to deliver a picture of the variability of relative markers across varieties of English ranging from British and American Standard to British and

158 Relativization American dialects and Earlier AAE from Nova Scotia and Samaná as well as the from my subcorpora. Quirk (1957) and Guy and Bayley (1995) represent educated spoken British and written and spoken American Standard, respectively; Van den Eynden (1993), Cheshire (1982) and Hackenberg (1972) are examples for English and American dialects, while the remaining studies illustrate variation across sources of Earlier AAE. With the exception of Schneider (1989), Montgomery (1991) and Guy and Bayley (1995), all figures refer to non-restrictive relative clauses. McKay (1969) is quoted from Tottie and Harvie (1999). Table 84.

Distribution of relative markers in standard and nonstandard varieties of English

Quirk (1957, educated spoken British English) Guy and Bayley (1995, written and spoken American English) Van den Eynden (1993, restrictive relatives, Dorset) Cheshire (1982, Reading)140 Hackenberg (1972, Appalachian English)141 Schneider (1989, Earlier AAE, Rawick) Montgomery (1991, Earlier AAE, Rawick) Tottie and Harvie (1999, ANSE) Tottie and Harvie (1999, SE) McKay (1969; contemporary AAE, one informant) WPAVA WPAMS ESR HOODOOl H00D002 Total

that who/ which139

zero

what

Ν

36%

17%

-

903

35%

44%

21%

-

827

17%

45%

32%

6%

406

19%/5% 27% ? 65%

25%

24%

?

25%

?

?

26%

28%

39%

786

19%

56%

14%

167

43% 21%

37% 19%

19% 53%

245 406

38%

54%

9%

56

42% 12% 32% 47% 53% 44%

33% 58% 58% 35% 35% 39%

8% 26% 9% 11% 3% 10%

183 178 112 973 443 1889

15%/3% 2%/l% 2%/6%/l% 6%/3% 6%/l%

First of all, the figures neatly document that the only qualitative difference between standard and nonstandard varieties of English is the presence of what in the relative marker paradigm of the latter. From a quantitative point of view, results differ greatly when comparing standard to nonstandard. But the distri-

Methodological remarks 159 bution across nonstandard varieties alone is also far from homogeneous. The most striking difference between standard and nonstandard English is the substantial decrease of whoAvhich from standard to nonstandard. And when contrasting Earlier AAE and other dialects of English we learn that Earlier AAE (except WPA VA) displays a fairly uniform quantitative difference: who and which occur at an even lower rate here than in other English dialects. On the contrary, that seems to be an all-purpose relativizer across standard and nonstandard varieties, but its rate as opposed to other relativizers varies greatly. When neglecting Appalachian English (Hackenberg 1972), that has its lowest as well as its highest percentage in AAE (12% in WPA MS, 53% in HOOD002). Further, zero relativization seems to be more popular in nonstandard varieties, which might be connected to the fact that these also allow for deletion of the relative marker in subject position. But this cannot be the only reason, especially when zero occurs in more than 50% of all cases (Montgomery 1991, McKay 1969, WPA MS, ESR). Finally, what is also used in a highly variable fashion in nonstandard varieties and especially within Earlier AAE, with percentages ranging from 3% ( H 0 0 D 0 0 2 ) to 53% (SE, Tottie and Harvie 1999). What this survey shows then is that, although there are substantial differences between standard and nonstandard relativization, it is especially across nonstandard varieties of English where we witness an extraordinary variety in the choice of relativizers. Moreover, even if the focus is narrowed down to Earlier AAE, it becomes apparent that almost every analysis has resulted in a unique distribution. There is, however, one problem about this overview: the figures as reported here pool all instances of relative markers irrespective of linguistic and nonlinguistic factors that might be at work in producing this variety of results. In other words it is necessary to "control... for both linguistic and non-linguistics sources of variation" (Ball 1996: 252). A first very important step in this process is to distinguish between relative markers in subject and in non-subject position, which has been shown to be crucial by Tottie and Harvie (1999). They remind us that only by doing so does it become possible to "avoid interaction between the factors testing humanness of the antecedent and syntactic function of the relative marker" (210) because it emerged from their samples ANSE, SE, and ESR - that "subjects are correlated with humanness, and objects are correlated with non-humanness" (210). This has also been documented by Schneider (1989) for his sample of Earlier AAE from Rawick (1972), by Montgomery (1991) for the ex-slave recordings, by Ball (1996) for a variety of Early Modern and present-day English texts, and by Tottie and Rey (1997) for the ex-slave recordings.142

160 Relativization The same applies for each of my subcorpora. In Table 85 total frequencies for all restrictive relative clauses are given irrespective of the relative marker and we notice that human antecedents are more often followed by relatives in subject function (156, 157), while non-subject relatives seem to favor nonhuman referents (158,159). (156) An' we might heah, ah've heard a lot o/preachahs that say they nevah did this, an' nevah did that ... (FL_mD; Hyatt 19701978: 4706) (157) Dey was two other young men 0 went along same time wid us, an' dey had a (Sam Broach; Rawick 1977: 225) (158) The biggest whipping that ever I knowed. (Laura Smalley; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor Avila 1991: 72) (159) Den I started usin' my money to get little things 0 I wanted. (PATIENCE M. AVERY; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 16)

Table 85.

Correlation between humanness of the antecedent head and grammatical category of the relative pronoun

WPAVA subj. non-s. human 62 20 non-, , 36 64 human

WPAMS ESR subj. non-s. subj. 50 19 46

HOODOOl H 0 0 D 0 0 2 non-s. subj. non-s. subj. non-s. 19 259 91 124 38

25

41

80

7

182

440

70

210

A second reason for distinguishing between subject relatives and object relatives becomes obvious in Table 86 Here we learn that most of the relatives in my combined corpus occur preferably in one function. Notably, who (160) and to a lesser extent also which (161) and that (162) - is correlated with subject position, while zero occurs outside subject position in the majority of cases (163,164). What is the only marker which occurs in both positions at the same rate (165,166). (160) Well they had some of the, some of the slaves who worked in the house and then some who worked on the yard. (Laura Smalley; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor Avila 1991: 64) (161) It must have been Nat Turner's 'nsurrection which wuz some time Jo' de breakin' of de Civil War. (FANNIE BERRY; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 35)

Methodological remarks 161 (162) Dat's why yo' see people dat's so superstitious about washin' gettiti' fresh watah evah mawnin' an' (GA_m3; Hyatt 19701978: 1814) (163) This is the first factory 0 I worked in. (ALLEN WILSON; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 328) (164) All right, den. Dose two things is all 0 yo' need Den git chew a pencil an' sit down (TN_f6; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1795) (165) Each one use a towel she take - take the towel what she usually put on top of her. (VA_m3; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1395) (166) Dey did dat tuh a woman what had been beat so bad dat she run away one (FANNIE BERRY; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 45) Table 86.

Distribution of relative markers by their syntactic function in the combined corpus

that subject 493 (60%) non-subject 329(40%) Ν 822

what 94 (50%) 95 (50%) 189

zero 155 (21%) 578 (79%) 733

who 104 (92%) 9 (8%) 113

which 15 (65%) 8 (35%) 23

Ν 861 1019 1880

Third, we see from Table 87 a) and b) how subject and non-subject relatives are distributed across my subcorpora. Subject relatives do not follow a homogeneous pattern: that is the preferred variant in WPA VA, and the two HOODOO corpora, WPA MS has what as the most frequent subject relativizer, while in ESR it is zero, although the distance to that is small (43% vs. 42%). With non-subject relatives matters are more clear-cut: zero is the most popular relative marker throughout. Notice, however, that percentages range from 90% in WPA MS to 50% in H 0 0 D 0 0 2 . Tottie and Harvie (1999) have found similar tendencies, although details differ. They report that to be the dominant variant in subject position in ANSE and ESR, while SE prefers what. For non-subject relatives they found that zero is first choice in ANSE and ESR, SE again deviates and prefers what.1*3. Despite some degree of variation across sources of Earlier AAE, we see that the most popular subject relative marker seems to be that, while zero figures prominently in non-subject position.

162 Relativization Table 87.

Distribution of relative markers by syntactic function and subcorpus

a) subject relatives that what zero which who Ν

WPAVA 54 (55%) 9 (9%) 5 (5%) 3 (3%) 27 (28%) 98

WPAMS 19 (25%) 38 (51%) 14 (19%) 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 75

ESR 22 (42%) 6(11%) 23 (43%) 0 2 (4%) 53

HOODOOl 274 (62%) 37 (8%) 80 (18%) 3 (1%) 47 (11%) 441

H00D002 124 (64%) 4 (2%) 33 (17%) 8 (4%) 25 (13%) 194

WPAMS 2 (2%) 8 (8%) 89 (90%) 0 0 99

ESR 14 (24%) 4 (7%) 41 (69%) 0 0 59

HOODOOl 180 (34%) 70 (13%) 268 (51%) 3 (1%) 8 (2%) 529

H00D002 110(44%) 8 (3%) 124 (50%) 5 (2%) 1 (0%) 248

b) non-subject relatives that what zero which who Ν

WPAVA 23 (27%) 5 (6%) 56 (67%) 0 0 84

From the above comparison of subject and object relatives, a distinction along such lines is very well justified if not necessary. Otherwise, it would neither be possible to account for different preferences in either function and across data sets nor to control for interference between function of the relative marker and humanness of the antecedent. But since this separation by function does not result in any categorical behavior, the next step in analyzing relative constructions is to test if the choice of a certain relativizer is constrained by other factors. There are actually quite a lot of studies which have documented such constraints, and I will shortly report what we already know about the most popular ones: humanness and category of the antecedent head as well as adjacency of relative marker and antecedent.144 5.1.2 Humanness of the antecedent head A first constraint that is at work in Standard English very obviously is the humanness of the antecedent head: who (167) and which (168) usually follow human and non-human heads, respectively, while zero and that can occur after either (169,170). (167) The vasa who went... (168) The cat which jumped.

Methodological remarks 163 (169) The man that / 01 saw... (170) The cat that 101 saw ... Table 88 reproduces the distribution in Quirk (1957) for educated spoken British English. Table 88.

Distribution of relative pronouns in educated spoken British English by humanness and function of relative pronoun (Quirk 1957)

who/which145 human / subject 91% non-human / subject 48% human / object 34% non-human / object 21%

that 9% 52% 31% 39%

zero 0,45% 0,33% 34% 40%

Ν 222 304 32 344

The figures indicate that after human referents the almost categorical subject relative pronoun is who, while who, that, and zero appear almost equally often as object relatives. After non-human referents that and which in subject position account for about half of all tokens each, whereas in object position that shares about 80% of all cases at equal parts with zero, leaving which at about 20%. All in all, we see that, setting aside the strong position of subject who after human heads, a lot of competition is at work between who, which, that and zero. Moreover, although that and zero are not exclusively associated with either human or non-human referents, both are favored by non-human referents, but zero a little less so than that. This is basically confirmed by Guy and Bayley's (1995: 152) VARBRUL analyses for spoken and written American English. Although they combine subject and non-subject relatives, human heads strongly favor wA-fonns (who and which together) at .80,146 and strongly disfavor that at .23, which can also be inferred from Quirk's (1957) data. Quite differently from Quirk (1957), however, Guy and Bayley report that zero is slightly favored by human heads at .59 and slightly disfavored by non-human heads at .42,147 which is likely to be due to their pooling of all relative pronouns irrespective of their function in the relative clause. Table 89.

human non-human

Distribution of relative markers by humanness in Dorset (Van den Eynden 1993: 102) who 37%

which 3% 18%

that 33% 43%

zero 19% 31%

what 8% 7%

Ν 205 288

164 Relativization In Dorset English, Van den Eynden (1993) - the only English dialect study available which has touched upon this issue - the distribution by humanness is as follows in Table 89. Unfortunately, Van den Eynden does not distinguish between subject and non-subject relatives, but at least we get a sketchy notion of differences and parallels between one dialect and the standard as represented by Quirk (1957). The primary quantitative difference is the lower rate of wA-forms, although who is still pretty strong after human heads (37%); secondly, the mere presence of what in Dorset - which does not have any preferences concerning the humanness of its referent - also documents a qualitative difference to the standard. But the remaining two relatives, that and zero, display tendencies similar to the standard: their preferred environment is non-human, although for that in Dorset (human 33%; non-human 43%) this tendency seems to be less strong than in educated British English (human 20%; non-human 46%).148 For zero, the correlation with humans is weaker in educated British, which has 17% after human and 20% after non-human as opposed to 19% and 31%, respectively, in Dorset. Thus, although quantity and quality of dialectal relativization differs from the standard to some extent we see that preferences for human and non-human referents are similar. Of course it is necessary to keep in mind that Dorset English is only one out of many dialects of English and it is not to be taken for granted that all of them behave in a similar fashion. In previous studies of Earlier A A E the main focus is on zero relatives. Their results for the humanness constraint are surveyed in Table 90. Table 90.

Survey of zero relatives in previous studies of Earlier AAE by humanness of the antecedent. subject zero nonhuman Ν human 88% 12% 17

Schneider (1989: 214; Rawick 1972) Montgomery (1991:186; Rawick 67% 1972) Montgomery (1991: 186; ESR) 100% Tottie and Harvie (1999; ESR) modified calculation Tottie and Harvie (1999; ANSE) modified calculation Tottie and Harvie (1999; SE) modified calculation

33%

non-subject zero nonhuman Ν human 86% 14% 286

3

3%

97%

-

19

-

-

-

-

-

-

11% 65% 25% 48% 75% 40% 35%

89% 80% 75% 48% 85% 34% 65%

91 66 -

44 -

67 —

48

Methodological remarks 165 As we see from Schneider's (1989) Rawick (1972) sample and from Montgomery's (1991) analyses of ESR and a different set of ex-slave interviews from Rawick (1972), it seems as if subject zeroes follow human antecedents much more often than non-human ones, while for zeroes in non-subject • ·

149 λ

position the reverse is true. Tottie and Harvie's (1999) findings, however, deserve some comment. First of all, their mode of calculating percentages for non-subject zero after human and non-human heads is entirely different from the one used by Schneider (1989) and Montgomery (1991), who simply calculate their percentages as a proportion of all zeroes in the samples. If this mode is applied to Tottie and Harvie's data (cf. the "modified calculation" rows in the table), the results in principle coincide with Schneider's and Montgomery's. But Tottie and Harvie have decided to calculate percentages in a different fashion, although they do not comment on this issue. They get their rates for zero as a proportion of all relative markers in the respective environment.150 This means that e.g. their 34% for non-subject zero after non-human referents stem from 31 tokens of zero out of a total of 92 relative clauses referring to non-human heads. The obvious disadvantage of this mode of calculation is that the results are not comparable to the ones obtained from other studies. But the advantage of comparing ratios in contrast to other variants (e.g. zero as a proportion of all other relatives) - rather than the distribution of one form across certain environments - is that token frequency differences in different contexts are compensated for. Since this is a factor that essentially contributes to producing unbiased results, I will adopt this mode of calculation in my analyses below. Returning to the human / non-human constraint in Earlier AAE, Tottie and Harvie (1999) report completely different findings for non-subject zeroes in each set they studied. In ANSE human referents favor non-subject zero to the same extent as non-humans, in SE non-subject zero is slightly preferred after human heads, while in ESR it is non-human referents that favor non-subject zero. This means that only ESR is similar to educated spoken British English (Quirk 1957) in this respect, but because Tottie and Harvie (1999) do not provide data for subject relatives and Guy and Bailey have not separated subject from non-subject relativizers, a more detailed cross-study comparison is not possible. But a first result that we have to keep in mind is that the human / non-human constraint executed by the antecedent of the relative clause is very likely to have variable effects on the choice of relative markers in different sets of data. The reasons for this variability may be found in temporal change or in geographical diversity.

166 Relativization 5.1.3 Category of the antecedent head The second factor that is said to have some effect on the choice of relative markers is the formal category of the antecedent. There are basically four main classes: pronoun (171), definite noun phrase (172), indefinite noun phrase (173), and numeral (174). (171) There was somebody who went... (172) This is the cat which jumped... (173) I saw a child that was crying... (174) There were seven of them who came.. For written scientific British English Huddlestone (1971) reports correlations between indefinite referents and wA-forms as well as that, while for zero he found that it is favored after definite heads. The latter correlation, however, was denied by Taglicht (1973; written British non-fiction), and also Tottie's (1995; written British and American English) variable rule analyses do not support this connection between zero and definite NP. Moreover, Olofsson (1981) reports correlations between "special" antecedents (pronouns and superlatives)151 and zero. For Earlier AAE non-subject zero relatives, Tottie and Harvie (1999: 214— 215) found that pronominal antecedents have the highest incidence with zero, while the effect of definite NPs cannot be supported. Subject zeroes are clearly favored by indefinite heads. Again, Tottie and Harvie do not provide figures for the remaining relative markers, but it would be interesting to see if they behave similarly to the standard ones as reported by Huddlestone (1972) especially because Van den Eynden (1993: 120) found essential differences in her dialectal spoken Dorset English data: that, what, and which are favored by definite heads, while who correlates with indefinites. But once more the comparability of these results is in question because all studies mentioned here - except Tottie and Harvie (1999) - pool subject and non-subject relatives. 5.1.4 Adjacency of relative marker and antecedent head The adjacency constraint is a fairly straightforward one. In standard English zero relatives must be adjacent to their referents, as in (175) (Jespersen 1965). (175) The woman 0 / met... This was empirically confirmed by Quirk (1957; educated spoken British) and Taglicht (1973; written British non-fiction), as well as by Guy and Bayley (1995; spoken and written American) and Olofsson (1981; written American).

Methodological remarks 167 On the other hand, wA-forms and that do not have to stand directly after their referents (176), but it appears that "the choice between wA-form and that, however, is not significantly affected by the adjacency of the antecedent and the relativized element" (Guy and Bayley 1995: 155). (176) Things may turn up that we don't see now (cf. Guy and Bayley 1995: 155). In Earlier AAE (Tottie and Harvie 199: 215-6; 218-219) the tendency for zero to be adjacent to the antecedent is basically confirmed in both subject and nonsubject contexts, although in SE subject zeroes seem to be favored when the head is non-adjacent. However, Tottie and Harvie remind us that tokens in SE might be too small in number to allow for valid conclusions. Further, it would be interesting to see if Guy and Bayley's (1995) results that the choice between wA-forms and that is not constrained by adjacency can be reproduced for Earlier AAE. 5.1.5 Summing up the factors for the present analysis What we have learnt from the survey above is that relativization, i.e. the choice of the relative markers, in standard as well as in nonstandard varieties of English and especially in (Earlier) AAE seems to be governed by a variety of constraints that are to some extent similar but far from homogeneous. And although many studies of relativization differ on methodological grounds, which makes one-to-one comparison an almost impossible task, it is still possible to get a sketchy notion of the diversity of relativization strategies in English. Moreover, it appears as if Tottie and Harvie (1999) have done a decent job in preparing the stage for a more detailed understanding of relativization in the history of AAE. Their findings about zero relatives in ANSE, SE, and ESR in fact place AAE relativization pretty close to what has been reported for other varieties of English. But I think we should try to explain the discrepancies, and a pursuit of geographical and temporal reasons might turn out to be helpful. Further, I suppose that for a full treatment of Earlier AAE relative constructions - even if it is only non-restrictives here - overt relative markers need to be taken into account, too, in order to support or question the close connection to English. Table 91 identifies the categories and their constituents that are necessary for the classification of relative markers; examples for each type appear in (177) to (205).

168

Relatìvizatìon

Table 91.

Categories for coding relative markers

Category relative marker function of relative marker category of antecedent humanness adjacency

Constituents zero, that, what, who, which subject, non-subject pronoun, definite NP, indefinite NP, numeral human, non-human adjacent, non-adjacent

Examples for relatìvizatìon by means of that, what and zero152 in Earlier AAE Function of relative pronoun subject (177) He was a chief Indian an' he knowed whatevah root dat growed in a tree. (VA_m2; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1622) (178) Them what didn' nurse, they didn' come (Laura Smalley; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila, eds. 1991: 62) (179) T'other part of dis is de room 0 153 wuz 10 feet square. (Ishrael Massie; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 210) non-subject (180) tell yo' 'bout de shoe - yo' kin git a shoe dat a person wear, one of his ole shoes. (SC_m3; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1031) (181) Each one use a towel she take - take the towel what she usually put on top of her. (VA_m3; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1395) (182) An' my granddaddy's mother was de oldest person 0 anybody knowed; (Ned Chaney; Rawick 1977: 369) Humanness of antecedent human (183) I recollect an of man that they had in town, an ol' dep, uh, sherrif. (Billy McCrea; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila, eds. 1991: 42) (184) De ole fellah whut called hisself a detective, he would secure a mockin'birdaig. (SC_m6; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1110) (185) I had de best doctah en nuss 0 mony could git. (Charlie Davenport; Rawick 1977: 568)

Methodological remarks 169 non-human (186) Any kind of aigs - snake aigs, all de aigs dat chew see dat is dangerous. (SC_m4; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1527) (187) We had these what they call log cabin. (Fountain Hughes; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila, eds. 1991: 37) (188) dere ain't but two roots 0 dey use in dat. (DC_fl; Hyatt 19701978: 7244) Category of antecedent pronoun (189) witness to an' I don't want to tell ya nothing dat ain't true. (ISHRAEL MASSEE; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 206) (190) he will have somepin whut de people call' de hoarze [= whore's] eetch - (SC_m6; Hyatt 1970-1978:1106) (191) He had ev'rythin' 0 he wan'ed. (SC_mA; Hyatt 1970-1978: 4520) definite NP (192) Now you, do you ever hear this fellow that comes over the radio? (Fountain Hughes; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila, eds. 1991: 39) (193) - give 'em water - an' fed de chickens what roos' in de big hen-house. (Charlie Bell; Rawick 1977: 124) (194) Dis is de song 0 I he'rd my master sing: (Fannie Berry; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 35) indefinite NP (195) Dere was an' ole tannery dat caught on fire, or else some one burnt it. (Fannie Berry; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 44) (196) all de niggers what was watchin' him would bus' out laughin' an' purty soon (Fannie Berry; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 40)

170 Relativization (197) One of those big horse 0 they call Yankee Tom, big sorrell horse. (Billy McCrea; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila, eds. 1991:42) numeral (198) ... AN' AH WUS WONG DE 7 OR 8 DAT WUS SAVED (SC_mA; Hyatt 1970-1978: 4516) (199) Dey was seven of us 0 was brothers an' sisters. (Simon Hare; Rawick 1977: 913) Adjacency of antecedent and relative marker adjacent (200) It's nevah a wounded or hurt person or sick person tha' don' wanna git well. (ALJA; Hyatt 1970-1978: 4538) (201) That is the thing what we got tuh look at. (FL_mA; Hyatt 1970-1978: 4710) (202) Hit was Abe Lincoln 0 said we was free, I think (Simon Hare; Rawick 1977: 920) non-adjacent (203) An' the white folks all been treating me mighty nice ever since that knowed me. (Alice Gaston; Bailey, Maynor, and CukorAvila, eds. 1991: 59) (204) The master would make them whip you what overseed you in the fiel'. (Laura Smalley; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila, eds. 1991: 68) (205) And all at onest — it wus an ole man there 0 wus somepin like whut they call a two-head man, (MD_m4; Hyatt 1970-1978: 366) The following analysis of Earlier AAE relative markers as represented in my corpus will proceed along the same lines as the two previous chapters: after surveying my data by sub-corpora (5.2.) I will go on to demonstrate temporal developments (5.3.) in the choice of relativizers as well as geographical diversity (5.4) within the area covered by my sources. Finally (5.5), it will be tested if gender makes a difference in the usage of relativizers.

Relativization by subcorpus 171

5.2

Relativizatíoii by subcorpus

I will start by grouping the results by sub-corpus. Table 92 gives a detailed survey of what has already been hinted at in Table 84. Table 92.

WPAVA WPAMS ESR154 HOODOOl HOOD002

Overview of relative markers in Earlier AAE by sub-corpus (subject and non-subject) that 77 (42%) 21 (12%) 36 (32%) 454 (47%) 234 (53%) 822 (44%)

what 14 (8%) 46 (26%) 10 (9%) 107 (11%) 12 (3%) 189 (10%)

zero 61 (33%) 103 (58%) 64 (57%) 348 (36%) 157 (35%) 733 (39%)

who 27 (18%) 3 (2%) 2 (2%) 55 (6%) 26 (6%) 113 (6,0%)

which 3 (2%) 1 (1%) η U 6 (1%) 13 (3%) 23 (1%)

0 1 (0 0

whose Ν 1 183 (0,6%) 3 178 (2%) 112 0

1 (0

2 973 (0,2%) 1 443 0 (0,2%) 2 7 1889 Total (0,4%) ff the percentages of relative marker choice in my sub-corpora are sorted in descending order, the following hierarchies emerge: WPA VA:

that > zero > who > what > which

WPAMS:

zero> what> that> who > which

ESR:

zero > that > what > who > which

HOODOOl: that > zero > what > who > which H 0 0 D 0 0 2 : that > zero > who > what > which These five orderings actually have only one thing in common: which is the least often used variant in all sets. The remaining orderings are entirely diversified, which quite obviously leads to the assumption that relativization strategies in Earlier AAE were far from homogeneous. However, I think these first results should not be taken at face-value, because this overview pools all relative clauses irrespective of constraints that might influence the choice of the relative marker. Thus, the hierarchies above may as well mirror chance findings due to the nature of the contents of the interviews. But one thing is fairly clear already: on the whole it seems as if that and zero - the two standard relative markers that are not unanimously constrained by the humanness of the antecedent - are the two main relativizers in Earlier AAE, while what, an entirely nonstandard marker, is relatively popular only in one sub-corpus,

172 Relativization namely in WPA MS, in which it appears at an exceptional rate of 26%. At first sight, this result might question the linguistic quality of this set. However, we have seen above that also in ANSE (19%) and especially in SE (53%) similar or even more extraordinary results were obtained from sociolinguistic interviews (cf. Tottie and Harvie 1999: 212). Interestingly, Schneider's (1989: 249) informants from MS also have 46% of what (49 out of 106). This quantitative survey, however, conceals some qualitative peculiarities in my data. I have found several examples in which one informant uses that which as in (206) and (207). (206) But these, these little fellahs that which had stayed befo' God prayin', they didn't go an' drink the wine ... (FL_mA; Hyatt 1970-1978: 4718) (207) An' he tole him tuh bring the cloak that which he lef at Troas ... (FLrnA; Hyatt 1970-1978: 4711) We see that this combination can be used both in subject (206) and in object position (207) and as well as after human (206) and non-human (207) referents. But since this pattern occurs only seven times in one idiolect (FL_mA; H 0 0 D 0 0 2 ) , it cannot be assumed to be part of the Earlier AAE relative marker system. More interesting, however, is a relativization strategy involving non-spatial where as a relative marker as in (208) through (210). (208) My father was one o de founders o' de Underground Railroad where help de slaves to run way to de North ... (Patience Avery; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 17) (209) I know dis to be a fact; saw de man whar carried dem down in de woods. (Arthur Greene; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 124) (210) ... and dis is whar I'se bin all dese many years - livin' in dis ole slave quarters whar was built fer us slaves den. (Jennie Patterson; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1992: 220) There are a total of 8 such examples from 6 informants in my data, in which where is used as a relative marker both in subject and non-subject positions as well as after human and non-human antecedents, and I suppose parallels to weA-relativization like for example in Gullah (Mufwene 1986) are hard to deny. However, the frequency of this feature is so low that the only valid explanation for the appearance of this feature in my corpus is creole influence on AAE rather than prior creolization of AAE. But one fact that is fairly puzzling to me is that all informants who use where in this context come from VA (WPA VA), which is one of those areas in which creole influences were

Relativization by subcorpus 173 least likely (cf. Winford 1998, Rickford 1997).155 I will, however, not treat these low-frequency variants any longer but proceed to more detailed quantitative observations in the choice of relative markers across subcorpora. Each of the analytical sections below contains two tables, one for subject relatives and one for object relatives. Moreover, the relative markers under scrutiny, i.e. that, what, zero, who, and which, are always sorted by the respective factors in the three factor groups (humanness, category of antecedent, and adjacency). Therefore, percentages give the proportion of a certain relativizer in a particular environment as opposed to other relativizers. From a methodological point of view there are basically two ways of interpreting these tables. On the one hand it is possible to document frequency hierarchies by environment, while, on the other, the figures also lend themselves to testing the preferences for one certain relative marker in different environments and I will pursue both types of description in order to deliver a comprehensive picture of Earlier AAE non-restrictive relative constructions. NOTE: For visual transparency the tables receive two kinds of highlighting: the highest rates of all relatives per environment are printed in bold type. The highest percentages of relative markers across environments appear in shaded cells. Here, however, I mostly indicate preferences for the three dominant relative markers that, what, and zero only. Figures for which and who are too small most of the time to obtain reliable results. 5.2.1 Humanness of the antecedent In Table 93 and 94 all subject and non-subject relatives, respectively, are distributed by the humanness of the antecedent head. Comparing the totals, we see that the majority of subject relatives (541 out of 861 ~ 63%) follows human heads, while, even to a larger extent, most non-subject relatives (832 out of 1019 ~ 82%) appear after non-human heads, which mirrors the correlation mentioned above (5.1) of subject with human and non-subject with non-human referents. Table 93. human that what zero which who Ν

Humanness of antecedent by subcorpus (subject relatives)

WPAVA WPAMS ESR

HOODOOl H 0 0 D 0 0 2 Total

26 (42%) 8 (13%) 2 (3%) 0 26 (42%) 62

14« (54%) 17 (7%) 56 (22%) 0 46 (18%) 259

11 (22%) 28 (56%) 8 (16%) 0 3 (6%) 50

19 (41%) 6(13%) 19(41%) 0 2 (4%) 46

72 (58%) 3(2%) 21 (17%) 3 (2%) 25 (20%) 124

268 (50%) 62 (12%) 106 (20%) 3(1%) 102 (19%) 541

174 Relativizatíon Table 93 (cont.) non-human that 28 (78%) what 1(3%) zero 3 (8%) which 3 (8%) who 1 (3%) Ν 36 Table 94.

8 (32%) 10 (40%) 6 (24%) 1 (4%) 0 25

3 (43%) 0 4 (57%) 0 0 7

134 (74%) 20(11%) 24(13%) 3 (2%) 1 (1%) 182

52 (74%) 1 (1%) 12 (17%) 5 (7%) 0 70

225 (70%) 32 (10%) 49 (15%) 12 (4%) 2 (1%) 320

Humanness of antecedent by subcorpus (non-subject relatives)

WPAVA WPA MS ESR human that 7(35%) what 1 (5%) zero 12 (60%) which 0 who 0 Ν 20 non-human that 16 (25%) what 4(7%) zero 44(69%) which 0 who 0 Ν 64

HOODOOl HOODOO Total 2

1 (5%) 4(21%) 14 (74%) 0 0 19

11 (58%) 0 8 (42%) 0 0 19

38 (42%) 4 (4%) 41 (45%) 0 8 (9%) 91

17 (45%) 0 18 (47%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 38

74(40%) 9 (5%) 93 (50%) 2 (1%) 9 (5%) 187

1 (1%) 4 (5%) 75(94%) 0 0 80

3 (7%) 4 (10%) 33 (83%) 0 0 40

142 (32%) 66 (15%) 227(52%) 3 (1%) 0 438

93 (44%) 8 (4%) 106(51%) 3 (1%) 0 210

255 (31%) 86 (10%) 485 (58%) 6 (1%) 0 832

5.2.1.1 Frequency of relative markers by environment After human referents subject that is first choice in HOODOO 1 (54%) and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 (58%). In WPA VA and ESR that occurs in about 40 percent of all cases, but who is equally frequent in WPA VA, and so is zero in ESR. WPA MS is the only sub-corpus in which what is the number one subject relative after human heads. After non-human referents the picture is equally diversified: Although that is the most frequent relativizer in this context in WPA VA, HOODOO 1, and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 , WPA MS and ESR do not conform to this pattern but have what (WPA MS, 40%) and zero (ESR, 44%) on top of the lists. Admittedly, token numbers are probably too small in ESR to allow for reliable results. But what this overview suggests is that almost every sub-corpus exhibits different tendencies in the choice of relative markers after both human and non-human referents.

Relativization by subcorpus 175

Moving on to non-subject relatives (Table 94), all sub-corpora seem to behave in a somewhat more uniform fashion than with subject relatives. This is especially true after non-human heads, where the majority of cases has zero in all sets. Notice, however, that percentages range from 51% in H00D002 to 94 % in ESR. Non-subject zero is also first choice following human heads in four subcorpora except ESR, in which that is most often used in this context. But differences between that and zero are small in HOODOOl (42% and 45%, respectively) and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 (44% and 47%, respectively). 5.2.1.2 Comparison of relative markers across environments If we now go on to contrast percentages for each relative marker across environments, there are indeed some tendencies that hold for a majority of the subcorpora: First, we see that subject that is preferred after non-human heads in all sources but ESR, while non-subject that is preferred with human heads throughout.156 Second, what also displays a neat correlation with humanness: subject what is preferred after humans in all sub-corpora except HOODOOl, while non-subject what correlates with non-human heads in all sets except WPA MS.157 Third, non-subject zero is also favored by non-human heads throughout,158 while subject zero displays somewhat variable behavior: it is favored after human heads in HOODOOl, after non-human heads in WPA MS, WPA VA, and ESR159, while in H00D002 it occurs in both environments in identical proportions.160 Finally, it appears that the well-known dichotomy between which and who also holds for Earlier AAE: in subject position which is favored after non-human antecedents, while who is favored after humans in all sub-corpora. In non-subject position these two relative markers are too infrequent to allow any conclusions, but results from HOODOOl and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 , which are the only two sets that have non-subject which and who, point in the same direction. Summing up,161 it has first of all been shown that on average subject that and non-subject zero are the dominant relativizers irrespective of the humanness of the referent, although non-subject that is also fairly popular in both environments. Second, when comparing preferences of relative markers across environments, it appears that in non-subject position preferences are pretty clear: what and zero correlate with non-human and that with human. In subject position, however, preferences for what and that are reversed, i.e. what most likely follows human and that follows non-human heads. Subject zero behaves most variably and is not homogeneously confined to either of the contexts. What should not be neglected, however, are the considerable margins to which relative markers are favored or disfavored across corpora, and maybe temporal or geographical analyses will deliver more straightforward results.

176 Relativization 5.2.2 Category of the antecedent The second constraint that has been reported to have some effect on the choice of relativizers is the category of the antecedent. Table 95 and Table 96 survey all subject and object relatives sorted by the four categories pronoun, definite NP, indefinite NP, and ninnerai. First of all, it emerges that numerals do not play a major role here because of their small total frequency of 6 before subject and 3 before non-subject relatives in the combined corpus. What we can observe, however, is that if the antecedent is a numeral it is either that or zero that acts as subject relative, while all three instances of non-subject relatives are zero in this context. Further, we notice that subject relatives most often occur after indefinite NPs (423/861 ~ 49%), whereas non-subject relatives to some extent correlate with definite NPs (427/1019 ~ 42%). 5.2.2.1 Frequency of relative markers by environment Table 95 surveys subject relatives by antecedent and subcorpus Table 95.

Category of antecedent by subcorpus (subject relatives)162

WPAVA pronoun that 6 (60%) what 2 (20%) zero 1 (10%) which 0 who 1 (10%) Ν 10 definite NP that 17 (53%) what 4 (13%) zero 1 (3%) which 2 (6%) who 8 (25%) Ν 32 indefinite NP that 31 (55%) what 3 (5%) zero 3 (5%) which 1 (2%) who 18 (32%) Ν 56

WPAMS ESR

HOODOOl H 0 0 D 0 0 2 Total

4 (29%) 6 (43%) 4 (29%) 0 0 14

4 (36%) 4 (36%) 3 (27%) 0 0 11

50 (68%) 3 (4%) 11 (15%) 1 (1%) 8(11%) 73

24(63%) 1 (3%) 4(11%) 2 (5%) 7 (18%) 38

88 (60%) 16(11%) 23 (16%) 3 (2%) 16(11%) 146

8 (30%) 11 (41%) 5 (19%) 1 (4%) 2 (7%) 27

11 (42%) 1 (4%) 14(54%) 0 0 26

93 (66%) 15(11%) 11(8%) 1 (1%) 20 (14%) 140

42 (69%) 3 (5%) 5 (8%) 6 (10%) 5 (8%) 61

171 (60%) 34(12%) 36(13%) 10 (4%) 35 (12%) 286

7 (21%) 21 (64%) 4 (12%) 0 1 (3%) 33

6 (40%) 1 (7%) 6 (40%) 0 2 (13%) 15

131 (58%) 18 (8%) 57(25%) 1 (0%) 19 (8%) 226

56 (60%) 0 24 (26%) 0 13 (14%) 93

230 (54%) 43 (10%) 94 (22%) 2(1%) 53 (13%) 423

Relativization by subcorpus 177 After pronouns subject that occurs at a rate of 60% and more in WPA VA and the two HOODOO sub-corpora. In ESR it is used in 36% of all cases and thus shares the first rank with what (36%), which at the same time is number one in WPA MS (43%). Definite NPs are also most likely to be followed by that in WPA VA, HOODOOl, and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 , while WPA MS again prefers what and in ESR zero follows in more than 50 percent of all cases. What is fairly interesting to notice is that, despite its minority status in the overall corpus, subject who is second choice after definite NPs in WPA VA and HOODOOl. Alter indefinite NPs the picture is again very similar to the two environments before: that is the most popular relative marker in WPA VA and the two HOODOO sets. ESR has that and zero at identical rates and WPA MS prefers what. Moreover, who figures fairly prominently in WPA VA. On the whole this means that WPA VA and the two HOODOO sub-corpora display a preponderance of subject that in all three environments. WPA MS surprisingly prefers subject what to all other relativizers, while ESR does not have preferences after pronouns (that = what) and indefinite NPs (that = zero) but has a majority of zeroes after definite NPs. Table 96.

Category of antecedent by subcorpus (non-subject relatives) WPAVA WPAMS ESR

pronoun that 2(11%) what 1 (6%) zero 15 (83%) which 0 who 0 18 Ν definite NP that 10 (25%) what 2 (5%) zero 28 (70%) which 0 who 0 Ν 40 indefinite NP that 11 (42%) what 2 (8%) zero 13 (50%) which 0 who 0 26 Ν

HOODOOl H 0 0 D 0 0 2 Total

0 1 (3%) 38 (97%) 0 0 39

2(11%) 1 (6%) 15(83%) 0 0 18

44(31%) 6 (4%) 90(64%) 1 (1%) 0 141

21 (28%) 4(5%) 51 (67%) 0 0 76

69 (24%) 13 (5%) 208(71%) 1 (0%) 0 292

1 (3%) 2 (6%) 32(91%) 0 0 35

9 (31%) 3 (10%) 17 (59%) 0 0 29

51 (52%) 79 (35%) 35 (16%) 2 (2%) 102(45%) 42 (43%) 3 (3%) 2 (1%) 7 (32%) 0 225 98

149 (35%) 44 (10%) 220 (52%) 5 (1%) 7 (2%) 427

58 (36%) 32 (20%) 71 (44%) 0 1 (1%) 162

112(38%) 41 (14%) 139 (47%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 297

1 (4%) 5 (21%) 18 (75%) 0 0 24

4 (33%) |0 8 (67%) 0 0 12

38 (52%) 2 (3%) 30(41%) 2 (3%) 1 (1%) 73

178 Relarivizatìon For non-subject relatives (Table 96), the pattern is even more uniform: zero is first choice in all environments in all subcorpora except H 0 0 D 0 0 2 . There we have that as the most frequent relative after definite and indefinite NPs; after pronouns, however, H 0 0 D 0 0 2 also joins the crowd in having zero on top of the list. But notice that the margins for each environment are considerable: percentages for non-subject zero after pronouns range from 64% to 97%, after definite NPs from 45% to 91%, and after indefinite NPs from 44% to 75%, which suggests that a closer inspection of regional variation and temporal change is promising. 5.2.2.2 Comparison of relative markers across environments Comparing the occurrence of the individual relative markers by environments, we receive an extraordinarily diversified picture for subject relatives: First, that most likely occurs after pronouns in WPA VA and HOODOO 1, while in the remaining sets its preferred environment are definite NPs. Second, what is favored after pronouns in WPA VA and ESR, after definite NPs in the two HOODOO sets, and after indefinite NPs in WPA MS. Third, zero correlates with pronouns in WPA MS and WPA VA, with definite NPs in ESR, and with indefinite NPs in HOODOOl and H00D002. 1 6 3 Fourth, who most likely occurs after pronouns in H 0 0 D 0 0 2 , after definite NPs in WPA MS and HOODOOl, and after indefinite NPs in WPA VA and ESR. Finally, which is the only relativizer that is preferred after definite NPs in all sets except ESR, in which no instances of which could be found. For non-subject relatives the results are a lot more homogeneous: That correlates with indefinite NPs in all sub-corpora164 and zero is preferred by pronominal antecedents165 throughout. Only what displays a diversified pattern: it is preferred after indefinite NPs in WPA MS, WPA VA and HOODOOl, after definite NPs in ESR, and after pronouns in H 0 0 D 0 0 2 . For nonsubject who/which figures are too small to allow for any valid conclusions. On the whole it has emerged that the occurrence of non-subject zero and that is homogeneously constrained by pronominal antecedents and indefinite NPs, respectively, while for non-subject what and all subject relatives no such straightforward pattern could be documented. This once more calls for an analysis along geographical and temporal lines. 5.2.3 Adjacency of antecedent and relative marker The last possible constraint on relative marker choice analyzed here is the adjacency of the relativizer and the antecedent head. Table 97 and Table 98 survey the results for subject and non-subject relatives, respectively.

Relatìvization by subcorpus 179 Table 97.

Adjacency of antecedent by subcorpus (subject relatives) WPAVA WPAMS ESR

adjacent that 51 (55%) what 9 (10%) 5 (5%) zero which 3 (3%) who 24 (26%) Ν 92 non-adjacent that 3 (50%) what 0 0 zero which 0 who 3 (50%) 6 Ν

HOODOOl H 0 0 D 0 0 2 Total

16 (24%) 36 (55%) 10(15%) 1 (2%) 3 (5%) 66

18(39%) 4 (9%) 22 (48%) 0 2 (4%) 46

254 (64%) 34 (9%) 67 (17%) 3 (1%) 40 (10%) 398

111 (64%) 4 (2%) 26 (15%) 8 (5%) 24 (14%) 173

450 (58%) 87(11%) 130(17%) 15 (2%) 93 (12%) 775

3 (33%) 2 (22%) 4 (44%) 0 0 9

4 (57%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 0 7

20 (47%) 3 (7%) 13 (30%) 0 7 (16%) 43

13 (62%) 0 7 (33%) 0 1 (5%) 21

43 (50%) 7 (8%) 25 (29%) 0 11 (13%) 86

A first look at the data confirms intuitive expectations that the "normal" pattern for relative clauses would be the adjacent one: 90% (775/861) of the subject relatives and 92% (933/1019) of the non-subject relatives appear directly after their referents. Table 98.

Adjacency of antecedent by subcorpus (non-subject relatives) WPAVA WPAMS ESR

adjacent that 22 (29%) what 4 (15%) zero 51 (66%) which 0 who 0 77 Ν non-adjacent that 2(29%) what 1 (14%) zero 4 (57%) which 0 who 0 7 Ν

HOODOOl HOOD002 Total

2(2%) 6 (7%) 80(91%) 0 0 88

9 (17%) 2 (4%) 41 (79%) 0 0 52

167 (35%) 66 (14%) 243 (50%) 3 (1%) 4(1%) 483

103 (44%) 7 (3%) 117 (50%) 5 (2%) 1 (0%) 233

305 (33%) 85 (9%) 535 (57%) 8(1%) 5 (1%) 933

0 2 (18%) 9 (82%) 0 0 11

4 (57%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 0 7

12 (26%) 7 (15%) 23 (50%) 0 4 (9%) 46

7 (47%) 1 (7%) 7 (47%) 0 0 15

25 (29%) 13 (15%) 44(51%) 0 4 (5%) 86

Because of this preponderance of adjacent relative clauses the percentages in the "adjacent" rows in the two tables only mirror preferences in relative marker choice for subject and non-subject relatives by subcorpus and not really for

180 Relativization adjacency. Therefore, I will immediately proceed to comparing the behavior of relativizers across the two environments. 5.2.3.1 Comparison of relative markers across environments In view of the adjacency constraint it seems helpful to return to methodological considerations once more. As I have discussed above (5.1.), there are two ways of comparing relative marker performance in different environments. This can be done either by calculating e.g. zero as a proportion of all zeroes or by comparing the ratios of zero as opposed to other relative markers in each environment. And it is exacdy in such an extreme case like adjacency, with the overwhelming majority of relative clauses coming directly after the head, where the first mode of calculation would only mirror this difference in frequency across environments. This means that the sheer number of tokens in the "adjacent" category would of course make this factor the preferred one for all relatives. Therefore, it is necessary to relate the behavior of one certain relativizer to the behavior of other relativizers in the same context and then compare the results. If we do this for my five sub-corpora, we are left with fairly astonishing results, especially for subject relatives, where non-adjacent constructions are more likely than expected. Subject that is favored by adjacency in WPA VA and the two HOODOO samples. In WPA MS and ESR it is more likely to appear in non-adjacent contexts. Further, subject what is preferred by adjacency in all sources except ESR. Zero is favored by adjacency only in WPA VA and ESR.166 Which is more likely to occur directly after the head in all subcorpora except ESR, in which which does not occur at all. And finally, who is preferred by adjacency in WPA MS, ESR and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 . So, again, the five sets do not display a homogeneous behavior in their use of subject relatives. Notice, however, that single frequencies for non-adjacency in WPA MS, WPA VA, and ESR are low and might prohibit reliable conclusions; for HOODOOl and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 figures are relatively robust. With non-subject relatives things appear to be a little more straightforward, at least as far as zero and what are concerned. Zero is quite obviously preferred by adjacency in all subcorpora,167 although in HOODOOl the percentages for adjacent and non-adjacent are identical and in H 0 0 D 0 0 2 the margin is narrow (50% vs. 47%). On the contrary, what seems to be favored when the head is not adjacent. But for WPA VA and HOODOOl percentages for adjacent and non-adjacent contexts are almost identical (WPA VA: 15% and 14%; HOODOOl: 14% and 15%). Finally, that changes preferences across subcorpora and is favored by adjacency in WPA MS and HOODOOl, by non-adjacency in ESR and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 , while in WPA VA percentages are identical.

Relativization by subcorpus 181 5.2.4 Summary Table 99 and Table 100 summarize the findings from the distribution by subcorpus in order to see which factors should undergo temporal and geographical analyses. Table 99.

Survey of first choice relative markers by environment (subcorpora)

human non-human pronoun definite NP indefinite NP

subject variable variable variable variable variable

non-subject zero (exc. ESR) zero zero zero (exc. H00D002) zero (exc. H00D002)

As Table 99 displays, the question of which relative marker is chosen in a particular environment can be very well answered for non-subject relatives. It appears that zero is always first choice regardless of the humanness or category of the antecedent. The choice of relative markers in subject position seems entirely variable across the subcorpora and especially in this case extralinguistic factors (time, location) might be responsible for diversity. In other words, this means that Earlier AAE was obviously fairly uniform as far as first choices of relativizers in non-subject position is concerned, but in subject position great variability was at work. This tendency towards uniformity of relative markers in non-subject position and variability in subject position is also confirmed - although to a lesser extent - if we have a look at Table 100, in which the three dominant relative markers are assigned environmental preferences in both subject and nonsubject positions. Table 100. Survey of preferences for relative markers across environments

that

what

zero

subject non-human (exc. ESR) variable (category) variable (adjacency) human (exc. HOODOOl) variable (category) adjacent (exc. ESR) variable (humanness) variable (category) variable (adjacency)

non-subject human indefinite NP variable (adjacency) non-human (except WPA MS) variable (category) non-adjacent non-human pronoun adjacent

For non-subject relatives we get a fairly clear-cut picture. That is usually preferred by human and indefinite NPs, while adjacency is variable. This turns

182 Relativization upside down the assumption that human is correlated with subject and nonhuman with non-subject, which does not seem to be the case with that. What is largely favored by non-human, non-adjacent antecedents, while the category of the head is variable. Non-subject zero is the most uniform of all relative markers concerning preferences: it is most likely to appear after nonhuman, pronominal, adjacent heads. With subject relatives the uncertainties increase. The sub-corpora basically agree on three factors. Subject that is preferred after non-human heads. Subject what is most likely to be preceded by human referents that are adjacent. The rest is variable. After this partly diversified behavior of relative markers, especially in subject position, the following sections will analyze the combined corpus along temporal and geographical lines. The aim there is to find out if both variation and agreement across subcorpora is mirrored by diachronic change and stability as well as by regional homogeneity or diversity. 5.3

Relativization in apparent time

The present section again combines all informants and distributes them by decades according to their birth years. Table 101 surveys totals for subject and non-subject relatives together, and preferences seem to switch from zero to that after the Civil War (i.e. from the 1865-1874 decade onwards). Table 101. Overview of relative markers in Earlier AAE in apparent time (subject and non-subject) 183344

Λ ,

that

» , What Zer

° which u Wh ° whom whose Ν

184554 40 54 (20%) (40%) 13 40 (20%) (10%) 104 62 (52%) (46%) 2 (1%) 0 12 7 (5%) (6%) 3 (2%) 0 1 (1%) 0 202 136

1855-64 1865- 187574 84 100 147 162 (37%) (61%) (41%) 27 15 60 (10%) (6%) (15%) 127 71 135 (47%) (29%) (34%) 3 (1%) 1 (0,4%) 2 (1%) 13 8 38 (5%) (3%) (10%) 1 (0,4%) 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 0 0 1 (0%) 271 243 399

1885-94 190514 77 142 (50%) (57%) 22 4 (14%) (2%) 52 80 (33%) (32%) 2 (1%) 7 (3%) 4 17 (3%) (7%) 0 1 (0%) 0 0 157 251

1915-24 92 (49%) 7 (4%) 77 (41%) 6 (3%) 9 (5%) 0 0 191

However, from Table 102 and Table 103, in which the relative markers are separated according to subject and non-subject function, the temporal picture that emerges shows that the assumption received from the pooled frequencies

Relativization in apparent time 183 conceals a fairly stable and clear-cut functional difference: that is the dominant relative marker in subject position throughout the whole time span under discussion, while the same is true for zero in non-subject position in all decades but one (1865-1874). Table 102. Subject relatives in apparent time 1833-44 1845-54 1855-64 1865-74 1875-84 1885-94 1905-14 1915-24 39 41 37 70 116 83 36 69 that (67%) (60%) (71%) (53%) (36%) (59%) (52%) (68%) 4 31 4 24 5 9 12 what 0 (31%) (14%) (9%) (4%) (12%) (9%) (5%) 20 22 9 13 20 18 10 38 zero (18%) (16%) (28%) (19%) (11%) (16%) (11%) (26%) which 2 (2%) 0 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 1 (2%) 4 (3%) 4 (5%) 12 13 30 17 who 8 (8%) 4 (7%) 8 (10%) 7 (11%) (12%) (10%) (16%) (15%) 77 Ν 63 134 103 193 58 117 99 Table 103. Non-subject relatives in apparent time 1833-44 1845-54 1855-64 1865-74 1875-84 1885-94 1905-14 1915-24 38 51 4 18 77 46 59 31 that (4%) (24%) (23%) (53%) (22%) (42%) (44%) (44%) 4 10 5 16 12 39 8 4 what (4%) (10%) (7%) (12%) (8%) (19%) (9%) (3%) 56 57 52 113 43 67 86 89 zero (86%) (69%) (65%) (39%) (55%) (48%) (50%) (50%) which 0 0 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 0 who 0 0 8 (4%) 0 0 1 (1%) 0 0 207 90 133 115 Ν 100 75 137 145 By means of this temporal distribution the diversity of subject relative marker choice across subcorpora (Table 87) is obviously leveled out. Note, however, that for subject that percentages steadily rise from 36% to its peak in the first decade of die twentieth century (71%) and finally drop in the last decade to 53%. A descending movement can be observed for non-subject zero, which starts out at 86% in the first decade and reaches only 50% in the last. Subject zero appears to be struggling for the second rank throughout the whole period. After having outnumbered what after the first decade it remains number two for three decades. From the decade centering around 1880 onwards, zero starts taking turns with who, but in the last decade subject zero is again in the lead and in fact reaches its second highest percentage after 1855-1864. On the whole, this implies that nonstandard relativization by means of zero is becoming more popular.

184 Relativization Non-subject that is only a minority variant in the first decade but steadily increases, and after its peak in 1865-1874 it remains a stable second choice at the end of the period. Further, subject what starts out as a close second but steadily loses ground toward the middle of the whole period. Then it rises a little but arrives in the twentieth as a low frequency variable. The same applies for non-subject what, which remains at a low but fairly stable level until about 1880, but then it also decreases. Thus, nonstandard relativization by means of what becomes more and more unpopular through time, which might be explained by the steady increase of subject zero and non-subject that. From a language-internal point of view, the development of relativization strategies in the period under observation looks like a selection process for two forms - zero and that - the choice of which is basically constrained by their syntactic functions. I will now proceed to analyze possible temporal developments of relative marker choice by the three constraints of humanness and category of the referent and adjacency. 5.3.1 Humanness of the antecedent 5.3.1.1 Subject relatives As we have seen above, it was not possible from an analysis by sub-corpus to tell which subject relative marker is first choice after human and non-human referents. For human heads, Table 104 shows that besides that as a pretty stable number one from the second decade onwards, rank two is initially occupied by what. In the second decade who takes over and from then we observe a steady swapping of places of zero and who. With non-human heads, the picture is similar. The first choice relativizer is again that throughout the period under scrutiny. As runner-up, however, zero and what steadily change places. And it is obviously this steady change of number two that made the sub-corpora appear different from each other. From a language-internal point of view it seems that even if there is one dominant variable within a certain function, it is not necessarily the case that this variable ousts all others. There is still enough space for secondary variables to "struggle", which ultimately keeps language variable to some extent. If we now compare preferences for relatives across environments, the first assumption from the analysis by sub-corpora is confirmed: subject that correlates with non-human referents throughout.

Relativization in apparent time 185 Table 104. Humanness of antecedent in apparent time (subject relatives) 183344 human that

21 (29%) what 27 (37%) zero 14 (19%) which 0 who 11 (15%) 73 Ν non-human that 15 (58%) what 4 (15%) zero 4 (15%) which 2 (8%) who 1 (4%) Ν 26

184554

185564

186574

187584

188594

190514

22 (56%) 5 (13%) 5 (13%) 0 7 (18%) 39

40 (44%) 7 (8%) 30 (33%) 0 13 (14%) 90

33 (58%) 2 (4%) 14 (25%) 0 8 (14%) 57

57 (52%) 11 (10%) 12 (11%) 0 29 (27%) 109

21 (62%) 2 (6%) 7 (21%) 0 4 (12%) 34

48 (64%) 0

15 29 (63%) (66%) 4 5 (17%) (11%) 5 ¡8 (21%) (18%) 0 2 (5%) 0 0 44 24

37 (80%) 2 (4%) 6 (13%) 1 (2%) 0 46

59 (70%) 13 (16%) 10 (12%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 84

18 (75%) 3 (13%) p2 (8%) 1 (4%) 0 24

35 (83%) 0

191524

24 (49%) 3 (6%) 13 8 (11%) (27%) 2 (3%) 1 (2%) 8 17 (23%) (16%) 49 75 17 (61%) 1 (4%) 7 5 (12%) (25%) 2 (5%) 3(11%) 0 0 28 42

My second assumption, however, that what is preferred after human heads which is in fact true for all subcorpora except HOODOO 1 - only holds for the first and the last decade. In the remaining period what displays consistent incidence with non-human antecedents, which might stem from a relatively strong influence form the HOODOO 1 data in each decade. Subject zero has been reported to behave totally variably across subcorpora. But in the apparent time analysis its correlation with human antecedents becomes obvious. Only the second decade has a clear preference for subject zero after non-human heads and in the decades centering around 1880 and 1910 figures only differ by one percent. All in all it appears that overt subject relativization by what and that is confined to non-human heads while subject relativization without markers is more likely after humans.168 5.3.1.2 Non-subject relatives Non-subject relatives distributed in apparent time (Table 105) only partly conform to what has already been stated in the subcorpora study, viz. that zero

186 Relatìvizatìon is the number one choice after both human and non-human referents. For nonhuman heads this holds for all decades but one (1865-1874). But after human antecedents there is a steady struggle between zero and that, which takes the lead at the end of the period discussed. Table 105. Humanness of antecedent in apparent time (non-subject relatives) 183344

184554

185564

186574

1875-84 188594

190514

191524

13 (36%)

13 (43%) 0

4 (50%)

human that what zero which who Ν

0 22

5 15 (24%) (50%) 2 (10%) 2 (7%) 14 13 (67%) (43%) 0 0 0 0 30 21

3 (8%) 12 (33%) 0 8 (22%) 36

6 (11%) 4 (8%)

26 (22%) 14 (12%)

1 12 (5%) (55%) 4 (18%)ι 1 (5%) 17 9 (77%) (41%) 0

0 22 non-human that 3 (4%) what 6 (8%)

0

zero

69 (89%)

43 (81%)

which who

0 0 78

0 0 53

Ν

62 (54%)

10 (9%) 75 43 (65%) (37%) 1 (1%) 0 0 0 116 115

7 (50%)

0

0 0 14

0 3 (38%) 2 (7%) 0 0 1 (13%) 30 8

33 (19%) 36 (21%)

31 (41%) 8 (11%)

46 (45%) 4 (4%)

47 (44%) 4 (4%)

101 (59%)

36 (47%)

52 (50%)

54 (51%)

1 (1%) 0 171

1 (1%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 0 0 0 76 103 107

7 (50%)

15 (50%)

As far as preferences of relative markers for the two environments are concerned, results from the sub-corpora analysis were basically similar. Nonsubject that is favored by human heads in all decades but one (1865-1874); also, what is favored by non-human heads in all but the first decade. With nonsubject zero, which was expected to correlate essentially with non-human antecedents, temporal variation can be observed: in four decades (the first, second, fifth and last) it is favored by non-humans, in three (the third, fourth, and sixth) by humans, while in one (1905-1914) percentages are identical. For now the above results imply that on the one hand it was possible through the apparent time study to explain the variable behavior of subject relatives in the sub-corpora. On the other hand, similarities across sub-corpora with non-subject relatives could not be reproduced unanimously here.

Relatìvization in apparent time 187

5.3.2 Category of the antecedent 5.3.2.1 Subject relatives In the analysis by subcorpora it was not possible to report any preferences for subject relative marker choice in any of the environments and also correlations of relativizers with certain environments were not consistent. A temporal distribution, however, is capable of clarifying matters to some extent. Table 106. Category of antecedent in apparent time (subject relatives) 183344

184554

185564

186574

187584

188594

190514

191524

4 (33%)

7 (58%)

9 (50%)

13 (65%)

27 (73%)

4

9 (60%)

15 (65%)

what

5 (42%)

2 (17%) 1 (6%) 0

0

1 (4%)

zero which who

3 (25%) 0 0 12

3 (25%) 0 0 12

5(28%) 0 3 (17%) 18

0 0 0 4

2 (13%) 0 4 (27%) 15

2 (9%) 2 (9%) 3 (13%) 23

11 (55%)

19 ' " I 24 (71%)

49 (65%)

9 (64%)

30 (75%)

12 (57%)

3 (9%) 4 (12%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 34

10 (13%) 2 (3%) 0 14 (19%) 75

2 (14%) 0

0

(17%) 7 (20%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 35

0 3 (21%) 14

3 (14%) 3 2 (10%) (8%) 4 (10%) 2 (10%) 2 3 (10%) (8%) 40 21

19 (63%)

41 (51%)

33 (67%)

39 (49%)

26 (67%)

43 (71%)

4 (13%) 2 (7%) 0 5 (17%) 30

5 (6%) 25 (31%) 1 (1%) 8 (10%) 80

1 (2%)

11 (14%) 16 (20%) 0 14 (18%) 80

2 (5%) 9 (23%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 39

0

pronoun that

Ν

definite NP that 16 (37%) what 7 zero which who

Ν

3 (16%) (15%) 4 12 (28%) (20%) 2 (5%) 0 6 2 (14%) (10%) 43 20

indefinite NP that 16

(36%) what

19 (43%)

zero

3 (7%) 0 6 (14%) 44

which who

Ν

(54%) 6

3 (8%) 0

4(20%) 4(11%) 1 (3%) 0 3 (15%) 2 (5%) 37 20

« •

(25%) 0 3 (6%) 49

8 (13%) 0 10 (16%) 61

13 (41%) 0 16 (50%)

0 3 (9%) 32

188 Relativization First, we learn from Table 106 that subject that is the number one relativizer after pronouns as well as after definite and indefinite NPs. The only exceptions are documented for the first decade, in which what is first choice both after pronouns and indefinite NPs. Second, it emerges that subject zero starts to correlate with indefinite NPs169 from the 1855-1864 decade until the end of the temporal range. In the first two decades zero is favored by definite NPs and pronouns, respectively. For that and what such a neat uniformity through time is not given: preferences for both change by decade and range across all environments. 5.3.2.2 Non-subject relatives For non-subject relatives (Table 107) the results from the sub-corpora are largely supported, at least concerning preferences across environments: zero is correlated with pronominal heads throughout,170 while that is favored by indefinite NPs in all but two decades (1875-1884: pronouns; 1915-1924: definite NPs). Table 107. Category of antecedent in apparent time (non-subject relatives) 183344

184554

185564

186574

187584

188594

190514

191524

6 (16%) 1 (3%) 30 (81%) 0 0 37

22 (52%) 0 20 (48%) 0 0 42

14 I g (25%) 6(11%) 36 (63%) 1 (2%) 0 57

3 (21%) 0 11 (79%) 0 0 14

5 (20%) 2 (8%) 18 (72%) 0 0 25

16 (31%) 2 (4%) 33 (65%) 0 0 51

9 (21%) 7 (17%) 25 (60%) 1 (2%) 0 42

32 (55%) 7 (12%) 19 (33%) 0 0 58

23 (24%) 16 (17%) 51 (53%) 0 7 (7%) 97

21 (46%) 5 (11%) 19 (41%) 1 (2%) 0 46

29 1(47%) 1 (2%) 30 (48%) 2 (3%) 0 62

22 (61%) 1 (3%) 12 (33%) 1 (3%) 0 36

pronoun 0

3 (14%) what 1 (3%) 1 (5%) zero 36 18 (97%) (82%) which 0 0 who 0 0 Ν 37 22 definite NP that 2 7 (4%) (24%) what 5 2 (11%) (7%) zero 40 20 (85%) (69%) which 0 0 who 0 0 Ν 47 29 that

Relativization in apparent time 189 Table 107 (cont.) indefinite NP that 2 (13%) what 4 (25%) zero 10 (63%) which 0 who 0 16 Ν

8 16 (29%) (38%) 8 2 (14%) (10%) 32 11 (52%) (57%) 0 0 0 0 21 56

23 (59%) 5 (13%) 11 (28%) 0 0 39

9 (17%) 17 (32%) 26 (49%) 0 1 (2%) 53

25 14 (47%) (56%) 3 1 (10%) (2%) 18 13 (43%) (40%) 1 (2%) 0 0 0 45 30

13 (46%) 1 (4%) 12 (43%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 28

The variable performance of what across corpora is also mirrored in the temporal distribution. It is favored by indefinite NPs in four decades (the first, second, fourth, and fifth), by definite NPs in two (the third and sixth), and by pronouns in one (1905-1914). In the last decade percentages for the three categories are almost identical (4% pronoun and indefinite NP; 3% definite NP). It has also been reported above that non-subject zero is first choice after all three types of antecedents. But this only partly reflects the temporal development. In fact, zero is the number one relative marker after pronouns in all decades but one (1865-1874). After definite and indefinite NPs first choices change through time in an astonishingly parallel fashion: up to 1875-1884 zero is number one, with that taking over in both environments in 1865-1874 and after 1885 until the end of the period under discussion. A minor exception can be seen in the first decade of the twentieth century, in which zero outnumbers that after definite NPs by one percent. 5.3.3 Adjacency of antecedent and relative marker 5.3.3.1 Subject relatives From the sub-corpora comparison it appeared that subject that and subject zero are variably preferred by both adjacent and non-adjacent referents. What was said to correlate with adjacent heads. The temporal distribution as shown in Table 108 indicates that subject that does not behave variably but is favored after adjacent heads in all but two decades (1833-1844 and 1905-1914). What seems to be favored by non-adjacent heads in the first half of the period (except 1845-1854), but in the second half it is preferred after adjacent heads. Subject zero displays a correlation with non-adjacent referents171 in all decades except 1865-1874. There are no data from other nonstandard varieties of English to which these preferences could be compared, and a comparison to

190 Relativization Standard English does not apply because subject zero is not part of the paradigm there. Table 108. Adjacency of antecedent in apparent time (subject relatives) 1833-44 1845-54 1855-64 1865-74 1875-84 1885-94 1905-14 1915-24 adjacent 34 (36%) 29 (31%) 17 (18%) which 2 (2%) 12 W ° (13%) Ν 94 non-adjacent that 2 (40%) what 2 (40%) zero 1 (20%) which 0 who 0 Ν 5

32 (60%) 9 (17%) 6 (11%) 0 6 (11%) 53

63 (52%) 10 (8%) 34 (28%) 2 (2%) 12 (10%) 121

66 (68%) 3 (3%) 19 (20%) 1 (1%) 8 (8%) 97

107 (62%) 24 (14%) 18 (10%) 1 (1%) 23 (13%) 173

35 (70%) 5 (10%) 5 (10%) 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 50

11 (10%) 4 (4%) 17 (16%) 107

36 (55%) 4 (6%) 15 (23%) 4 (6%) 7 (11%) 66

5 (50%) 0 4(40%) 0 1 (10%) 10

6 (46%) 2 (15%) 4(31%) 0 1 (8%) 13

4 (67%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 0 0 6

9 (45%) 0 4(20%) 0 7 (35%) 20

4 (50%) 0 4(50%) 0 0 8

8 (80%) 0 2(20%) 0 0 10

5 (46%) 0 5(46%) 0 1 (9%) 11

75 (70%) 0

5.3.3.2 Non-subject relatives Non-subject what and zero displayed fairly homogeneous patterns across subcorpora, with the former being favored by non-adjacent heads and the latter by adjacent heads. The performance of that was variable. Table 109. Adjacency of antecedent in apparent time (non-subject relatives) 1833-44 adjacent that 3 (3%) what 8 (9%) zero 80 (88%) which 0 who 0 Ν 91

1845-54 1855-64 1865-74 1875-84 1885-94 1905-14 1915-24 16 (25%) 4 (6%) 45 (69%) 0 0 65

30 74 (24%) (56%) 14 12 (11%) (9%) 82 47 (65%) (35%) 1 (1%) 0 0 0 127 133

42 (22%) 35 (18%) 110 (57%) 1 (1%) 4 (2%) 192

34 54 (43%) (44%) 7 4 (9%) (3%) 37 63 (47%) (51%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) 0 0 79 124

49 (45%) 3 (3%) 54 (50%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 109

Relativizatìon in apparent time 191 Table 109 (cont.) non-adjacent that 1 (14%) what 2(29%) zero 4 (57%) which 0 who 0 Ν 7

1 (11%) 1 (10%) 3 (25%) 4 (27%) 4 (36%) 5 (56%) 2 (33%) 1(11%) 2(20%) 0 4(27%) 1(9%) 0 1(17%) 7 (78%) 7 (70%) 9 (75%) 3 (20%) 6 (55%) 4 (44%) 3 (50%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4(27%) 0 0 0 9 10 12 15 11 6 9

From a temporal point of view (Table 109), all three relative markers undergo changes in preferences. In five out of eight decades each, that is favored by adjacent NPs, while what correlates with non-adjacent NPs. Non-subject zero would actually be expected to have a high incidence with adjacent heads but it is favored by non-adjacent heads in four decades and by adjacent ones in three decades. In the last decade preferences are identical. Because preferences here change in an unsystematic fashion it seems that the choice for non-subject that, what, and zero is not affected by adjacency at all. 5.3.4

Summary

The temporal distribution of relative markers has shown that to some extent it is possible to account for the variation found across subcorpora. Table 110 surveys the results for the choice of relativizer per environment. Quite differently form the subcorpora analysis, the diachronic picture for subject relative choice is pretty straightforward. That is the most popular subject relative irrespective of humanness or category of the antecedent. With non-subject relative markers the diachronic study is capable of demonstrating that the findings from the cross-corpora analysis were correct in principle because they had zero as the predominant choice in all environments. Non-subject zero in fact is a prominent relative marker throughout the whole period under scrutiny. However, it is number one on a continuous basis only after non-human heads and pronouns. After human heads it takes turns with that almost by decade, and after definite and indefinite NPs it was possible to document temporal change of first choices from zero to that. From a language-internal point of view the developments of non-subject relatives hint at interesting general tendencies: if we take the category of the antecedent, there is one environment (pronouns) that has a very stable first choice variable (zero). In two other environments (definite and indefinite NP) we witness a shift away from this dominant variable (towards that), which means that variability is reduced in this environment because certain forms of one variable tend to occur in certain contexts. The case of human heads, after which zero and that are variably present throughout, might be an example for

192 Relativization an ongoing struggle between variants. On the contrary, with subject relatives there is very little competition between forms through time, with that being a very stable number one in all contexts. Here, it is obvious that a more prominent factor, namely the syntactic function of the relative marker, overruns possible influences of "secondary" factors like humanness or category of the antecedent. Table 110. Survey of first choice relative markers by environment (apparent time)

human non-human pronoun

subject that (runners-up are what, who and zero) that (runners-up are zero and what) that (1st decade: what)

definite NP

that

indefinite NP

that (1st decade: what)

non-subject variable (zero/that) zero (except one decade) zero zero (until 1875-1884) that (va 1865-1874; from 1885-1894) zero (until 1875-1884) that (in 1865-1874; from 1885-1894)

The results of the temporal study of preferences for relative markers across environments are surveyed in Table 111 and display three kinds of behavior through time: preferences that remain stable, preferences that change unsystematically, and preferences that change in a linear fashion. Table 111. Survey of preferences for relative markers across environments subject that

what

zero

non-human variable (category) adjacent (except two decades) non-human variable (category) adjacent (until 1865-1874) non-adjacent (from 1875-1884) human (except one decade) definite NP (until 1845-1854) indefinite NP (after 1855-1864) non-adjacent (except two decades)

non-subject human (except one decade) indefinite NP (except two decades) variable (adjacency) non-human (except one decade) variable (category) variable (adjacency) variable (humanness) pronoun variable (adjacency)

Relativization by state 193 Stable preferences are in the majority and figure very prominently in the humanness constraint, where non-subject zero is the only relative marker that constantly changes preferences. The remaining ones are continuously favored by human or non-human heads. Unsystematic temporal variability is found for the category of the antecedent with subject that and subject and non-subject what as well as for adjacency with all three non-subject relatives. Finally, linear temporal change was discovered for two features: preferences for subject what changed from adjacent to non-adjacent and for subject zero from definite NPs to indefinite NPs. As a result of the apparent time study we are still left with variation. But temporal variation is somewhat easier to comprehend than variation across subcorpora because chance factors like, for example, sub-corpus set-up are eliminated. Of course it is not possible to expect neat temporal developments for all relative markers in all environments. But being able to document that some constraints on relative marker choice are diachronically stable, that others are unsystematic and that some change through time in a linear fashion is a benefit of the present corpus analyzed by means of the apparent time construct that cannot be underestimated and might have to be taken into account in future theories of language change. 5.4

Relativization by state

The last part of the analysis of Earlier AAE relative constructions will look into the details of geographical diversity. For this end I have sorted my informants according to the states they originated from.172 Table 112 surveys the totals for subject and non-subject relative together. Table 112. Overview of relative markers in Earlier AAE by state (subject and nonsubject) TX 23 (26%) , 9 (10%) 55 Zer0 (62%) which 0 who 2 (2%) whom 0 whose 0 Ν 89 ,

LA 110 (49%) 31 (14%) 79 (35%) 0 6 (6%) 0 0 226

MS TN AL GA FL SC NC VA 10 99 53 106 45 242 12 108 (11%) (50%) (44%) (66%) (41%) (49%) (27%) (39%) 20 18 10 7 5 32 1 38 (23%) (9%) (8%) (4%) (5%) (6%) (2%) (14%) 52 68 55 39 49 181 29 92 (58%) (34%) (46%) (24%) (45%) (36%) (64%) (33%) 0 2 (1%) 0 2 (1%) 6 (6%) 7 (1%) 0 5(1%) 3 (3%) 11 (6%) 2 (2%) 6 (4%) 5 (5%) 34 (7%) 3 (7%) 38 (14%) 1 (1%) 0 0 0 0 1 ©2%)0 0 3 (3%) 0 0 1 (1%) 0 1 (Q2%)0 1(4%) 89 198 120 161 110 498 45 282

194 Relativization We see that, similar to the temporal overview, that and zero share first choice status. And in almost all states in which zero is first that is second and vice versa. The only exception is MS where what ranks second after zero. From this overview, then, it is possible to distinguish between five ίΛαί-states (LA, TN, GA, SC, VA) and five zero-states (TX, MS, AL, FL, NC).173 But this distinction will not hold as can be seen from Table 113 and Table 114, in which totals for subject and non-subject relatives are shown separately. Table 113. Subject relatives by state TX LA MS TN AL GA FL SC 12 82 10 49 24 44 21 151 (29%) (73%) (30%) (66%) (56%) (66%) (45%) (67%) 6 11 16 6 7 4 2 7 (15%) (10%) (49%) (8%) (16%) (6%) (4%) (3%) 21 13 4 11 11 12 16 33 Zer0 (51%) (12%) (12%) (15%) (26%) (18%) (34%) (15%) which 0 0 0 1 (1%) 0 1 (2%) 3 (6%) 5 (2%) who 2(5%) 6(5%) 3(9%) 7(10%) 1(2%) 6(9%) 5(11%) 30(13%) Ν 41 112 33 74 43 67 47 226

NC VA 9 81 (45%) (51%) 20 (13%) 8 15 (40%) (10%) 0 4(3%) 3(15%) 38(24%) 20 158

Table 114. Non-subject relatives by state TX 12 (25%) 2 (4%) 34 zer0 (71%) which 0 who 0 Ν 48

LA 28 (25%) 20 (18%) 66 (58%) 0 0 114

MS

TN AL GA 50 29 62 (41%) (38%) (67%) 4 12 3 3 (8%) (10%) (4%) (3%) 48 57 44 27 (92%) (46%) (57%) (29%) 0 1(1%)0 1 (1%) 0 3 (2%) 1 (1%) 0 52 123 77 93

FL 24 (39%) 3 (5%) 33 (53%) 2 (3%) 0 62

SC NC 91 3 (33%) (12%) 25 1 (9%) (4%) 148 21 (54%) (84%) 4 (2%) 0 5 (2%) 0 273 25

VA 27 (22%) 18 (15%) 77 (63%) 0 0 122

In fact, what we get is an extraordinarily homogeneous picture throughout the American South, which essentially parallels findings from the diachronic survey. That is the predominant subject relative marker in all states except MS and TX, which have what and zero as first choice, respectively. Zero, on the other hand, is number one in non-subject function in all states except GA, where that ranks first. Thus, it seems as if relativization in Earlier AAE was not geographically stratified to a large extent. However, the range of percentages for first choices across states as well the distance between first and second choice within states might conceal constraints on relative marker choice other than subject and non-

Relativization by state 195

subject function. Therefore, the following sections will discuss influences of the humanness and category of the antecedent as well as adjacency. 5.4.1 Humanness of the antecedent 5.4.1.1 Subject relatives The first observation gained from Table 115 is that subject that is the dominant relativizer after both human and non-human heads in most of the states. Table 115. Humanness of antecedent by state (subject relatives) TX

LA

MS

TN

human . 10 51 6 19 (30%) (68%) (24%) (50%) 6 7 14 2 (18%) (9%) (56%) (5%) 17 12 2 10 zero (52%) (16%) (8%) (26%) which 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 7 who 0 (7%) (12%) (18%) Ν 33 75 25 38 non-human , 2 31 4 30 (25%) (84%) (50%) (83%) , „ 4 2 4 (11%) (25%) (11%) 4 1 2 1 Zer0 (50%) (3%) (25%) (3%) which 0 Wk

Ν

°

0

0

(25%) ('3%) 0 8 37 8

AL

GA

FL

SC

NC

VA

18 22 7 86 5 38 (58%) (55%) (32%) (62%) (50%) (39%) 4 3 1 3 12 (13%) (8%) (5%) (2%) (12%) 8 9 9 17 2 10 (26%) (23%) (41%) (12%) (20%) (10%) 0 0 3 (2%) 0 0 1 6 5 30 3 37 (3%) (15%) (23%) (22%) (30%) (38%) 31 40 22 139 10 97 6 (50%) 3 (25%) 3 (25%)

22 (81%) 1 (4%) 3 (11%)

14 65 (56%) (75%) 1 4 (4%) (5%) 7 16 (28%) (18%)

4 43 (40%) (70%) „ 8 (13%) 6 1? (60%) (8%)

(3%)

0

;4%)

(12%)(2%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

36

12

27

0 25

87

A {1%)

10

;2%) 61

Exceptions after human referents are FL (zero), MS (what), and TX (zero), and after non-human heads NC (zero) and TX (zero) diverge. This general tendency is in line with the temporal development which also found subject that to be number one in both contexts and the variability across subcorpora was obviously due to chance. Concerning correlations between relative marker choice and humanness, the cross-subcorpora study found that subject that is mostly preferred after

196 Relativization non-human heads, subject what after human heads, while for subject zero preferences are variable. The distribution by state basically supports the findings for that: it is preferred after non-human heads in all states except AL, NC, and TX. For what the above assumption only holds in four states (FL, GA, MS, and TX). In the remaining ones it is favored by non-human heads. Finally, the variability of subject zero correlations across subcorpora can be partly explained here: in seven states zero is favored after human heads, while in three (MS, NC, SC) it correlates with non-human referents. These tendencies for the three main relative markers confirm the temporal analysis above, which had similar results. 5.4.1.2 Non-subject relatives Table 116. Humanness of antecedent by state (non-subject relatives) TX LA MS human . 9 11 n (56%) (44%) What

TN

AL

GA

FL

SC

NC

9 3 11 2 18 (45%) (33%) (79%) (29%) (40%)

° (8%) (25%) 0 0 0 0 J2%) 0 7 12 6 8 5 3 5 19 _ zero (44%) (48%) (75%) (40%) (56%) (21%) (71%) (42%) which 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 (4%) 0 who 0 0 0 3(15%) 1(11%) 0 0 5(11%) 0 Ν 16 25 8 20 9 14 7 45 5 non-human 3 17 _ 41 26 51 22 73 3 (9%) (19%) (40%) (38%) (65%) (40%) (32%) (15%) 3 18 2 12 3 3 3 24 1 (9%) (20%) (5%) (12%) (4%) (4%) (6%) (11%) (5%) 27 54 42 49 39 24 28 129 16 Zer0 (82%) (61%) (95%) (48%) (57%) (30%) (51%) (57%) (80%) which 0 0 0 1(1%) 0 1 (1%) 2 (4%) 2 (1%) 0 who 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ν 33 89 44 103 68 79 55 228 20

VA 9 (33%) *5%) 14 (52%) 0 0 27 18 (19%) 14 (15%) 63 (66%) 0 0 95

The state-wise distribution for non-subject relatives (Table 116) largely confirms what has been assumed in the cross-subcorpora study. First, nonsubject zero is the predominant relative marker in both environments. After human heads this is the case in all states except GA, TN, and TX, and after non-human heads zero is number one in all states but GA. All deviating states have that as first choice.

Relativization by state 197

Preferences across environments for non-subject zero and what are also in line with previous findings: both correlate with non-human heads in the great majority of states. Exceptions are MS, where what is preferred after human heads, and NC and FL, where zero correlates with human referents. On the contrary, non-subject that is preferred by human antecedents in all but four states (AL, FL, MS, and NC). On the whole it appears that geographical variation is not great as far as the humanness constraint is concerned. 5.4.2 Category of the antecedent 5.4.2.1 Subject relatives Quite different from the subcorpora study, it is possible here to report clear preferences within the three environments (Table 117): subject that is the predominant relative marker after all three categories in most of the states.174 Exceptions after pronouns are MS and TX, where what is first choice. After definite NPs, MS, NC, and TX deviate from the norm, with MS having what on top of the list, while in the latter two states zero is number one. After indefinite NPs the states that do not have subject that as first choice are FL (zero) and MS (what). Despite a large-scale uniformity, which is possibly due to the strong status of that in the overall corpus, MS constantly has what as first choice, and also TX, NC, and FL differ a little from the rest. Preferences for subject relatives across environments were variable across sub-corpora. The geographical distribution also exhibits diversity to some extent. First, subject that is favored after pronominal antecedents in half of the states (AL, FL, NC, TN, VA), in four (GA, LA, MS, SC) it correlates with definite NPs, while in TX it is preferred after indefinite NPs. Preferences for subject zero are also diversified. In six states (FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TN) it is favored after indefinite NPs, in two each it correlates with pronouns (AL, VA) or definite NPs (NC, TX). Finally, subject what is favored by definite NPs in five states (AL, FL, LA, TN, VA), by pronouns in three (MS, SC, TX), and by indefinite NPs only in one (GA). Obviously, this diversity of subject relative marker choice by state is at least part of an explanation why the subcorpora display such a high degree of variability concerning the category of the antecedent.

198 Relativization

Table 117. Category of antecedent by state (subject relatives) TX

LA

MS

TN

AL

GA

FL

SC

NC

VA

pronoun that

. „

1 20 1 6 7 (13%) (80%) (17%) (75%) (58%) 4 1 4 1 1 (50%) (4%) (67%) „ 3 3 1 1 5 (38%) (12%) (17%) (13%) (42%)

which 0

,

n

0

0

0

1 n (4%) 25 6

0

1 n (13%) 8 12

7 8 (54%) (57%) 2 (8%) (7%) 1 2 (8%) (14%) 0

21 2 13 (60%) (67%) (72%) 2 (6%) (11%) 4 2 (11%) (11%)

1 (7%) 1 (3%) 0

1(6%)

4 2 7 1 (31%) (14%) (20%) (33%) 13 14 35 3 18

Ν 8 definite NP 6 32 4 15 9 16 5 52 3 27 that (29%) (82%) (36%) (65%) (56%) (76%) (46%) (70%) (38%) (55%) ht

which

who

1

a

0

4

which 0

, Ν

3

5

η

1

4

°

7

η

2 2 4 1 2 1 8 1 11 (5%) (18%) (17%) (6%) (10%) (9%) (11%) (13%) (23%) 39 11 23 16 21 11 74 8 49 29

5

28

8

21

8

(36%) (62%) (31%) (65%) (53%) (64%) (36%) 1 5 7 3 2 3 1 (9%) (11%) (44%) (7%) (13%) (9%) 4 10 3 9 5 9 12 (36%) (21%) (19%) (21%) (33%) (27%) (55%)

,

W

5

(5%) (13%) (46%) (13%) (31%) (9%) (5%) (14%) 14 1 1 2 2 6 4 2 (67%) (4%) (6%) (10%) (18%) (8%) (50%) (4%) o o o o o ;5%) 2 { ì m « % ) o ¡4%)

Ν 21 indefinite NP that

5

0

0

1 (2%) 0

2 3 1 2 (18%) (6%) (6%) (5%) 11 47 16 43 15

0 U

33

0

76

4

41

(67%) (50%) 1 1 (1%) 22 3 (19%) (38%)

(12%) 11 (12%)

0

1(1%)

0

(45%)

2 15 1 27 (9%) (13%) (13%) (30%) 22 114 8 91

5.4.2.2 Non-subject relatives For non-subject relatives the geographical picture is a little more variable than expected after the sub-corpora analysis. There we saw that zero is the predominant relative marker in all environments. In a statewise distribution this is only partly confirmed but the overall tendency remains (Table 118). After pronouns

Relativization by state 199 non-subject zero is number one in all states except GA. After definite NPs this holds for seven states (excluding FL, GA, and LA), while after indefinite NPs it is six states in which zero is first choice (excluding FL, GA, SC, and TN). Table 118. Category of antecedent by state (non-subject relatives) TX

LA

MS

TN

AL

GA

FL

SC

NC

VA

pronoun 1 8 (8%) (26%) , . n 2 1 υ (6%) (5%)

9 12 18 3 15 (38%) (35%) (60%) (16%) (21%) 1 1 4 „ υπ υn υ (3%) (5%) (6%)

3 (10%) 3 (1()%)

12 21 21 15 21 12 15 53 23 (92%) (68%) (95%) (63%) (62%) (40%) (79%) (73%) (79%) which 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1%) 0 0 who 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ν 13 31 22 24 34 30 19 73 6 29 definite NP 7 17 „ 26 13 26 10 38 11 (29%) (42%) (37%) (48%) (67%) (46%) (34%) (21%) 3 7 8 1 2 1 0 1 9 (13%) (17%) (11%) (3%) (9%) (9%) (11%) (17%) 14 17 18 32 14 11 9 58 8 33 zer° (58%) (42%) (100%)(46%) (52%) (28%) (41%) (52%) (89%) (62%) which 0 0 0 1 (1%) 0 1 (3%) 1 (5%) 2 (2%) 0 0 who 0 0 0 3 (4%) 0 0 0 4(4%)0 0 Ν 24 41 18 70 27 39 22 112 9 53 indefinite NP 4 ®il3 15 4 18 11 38 3 13 . (33%) (7%) (52%) (29%) (75%) (52%) (44%) (30%) (35%) 11 6 , 11 3 4 2 2 π n υ υn (26%) (25%) (14%) (14%) (g%) (13%) υ (16%) zero

8 (67%) which 0 who 0 Ν 12 zero

28 9 (67%) (75%) 0 0 0 0 42 12

10 (35%) 0 0 29

7 4 (50%) (17%) 0 0 1 (7%) 0 14 24

9 35 7 18 (43%) (41%) (70%) (49%) 1 (5%) 1 (1%) 0 0 0 1(1%) 0 0 21 86 10 37

Correlations for non-subject relatives have been assumed to be variable for what, but indefinite NPs and pronouns seemed to favor that and zero, respectively. For non-subject zero this is confirmed here in all states. A correlation of indefinite NPs with that can be found in seven states (FL, GA, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA), while in two (AL, LA) it is favored by definite NPs. MS does not have any tokens of non-subject that.

200 Relativization

Finally, what is also preferred by indefinite NPs in six states (AL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TN), in the remaining four it correlates with definite NPs. Similar tendencies - that is relatively clear-cut preferences for zero and that and a little less so for what - were also reported in the temporal analysis. 5.4.3 Adjacency of antecedent and relative marker 5.4.3.1 Subject relatives The sub-corpora comparison documented that subject that and subject zero are variably preferred in both environments, while subject what seemed to correlate with adjacent heads. Table 119 surveys the distribution by state and we see that diversity is still at work. However, there are tendencies. Subject that and what correlate with adjacent heads in seven (FL, GA, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA) and six (AL, FL, MS, SC, TN, VA) states, respectively, while subject zero is preferred in non-adjacent contexts in seven states (AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC, TN). Table 119. Adjacency of antecedent by state (subject relatives) TX

LA

MS

TN

AL

GA

FL

SC

12 (32%) 4 (11%) 20 (53%)

73 (73%) 9 (9%) 13 (13%)

9 (30%) 15 (50%) 3 (10%)

45 (72%) 6 (10%) 6 (10%)

18 (53%) 7 (21%) 8 (24%)

43 (67%) 3 (5%) 11 (17%)

18 138 (45%) (67%) flHHBffT (5%) (3%) 13 27 (33%) (13%)

0

0

1 (2%) 0

NC

VA

adjacent

Zer0

which 0

2 5 3 4 (5%) (5%) (10%) Ν 38 100 30 non-adjacent 9 that 0 1 (75%) 2 what 2 1 (17%)

1 (2%) 3 (8%) 5 (2%) 0

1

which 0 who

0

Ν

3

0

1

0 0 1 0 (8%) 3 12

4 (3%)

1 6 4 29 3 33 (7%) (3%) (9%) (10%) (14%) (16%) (22%) 62 34 64 40 206 19 148

4 6 IS(33%) 1 (67%)

zero

9 76 (47%) (51%) 20 (14%) 7 15 (37%) (10%)

0

0

1

5 3 1 (42%) (33%) 0 0 0 3

0 (25%) 12 9

0 3

3 13 0 (43%) (65%)

5 (50%)

0

0

0

0

3 (43%) 0 1 (14%) 7

6 (30%) 0 1 (5%) 20

1

0

0

0 5 (50%) 10

0 1

Relativization by state 201

These findings for that and zero go neatly hand in hand with the temporal analysis (5.3.3). In the case of what we are probably dealing with a combination of geographical diversity and temporal development because in addition to these regional findings the apparent time study has documented that its preferences switched in the middle of the whole period from non-adjacent to adjacent. 5.4.3.2 Non-subject relatives What and zero performed in a fairly homogeneous fashion across subcorpora, with the former being correlated to non-adjacent heads and the latter to adjacent heads. That behaved variably. Here, in the statewise analysis (Table 120), variation obtains for all three relatives, but we also witness a tendential correlation with adjacent heads throughout. That is favored by adjacency in seven states (AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, TN, TX), what as well as zero in six (what: FL, GA, NC, SC, TN, TX; zero: FL, LA, MS, SC, TX, VA). Table 120. Adjacency of antecedent by state (non-subject relatives) TX adjacent 11 ! (23%) 3 (6%) 34 Zer0 (71%) which 0 who 0 Ν 48 non-adjacent tkat

°

what 0 η which Wh

° ° N O

LA

MS

24 (23%) 17 (17%) 62 (60%) 0 0 103

47 27 60 24 86 3 (42%) (40%) (67%) (39%) (34%) (13%) 3 11 2 3 3 24 1 (6%) (10%) (3%) (3%) (5%) (9%) (4%) 45 50 38 25 33 140 19 (94%) (45%) (56%) (28%) (53%) (55%) (83%) 0 1 (1%)0 1 (1%) 2 (3%) 4 (2%) 0 0 2 (2%) 1 (2%) 0 0 2(1%)0 48 111 68 89 62 256 23

4 (36%) 3 (27%) 4

0

1 *

(36%) 0 0 ° 11

° 4

TN

AL

3 2 (25%) (22%) 1 1 (11%) (8%)

GA

SC

NC

5 (29%) 0 1 0

2 0

(6%)

7 6 -i (58%) (67%) 0 0 0 0 (8%) ° 12 9

FL

° 4

n 0 ° 0

VA

23 (21%) 15 (14%) 70 (65%) 0 0 108 4 (36%) 3 (27%)

8

«• (47%) ~ 0 0

4 (36%) 0

(18%) ° 17 2

° 11

202 Relaúvization 5.4.4 Summary In order to summarize my results from the geographical survey of Earlier AAE relative constructions, I have created two tables that serve to display the deviation of certain states from a presumed norm in relative choice. The "norm" is always the respective feature that occurs in the majority of states under scrutiny; the number of the states that stick to this norm is given in parentheses. Table 121 indicates that subject that and non-subject zero are the default relatives in a majority of states. Thus, we witness a fairly high degree of uniformity across the American South in relative marker choice within certain environments. The principal pattern seems to have that in subject position and zero in non-subject position. While some states exhibit only sporadic deviation, three of them deviate from these usages on a very consistent basis, namely TX and MS for subject relatives and GA for non-subject relatives. In MS, subject what is first choice in all contexts but pronouns, in TX subject zero is first choice in all contexts but pronouns and indefinite NPs, and in GA non-subject that is number one in all contexts. However, they are so different from each other in their preferences that they cannot be regarded as similar linguistic areas. Table 121. Survey of relative marker choice within environments by state subject norm human that (7) non-human that (8) pronoun that (8) definite NP that (7) indefinite NP that (8)

deviation FL, TX (zero), MS (what) NC, TX (zero) MS, TX (what) NC, TX (zero), MS (what) FL (zero), MS (what)

non-subject norm deviation zero (7) GA, TN, and TX (that) zero (9) GA (that) zero (9) GA (that) zero (7) FL, GA LA (that) zero (6) FL, GA SC, TN (that)

In Table 122, we see that there are indeed constraints on the choice of the relative marker that operate on a relatively large geographical area. I have again defined as the "norm" the factor which a certain relative marker correlates with in a majority of states. Agreement, however, ranges from five states to seven for subject relatives and from six to ten for non-subject relatives, which indicates that diversity is not a negligible factor here, especially because there are no two states that have identical preferences in all environments. In fact, there are only two states that do not deviate from the norms at all. They are TN for subject relatives and SC for non-subject relatives. It is obviously not possible to identify linguistic areas on the basis of relative marker choice because on the one hand performance across states is too similar, while on the other hand differences between states are too great. I suppose we are facing a situation that can be best explained by the fact that many English dialect speakers brought their relative clause systems with them to the U.S., which might have already

Relativization by gender 203 had a great deal of both uniformity and diversity.175 When African Americans acquired their English then, they also acquired the relative system of the people they had contact with and the result was small-scale diversity as well as largescale similarity across the American South. Table 122. Survey of correlations between relative markers and factors by state subject norm non-human (7) that pronoun (5) adjacent (7) non-human (6) , , definite NP (5) what adjacent (6)

deviation AL, NC, TX GA, LA, MS, SC (def. NP); TX (indef. NP) AL, LA MS FL, GA MS, TX MS, SC, TX (pron.); GA (indef. NP) GA, LA NC, TX

human (7)

MS, NC, SC AL, VA (pron.); indefinite NP (6) zero NC, TX (def. NP) non-adjacent (7) LA, TX, VA 5.5

non-subject norm human (6)

deviation AL, FL, MS, NC AL, LA (def. indefinite NP (7) NP) adjacent (7) LA, MS, VA non-human (9) MS FL, NC, TX, VA indefinite NP (6) (def. NP) AL, LA, MS, adjacent (6) VA non-human (8) NC, FL pronoun (10) adjacent (6)

AL, GA, NC, TN

Relativization by gender

The last extralinguistic factor to be analyzed is gender. Table 123 surveys all relative markers used in the combined corpus irrespective of the syntactic function of the relativizer. It appears that both women and men have that as first choice and zero and what as runners-up. A chi-square test, however, suggests that the difference between male and female usage is statistically significant at ρ < .05. Table 123. Overview of relative markers in Earlier AAE by gender (subject and non-subject) gender that f 363 (47%) m 459 (41%)

what 76 (10%) 116 (10%)

zero 283 (37%) 447 (40%)

who 39 (5%) 74 (7%)

which 4 (1%) 19 (2%)

whom 0 2 (0%)

whose 1 (0%) 6 (1%)

766 1123

1889 χ2 w/o whom whose sign, at ρ < 0,05; ^=10,850

204 Relatìvizatìon But since it has been show above that a pooled analysis of subject and nonsubject relatives tends to blur results it is necessary to treat them separately once more. Table 124 and Table 125 again document what has been stated already: there is a strong correlation between the form of the relative marker and its function within the relative clause, that is subject that and nonsubject zero are first choices in the paradigms irrespective of the gender of the informants. The same is true for subject zero and nonsubject that as runners-up. Further, nonsubject what is number three for both men and women. The only difference emerges in the third choice for subject relatives (who with men; what with women). These close resemblances across gender are indeed reflected in the chi-square values for both tables, which indicate that crossgender differences are not significant. Table 124. Subject relatives by gender gender f m

that 211 (63%) 282 (54%)

what 34 (10%) 60 (11%)

zero 52 (16%) 103 (20%)

who 35 (10%) 69 (13%)

which 4 (1%) 11 (2%)

Ν 336 525 n.s„ ^=6,297

Table 125. Nonsubject relatives by gender gender f m

that 152 (35%) 177 (30%)

what 42 (10%) 56 (10%)

zero 231 (54%) 344 (58%)

who 4 (1%) 5 (1%)

which

Ν 428

8 (1%)

590

D.S., χ2=7,161 This tendency towards (almost) identical behavior across gender could be replicated for each of the constraints on relative marker choice discussed above. As a case in point I will only elaborate on the human / nonhuman issue below and leave the "negative" results in the category of the antecedent and adjacency constraints aside. 5.5.5 Humanness of the antecedent 5.5.5.1 Subject relatives In subject position both men and women have that as the preferred variant after both human and nonhuman heads. After nonhuman referents second and third choice are also identical (zero and what, respectively). After human referents the ranking of runners-up differs slightly: men have who > zero > what, while

Relativization by gender 205 women have zero > who > what, i.e. there is a slight preference for the nonstandard marker subject zero in women whereas men tend to use standard who. As far as statistical significance is concerned, these differences after human antecedents are not supported by a chi-square test. The differing percentages in the nonhuman context, however, are significant at ρ < 0.05, although the ranking is identical, which means that the relative high proportion of that in female and of zero in male speech might be a true difference across gender. Comparing preferences for certain relative markers across human and nonhuman contexts, the results are again identical for men and women: that and which are preferred in nonhuman contexts, while what, zero, and who are more likely to appear after human heads. Table 126. Humanness of antecedent by gender (subject relatives) human

nonhuman

gender that what zero which who Ν gender that what zero which who Ν

f 113 (54%) 24 (12%) 40 (19%) 31 (15%) 208 n.s. 5^=4,046 f 98 (77%) 10 (8%) 12 (9%) 4 (3%) 4 (3%) 128

m 155 (47%) 38 (17%) 66 (20%) 3 (1%) 69 (21%) 331 m 127 (66%) 22(11%) 37 (19%) 8(4%) 194 sign, at ρ < 0,05 / χ2=9,831

5.5.5.2 Non-subject relatives With nonsubject relatives (Table 127), we witness identical first choices (zero) and runners-up (that > what) after nonhuman referents in both male and female speech. After human heads women prefer nonsubject that before zero, while with men this order is reversed. However, the differences here are not statistically significant, in neither context. Contrasting preferences across human and nonhuman context, we are face with the familiar pattern once more: with both sexes that and who are favored in human contexts, while what and zero tend to follow nonhuman heads.

206 Relativization Table 127. Humanness of antecedent by gender (nonsubject relatives) gender that what zero which who Ν

human

f 39 (46%) 4 (5%) 37 (44%)

0 4(5%) 84

m 35 (33%) 8 (8%)

56 (53%) 2 (2%) 5(5%) 106

pooled which /who: n.s. / χ2=2,670

nonhuman

5.6

gender that what zero which who Ν

f

m

114 (33%) 38 (11%)

142 (29%) 48 (10%)

194 (56%) 0 0

293 (60%)

346

6(1%) 0 489 n.s. / χ 2 =4,213

Summary

After having reported the details of both relative marker choice in certain environments as well as relative marker preferences across contexts, sorted by subcorpus, in apparent time, state, and gender, it is necessary now to provide the gist of this analysis and summarize what this study adds to our knowledge about non-restrictive relativization in Earlier AAE. As the last section has shown, the variability of relative markers is not due to gender. This is why this extralinguistic factor is left aside in this summary. From a methodological point of view it has been shown that it is first of all important to distinguish between relative markers in subject and non-subject function because the choice of the relativizer is in the first place sensitive to the role it plays in the relative clause. That is, that is the number one relative marker in subject position while zero is first choice in non-subject position. But since the function of the relativizer did not deliver categorical results, other constraints were considered, namely the humanness of the antecedent as well as its formal category and the adjacency of the relative marker and the referent. Interpreting the distribution of relative markers in different environments delivered two kinds of results. It is possible on the one hand to see which relative markers are preferred in certain contexts and on the other to compare preferences for relative markers across environments. Table 128 and Table 129 summarize the two types of findings from the above analyses.

Summary 207 The tables do not display categorical behavior, of course, but rather put together what most of the decades in the apparent time study and most of the states in the state-wise analysis had in common. Figures in parentheses in the "state" columns indicate the number of states in which the respective variant is preferred. An arrow (->) in the apparent time columns hints at linear diachronic change. Table 128 surveys first choice relativizers and it is obvious that the respective environments, that is the characteristics of the antecedent, do not exert any influence on the ranking of relative markers. The only factor that influences the choice is merely the function of the relative marker in the relative clause. As indicated above, performances are widely homogeneous, both diachronically and geographically: that and zero are first choice in subject and non-subject position, respectively, although it seems as if non-subject that starts taking over first choice status after definite and indefinite NPs after 1885. Another interesting finding here is that this dichotomy could not be inferred from the analysis by subcorpus but only becomes visible when distributing all informants in apparent time or by state. Table 128. General overview of first choice relative markers by subcorpus, apparent time and state subcorpus human variable non-human variable pronoun variable definite NP variable indefinite NP variable

subject app. time that that that that that

state that (J) that (8) that (8) that (7) that (8)

subcorpus zero zero zero zero zero

non-subject app. time variable zero zero zero -ithat zerothat

state zero (7) zero (9) zero (9) zero (7) zero (6)

Table 129 surveys the most likely environments in which the three relative markers that, what, and zero occur. If the results from the subcorpora, the apparent time, and the state-wise analyses are compared, the emerging picture is fairly straightforward. It seems as if that and zero display complementary performances across functions as well as in connection to the constraints under scrutiny. What, on the contrary, partly follows that and partly zero. It is therefore not surprising that it decreases in number through time (cf. Table 101). Below I will describe the details for subject and non-subject relative markers separately.

208 Relativization Table 129. General overview of relative marker correlations by subcorpus, apparent time and state

that

what

zero

that

what

zero

subcorpus non-human variable (cat.) variable (adj.) human variable (cat.) adjacent variable(hum.) variable (cat.) variable (adj.) subcorpus human indef. NP variable (adj.) non-human variable (cat.) non-adj. non-human pronoun adjacent

subject app. time non-human variable (cat.) adjacent non-human variable (cat.) adj. -> non-adj. human def.-»indef. NP non-adj. non-subject app. time human indef. NP variable (adj.) non-human variable (cat.) variable (adj.) variable (hum.) pronoun variable (adj.)

state non-human (7) pronoun (5) adjacent (7) non-human (6) definite NP (5) adjacent (6) human (7) indef. NP (6) non-adj. (7) state human (6) indef. NP (7) adjacent (7) non-human (9) indef. NP (6) adjacent (6) non-human (8) pronoun (10) adjacent (6)

5.6.1 Subject relatives Subject that and what are favored by non-human heads,176 subject zero by human ones. According to the category of the antecedent, the distribution is fairly clear-cut: subject that is preferred by pronouns, subject what by definite NPs, and subject zero by indefinite NPs.1 7 Finally, adjacency also has different effects on the choice of relative markers: subject that usually correlates with adjacent heads, subject zero with non-adjacent heads.178 What is preferred by adjacent referents in a majority of states but the temporal analysis showed that it might be moving toward a correlation with non-adjacent ones. Thus, it was possible in all cases to demonstrate tendencies of relative marker choice, which would not have been feasible by a comparison of the subcorpora or even an analysis based on one of them.

Summary 209

5.6.2 Non-subject relatives With non-subject relatives findings are a little less straightforward but some tendencies emerge, too. Remember that the subcorpora comparison actually resulted in a relatively clear pattern of preferences, which was to a large extent supported by the state-wise analysis. However, in three cases (adjacency with what and zero and humanness with zero) unsystematic temporal changes were obviously concealed by the subcorpora and the state-wise distributions. But in principle certain tendencies can be documented. First, non-subject that is favored by human referents, non-subject what and zero by non-human referents. The distribution of categories of the antecedent is not as neat as with subject relatives because none of the relative markers is favored by definite NPs. Instead, non-subject that and what are both preferred by indefinite NPs, while non-subject zero clearly correlates with pronouns. As regards adjacency, all three relativizers are favored by adjacent heads, although non-subject what was also reported to correlate with non-adjacent ones in the subcorpora study. 5.6.3 VARBRUL analysis of subject and non-subject that, what, and zero Finally, I will back up the correlations for that, what, and zero in both subject and non-subject positions by means of two runs of VARBRUL for all tokens of subject and non-subject relativizers separately (cf. Table 133). I use TVARB (Pintzuk 1986-1988), the program designed for handling three variants. Note in this context that factor weights >.333 indicate that a certain variable is favored by a certain factor (Pintzuk, p.c.). Figures bigger than .333 are printed in bold character. The underlined parts indicate the tendencies for that, what, and zero reported above. The figures that are both bold and underlined document a high coincidence between these tendencies and statistics. Thus, I will only discuss the differences. Subject that has been reported to correlate with pronouns, which is supported by the statistics (.341), but it is even more favored by definite NPs (.360). This can possibly be explained by the fact that it behaved variably both in apparent time and by subcorpus and was favored by pronouns in five states only. Subject what is preferred by human heads (.353), which is in line with the findings from the subcorpora, but not with the apparent time and states results. Further, TVARB reports that subject what is favored by both definite NPs (.358) and pronouns (.348). Only the former correlation has been inferred from its performance in the three studies above. Again, this might have to do with the fact that its correlation with the category of the head was variable in both the subcorpora and the apparent time studies and that it goes with definite NPs only in five states.

210 Relativizatìon Table 130. VARBRUL analysis of subject and non-subject that, what, and zero subject humanness

non-human human

that .388 .283

what .311 353

zero .301 .364

category

def.NP indef. NP pronoun

.360 .295 .341

.358 .292 .348

.282 .413 .311

adjacency

adjacent non-adj.

.343 .318

.385 .283

.272 .400

humanness

non-human human

.672 that .273 .398

.112 what .396 .274

.216 zero .331 .328

category

def.NP indef. NP pronoun

.324 .333 .303

.392 .440 .189

.283 .227 .507

adjacency

adjacent non-adj.

.365 .299

.273 .400

.362 .302

.349

.093

.558

INPUT non-subject

INPUT

In addition to indefinite NPs (.440), non-subject what is also preferred by definite NPs (.392), which again might mirror variability by subcorpus and in apparent time. Further, it has been inferred from the state-wise distribution that non-subject what mainly correlated with adjacent heads, but this is not supported by TVARB, which reports a strong preference for non-adjacent heads (.400). Non-subject that has been reported to be favored by indefinite NPs but it is neither favored nor disfavored (.333). Finally, non-subject zero has been assumed to go with non-human heads, but this is contradicted by the fact that it is slightly disfavored in both environments. On the whole, it emerges that these differences are marginal. Most of the characteristics of that, what, and zero described above are in fact backed up by statistics. What do these results for relativizatìon reveal about the relationship of Earlier AAE to other varieties of English? First of all, a definite answer is problematic because comparable data are not available. Although there are many studies of relative constructions in various varieties of English, different

Summary 211

methods prevent one-to-one comparison. As I have shown above, many studies are usually concerned with a standard variety of English that exhibits different qualitative relativization strategies, that is they lack what and subject zero, but predominantly use who and which (Quirk 1957; Guy and Bayley 1995; etc.). Thus, the ideal locus of comparison would be nonstandard varieties of English. But the analyses that are available usually do not distinguish between relatives in subject and non-subject function when discussing constraints like humanness or category of the antecedent (Van den Eynden 1993), do not study any constraint apart from humanness (Cheshire 1982), or are restricted to one relative marker only (e.g. Tottie and Harvie 1999). Therefore, I will not deliver a final cross-study survey but instead call for research into relativization in British and American dialects and also English-based creóles because it is the nonstandard varieties that need to be compared to Earlier AAE. Only there will it become possible to argue for or against a close connection of Earlier AAE to English dialects in the relative marker paradigm. Quite obviously, the relativization strategies applied by the African American informants in my corpus make an hypothesis in favor of an English dialect origin easy because all relative markers used are entirely English. However, the deeper causes for their choice must be backed up by quantitative data from comparable varieties. And we should not forget that in the corpus I use here, there is a tiny amount of relative clauses introduced by non-spatial where, which makes it hard to categorically deny any creole influence on AAE relative constructions.

Chapter 6 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE179

In this last chapter I will add two further sets of data to my analysis of Earlier AAE. They are samples from two collections of letters written by African Americans in the nineteenth century. The first set comes from two published volumes (Wiley 1980 and Miller 1978) that consist of letters written by former slaves who migrated to Liberia, while the second selection is part of a huge collection of letters written during the Civil War (Berlin et al. 1982, 1985, 1990, 1993). Both corpora are representative of written nonstandard Earlier AAE and serve to illustrate that some caution is necessary when using written data for the reconstruction of earlier stages of AAE. We know very little about the mechanisms involved when nonstandard speech is put to paper but it seems as if even people with limited literary skills use some grammatical structures in a more standard fashion than comparable informants do in speech. In the following sections I will first describe the two data sets (6.1) and make some general remarks on the necessity of examining written sources for their validity (6.2). Then I will analyze negation patterns, copula usage, and relative constructions in the two written sources and compare the results to those from the combined "spoken" corpus (6.3 to 6.5). In view of the results obtained from the analyses in chapters 3 to 5,1 think it is justified to regard the combined subcorpora studied there (WPA MS, WPA VA, ESR, HOODOOl, and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 ) as representative of speech. 6.1

Two sources of written Earlier AAE

6.1.1 Letters from Liberia (and Alabama) [LAL] The letters in this sample are drawn from two collections which are comprised of ex-slave letters from the nineteenth century: Wiley (1980) contains letters written by a wide range of former slaves who were repatriated180 to Liberia and Miller (1978) provides all extant letters of a "slave family" whose members were separated during emigration to Liberia when part of them went to Africa and the rest stayed in the United States. In the US, the idea of repatriating freed slaves to Liberia was initiated by the American Colonization Society (ACS), which had been founded in 1817 and wanted to "establish an independent settlement" for African Americans in West Africa (cf. Barbag 1977: 104). The ACS saw this as their chance to gain more influence in Africa, and after negotiations with local chiefs in the Cape Mesurado area they finally bought a stretch of land, where the first colonists

Two sources of written Earlier AAE 213 were sent out to in 1820 and where they built their first settlement in 1822. This was to become today's Monrovia182 (cf. Singler 1984:40). The motivations for the ACS to launch the repatriation of former slaves to Liberia were essentially philanthropic (cf. Barbag 1977: 104). They held the opinion that a certain degree of sustained racism in the US prevented emancipated African Americans from sharing the rights of citizenship fully. Thus the only way for them to be absolutely free was to live in a separate society of their own, in Liberia 183 (cf. Singler 1987b: 90, fn.4). This "genuinely high minded" spirit (Singler 1989: 41) of the ACS is neatly documented in a speech of one of the settlers in 1836: ...in Liberia,... where thirteen years and a half ago, the tangled and pathless forest frowned in a silence unbroken save by the roar of wild beast, ... in Liberia, the English language is now spoken, the English spirit is breathed ... (Printed in the Southern Literary messenger, 1836; quoted from Singler 1989: 40-41, who quotes from African Repository 1836). Originally, the ACS had seen Liberia as a settlement for educated African Americans (Singler 1989: 40), but for various reasons this target group was not very fond of leaving the United States: First, abolitionists tried to prevent freed slaves from emigrating because financial support for Liberia came in large part from Southern slave-owners, who regarded the freed African Americans and emancipation as a whole as a threat to their power and property. Second, the land in West Africa was quite difficult to settle and the mortality rate during the passage was "shockingly high" (Shick 1980: 27). Last, the African Americans themselves were - independent from the abolitionists' agitations "reluctant to leave the country which they had come to regard as their own" (Barbag 1977: 104). Thus, the bulk of emigrants were those who were "emancipated in view of emigrating" (Singler 1991b: 250) (in fact, 58% of all settlers; Singler 1989:41) and who "had been denied ... the most elementary components of literacy" (Singler 1977: 79) because for them this was the only possibility to attain freedom. 184 The situation is commented upon by a settler in 1854: "[M]en of means [are] the exception ... to the common rule, that is the no money, no ABC men, that come directly from the plantations..." (Liberia Herald, Aug 2 1854; quoted in Singler 1984: 42, 1987b: 72, 1989: 41). Nevertheless, there was a settler elite, who saw themselves as the leading caste of settler society and who remained in power until 1980 (cf. Singler 1984:42-43). In 1847 Liberia was announced the first Republic of Africa. By that time more than 5,000 former slaves had been repatriated, by 1867 the number had risen to above 13,000, and the nineteenth century as a whole saw about 16,000 emigrants heading for Liberia.185

214 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE

Figure 12 summarizes Singler's (1989: 42) numbers for "Average [immigrants] per year", and neatly shows the peak years as well as the years of decline, especially at the beginning of the Civil War. Finally, after 1892 there were never more than ten emigrants a year (cf. Singler 1989:42).

18201825

18261830

18311832

18331848

18491854

18551860

18611864

18651868

18691872

18731892

Figure 12. Average number of immigrants to Liberia per year The language the settlers brought with them was probably a sort of nineteenth century Black English which ranged from highly vernacular, spoken by those who came "directly from the plantations", to essentially standard English, spoken by the settler elite. The fact that the settlers throughout the nineteenth century largely avoided contact with the indigenous people (cf. Singler 1989: 48) indicates that the variety of AAE which was brought to Liberia in those days does not seem to have been altered through a language contact situation. Besides, it would have been more likely anyway for the indigenous people's vernaculars to be influenced by the settlers' because the language of die latter quite obviously represented the prestige variety. As only five to ten percent of the slave population as a whole were literate (Cornelius 1991), the letters published in Wiley (1980) and Miller (1978) are more likely to reflect settler elite speech than plantation speech. In order to get as close to the speech of the settlers as possible, however, I did not include all letters published in Wiley (1980) and Miller (1978) but only those in which the nonstandard spelling showed some traces of imperfect literacy, that is, quasi-phonemic spellings and the use of nonstandard grammatical items. In this I follow earlier practice by Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse (1993), Montgomery and Fuller (1996), and Montgomery (1999) (cf. also 6.2 below.) Although an anonymous reviewer of Kautzsch (2000) suggested that "the letters should not be selected on the basis of how well they seem to reflect colloquial speech but on the basis of how representative they are of the slave

Two sources of written Earlier AAE 215 population in specific locations" because a selection like the one I've made here "gives a very biased view of the language actually used by African Americans as an ethnic group", I regard my methodology, which runs basically along the same lines as Montgomery's, as valid: To restrict the data to the more vernacular end of a standard-nonstandard continuum first of all facilitates comparison with other sources - such as the spoken subcorpora used above which represent language from a similar register. Moreover, I do not believe that letters written in (near-)standard English really reflect the language actually used by African Americans but rather indicate that some members of this ethnic group had a better command of the standard, which they made use of in writing. But this does not imply that they spoke as they wrote. Of course, the fact that some ex-slaves had a good command of standard English needs to be emphasized when describing variation within this group. However, a comprehensive discussion of this lies beyond the scope of the present project. 6.1.1.1 Validity of transcripts Since the letters published in Wiley (1980) and Miller (1978) have not been used for linguistic analyses before it is necessary to examine in some detail how closely the original manuscripts were transcribed. From their description of the editing process it seems that both Wiley (1980) and Miller (1978) took great pains in rendering their transcription as close to the originals as possible. Wiley describes the editing process as follows: ... my guiding rule in editing ... has been to preserve as much of their original character and flavour as possible. Hence, no changes were made in spelling and grammar. Some punctuation was added to facilitate reading, but capitalisation was altered only to the extent of changing lower case to upper case at the beginning of a sentence. Words inadvertently repeated by the correspondents have been silently deleted. (Wiley 1980:11). Miller is even aware of the possibility of preserving "dialect" by sticking as closely to the originals as possible: In order to preserve the integrity andflavourof the letters and to capture any distinct Afro-American dialect, the letters are printed as found in the originals. (Miller 1978:14) However, when comparing a sample of five originals to Wiley's transcripts,186 I found some discrepancies that clearly have consequences for the linguistic value of this edition. These discrepancies are shown in Table 131.

216 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE Table 131. Comparison of transcriptions in Wiley (1980) with original manuscripts Letter Transcripts (Wiley 1980) 1. tolerable of the Lord religion greatest remember 2. sufficient 3. When suppose 4. Your dear friend 5. Town lean well attend which will forever keep could not have been like these you may try and distill that principle cows greatest Headington persued somewhat goeing

Manuscripts tolerbale of the the Lord religin greates remmeber sufficint Whem surpose Yours dear friend Toun I can will attend which well forever keep could not have been liked these you may try and distilld that principle cous greaset Headengton purseud some somewhat goeeng

The mismatches can be separated into two groups. The first group basically does not affect linguistic analysis. They are attempts to reduce ambiguity or contribute to transparency but do not alter linguistic relationships on any level of language. For example, to transcribe tolerbale as tolerable, remmeber as remember, the the Lord as the Lord, some somewhat as somewhat does not change the linguistic structure of these items and even the replacement of Toun by Town does not have too much impact on its phonetic value. On the other hand, the second group of corrections made by Wiley has indeed some effect on the linguistic value of this edition. For example, the original spellings religin and sufficint might suggest schwa-less pronunciation in unstressed syllables. The original spelling of surpose shows the use of nonprevocalic r that might be hypercorrection resulting from r-less speech. The spellings Headengton, well for will, and will for well hint at an [I] ~ [e] merger in the speech of the writer in the fifth letter.187 The spellings greates and greaset - the latter probably a misspelling - in the originals would favor the

Two sources of written Earlier AAE 217 assumption of consonant cluster reduction in two of the writers. As a result, this volume should not be used for studies of pronunciation. Wiley's transcriptions of morpho-syntactic matters, however, are more reliable. For instance, he routinely transcribes verbal -s outside 3rd singular wherever it appears (/ has to work, letter 3), as well as zero within 3rd singular contexts (food appear to thrive, letter 5); the same is true for past tense endings (killd, stabd, letter 5). In the samples checked, only in they could not have been liked these (letter 5) and you may try and distilld that principle (letter 5) did Wiley leave out a -d that occurred in the manuscript. In the first example liked is not used verbally and must be interpreted as a misspelling. In the second, the omission of the ending is crucial since it marks the verb for tense. But because this is the only example in five letters where Wiley's transcription affects morpho-syntax, I regard the Wiley edition as transcribed faithfully enough for use in morphosyntactic analyses. Finally, it has to be emphasized that shortcomings of the available edition do not have any impact on the value of the letters themselves as sources for the reconstruction of AAE. The restrictions that derive from the comparison of the original manuscripts and the transcriptions in Wiley (1980) only affect the use of this specific edited volume as linguistic data (and to be on the safe side, Miller 1978, too) and not the letters in principle. Moreover, since I selected only those letters that show nonstandard, quasi-phonemic spellings in the edited volume, the set of data used for the present study is trustworthy. The only unfortunate side effect of the use of this edited volume is that I might have been able to include more of the letters if the transcripts had been more accurate. Of course, I am aware of the fact that the most desirable method for using manuscript letters as linguistic data would be using the original manuscripts. Because this was not feasible in this instance, my approach of selecting a sample of manuscripts and cross-checking these with the transcriptions in an edited volume is reasonably cautious, as I demonstrate the general accuracy of the transcripts and take the consequences from unwanted findings into account when using them. Thus, I will analyze 306 letters of a total of 73 writers (56 men and 17 women) for the present study. Birth years are known for 61 of them (1790 to 1839).188 Regionally this sample is distributed across the whole American South with the writers originating from ten southern states (AL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, NC, TN, and VA).189 Table 132 surveys the writers. Except for the last three rows they are grouped by their owners, as they appear in Wiley (1980) and Miller (1978). For more detailed information about the writers (age, date of letters, etc.) cf. appendix 1.

218 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE

Table 132. Survey of writers in LAL. Informants Group / owner Minor-Blackford, VA Mary Ann Minor (2 letters), Abraham Blackford (3) (Wiley 1980) Peyton Skipwith (14), Diana Skipwith (10), Nash Skipwith (3), Matilda Skipwith (23), James Skipwith John Hartwell Cocke, (8), Erasmus Nicholas (1), John Faulcon (4), Mary Diana Sterdivant (= Molly Haynes190) (2), Richard AL (Liberia) Cannon (1), Robert Leander Sterdivant (3), Solomon (Wiley 1980) Creecy (3), Sucky Faulcon (3), William Leander Sterdivant (1) John Hartwell Cooke George Skipwith (20), Lucy Skipwith (58), James (AL), (Miller 1978)191 Skipwith (3) John M. Page, Sr. (7), John M. Page, Jr. (1), Page-Andrews, VA Solomon S. Page (2), Thomas M. Page (1), Peggy (Wiley 1980) Potter (2) Augustine Lamberth (3), Galloway Smith (2), George R. Ellis (9), James Gray (1), James John McDonogh, LA McGeorge (3), John Aiken (1), Mary Jackson (1), (Wiley 1980) Nancy Smith (2), Simon Jackson (1), Washington W. McDonogh (10) George Jones (4), Grandville Woodson (3), Horace Isaac Ross, MS Ross (2), Pascal Woodson (1), Peter Ross (7), Sarah (Wiley 1980) Woodson (2) Edward James Patterson (2), Henry Smith (3), James William Rice, LA Patterson (1), James Rice (1), Reuben Rice (3), Titus (Wiley 1980) Glover (3) To officials of Alexander Hance (3), George Washington Tills (2), Maryland State Col. Isaac Roberts (3), James W. Wilson (2), Paul F. Soc. and American Lansay (1), Phillip F. Flournoy (1), Samuel D. Harris Col. Soc. (and Polly D. Harris) (1), Simon Harrison (1), Sion (Wiley 1980) Harris (8), Stephen Hall (1) A. B. Hooper (1), Elisa Thilman (1), George Crawford (2), Jacob Harris (2), Lucy Clay (2), Miscellaneous Malinda Rex (1), Mary Ann Clay (1), Moses Jackson (Wiley 1980) (1), Nelson Sanders (1), Richard McMorine (1), Seaborn Evans (2), Susan Capart (1), Violet Graham (1), Virgil P. McPharrhan (1), Wesley J. Horland (2) A preacher from GA Henry B. Stewart (23) (Wiley 1980) Total

Total 5

76

81

13

33

19

13

23

20

23 306

Two sources of written Earlier AAE 219

Although all these letters display some quasi-phonemic spellings and nonstandard grammatical features, there is still a continuum of non-standardness to be observed. This is obviously connected to the fact that every writer had a different degree of education. For example, one of the slave-owners, John Hartwell Cooke, hired northern teachers and clergymen. They were to prepare his slaves for resettlement in Africa by religious training and some schooling in reading and writing, which included tutoring in letter writing (Miller 1978: 3234). Cocke's house servant Lucy Skipwith even served as a teacher (Miller 1978: 185). Similar levels of education, including writing abilities, can be expected for the Page-Andrews slaves (Wiley 1980: 100-102), the McDonogh slaves (Wiley 1980:117), and the Ross slaves (Wiley 1980:154). On the contrary, the Rice slaves do not seem to have had much tutoring in writing and were not well prepared for Africa. They were just handed over to the Louisiana Colonization Society in order to give them their freedom upon their arrival in Liberia (Wiley 1980: 176). This is probably why their letters display "poor handwriting, composition, and spelling" (Wiley 1980: 176). Similar observations can be made in the letters written to officials of Colonization Societies and in the "Miscellaneous" group. In the latter group there were some people who had their letters written by amanuenses (Wiley 1980: 250), and because Wiley does not identify them, it might be safest to omit all letters from this group. This would, however, also exclude those that might make a fine distribution to the more nonstandard part of this set and therefore I will keep all of them. Moreover, Montgomery (1999) has argued that amanuenses in such contexts are also members of black communities and thus the letters written by them still represent written Earlier AAE (cf. 6.2). 6.1.2 Letters written during or after the Civil War (Freedmen's Bureau Letters [FBL]) The second set of written Earlier AAE to be compared to the spoken corpus is a selection of 39 letters written by slaves or ex-slaves at the end or after the Civil War. They are available through the publications of the Freedmen and Southern Society Project (Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867), which in 1976 started to study "the transformation of black life during emancipation ... from the perspective of the past's majority rather than its most prominent figures" (Berlin et al. 1982: xi). Because of this aim, the makers of the project restrict themselves to the records of The Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands (Freedmen's Bureau), which is only a tiny part of the total of Civil War records kept at the National Archives in Washington, DC: Although the bureau [Freedmen's Bureau] often lacked resources to do more than make written note of the abuses of freedpeople brought to its

220 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE attention, bureau agents scattered across the South conducted censuses, undertook investigations, recorded dispositions, field reports, and accumulated letters authored by ex-slaves and interested whites. (Berlin et al. 1982: xviii) These letters written by black people during and after the Civil War are used to write a history from below by documenting the black experience of reconstruction in the South: ... hundreds of letters and statements by former slaves give voice to people whose aspirations, beliefs, and behavior have gone largely unrecorded. Not only did extraordinary numbers of ex-slaves, many of them newly literate, put pen to paper in the early years of freedom, but hundreds of others, entirely illiterate, gave depositions to government officials, placed their marks on resolutions passed at mass meetings, testified before courts-martial and Freedmen's Bureau courts, and dictated letters to more literate blacks and to white officials and teachers. The written record thus created constitutes an unparalleled outpouring from people caught up in the emancipation process. (Berlin et al. 1982: xviii) On the whole, the scholars in this project are working on a huge amount of data, which had to be pre-selected before the actual processes of sorting, grouping, and editing could begin. That is, Berlin et al. found themselves scanning through about 700 cubic feet of material from the Freedmen's Bureau records alone. Over a three-year period (1976-1979) they selected "more than 40,000 items, representing perhaps 2 percent of the documents they examined" (Berlin et al. 1982: xix-xx). Up to 1993 they managed to publish four volumes covering the Civil War years: The Black Military Experience (1982), The Destruction of Slavery (1985), The Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Lower South (1990), and The Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Upper South (1993). However, so far this enterprise has only "reached its halfway point", since "the editors will now address the important question of postwar reconstruction" (Berlin et al. 1993: xiii).192 Since Freedom wants to describe, exemplify, and study the process of social transformation in the South, it is arranged according to topics. Along these lines, the editors decided that the annotations of the letters should "provide a context for the documents rather than ... identify persons or places" and therefore refrained from the "time consuming extraction of details about individuals" (Berlin et al. 1982: xxii). From a linguistic point of view, this is a pity, for background information on individuals often helps to interpret his/her speech habits. In terms of editorial method, the editors state that "the textual body of each document in this volume is reproduced - to the extent permitted by modern

Manuscript letters as linguistic data 221

typography - exactly as it appears in the original manuscript" (Berlin et al. 1982: xxiv; italics in original). The quality of the transcripts is confirmed by Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse (1993: 341), who selected some letters from these volumes to investigate verbal -s in Earlier AAE. The criteria for their selection were the presence of phonetic spelling and "evidence of at least on of the following features found in AA(V)E: consonant cluster reduction, r-lessness, and variation between [i] and [ε]" (Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse 1993: 341). In the present study I use the same 39 letters analyzed by Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse (1993) and Montgomery and Fuller (1996).193 All of these letters were written between 1862 and 1870 and originate from a wide range of states (DL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, VA); one each comes from New York City and Washington, DC, and one is labeled as "Northern". Three letters were written by women, the rest by men. Another three of them have multiple signatures. For a detailed survey of the informants in FBL see appendix 1. 6.2

Manuscript letters as linguistic data

The use of written documents to reconstruct colloquial English must be guided by caution. However, previous studies (e.g. Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse 1993, Montgomery and Fuller 1996, Montgomery 1999) show that the analysis of manuscript documents can be fruitful to understanding earlier stages of AAE. Montgomery (1999: 1) especially "develops a case for the principled use of manuscript documents for reconstructing earlier stages of colloquial English". In order to do so, he identifies four issues that have to be taken into account when working with linguistic data of this kind: authorship, the use of models, manipulation of written code, and representativeness. The usefulness of FBL for linguistic investigations has already been established by Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse (1993: 339-345). Therefore, I will mostly focus on LAL in this section. The first issue is "whether such documents actually came from the hands of African Americans" (Montgomery 1999: 23). In the case of LAL, authorship is not a grave concern because Liberia - similar to the Sierra Leone where Montgomery's (1999) letters come from - was obviously a predominantly black community. Even if in some cases the words were not put to paper by the person him- or herself, it is highly likely that someone from inside the community served as an amanuensis. Both people who wrote their letters in Alabama (Lucy and George Skipwith) had undergone some training in reading and writing (Miller 1978) and it is obvious, therefore, that they are the authors. For

222 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE FBL authenticity has been "established by historians" (Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse 1993: 342). The second issue deals with the assumption that "the use of literary formulas and types of rhetoric usually found in semi-literate letters indicates that a writer is not using his or her native speech patterns" (Montgomery 1999: 25). Here Montgomery argues that phonetic spellings, lack of punctuation and other nonstandard patterns let us assume that these writers "were relying on an oral rather than a written model" (25). Thus, the occurrence of literate formulas does not invalidate the letters as colloquial data. This observation is also supported in LAL (211) and FBL (212): (211) I know take my seat to write you A fite lines. Thes leave me enjoyin Good helth and I hope that thes mayfineyou the same. (James Skipwith, Wiley 1980: 82) (212) Dear Madam I receave A letter from You A few day Ago inquirin regard to the Fait of Your Son I am sarry to have to inform You that thear is no dobt of his Death (Maryland black soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 241) Montgomery's third point is that unconventional spellings usually do not - as is widely assumed - obscure speech patterns but rather "almost always turn out ... to be phonetically based in whole or in part" (26). Thus, he calls for systematic analysis of the written code: After establishing the authorship of a document, an equally important step in validating it for linguistic analysis is to assess its general linguistic character in a principled manner, by tabulating nonstandard grammatical items and forms that show the phonetic basis of typical misspellings. (26) LAL and FBL are indeed a useful source for the reconstruction of Earlier AAE since frequently the authors' ways of spelling clearly reflect their speech, that is, nonstandard spellings quite obviously have a phonetic basis. This of course also applies to the occurrence of nonstandard grammatical items. The following six examples from LAL illustrate this:194 (213) Loss my daughter and I could [feel] great, If I could rid of my great loss I would field happy, otherwise I will be cass down. (Sucky Faulcon, Wiley 1980: 76) (214) he charge me nothing. I set oft to Norfolk next morning and arrived ther that evening. I was very politely ask up to Mr. Bell's house (Abraham Blackford, Wiley 1980: 21)

Manuscript letters as linguistic data 223 (215) I who is one of the farthers of the Rosses people Spent all my Strenth thare working for those who ware lord of that land acording to promisses maid by Mr. McConn & Mr. Chare did Ralay expeted to Receve Sum thing from you all long Sence, but we hav wrote & worte till it all most seem to be usless. (Horace Ross, Wüey 1980: 173-174) (216) I am hapy to in form yo that we are much beter Satisfy with this place than we were the last time we roten to yo awl (Diana Skipwith, Wiley 1980: 38) (217) By this you may see that I and all is well and we hope that you is the sam. (William Leander Sterdivant, Wiley 1980: 93) In (213), (214), and (215) the written representation shows consonant cluster reduction (loss, cass, charge, ask seem), which in the latter three verb forms affects morpho-syntax, too; that is, in these instances the loss of a final consonant goes hand in hand with the loss of a past tense ending. In (215) the spelling farther indicates that the writer probably pronounces father and farther alike and therefore cannot keep the spelling straight. Further, in (215) and (216) three verb forms reflect nonstandard usage: the past participle wrote, the past tense form roten, and the use of the base form satisfy after the copula where standard English has a participle. There is also evidence of nonstandard subject verb agreement (you is, 217) and finally an instance of the southern pronoun for second person plural you awl (216). On the basis of these observations, it is reasonable to judge that the misspellings found in LÂL are not just unsystematic flaws but are rather due to the writers' inexperience with standard orthography and grammar, which made their letters closer approximations of speech. Montgomeiy's (1999) fourth issue addresses the representativeness of manuscript documents since it has been postulated that "the writing of the small fraction of African Americans who were literate cannot be taken to represent the language of the larger community in which they lived" (26).195 At first, this does indeed appear to be a severe objection to the use of manuscript letters for the reconstruction of Earlier AAE. However, if the first three issues (authorship, use of models, manipulation of written code) are addressed, some inferences about representativeness may reasonably be drawn from the sample at hand. In accordance with Montgomery's issues it can be argued now that LAL and FBL studied here in principle lend themselves to linguistic analyses. Moreover, Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse (1993: 342-343) also emphasize the datability and localizability of letters as further advantages for Unguis-

224 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE

tic investigations. And also the fact that many of these people wrote their letters in desperation might contribute to a more vernacular nature. But this last issue mainly touches FBL, although in some cases - like for example the Rice slaves - writers in LAL may also have been desperate when pleading for goods. All in all, the selections from LAL and FBL include letters that exhibit nonstandard grammatical items as well as quasi-phonemic spellings which might hint at a relatively close approximation to speech. However, we are reminded by Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse (1993: 343) that "[w]ritten documents inevitably conceal some, perhaps many, of the speech patterns of their authors and can never be taken at face value as the equivalent to transcripts ..." To what extent this is true for negation patterns, copula usage, and relative clauses will be shown in the analysis below.

6.3

Negation

This section studies the same negation patterns as chapter 3 above and uses total results from the combined spoken corpora as the basis for comparison with the two written sources. The structures that will be dealt with are verbal negation in general (6.3.1), negative concord (6.3.2), negative attraction (6.3.3), and negative postposing (6.3.4). Finally, a summary of findings will contrast standard and nonstandard negation in written and spoken Earlier AAE (6.3.5). 6.3.1 Verbal Negation Along the lines of chapter 3 above, verbal negation patterns in affirmative sentences are analyzed here. The absolute frequencies of full verb negation, copula negation, and negation of perfectives are shown in Table 133, where figures for LAL, FBL, and the spoken corpus are contrasted. The examples below illustrate the negation patterns used in the letters. Table 133. Verbal negation (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) LAL

FBL

spoken corpus

143 (100%) 0

33 (100%) 0

1250 (99%) 7 (1%)

did + NEG + V(inf) ain't (past) + V(inf)

91 (100%) 0

14 (100%) 0

760 (99%) 11 (1%)

ain 't + V(pp)

0

0

26

153 (100%) 0

21 (100%) 0

86 (30%) 201 (70%)

full verb negation do/does + NEG + V(inf) ain't (present) + V(inf)

copula negation am/are/is + NEG ain't (copula, present)

Negation 225 Table 133 (cont.) was/were +NEG ain 't (copula, past)

26 (100%) 0

negation of perfectives have/has + NEG + V(pp) 200(100%) ain't (present) + V(pp) 0 had + NEG + V(pp) ain't (past) + V(pp) ain't (present) + got have/has + NEG + got

21 (100%) 0 0 0

6 (100%) 0

2 (1%)

151 (99%)

19 (100%) 0

41 (30%) 96 (70%)

2 (100%) 0

34 (100%) 0

0 0

77 (94%) 5 (6%)

Examples or negation patterns used in LAL and FBL full verb negation do/does + NEG + V(inf) (218) I Dont Beleave the Goverment wants me eney how (New York and Delaware Black Soldiers; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 291) (219) I want to write to her, but I do not know where she lives. (ABRAHAM BLACKFORD; Wiley 1980: 25) did + NEG + V(inf) (220) / Went With him and then he made me drunk and sold me to another man for a substitute and did not give me any money atall (Ohio Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no 112.) (221) [After] you wrote to him he was Sun Struct and did not live long after that desease taken him. (GEORGE JONES; Wiley 1980: 173) copula negation am/are/is + NEG (222) We Are not treated Like we are soldiers in coleague Atall (New York and Delaware Black Soldiers; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 291) (223) Particulars of affairs is not needed as yo[ur] agent will Carry them. (HENRY B. STEWART; Wiley 1980: 300) was/were +NEG (224) ... to pick out all men that Was not abel and the is A Larg number of men (Anonymous Black Noncommissioned Officer; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 268)

226 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE (225) My health at that time was not good, and I expected to become blind (PEYTON SKIPWITH; Wiley 1980: 38) negation of perfectives have/has + NEG + V(pp) (226) I take my pen in hand to rite you A few lines to let you know that I have not forgot you and that I want to see you as bad as ever (Missouri Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 299A) (227) ... and I am not able to inform you how they are in health as I have not hear but once since the war. (TITUS GLOVER; Wiley 1980: 181) had + NEG + V(pp) (228) and would fermily have done so if we had not ben treatted in such ill manner (Louisiana Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 156c) (229) mrs Harvey had not returned home from Philadelphia when I heard from her (Lucy Skipwith; Miller 1978: 210) The first striking difference between both LAL and FBL and the spoken corpus is that in the former two we do not find one single token of ain't. Thus, in the letters there is simply no variation of negation patterns within the contexts under scrutiny. It is possible that ain't was not used by these writers because it was a fairly stigmatized form already in the nineteenth century, and it is easy to imagine that everybody being exposed to some amount of schooling probably was told that using ain't is "bad English", especially in writing. This, of course, does not mean that ain't was not part of these writers' grammar. But the letters give no written evidence for ain't, which in this case might reflect the impact of literacy. In some respects, however, the letters and the spoken corpus are similar. This is where the variability between ain't and its standard counterpart is minimal in the latter: present and past tense full verb negation, as well as past tense copula and past tense perfective negation, with do+NEG / did+NEG, vww+NEG / were+NEG, and had+NEG being used (almost) categorically (for further details cf. Chapter 3, 2.1). 6.3.2 Negative concord As above (chapter 3), the second feature to be studied is negative concord (230) and its standard counterpart (231). Table 134 displays the details for the two sets of letters and the spoken corpus.

Negation 227 (230) One thing what pleas me they have not got no money and they are oblige to go to farming. (PEYTON SKIPWITH; Wiley 1980: 45)196 (231) they say they will not stand it any longger (Tennessee Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 311) Table 134. Survey of negative concord (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) LAL neg. indet. after neg. pred. 34 (28%) any/any*% after neg. pred. 88 (72%) Ν 122

FBL 6 (19%) 26(81%) 32

spoken corpus 794 (80%) 200 (20%) 994

In the letters as opposed to the spoken corpus, the percentages of negative concord and standard negation are almost reversed. LAL and FBL have 28% and 19% negative concord, respectively, while in the spoken corpus this nonstandard pattern occurs in 80% of all cases. Similar to the absence of ain't, this probably reflects the impact of literacy on the writers, that is, they might have used multiple negation more often in speech but we do not have evidence for or against this assumption. On the other hand, the finding that multiple negation is used in more than one fourth of the possible contexts in LAL and in about one fifth in FBL is worth noting and suggests a long tradition of this pattern in AAE. The distribution of negated auxiliaries in standard and nonstandard indeterminate contexts is surveyed in Table 135 (standard and nonstandard patterns separately) and Table 136 (standard and nonstandard patterns by auxiliary). Example sentences from the letters appear below. Examples for negative auxiliaries before indeterminates nonstandard modal + NEG + no*

(232) ... thay will not do well in no Part of Africa (JAMES P. SKIPWITH; Wiley 1980: 96) am not/isn't/aren't + no* (233) thirfore I got nothing from his Esate But 3 or 4 lots in town which is not worth nothing if tha ware sould. (MATILDA SKIPWITH RICHARDSON; Wiley 1980: 91) don't/doesn't + no* (234) I have no edication I dont know nothing at all abought law (Imprisoned Mississippi Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 182)

228 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE didn't + no* (235) ... the Articles you sent us we did not get none of them (JAMES McGEORGE; Wiley 1980: 126) wasn't/ weren't + no* (236) ... that he was not afraid of being whiped by no man. (George Skipwith; Miller 1978: 157) haven't/hasn't + no* (237) ... and have not receive no answer yet. (GRANDVILLE B. WOODSON; Wiley 1980: 162) standard modal + NEG + any* (238) ... & see if you cannot do any good to get us out of this if you please (Anonymous South Carolina Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 339) am not / isn't /aren't + any* (239) ... as myself alone, I am not Connected with any missionary Society as Such, (HENRY B. STEWART; Wiley 1980: 307) don't/ doesn't + any* (240) ... and I do not know of any better chance than to write by Mr. Jos. J. Roberts. (PEYTON SKIPWITH; Wiley 1980: 37) didn't + any* (241) ... that i arnt United States Soldier nor Dont Know any thing army Reagulations. (Anonymous Maryland Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 275) wasn't/ weren't + any* (242) And I Told Said Comdg. Officer That where not any of my Duties for To Fished Oysters for Hint. (Louisiana Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 174) haven't/ hasn't + any* (243) we have not had any rane since I wrote to you. (George Skipwith; Miller 1978: 181) Table 135 a shows that the written sources, especially in LAL - the figures for FBL are too low for representative results - have two predominant auxiliaries in negative concord: modals and haven't/hasn't. In the spoken corpus four auxiliaries share 95% of all cases at similar rates: modals, ain't, don't/doesn't and didn't. Standard indeterminate space (Table 135 b) also has differing preferences for auxiliaries across speech and writing. Modals rank first in both

Negation 229 letter subcorpora. In LAL haven't/hasn't and don't/doesn't are second and third, while in FBL their ordering is reversed. Table 135. Distribution of negative auxiliaries in indeterminate contexts (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) a) nonstandard modal + ain't + no* no* NEG +

15 (48%)

0

2 spoken 200 corpus (26%)

0

LAL FBL

168 (22%)

am not/ isn't/ aren't + no* 1 (3%) 0 0

don't/ doesn't + no*

didn't + wasn't/ weren't no* + no*

haven't/ Ν hasn't + no*

0

12 (39%)

31

1

2 (7%) 0

173 (23%)

186 (24%)

1 6 (1%)

4 764

1 (3%) 0 31 (4%)

b) standard modal + ain't + any* any* NEG +

LAL FBL

39 (38%) 11 (44%)

spoken 39 corpus (26%)

0 0 8 (5%)

am not/ isn't/ aren't + any* 6 (6%) 0 0

didn't + wasn't/ haven't/ Ν don't/ weren't hasn't + doesn't any* + any* + any* any* 18 (17%) 7 (28%)

56 (38%)

14 (14%) 1 (4%) 41 (28%)

1 (1%) 1 (4%) 2 (1%)

25 (24%) 5 (20%)

3

103 25 149

(2%)

The spoken corpus has don't/doesn't as the most frequent auxiliary with any and its compounds. Modals and didn't follow. In sum, there are two striking differences between spoken and written Earlier AAE. First, haven't/hasn't and modals are predominantly used in writing, irrespective of standard or nonstandard contexts. The high frequency of haven't/hasn't as perfective negator in writing of course results from the absence of ain't in this function. Second, especially in nonstandard context don't/doesn't is more popular in speech than in writing. The direct comparison of the four predominant auxiliaries (modals, don't/doesn't, didn't, and haven't/hasn't) in standard and nonstandard environments (Table 136) shows the expected distinction between spoken and written Earlier AAE.

230 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE Table 136. Variation between standard and nonstandard indetenninates by negative auxiliary and subcorpus modal+NEG + no* LAL 15 (28%) 2 (15%) FBL spoken 200 (84%) corpus didn't+no* 2 (13%) LAL FBL 0 spoken 186 (82%) corpus

modal+NEG + any* 39 (72%) 11 (85%) 39 (16%)

Ν

clon 't / doesn 't + don't / doesn 't + Ν any* no* 18 18 (100%) 54 0 8 13 1 (12%) 7 (88%) 229 56 (24%) 239 173(76%)

didn't+any* Ν 14 (88%) 1 41 (18%)

haven't /hasn't + no* 16 12 (32%) 1 1 (17%) 227 6(67%)

haven't /hasn't + any* 25 (68%) 5 (83%) 3 (33%)

Ν 37 6 9

In speech nonstandard indeterminates are preferred while writing clearly favors the standard pattern. In fact, the results are highly significant at ρ < 0.001 for all auxiliaries but haven't/hasn't, for which the difference across speech and writing is significant at 10%.197 In addition, the results from the two letter corpora hint at variation within written nonstandard Earlier AAE. In LAL it seems that the tendency to use nonstandard indeterminates after modals and haven't/hasn't is higher than in LAL. However, a chi-square calculation, which can only be done for modals here (χ2=.32), indicates that this difference is not significant. 6.3.3 Negative attraction The next negation pattern to be investigated is negative attraction, a feature that is entirely standard in nature. Table 137 surveys its occurrence in the two letter corpora and the spoken corpus. Table 137. Negative attraction (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) LAL

FBL

negative attraction: subject neg. indet. subject before neg. pred.

53 0

4 0

spoken corpus 97 (70%) 42 (30%)

negative attraction: never never before neg. pred.

63 0

12 0

95 1

With never, negative attraction is the categorical pattern in both written and spoken Earlier AAE (examples 244 and 245). (246) from HOODOOl is the only exception found in the spoken corpus.

Negation 231 (244) I always take pleasure in writeing to you, and I never feels sattisfied when I neglect any thing that you desire (Lucy Skipwith; Miller 1978: 204) (245) I never saw a slave sale gwine on in our neighborhood. (Eliza Ann Taylor; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 284) (246) A dirt dauber got a wisdom dat yo' an' yore mother nevah ain't learnt. (GA_m4; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1329) Negative attraction to an indeterminate subject, as exemplified in (247) and (248), is the only option in LAL and FBL, while the spoken corpus has 42 examples (~30%) of a negative indeterminate subject before a negated predicate as in (249) and (250), which clearly distinguishes spoken from written Earlier AAE from a qualitative point of view. Note, however, that 37 of these 42 examples come from HOODOO 1. (247) Nothing very interesting has taken place since I wrote you last. (James P. Skipwith; Wiley 1980: 95) (248) Ya see, nobody wanted ol' slaves. Young ones brought more money. (Ishrael Massie; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 205) (249) No white folks didn't leave me nothing but de wide world (Anna E. Crawford; Perdue, Barden, and Phillips 1976: 77) (250) ... drop dat in whiskey, an' give your gal dat an' no othah man can't go wit 'er. (VA_m2; Hyatt 1970-1978: 1622) In principle negative attraction is the exclusive pattern in written and a very popular pattern in spoken Earlier AAE. This similarity could either result from a certain amount of literacy on the side of the informants in the spoken corpus or from the fact that negative attraction is equally a standard and non-standard phenomenon. The latter explanation seems more likely because the spoken corpus is not affected by literacy in the other negation patterns analyzed above. 6.3.4 Negative postposing Finally, negative postposing, an entirely standard pattern, in which a negative element can optionally be moved from the predicate to the first post-verbal indeterminate, seems to be very popular in both written and spoken Earlier AAE. Table 138 shows single frequencies for negative postposing with no and

232 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE its compounds, with never, and in existential constructions of the type There is no/no*. Table 138. Negative postposing (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) negative postposing negative postposing (never) negative postposing (existential) Ν

LAL 209 63 61 333

FBL 29 8 3 40

spoken corpus 108 100 53 261

The spoken corpus, LAL, and FBL have a total of 261, 333, and 40 tokens of negative postposing, respectively (251-253 are three examples). If these figures are compared to those for negative concord (spoken: 794; LAL: 34; FBL: 6) and for the standard pattern with any and its compounds (spoken: 200; LAL: 88; FBL: 26), negative postposing is by far the most popular negation pattern involving indeterminates in written Earlier AAE. This further underlines the relative proximity of the letters to Standard English, and thus the effects of literacy on one particular part of the grammar, namely negation. On the contrary, in the spoken corpus negative concord is the dominant structure, but negative postposing (non-negated predicate + no and its compounds) outnumbers the standard pattern with any and its compounds. (251) When he first approached my presence I had no knowledge of him; but the name he bore ... (JAMES C. MINOR; Wiley 1980:16) (252) The Jury retired and found no Bill. (PEYTON SKIPWITH; Wiley 1980: 54) (253) I have no Family but Myself and wife and [no] means to come. (SION HARRIS; Wiley 1980: 223) An interesting pattern in connection to negative postposing is the structure in which never precedes a non-negated predicate and a standard (254) or nonstandard (255) indeterminate item. (254) mrs Powell never called on any one neither did any one call on her while she was here. (Lucy Skipwith; Miller 1978: 206) (255) I never treated nothing as he did Pharoah wife to day. (Wife of a Kentucky Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 304) Table 139 illustrates that both the spoken corpus and LAL use both the standard and the nonstandard patterns, while in FBL only the nonstandard one was

Negation 233 found. Low totals in the letters, however, prevent conclusions about preferences. In the spoken corpus the nonstandard structure is clearly in the majority (82%). Table 139. Never + affirmative predicate + indeterminate item never + pred. (affirmative) no* never + pred. (affirmative) any*

FBL 3 0

LAL 2 4

spoken corpus 61 (82%) 13 (18%)

6.3.5 Summing up Table 140 contrasts figures for standard and nonstandard negation patterns with indetenninates in LAL, FBL, and the spoken corpus as discussed above. The obvious result is that the degree of nonstandardness is heavily influenced by the medium. Table 140. Standard and nonstandard negation patterns with indetenninates (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) standard never + neg. neg. , ® ® pred + postp. attr. * any* 329 126 6 (54%) (21%) (1%) 16 η (42%) (18%) spoken 208 297 13 corpus (13%) (19%) (1%)

FRI

37

nonstandard neg. . , ^ never + , neg. indet. , pred. + 6 , pred. + * + neg. pred. e * any* no* 117 2 (19%) (0%) 26

(30%) 156 (10%)

η 43 (3%)

3

neg. ,

rpred. 4

no* 34 (9%)

6

(3%) 61 (4%)

+ xΝT

ss (7%) 778 1556 (50%)

As opposed to the spoken corpus, where nonstandard patterns add up to 57%, LAL and FBL are only marginally nonstandard (9% and 10%, respectively). In fact, this difference is highly significant at ρ < 0.001 when totals for written and spoken standard and nonstandard are taken as the basis for calculating chisquare (χ2=503.16). The properties of negation in written as opposed to spoken Earlier AAE can be summarized as follows: (i) In both written and spoken Earlier AAE the Standard English usage of do/does/did + NEG + V(inf), was/were (copula) + NEG, and negative attraction are predominant patterns. (ii) Negative postposing, any and its compounds after a negated predicate, and negative concord appear in both mediums but to different extents. On the one hand, the Standard English patterns of negative postposing and any/any* after a negated predicate do occur in speech, but are much

234 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE

more prominent features in writing. On the other hand, non-standard negative concord is clearly a dominant feature only in speech, although it is also present in writing, (iii) Spoken Earlier AAE shows predominant usage of the non-standard patterns of present perfect ain7+V(pp) and ain't (copula, present), while the letters have only two patterns, /uzve+NEG+V(pp) and am/are/is (copula)+NEG. In fact, in the letters there are no occurrences of ain't at all. This means that, despite some similarities, written and spoken Earlier AAE differ to such an extent that written documents do not lend themselves to analyses of negation patterns in speech. 6.4

The copula

The second feature to be contrasted in the spoken corpus and in the letters is the copula. I will first (6.4.1) consider those contexts in which in spoken Earlier AAE the copula appears almost categorically in one certain form, mostly the contracted one. As has been shown in Chapter 4, 2.1., these contexts are there, here, this, what, it, and that. After this, full, contracted and zero forms of am, is, and are in all other environments will be taken into account (6.4.2). The result is similar to what has been found for negation: Copula variability is reduced to a minimum in written documents with the full form being used in a preponderant fashion. 6.4.1 The copula in special contexts ("there, here, this, WIT) For spoken Earlier AAE as represented in the five subcorpora analyzed in the previous chapters it has been shown that in certain contexts the form of the copula used is not very much subject to variability. Instead, it has been argued that for some reason one form appears almost categorically. That is, contracted is is the favorite form after there, here, that, it, and what. After this full is is used in a majority of cases, while are after there is either full or zero. All tokens that occur in these contexts among others have been excluded from an analysis of copula variability in spoken Earlier AAE. Table 141 surveys the distribution of the forms of the copula in these contexts and the picture that emerges for written Earlier AAE (LAL and FBL) is astonishingly homogeneous. In all environments the form used almost categorically is the full copula of both is and are. The lowest percentage for a full form is 89% of full is after that in FBL Examples for full copula appear below.

The copula 235 Table 141. Copula variability after there, here, this and WIT (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) LAL FBL spoken corpus LAL FBL spoken corpus LAL FBL spoken corpus LAL FBL spoken corpus LAL FBL spoken corpus LAL FBL spoken corpus LAL FBL spoken corpus

there is 169 (98%) 15 (100%) 51 (19%) there are 35 (95%) 4 (100%) 21 (51%) here is 4 (100%) 0 12 (15%) this is 65 (96%) 6 (100%) 205 (93%) that is 53 (95%) 16 (89%) 79 (6%) it is 301 (99%) 31 (91%) 61 (7%) what is 15 (94%) 5 (100%) 8(11%)

there's 1 (1%) 0 200 (75%) there're 0 0 2 (5%) here's 0 0 65 (81%) this's 0 0 1 (0,4%) that's 1 (2%) 2(11%) 1137(90%) it's 1 (0%) 0 701 (82%) what's 1 (6%) 0 60 (80%)

there 0 2 (1%) 0 17 (6%) there 0 2 (5%) 0 18 (44%) here 0 0 0 3 (4%) this 0 3 (4%) 0 17 (8%) that0 2 (4%) 0 51 (4%) it0 3 (1%) 3 (9%) 92(11%) what0 0 0 7 (9%)

Ν 172 15 268 Ν 37 4 41 Ν 4 0 80 Ν 68 6 223 Ν 56 18 1267 Ν 305 34 854 Ν 16 5 75

Examples for full copula after there, here, this, WIT in written Earlier AAE (256) there is a great deal of sickness in the Neighborhood at preasant (Lucy Skipwith; Miller 1978: 239) (257) ... & We hear That The ar Mor for us (Discharged Maryland Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 347) (258) he went on after Goterah's head and returned saying "here is Goterah's head. You have killed him, for true. ..." (SION HARRIS; Wiley 1980: 223)

236 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE (259)

... & as they say in the south sometimes, this is running the thing too far in the ground. (SIMON HARRISON; Wiley 1980: 242)

(260) ... when I will be able to pay you all that is due you. (ISAAC ROBERTS; Wiley 1980: 240) (261) it is now growing and ses it is the best cotten he has seen. (George Skipwith; Miller 1978: 155) (262) ... but I am sure that you know what is best for me to Do my two son I (Maryland Former Slave; Berlin et al. 1985: letter no. 149) A second interesting observation is that in the letters contraction seems to be even less important than zero (for examples see 263-268 and 269-275 below). This near-absence of contraction goes neatly hand in hand with my findings about negated auxiliaries and Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse's (1993) verbal -s study in FBL and it seems as if contraction is a phenomenon primarily pertaining to speech. On the whole there are 5 instances of contracted and 15 instances of zero copula in LAL and FBL combined. (263) to (268) and (296) to (275) are examples for each category and indicate that - when a writer does not use the full form - contraction and zero after there, here, this, WIT have a variety of options as far as the following grammatical context is concerned. Contraction appears before NPs (263, 264, 266), adjectives (267), and non-finite clauses (265). Zero is used before NPs (269 to 271, 273, 275), participles (272), and locatives (274). But these tokens only show that zero and contracted copulas are features of Earlier AAE. Inferences about correlations with certain environments cannot be made. Examples for contracted copula after there, here, WIT In written Earlier AAE (263) [There] ar some that are not able to live hear without asistance, for inst there's Mary Watkins. (Alexander Hance; Wiley 1980: 217) (264) That's the reason I have not sent you some befor this. (Augustine Lamberth McDonough; Wiley 1980:125) (265) 8 hundred White and 8 hundred blacke solders expects to start up the livore to Glasgow and above there thats to be jeneraled

The copula 237 by a jeneral that will give me both of you. (Missouri Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982, letter no. 299A) (266) iff your conchosence tells thats the road go that road and what it will brig (Missouri Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982, letter no. 299B) (267) If so it's horrible in the Extreme. I hope it is not so. (Henry B. Stewart; Wiley 1980: 291) (268) ... and I aske her whats matter & She told me ... (Sucky Faulcon; Wiley 1980: 76) Examples for zero copula after there, here, this, WIT in written Earlier AAE (269) and there [are]198 Some of them alive as yet and (Richard McMorine; Wiley 1980: 276) (270) Ther [is] a great fuss about that same complaint. (Sion Harris; Wiley 1980: 229) (271) And so I think that this 0 after all a Good Country. (Richard McMorine; Wiley 1980: 276) (272) such would be beneficial to any one that 0 situated as I am now is. (Titus Glover; Wiley 1980: 187) (273) Lucinday Jane, the girl that [is] your age, are maried to A yong man (Violet Graham; Wiley 1980: 262) (274) They never was a School thire for it [is] so much out of the way it is unconvinentfor (Peyton Skipwith; Wiley 1980: 45) (275) But it 0 very dui times Just now. (James P. Skipwith; Wiley 1980: 90) 6.4.2 Full, contracted and zero forms of am, are, and is Table 142 surveys full, contracted, and zero forms of present tense am, are, and is.199 The picture that emerges is identical to the one just reported for copulas in special contexts: in written AAE full copulas are the predominant forms throughout at an extraordinary level of more than 97% (full is in FBL). (276) to (278) are but three examples.

238 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE Table 142. Full, contracted and zero forms of am, are and is (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) LAL FBL spoken corpus LAL FBL spoken corpus LAL FBL spoken corpus

am 478 (99%) 53 (100%) 52 (8%) are 646 (98%) 75 (99%) 200 (23%) is 956 (99%) 60 (97%) 545 (47%)

•m 0 0 548 (86%) 're 0 0 83 (10%) 's 1 (0%) 0 389 (33%)

0 6 (1%) 0 40 (6%) 0 14 (2%) 1 (1%) 573 (67%) 0 8 (1%) 1 (3%) 238 (20%)

Ν 484 53 640 Ν 660 76 856 Ν 965 62 1172

(276) now my Dear children I am α going to close my letter to you (Missouri Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 299A) (277) They ar a Church going pepel. They go to meeting evry Sabbath. (WESLEY J. HORLAND; Wiley 1980: 254) (278) the children all have hoopingchough very Bad mr Benden wife have bin very sick but she is now better (George Skipwith; Miller 1978: 182) Contraction plays an even less important part here than after there, here, etc. The only token I found is one example of contracted is: (279) And Like the widow mention in the Scripture, mine's an urgent Case. (Henry B. Stewart; Wiley 1980: 292) Similarly, zero copula is a low frequency feature and is proportionally even less often used in "normal" than in the special contexts. However, I will use the 30 instances of zero am, are, and is to show in which contexts zero appears in writing. This can of course not be taken as an account of preferences in certain environments because the full is the favored variant in all contexts. But we can obtain a trend for the grammatical and regional200 circumstances in which zero copula is not replaced by its full counterpart. In line with chapter 3, am, are, and is will be discussed separately. It might also be possible to pool zero am, are, and is because the main reasons for keeping them apart in the spoken corpus, that is the almost categorical use of contracted am and the difficulties in distinguishing between contracted and zero are due to phonological assimilation (cf. Chapter 4, 2.1), do not apply in the letters. Contracted am and are simply do not occur. But giving separate accounts for the three forms contrib-

The copula 239 utes to a more objective description because pooling them might also blur results gained from written sources. (280) to (285) below are the six examples for zero am. We notice that the subject is always the first person singular pronoun /. The following grammatical environment displays all options apart from going to201 and noun phrases. V(ing) and adjectives occur twice each (280-281 and 282-283, respectively), participles (284) and locatives (285) once each. Further, zero copula in the first person singular seems to be regionally restricted in the letters. It is only used by three people from AL, by two from LA, and by one from KY. (280) I have my house up and 0 living in it with my family. (Jacob Harris; Wiley 1980: 271) (281) Temperance pledge I have kept up to this day and 0 continuing to do so (James P. Skipwith; Miller 1978: 124) (282) I gust got home last Sunday and [am] verry Buyssy but this is my hand an pen (Robert Leander Sterdivant; Wiley 1980: 63) (283) I [am] very Glad to Say that I am Still yet aholding (Solomon Greecy;Wiley 1980: 87) (284) Now I [am] left without anything, (Titus Glover; Wiley 1980: 181)

(285) he send me anything for my part and I [am] hear. (Galloway Smith; Wiley 1980: 128) (286) to (299) are the 14 examples for zero are. The type of subject category is divided up between six NPs and eight pronouns. The only following grammatical environment that cannot be documented is going to. Similarly to zero am, V(ing) (286-290) and adjectives (291-295) after zero are rank first with 5 cases each. Further, there are one participle (296), 2 locatives (297-298), and one NP (299). From a regional perspective, zero are is more widely used than am. It occurs in letters written by African Americans from eight southern states (AL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, VA). (286) And the immigrants that came out at that time has already planted their produce and 0 eating of the same. (Abraham Blackford; Wiley 1980: 24) (287) Several of which has embraced the religion of our Saviour and 0 making rapid improvements in Education (Matilda Skipwith; Wiley 1980: 67)

240 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE (288) and you want [to] no How we [are] getting along. (Edward James Patterson; Wiley 1980: 185) (289) I see so meny come out here and other people 0 sending their people sompthing that has bin out here (Susan Capart; Wiley 1980: 271) (290) The Church and Sabbath School 0 Encourageingly progressing. (Henry B. Stewart; Wiley 1980: 302) (291) I am happy to say that we [are] all well, and that my children are improving (Peyton Skipwith; Wiley 1980: 55) (292) canot return her that gratitude of thanks that we [are] due to her. (Peyton Skipwith; Wiley 1980: 64) (293) You [are] aware if we have to pay for all our expenses (Malinda Rex; Wiley 1980: 253) (294) and as a natural & necessary consequence they [are] wealthy, useful, & happy. (Nelson Sanders; Wiley 1980: 258) (295) The Eavning & morning [are] very p[l]esent in the Days very hevy with fogs, (Henry B. Stewart; Wiley 1980: 285) (296) We [are] informed she will return as soon as she gits there (Malinda Rex; Wiley 1980: 253) (297) & we 0 hear on morris Island Perishing sometime for something (Anonymous South Carolina Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 339) (298) for they 0 on the way of increase. (Grandville Woodson; Wiley 1980: 163) (299) Sweet potatoes [are] one dollar per Bushel. (Malinda Rex; Wiley 1980: 253) Finally, the 9 examples for zero is appear in (300) to (308). The subject type is NP in 7 and pronoun in 2 cases (301, 305). Further, only three following grammatical environments are present: four instances of V(ing) (300-303), three adjectives (304-306), and two NPs (307-308). Finally, these instances of zero is come from five southern states, viz. AL, KY, LA, MS, and NC.

The copula 241 (300) Solman is well an has Compleated his house an [is] living on his Farm. (James P. Skipwith; Wiley 1980: 90) (301) Mother had several severe attact of difren complaints but [is] now enjoying good health. (Grandville Woodson; Wiley 1980: 162)

(302) She have awaken from the cradle and wean from the breast of the [United] states here mother and 0 raising to the sumet of Civilisation and Dignifrcation. (Grandville Woodson; Wiley 1980: 164) (303) my name is George Washington heir in Tylors Barrecks and my famaly 0 suferring (Kentucky Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1985: letter no. 231) (304) since this cloth 0 cheep and (Galloway Smith; Wiley 1980: 128) (305) But at same time I hope you family 0 all well. (Edward James Patterson; Wiley 1980:187) (306) He [is] able to raise it up again. (Elisa Thilman; Wiley 1980: 259) (307) the popelation [is] 1,000, without the upper settelments; (Wesley J. Horland; Wiley 1980: 256) (308) / Think Bexly 0 much The Best place for me That I has seen in The Country. (Virgil McPharrhan; Wiley 1980: 260) A final observation concerns all zero copulas before V(ing). Six examples (280, 281, 286, 287, 300, and 301) have something in common which cannot be due to chance: Zero always occurs with an elliptical subject in the last of a series of coordinated clauses. The first of these clauses always includes the structure have+past participle (except 301, in which have occurs as a full verb), and it seems as if the writers feel that they can elide the copula before V(ing) because have is capable of performing its role. It would be interesting to see if such structures are found in other historical dialects of English and if it is possible to connect them to the emergence of copula deletion in creóles or elsewhere.

242 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE 6.4.3 Summing up The comparison of copula usage in written and spoken Earlier AAE has shown that in writing variability is reduced to a minimum both in special and normal contexts. The form used almost exclusively in writing is the full form. It is likely that after a minimal degree of schooling people develop an awareness that writing forbids contraction and zero, whereas the former occurs even less often in LAL and FBL than the latter. As a result for linguistic studies this means that written documents cannot be used to reconstruct the copula system of Earlier AAE on a quantitative basis. However, it is possible to show some tendencies if the frequency of non-full forms is reasonably high. 6.5

Relativization

The last grammatical structure to be compared across Earlier AAE speech and writing is relativization. Along the lines of chapter 5 I will analyze restricted relative clauses, distinguish between relative markers in subject and nonsubject function, and check relative marker choice in connection with humanness and category of the antecedent as well as adjacency of relative marker and head. It will be shown that relativization in nonstandard writing is also different from relativization in speech, but on a more subtle level than negation patterns and copula usage. Table 143 surveys all relative markers in LAL, FBL, and the spoken corpus, irrespective of their function in the relative clause. Examples appear below. Table 143. Overview of relative markers (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) that 452 LAL (60%) 52 FBL (55%) spoken 822 corpus (44%)

what 3 (0,4%) 0 189 (10%)

zero 159 (21%) 17 (18%) 733 (39%)

who 56 (7%) 16 (17%) 113 (6%)

which 70 (9%) 9 (10%) 23 (1%)

whom whose Ν 11 2 753 (2%) (0,3%) 0

0

94

2 7 1889 (0,1%) (0,4%)

Examples of relative markers In LAL and FBL (309) I could tell you Of a great deal of rascality that has Ben a going on in the Regiment (Michigan Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 155) (310) If we do [not get] all what is coming to us we shall never be enable to (MALINDA REX; Wiley 1980: 253)

Relativization 243 (311) the one at one year old is the finest colt 0 1 ever saw. (George Skipwith; Miller 1978:155) (312) thare has ben a grate meny ofmyfelow soldiers who throgh grief and anziety about their families have pined away ... (Missouri Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 340) (313) And now the money which we were to get here after we arrived here (..) (CHARLES JEFFERSON; Wiley 1980: 267) (314) ... and you may rest assured that a letter from one whom I so highy esteemed was perused with peculiar pleasure. (JOHN M. PAGE, SR.; Wiley 1980: 114) (315) His name is Leasure Harris whose Mother was name Bailie Harris who had a sister... (SION HARRIS; Wiley 1980: 240) Comparing FBL and LAL we see that they are very similar in their distributions of relative markers. However, where LAL has low-frequency variants, FBL does not have any tokens (what, whom, whose), which is probably due to sample size differences. The only relativizer that is obviously more popular in FBL is who (17%, as opposed to 7% in LAL), but the differences between the two sets are not significant (χ2=6.21, when pooling figures for whose, whom, and who). Adding the spoken corpus to the comparison, it emerges that written and spoken Earlier AAE are both similar and dissimilar. That is first choice and zero is runner-up in both, although the proportion of that in speech is at least 10% lower than in writing. On the contrary, zero is much more popular in the spoken corpus (39%) than in LAL and FBL (21% and 18%, respectively). A further similarity between speech and writing is the low frequency of both whom and whose, which underlines that LAL and FBL represent nonstandard writing. Differences between spoken and written Earlier AAE are most obvious in the almost categorical absence of what from the latter (3 tokens in LAL) and at the same time a much stronger presence of which (9% in LAL and 10% in FBL as opposed to 1% in the spoken corpus). The frequency of who is almost identical in the spoken corpus and LAL (6% and 7%, respectively) but, as noted above, FBL has a higher proportion (17%). A chi-square calculation of the table, adding whom and whose to who and combining figures for LAL and FBL, shows that the differences between speech and writing are highly significant at ρ < .001 (χ2=275.70).

244 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE Table 144. Distribution of relative markers by syntactic function (LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) a) subject relatives that what zero which who Ν

LAL 267 (70%) 2 (1%) 23 (6%) 35 (9%) 54 (14%) 381

FBL 35 (57%) 0 6 (10%) 5 (8%) 16 (26%) 62

spoken corpus 493 (57%) 94(11%) 155 (18%) 15 (2%) 104 (12%) 861

FBL 17 (53%) 0 11 (34%) 4 (13%) 0 32

spoken corpus 329 (32%) 95 (9%) 578 (57%) 8 (1%) 9 (1%) 1019

b) non-subject relatives that what zero which who Ν

LAL 185 (52%) 1 (0%) 136 (38%) 35 (10%) 2 (1%) 359

Table 144 shows subject and non-subject relatives separately. Starting with subject relative markers, that (316) is first choice both in written and spoken Earlier AAE. (316) I ama colord man one that has no advantage (Michigan Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 155) But the distribution of the remaining relatives differs across speech and writing. Subject zero is more often used in the spoken corpus, although the letters also include some tokens (23 in LAL, 6 in FBL) of this non-standard relative construction (317). (317) ... the doctor have got Some 0 are Lame and Sume Blind and Sume with arm Broken (Anonymous Black Noncommissioned Officer; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 268) Which and who display a higher percentage in writing, but the rate of who in FBL is only 2% larger than in the spoken corpus. Subject what - the second nonstandard relativizer - is only a marginal option in written Earlier AAE (2 tokens in LAL ~ 1%) as opposed to 11% in the spoken corpus. In non-subject position LAL and FBL again have that (318) as number one and zero (319) as number two, while the spoken corpus shows the opposite ordering.

Relativization 245 (318) he died in Mobile, that makes three men that we have lost in Mobile. (Lucy Skipwith; Miller 1978: 260) (319) I would thank you kindly for any thing in this wourld 0 you wish to send tome as I am in need of something about Bilding a Hous. (PHILLIP F. FLOURNOY; Wiley 1980: 244) Non-subiect which is more popular in writing while for what again the opposite is true. Non-subject who occurs only rarely in LAL and the spoken corpus. In sum this means that written and spoken Earlier AAE only share a preponderance of subject that. But in the rest of the relativization system they differ greatly. The differences between the pooled totals for LAL and FBL and the frequencies in the spoken corpus are again highly significant at ρ < .001 in the two parts of Table 144.203 I will continue to investigate the three constraints on relative marker choice that have been analyzed in the spoken corpus alone in chapter 5. Each section will contain separate tables for subject and non-subject relatives and I will discuss both the ranking of relative markers by environment as well as preferences for relative markers across contexts (cf. chapter 5). 6.5.1 Humanness of the antecedent Table 145 contrasts subject relatives after human (320) and non-human (321) heads in written and spoken Earlier AAE. (320) he says that he will kill any man that will take me in to a house to live with (Wife of a Kentucky Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 304) (321) the first time I now address you a few lines which will inform you that we are all well... (DIANA SKIPWITH; Wiley 1980: 58) Subject that is first choice after both human and non-human referents in all three sets, which underlines its very prominent character established above. The remaining relativizers, however, are distributed in different ways. Second in the written data sets is who after human and which after non-human, while in the spoken corpus it is zero in both cases. As far as preferences across environments are concerned, the three sets are identical: Subject that and which are favored by non-human, zero and who by human referents.

246 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE Table 145. Humanness of antecedent (subject relatives; LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) LAL

FBL

spoken corpus

146 (66%) 0 13(6%) 8 (4%) 54(24%) 221

22 (50%) 0 5(11%) 1 (2%) 16 (36%) 44

268 (50%) 62 (12%) 106 (20%) 3(1%) 102 (19%) 541

121 (76%) 2(1%) 10(6%) 27(17%) 0 160

13 (72%) 0 1 (6%) 4(22%) 0 18

225 (70%) 32 (10%) 49(15%) 12 (4%) 2(1%) 320

human that what

zero which who

Ν non-human that what

zero which who

Ν

The choice of non-subject relatives (Table 146) after human (322) and nonhuman (323) antecedents also reflects that written and spoken Earlier AAE differ. (322) ... and there was One man of Company D. 87. 0 crawl out of his tent to ease him Self (Anonymous Louisiana Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 266) (323) ... that the 35 US regiment is the Best regiment that we have in our army (Anonymous Black Noncommissioned Officer; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 268) Irrespective of the nature of the head, FBL and LAL have that as first choice while in the spoken corpus zero ranks first, and it seems as if this choice is not greatly influenced by the humanness of the antecedent but rather by the function of the relative marker in the relative clause. Second choices do not differ according to the type of head but also run parallel to what has been reported for non-subjects above: zero is second in the letters and that in the spoken data. Preferences across environments are again identical in all three sets for that and zero, the former being favored by human, the latter by non-human heads. For which and who figures are too small to allow for any conclusions.

Relatìvization 247 Table 146. Humanness of antecedent (non-subject relatives; LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) human that what zero which who Ν non-human that what zero which who Ν

LAL

FBL

spoken corpus

22(61%) 0 9 (25%) 3 (8%) 2 (6%) 36

5 (71%) 0 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 0 7

74 (40%) 9 (5%) 93 (50%) 2(1%) 9 (5%) 187

163(51%) 1 (0%) 127 (39%) 32 (10%) 0 323

12 (48%) 0 10 (40%) 3 (12%) 0 25

255 (31%) 86 (10%) 485 (58%) 6(1%) 0 832

6.5.2 Category of the antecedent The distribution of subject relatives according to the category of the antecedent is shown in Table 147. Examples for pronoun, definite NP, and indefinite NP appear in (324) to (326). (324) for all those 0 are doing any good here are those who have and who are befriend by people in the U.S.A. (MOSES JACKSON; Wiley 1980: 257) (325) there is Some truth as Regards the Emigrants that Came over in •66. (HENRY B. STEWART; Wiley 1980: 306) (326) I have got a butifull farm 0 Contain 10 acres of good land on St. John's River, ... (SAMUEL D. HARRIS; Wiley 1980: 225) Once more, subject that is the preponderant first choice relative in all sets irrespective of the category of the head,204 but runners-up differ to some extent. After pronouns number two is clearly who in writing and zero in speech. After definite and indefinite NPs there are, in addition discrepancies across speech and writing, even differences between FBL and LAL. In LAL which is second after definite NPs, FBL has who as number two, and in the spoken corpus what, who, and zero share the second rank, having almost identical percentages (12%, 12%, and 13% respectively). After indefinite NPs LAL does not have a clear second: zero, which, and who are competing for rank two. FBL again has who as number two, while in the spoken corpus zero comes second.

248 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE Table 147. Category of antecedent (subject relatives; LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) LAL

FBL

spoken corpus

76 (67%) 1 (1%) 4 (4%) 1 (1%) 31 (27%) 113

9 (60%) 0 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 4 (27%) 15

88(60%) 16(11%) 23 (16%) 3 (2%) 16(11%) 146

111 (78%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) 19 (13%) 8 (6%) 142

13 (72%) ο 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 3 (17%) 18

171 (60%) 34 (12%) 36 (13%) 10 (4%) 35 (12%) 286

74 (64%) 0 15 (13%) 13(11%) 14 (12%) 116

13 (45%) 0 4 (14%) 3 (10%) 9 (31%) 29

230(54%) 43 (10%) 94 (22%) 2(1%) 53(13%) 423

pronoun that what

zero which who

Ν definite NP that what

zero which who

Ν indefinite NP that what

zero which who

Ν

Comparing preferences across environments, the three sets are again rather homogeneous: Subject that is preferred after definite NPs in all three, although in the spoken corpus it has the identical proportion after pronouns. Subject zero is unanimously favored after indefinite NPs. Which and who, however, display different correlations in each set. Who is favored by pronouns in LAL; in FBL and in the spoken corpus it is preferred after indefinite NPs. Note, however that in the spoken corpus margins for who are small in all environments. Finally, which correlates with definite NPs in LAL and the spoken corpus but with indefinite NPs in FBL. Table 148 and examples (327) to (329) survey non-subject relative markers. (327) All that a Slave possesses belongs to his master he Possesses nothing (Anonymous New Orleans Black; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 54D) (328) We aer Glad for all the advize 0 you Can Giv us ... (PETER ROSS; Wiley 1980: 167)

Relativizatìon 249 (329) R L more says that he will kill every woman that he knows that has got a husband in the army (Wife of a Kentucky Black Soldier; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 304) Table 148. Category of antecedent (non-subject relatives, LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) pronoun that what zero which who Ν definite NP that what zero which who Ν indefinite NP that what zero which who Ν

LAL

FBL

spoken corpus

32 (40%) 0 45 (56%) 2 (3%) 2 (3%) 81

4 (36%) 0 6 (55%) 1 (9%) 0 11

69 (24%) 13 (5%) 208(71%) 1 (0%) 0 292

9 (64%) 3 (21%) 2(14%) 0 14

149 (35%) 44 (10%) 220 (52%) 5 (1%) 7 (2%) 427

4 (57%) 0 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 7

112 (38%) 41 (14%) 139 (47%) 2(1%) 2(1%) 297

106 (54%) 1 (1%) 69 (35%) 22(11%) 0 198 46 (58%) 0 22 (28%) 11 (14%) 0 79

SBo

Here, the first choice after definite and indefinite NPs is again that in the letters and zero in the spoken corpus. After pronouns, however, the effect of the function of the relative pronoun is overridden by the category of the antecedent: all three sets have non-subject zero as number one and that as number two. In both NP contexts, zero is runner-up in the letters and that in the spoken corpus. Preferences across contexts here are less homogeneous than in subject contexts. Non-subject zero is favored after pronouns in all sets. Non-subject that correlates with indefinite NPs only in LAL and the spoken corpus, while in FBL it is preferred by definite NPs. For which and who numbers are too low to establish correlations.

250 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE 6.5.3

Adjacency

The last constraint to be investigated is the adjacency of the relative marker and the antecedent. As in the analysis of the spoken subcorpora above (Chapter 5, 2.3, 3.3, and 4.3), first choices only reflect patterns for subject and nonsubject relatives but not for adjacency because the majority of relative clauses are adjacent in all sets (87% each in LAL and FBL, 90% in the spoken corpus). Thus, I will only compare preferences across the two environments. Subject relatives appear in Table 149, non-subject relatives in Table 150. Examples for adjacent and nonadjacent relatives are given below the tables. Zero is the only subject relative on which all sources agree: it correlates with non-adjacent NPs. For which preferences differ between written and spoken Earlier AAE because it correlates with non-adjacent heads only in the former. That and who perform similarly in LAL and the spoken corpus while FBL deviates: that is favored by adjacency in LAL and the spoken corpus, while in FBL it is preferred in non-adjacent contexts. Who on the contrary is preferred after adjacent heads only in FBL, although in the spoken corpus the margin is only one percent. Note also that in FBL single frequencies are very small. Table 149. Adjacency of antecedent (subject relatives; LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) adjacent that what zero which who Ν non-adjacent that what zero which who Ν

LAL

FBL

spoken corpus

237 (71%) 2(1%) 19 (6%) 29 (9%) 45 (14%) 332

30 (56%) 0 4 (7%) 4 (7%) 16 (30%) 54

450 (58%) 87(11%) 130(17%) 15(2%) 93 (12%) 775

30(61%) 0 4 (8%) 6 (12%) 9 (18%) 49

5(63%) 0 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 0 8

43 (50%) 7 (8%) 25 (29%) 0 11 (13%) 86

(330) We as soldiers Have our officers Who are our protection To teach how us to act and (Kentucky Black Sergeant; Berlin et al. 1982: letter no. 248) (331)

... if there was one white person on this plantation that was a friend to God... (Lucy Skipwith; Miller 1978: 202)

Relativization 251 Table 150. Adjacency of antecedent (non-subject relatives; LAL and FBL vs. spoken corpus) adjacent that what zero which who Ν non-adjacent that what zero which who Ν

LAL

FBL

spoken corpus

170(51%) 1 (0%) 128 (39%) 31 (9%) 2 (1%) 332

17 (55%) 0 11 (36%) 3 (10%) 0 31

305 (33%) 85 (9%) 535(57%) 8(1%) 5 (1%) 933

15 (56%) 0 8 (30%) 4(15%) 0 27

0 0 0 Β® ι 0 1

25 (29%) 13 (15%) 44(51%) 0 4 (5%) 86

(332) the letter 0 you wrote him has Just been received (Lucy Skipwith; Miller 1978:231) (333) She is largefr] than the one in your office that I gave you (SION HARRIS; Wiley 1980: 237) Non-subject relatives are almost exclusively adjacent in FBL; the only exception is one example involving which. Thus, I will compare LAL alone to the spoken corpus and it seems that preferences differ somewhat: Zero correlates with adjacent heads in both writing and speech. That and which are favored by non-adjacent heads in LAL. while in the spoken corpus the reverse is true. 6.5.4 Summing up All in all relative constructions across written and spoken Earlier AAE are similar in some respects and different in others. From an overall distribution of relatives it emerges that, from a qualitative point of view, the two media already differ: Written Earlier AAE has what only as a minority variant. The same is true for who and which in spoken Earlier AAE. Further, it has been shown that that is the first choice relative marker in subject position regardless of the humanness or category of the head. In this case syntactic function is the most important constraint working in both speech and writing. This effect of the syntactic function of the relative marker can also be seen in the dominance of non-subject that in the letters and non-subject zero in the spoken corpus. This syntactic constraint is only defeated once, when after pronouns the letters join the spoken corpus in having non-subject zero as

252 Comparison of written and spoken Earlier AAE number one. Thus, even with the two most popular relatives there are already differences between spoken and written Earlier AAE, especially when the relativizer is not the subject of the relative clause. As far as preferences across environments are concerned, the letters and the spoken corpus also display similarities and differences as surveyed in Table 151.205 The most striking result is the unanimous agreement of written and spoken Earlier AAE on zero: its characteristics are identical in both subject and non-subject positions. Moreover, the humanness constraint is also identical across media in all cases except non-subject which. Here LAL and FBL display variable correlations (indicated by "variable" in the table), which means that statements about the relationship between writing and speech cannot be made. This also applies to another five cases. The remaining four instances - the adjacency constraint for subject which, non-subject that and which and the category of head constraint for non-subject which - represent differences across speech and writing. Table 151. Summary of relative marker correlations across media (LAL, FBL, and the spoken corpus) subject written

non-subject written human non-human non-human variable (def. / that def.NP def. NP. (=pron.) indef. NP) variable (adi.) adjacent non-adj. human non-human human zero indef. NP indef. NP pronoun non-adj. adjacent non-adj. non-human non-human variable (human) which variable (def. def.NP indef. NP / indef. NP) adjacent non-adj. - non-adj. human human variable (cat.) who indef. NP variable non-adj. (adj.) spoken

spoken human indef. NP adj. non-human pronoun adjacent human/non-h. def. /indef. NP adj.

-

-

This analysis has the following consequences for the usefulness of nonstandard letters as sources for the reconstruction of earlier stages of AAE: (i) It is impossible to obtain reliable frequency hierarchies for relative markers both on a general level, that is, irrespective of any constraints, as well as in particular environments. This is on the one hand connected

Summary: Written sources of Earlier AAE 253

(ii)

6.6

to the fact that what and subject zero are to a large extent restricted to speech and who and which preferably occur in writing. On the other hand, also the two most popular relative markers, that and zero, display contrary orderings in non-subject positions, When studying constraints on the choice of relative markers, written sources are partly useful. The effects of the humanness of the antecedent are identical across speech and writing for all relative markers (maybe except for non-subject which) and the correlations of zero with all three contrasts under scrutiny here do not seem to be affected by the medium, either. Summary: Written sources of Earlier AAE

What are the implications of this comparison across written and spoken Earlier AAE? The two sets of letters show the necessity of handling manuscript documents with appropriate caution as called for by Montgomery (1999). The letters, although they were chosen on the basis of some amount of colloquialisms and nonstandard spellings, show only a very limited number of nonstandard patterns: 40 instances of negative concord, 5 instances of nonstandard indeterminates after never + affirmative predicate; 15 zero copulas in special and 30 in unmarked contexts, and 4 tokens of relative what as well as 29 tokens of zero as subject relative. The occurrence of some nonstandard features in written documents does not automatically imply that the nonstandard grammar of writers as a whole surfaces in writing. A straightforward effect of literacy can be, for example, the elimination of nonstandard negation, nonstandard copula usage, and nonstandard relativization. Certain nonstandard features can be salient; semi-literates 206

can be aware of the stigmatization of certain nonstandard features in writing. Thus, after Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse's (1993) findings that contraction is an entirely spoken phenomenon - which LAL and FBL confirm for negative auxiliary and copula contraction - ain't is a further item to be included in this "speech only" category, and so are, to a large extent, negative concord, zero copula, and the nonstandard relativizers what and subject zero. Finally, this chapter has a larger implication. The essential differences between written and spoken Earlier AAE, or rather the fact that literacy affects the one but not the other, shows that some African Americans in the American south of the last century did have the opportunity to acquire an approximation to standard English that clearly surfaces in the letters. These observations show what was linguistically possible in a black and white contact situation in the American South and add to the evidence that Earlier AAE is unlikely to have been monolithic.207

Chapter 7 Conclusions

Summing up, the present study has yielded a variety of interesting results. First and foremost, it has been possible to show that written sources lend themselves neatly to the reconstruction of earlier stages of AAE if they are chosen properly. Written sources in this context refer to texts that were not written by the speakers themselves, but by people who interviewed these speakers and put their words to paper during or after a conversation. If the interview situation and the interviewers' willingness and ability to transcribe dialectal speech are assessed, both on linguistic and extra-linguistic grounds, these types of data can be regarded as very close approximations to speech. In detail, this has emerged in the analytic parts of the present project, in which five different sets of data were contrasted. Despite obvious differences between them, a high rate of similarity has been documented. A case in point, for example, is the copula system that is highly indicative of the relatedness of the five sets. Further, the quality of my sources as spoken data especially surfaced when they were compared to data obtained through sociolinguistic interviews, notably the diaspora recordings from Samaná and Nova Scotia housed at the sociolinguistics unit of the University of Ottawa, Canada (Poplack, Sankoff, and associates), Rickford et al.'s East Palo Alto data, and Weldon's interviews from Ohio. Besides this positive evaluation of written source as close approximations to speech, my compilation of sources has further benefits. On account of the size of this corpus, it is possible to redistribute all informants according to their birth years, their state of origin, and their gender and test variation along these lines. The linguistic results obtained by means of this approach are highly valuable, I think. They would not have emerged from studying any of the subcorpora alone. I will briefly report the most important ones. To start with gender, it seems that Earlier AAE does not follow traditional sociolinguistic theory. In no case was it possible to document that men used a stigmatized nonstandard forms significantly more frequently than women. This was first of all reported in detail for negation patterns, where one might at least expect tendencies from frequency distributions, but statistics did not back up the differences across gender in most of the cases. The only significant difference between male and female negation patterns was that women used negated modals more often in negative concord than men. In the cases of copula and relativizer usage the results were not indicative of variation motivated by gender, either. It was shown that differences between male and female informants in the distribution of full, contracted and zero is were not significant,

Conclusions

255

and also copula variation by following grammatical context did not vary greatly across gender. Finally, it was documented that relativization strategies also did not yield any peculiar preferences of neither men nor women. By means of the apparent time and state-wise analyses, however, I was able to document a variety of temporal changes as well as a fair amount of geographical diversity. The most intriguing results were obtained from the apparent time studies. As far as negation is concerned, it appears, for example, that ain't (copula present) starts to decrease after around 1880, while its standard counterpart am/is/are +NEG starts to rise. Further, ain't does not start to be frequently used as a substitute for didn't before the temporal end of my corpus (1920's). On the whole, it was possible to document a steady decrease of nonstandard negation patterns until 1880 and a reversal of this trend afterwards. In the copula system there are two noteworthy tendencies. First, it has been shown that the distribution of full, contracted, and zero is was subject to severe changes at least at the end of the nineteenth century and in some cases there was a second reorganization in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Second, zero copula is seems to gain prominence throughout the period under scrutiny. With relative markers the apparent time approach has mainly documented temporal stability or unsystematic temporal changes. But the three changes that have been reported neatly fit into the time frame of changes in negation and copula usage. Non-subject that takes over first choice status from zero after definite and indefinite NPs after about 1890. For subject zero, correlations are changed from definite to indefinite NPs after around 1860, and subject what starts to be favored by adjacent heads after around 1880. All in all, these temporal changes hint at immense processes of linguistic reorganization, at least in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and maybe even a second wave in some parts of the grammar at the beginning of the twentieth century. Thus, the claim that AAE as we know it today is a phenomenon of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century (cf. e.g. Bailey 1993; Labov 1998; Mufwene 1999; Poplack 1999) is largely backed up by thefindingsin my data. To some extent this might also mean that AAE started moving away from white varieties of English by an increased use of forms that are unique to black peoples' speech in the United States, notably ain't for didn't and zero copula, and might represent linguistic acts of identity within the African American community. The distribution of all informants from the five subcorpora by state resulted in unsystematic heterogeneous patterns across the US South, in systematic clusters of some states, as well as in geographically wide-spread tendencies all across the area under scrutiny.

256 Conclusions

The state-wise distribution of negative concord with auxiliaries other than ain't yielded a rough distinction between the Deep South (AL, MS; in this case excluding GA and SC), the Upper South (NC, TN), and the "marginal" South (FL, MD, and LA). As far as the copula is concerned, it appeared that older (GA, MS, NC, SC, and VA) and newer (LA, TN, and TX) states of the South had differing first choice variants of the copula. Preferences for a variant of is by following grammatical environment yielded similarities between LA and TN, AL, GA, and SC, as well as FL and VA, while the hierarchies of zero is by complement type identified two major groups with almost identical (LA, TN, AL, GA, and SC) and essentially different orderings (FL, VA). As far as relative constructions are concerned, a fairly high degree of uniformity emerged across the American South in relative marker choice within certain environments: subject that and non-subject zero seem to be the norm in a wide area, although three states deviate from these usages on a very consistent basis, namely TX and MS for subject relatives and GA for non-subject relatives. Further, also constraints on the choice of the relative marker, like humanness or formal category of the antecedent and adjacency of the relativizer and the head, are largely geographically homogeneous. The number of states that agree on the effects of these constraints, however, varies so that on the whole there are no two states that have identical preferences in all environments. In fact, it appears that in relativization large scale homogeneity meets small-scale heterogeneity. The common denominator of these regional findings is that the diversity or similarity of Earlier AAE across states needs to be tested and evaluated for each linguistic feature separately. Some may pattern homogeneously, some may pattern along the lines of Deep South as opposed to the remaining Southern states, some may in addition show variable distributions in the Upper South separately, and some may even be diversified on a lower level. In this context, it would be interesting to see if smaller entities like counties, which display similar proportions of black people, also displayed similar linguistic patterns, even if they belonged to locally detached states. However, as has been shown by Kautzsch and Schneider (2000) for South Carolina, such a micro-geographic interpretation of diversity is likely to fail. All in all, however, one thing has become clear on the basis of linguistic facts: Earlier AAE in the period studied here was not a monolithic variety but rather a bundle of varieties whose borders are floating. Further, my analyses also have implications on the possible origins of AAE. On the whole, the three grammatical structures studied here hint at a very stable English basis. First, almost the entire negation system has parallels in English dialects. Second, in a majority of instances the copula is occurs in the

Conclusions 257 form of one of its two English variants, namely full or contracted is. Third, also relative clauses exhibit almost exclusively English patterns, although detailed connections to nonstandard varieties or English concerning constraints on relative marker choice are hard to draw because of differing methodologies. Nevertheless, on account of some patterns that are present in my corpus, it is hard to categorically deny parallels to creolized varieties of English. First, there are two negation patterns that are not documented in other varieties of English, namely ain't for don't/doesn't and for didn't, both of which occur as minority features in my corpus. Second, I have found six tokens of non-local whererelativization that might have their origins outside traditional English dialects. Third, the very prominent absence of copula is, which, most notably, is sensitive to the following grammatical category, is a pattern not found in other varieties of English, either. The same is true for the instances of zero am, which is a further minority feature in my corpus. However, these parallels to creolized varieties of English do not imply that AAE started out as a widespread creole. It is possible to imagine that these features entered AAE via the influence of speakers of creolized varieties from outside the US. At the same time there might have been some places on US ground where the contact situation permitted the emergence of a creolized variety. But these two types of influence cannot be assumed to be the default situations. Moreover, I do not think that it is possible to gain any evidence for processes of decreolization from my data. Such a development would actually require the proportional decrease of putative creole features, however imprecise this term may be. In fact, I have observed the reverse in at least two instances. The first is the overall increase of zero is within the period under study. The second is the frequent use of ain't for didn't in modern AAE, which, as noted above, was only a feature of minor importance in my data. The second methodological aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of another type of written data, namely letters, in which the informants themselves put word to paper. Thus, two bodies of letters written by semi-literate African Americans in the nineteenth century were contrasted to the spoken corpus, and it emerged that caution is necessary when using letters for the historical analysis of AAE. The comparison suggested that even a small degree of literacy has an astounding standardizing effect on non-standard grammar, which is likely to result from the awareness of writers of stigmatized nonstandard forms that are not to be used in the written code. In the case of negation and copula usage, non-standard items were clearly in the minority in the letters, that is, the negator ain't did not surface at all, while, for example, negative concord zero forms of the copula did so only to a very limited extent. As far as relative constructions are concerned, written and spoken Earlier AAE were not as far apart as the former two structures: Although the nonstandard

258 Conclusions

relative markers what and zero in subject position did not occur as frequently in the letters as in the spoken corpus, both media share the preponderance of that and zero, the latter mainly in non-subject position.

Appendix 1 Informants by subcorpus

Table 1. Informants from WPA MS FIRST NAME Delia James Charlie Isaac Sam Sam Simon Lewis Lula Martha Nettie Charlie Ned Bessie Ben Andrew Jeff

LAST NAME BUCKLEY LUCAS DAVENPORT STEER MCALLUM BROACH HARE WALLACE COLEMAN MAYS HENRY BELL CHANEY WILLIAMS LEWIS PRICE JOHNSON

interviewer gender born ??? f (A) m 1833 (M) m 1837* (M) m 1838 (M) m 1842 (A) m 1848 (A) m 1849 (A) m 1850 (M) f 1851 (A) f 1853 (M) f 1855 (A) m 1856 (A) m 1857 (A) f 1859 (A) m 1860 (M) m 1861 (A) 1862 m (A)

State AL MS WV MS MS MS NC MS AL GA AL MS AL AL MS AL GA

Size 444 4685 3737 2773 4012 1809 2631 378 1717 925 2947 1291 2269 334 766 636 732

(A) and (M) refer to the two interviewers M. Austin and E. Moore respectively. Table 2.

Informants from WPA VA

FIRST NAME Rev. C.W.B. Louis Mary Mary E. Allen Ella Fannie Eliza Ann Liza Men Sally Jennie William

LAST NAME GORDON FITZGERALD JONES —WSEY CRAWFORD WILLIAMS BERRY TAYLOR MCCOY WILSON ASHTON PATTERSON LEE

gender m m f f m f f f f m f f m

born ??? ??? ??? ??? 1835 1836 1841 1842 1844 1845 1845c 1846c 1847

State NC VA VA VA VA VA VA FL VA VA VA VA VA

Size 621 194 457 181 1287 229 9425 547 3657 1594 181 1195 1336

260 Appendix 1 Tom Ishrael Arthur Amelia Matilda Henrietta Delia James Louise Charles Margaret Lilian Mary Sarah Wooden Liza Joe Samuel Walter John Octavia Minnie Eliza AnnaE. Patience

HESTER MASSIE GREENE WALKER PERRY HARRIS BOATMAN JONES CRAWLEY TERRY CLARKE WOOD JOHNSON BROWN HARRIS CHILTON BROWN FEATHERSTONE FOLKES ROBINSON CRAWFORD AVERY

m m m f f f m f m f f f f f m m m f f f f f

1848 1849 1851 1851 1852 1852 1853 1855c 1856c 1857 1858 1858 1858c 1859 1859 1859 1860 1860 1860 1860 1863 1863

VA VA VA VA VA NC VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA

1017 157 1982 273 2678 1159 389 1055 1287 639 828 756 1032 622 550 463 938 627 2036 856 263 2062

Table 3. Informants from ESR FIRST NAME LAST NAME gender born Billy Joe Laura Charlie Fountain Harriet Alice Isom Celia Bob

MCCREA MCDONALD SMALLEY SMITH HUGHES SMITH GASTON MOSELEY BLACK LEDBETTER

m m f m m f f m f m

??? ??? ??? 1844 1848 1851 1853 1856 1859 1861

State TX AL TX TX VA TX AL AL TX LA

State of interview TX AL TX FL MD TX AL AL TX LA

Size 1378 860 7247 5103 5126 7024 514 1474 2822 2108

The table is reproduced from Tables 1 and 2 in Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (1991b: 5-6). One thing is striking about the ages of two people: Celia Black must have been 120 years old when she was interviewed, Charlie Smith even 130. Patricia Cukor-Avila (p.c.) does not have an explanation for this, either. Possibly, the date written on the recording in the Library of Congress is flawed.

Informants by subcorpus 261 Table 4. Informants from HOODOOl AK_ml AL_fl DC_fl FL_m2 FL_m3 FL_f4 GA_ml GA_m3 GA_m4 GA_m5 GA_m6 GA_f7 LA_fl LA_f2 LA_f3 LA_f4 LA_f5 LA_f6 LA_f7 LA_f8 MD_m2 MD_m3 MD_m4 MD_f5 NC_ml NC_f2 SC_ml SC_m2 SC_m3 SC_m4 SC_m5 SC_m6 SC_m7 SC_f8 SC_m9 SC_mlO TN_ml TN_m2 TN_f3 TN_f4 TN_f5

gender m f f m m f m m m m m f f f f f f f f f m m m f m f m m m m m m m f m m m m f f f

born 1870* 1866 1855* 1858 1887* 1855* 1855* 1855* 1870* 1889* 1869* 1870* 1875* 1886 1890 1875* 1880 1860* 1879-84* 1855* 1856* 1876* 1886* 1876/81* 1860* 1850 1870* 1859* 1880* 1855* 1884 1875* 1855* 1865* 1865 1882* 1887 1875* 1870* 1889 1870*

State AK AL WASH FL FL FL GA GA GA GA GA GA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA MD MD MD MD NC NC SC

sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc

TN TN TN TN TN

Size 2489 545 1000 1340 1025 1122 2020 6215 7582 725 366 15449 7845 13364 1900 1893 11278 8214 9567 4889 1081 770 1592 3355 7801 3944 2747 2438 15448 7315 9872 12611 3294 3192 1094 6177 8399 4093 7643 8606 7809

262 Appendix I TN_f6 VA ml VA_m2 VA_m3 VA_m4 VA_f5 VA_f6 VA_f7

f m m m m f f f

1875 1866* 1872 1880* 1862 1869 1880* 1857*

TN VA VA VA VA VA VA VA

4362 627 2783 10091 1435 1509 3426 3777

State AL FL FL SC SC

Size 29410 25471 6687 9183 45348

Table 5. Informants from H 0 0 D 0 0 2 ALJA FL_mA FL_fB SC_mA SC_mB

gender f m f m m

born 1920* 1915 1910* 1920* 1909

The labels in HOODOOl and H 0 0 D 0 0 2 basically correspond to Ewers' (1999) as far as the description of the informants is concerned. However, I have changed the formal appearence of tags, which now consist of the postal code for the respective US state where the informant comes from, the informant's gender abbreviated as f (female) and m (male). For details about the relocation of informants as opposed to Ewers (1996), see 2.6.3. An asterisk '*' means that the birth year had to be estimated. Table 6. Informants from LAL FIRST NAME John M., Sr(i). John M. Jr. Solomon S. Thomas M. Washington W. George James

LAST NAME PAGE PAGE PAGE PAGE MCDONOGH JONES RICE

gender m m m m m m m

born ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

realtime 1840-55 1849 1849-49 1849 1842-49 1856-61 1851

Alexander

HANCE

m

???

1835-38

James W.

WILSON

m

???

1858-59

Paul F.

LANSAY

m

???

1839

Samuel D.

HARRIS

m

???

1849

Stephen

HALL

m

???

1839

A.B. Elisa

HOOPER THILMAN

m f

??? ???

1853 1848

State VA VA VA VA LA MS LA MD (ColSoc) GA MD (ColSoc) VA MD (ColSoc) ??? MS

Size 1520 373 1597 602 4937 826 253 1198 1428 325 714 311 636 297

Informants by subcorpus 263 George Richard Seaborn Susan Violet Virgil P. Wesley J. Mary Ann Solomon Malinda Peyton James Titus Isaac Pascal Simon Peter Henry B. James George Richard

CRAWFORD MCMORINE EVANS CAPART GRAHAM MCPHARRHAN HORLAND MINOR CREECY REX SKIPWITH GRAY GLOVER ROBERTS WOODSON HARRISON ROSS STEWART PATTERSON SKIPWITH CANNON

m m m f f m m f m f m m m m m m m m m m m

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 1790* 1792 1799 1800 1802* 1802 1802 1803 1803 1804 1807 1808 1810 1810

Henry

SMITH

m

1811

Sion Robert Leander Sucky Peggy Sarah Moses Horace James Erasmus Galloway George R. Nancy Simon George Washington Augustine Diana John Mary Nelson John

HARRIS STERDIVANT FAULCON POTTER WOODOSN JACKSON ROSS MCGEORGE NICHOLAS SMITH ELLIS SMITH JACKSON

m m f f f m m m m m m f m

TILLS LAMBERTO SKIPWITH FAULCON JACKSON SANDERS AIKEN

KY NC GA ??? TN NC ??? VA AL/JHC NC AL/JHC LA LA ??? MS ??? MS GA LA AL/JHC AL/JHC

475 2264 1430 510 349 881 1329 414 631 655 9361 398 2090 1045 636 1363 3430 12839 215 10198 389

LA

270

TN AL/JHC AL/JHC VA MS KY MS LA AL/JHC LA LA LA LA

6444 1387 1346 507 1091 753 552 1519 498 871 2902 1120 352

1860-60

MS

1044

1843-44 1837-43 1849-58 1844 1848 1846

LA AL/JHC AL/JHC LA KY LA

1039 5437 1132 742 580 386

1811 1812 1813 1813 1813 1813 1816 1817* 1818 1820* 1820* 1820 1820*

1834-36 1858 1853-56 1857 1848 1848 1846-46 1851-57 1857-58 1839 1834-46 1844 1851-69 1850-53 1853 1853 1848 56-59 1849-68 1851 1847-50 1844 1852-6361-59 1840-53 1846-57 1853-57 1847 1848-50 1846 1858 60 1843-44 1843 1842-44 1842-49 1844-48 1848

m

1820

m f m f m m

1821 1822 1822* 1822* 1822 1823

264 Appendix 1 Abraham Matilda Jacob Phillip F. Mary Diana Grandville

BLACKFORD SKIPWITH HARRIS FLOURNOY STERDIVANT WOODSON

m f m m f m

1824* 1824 1824 1826 1829 1829

1844-46 1844-61 1848-57 1857 1854-58 1851-53 1859-6151 1851-60 [56-60] 1854-65 1849-51 1853-57

VA AL/JHC KY MO AL/JHC MS

1848 7411 444 196 290 1491

Reuben

RICE

m

1829

LA

593

James

SKIPWITH

m

1830

Lucy Nash Lucy

SKIPWITH SKIPWITH CLAY

f m f

1830* 1831 1832

Mary Ann

CLAY

f

1832

William Leander Edward James

STERDIVANT

m

1837

AL/JHC AL/JHC KYor TN KYor TN AL/JHC

PATTERSON

m

1839

LA

AL/JHC 4710 23773 909 1038 403 314 621

Table 7. Informants from FBL Size 322

FIRST NAME LAST NAME W.E. MERRILL

gender born realtime ??? 1862, June 7 m

Nathan

MC KINNEY

m

???

1863, Feb 2

Gorgener

ROMAN

m

???

1863, Feb 23

ANONYMOUS m

???

1863, Sept

???

1864, Aug

George Thomas Samuel

ANONYMOUS m RODGERS m SIPPLE SAMPSON

State DC LA, N.Orleans LA, N.Orleans LA, N.Orleans NY

???

1864, August

NY and DL 662

GH

FREEMAN

m

???

ANONYMOUS m

???

George John Q A Jane David Spotswood

WASHINGTO Ν DENNIS WELCOME WASHITON ANONYMOUS RICE

1864, August 19 1864, August 20

144 201 1959 538

MD

235

LA

427

m

???

1864, Dec 6

KY

205

m f m m m

??? ??? ??? ??? ???

1864, July 26 1864, Nov 21 1864, Nov 26 1864, Oct 18 1864, Sept 3

MD PA MS

383 154 255 333 839

MO

Informants by subcorpus 265 John Norman and Catherine Zack William Joseph

TURNER m ANONYMOUS m

??? ???

RILEY

m

???

ANONYMOUS m BURDEN m NELSON

ANONYMOUS Catherine MASSEY Jane COWARD George G FREEMAN Warren D HAMELTON Erasmus BOOMAN George Buck HANON F.W. LISTER ANONYMOUS John SWEENY Richard Henry TEBOUT John BIZZELL Richard WEAVER Miles WEAVER REYNOLDS Andrew James MANLY Briant MANLY ANONYMOUS Prince ALBERT ANONYMOUS James HERNEY Charles P. TAYLOR Carter HOLMES Harison SMITH Charles JONES

KY

1068

??? ???

1865, July 20 1865, Aug 22 1865, Augl2, Aug 26, Sept 22, Aug 28 1865, Dec 1865, Feb 2

"Northern" 124 MO 459

VA PA

519 214

m

???

1865, Feb 22

OH

365

m f f m m m

77? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

1865, Jan 21 1865, July 10 1865, July 6 1865,June 25 1865, May 1865, May 14

IN VA KY MI LA VA

478 328 433 416 417 207

m

???

1865, Nov 19

TN

338

m m m

??? ??? ???

1865, Oct 2 1865, Oct 8 1865, Sept 26

MD KY NY

853 270 429

m

???

1866, Jan

NC

391

m m m m m m m m

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

1866, Jan 13 1866, Jan 28 1866, March 7 1866, May 15 1866, Oct 8 1867, April 22 1867, March 9 1870, Dec

SC LA LA MO MD MD KY NC

520 645 723 320 126 232 174 370

Appendix 2 Informants by year of birth

Table 8. Informants by year of birth in decades Decade of birth informant ??? Delia BUCKLEY Louis FITZGERALD Rev. C.W.B. GORDON Mary JONES Mary E. —WSEY Billy MCCREA Joe MCDONALD Laura SMALLEY 1833-1844 Charlie DAVENPORT James LUCAS Sam MCALLUM Isaac STIER Fannie BERRY Allen CRAWFORD Liza MCCOY Eliza Ann TAYLOR Ella WILLIAMS Charlie SMITH 1845-1854 Sam BROACH Lula COLEMAN Simon HARE Martha MAYS Lewis WALLACE Sally ASHTON James BOATMAN Arthur GREENE Delia HARRIS Tom HESTER William LEE Ishrael MASSIE Jennie PATTERSON Matilda Henrietta PERRY Amelia WALKER Allen WILSON Alice GASTON Fountain HUGHES

sub-corpus WPA MS (A) WPAVA WPA VA WPAVA WPAVA ESR ESR ESR WPA MS (M) WPA MS (M) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (M) WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA ESR WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (M) WPA MS (M) WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA WPAVA ESR ESR

Informants by year of birth 267 Harriet

1855-1864

SMITH VA_f8 Charlie BELL Ned CHANEY Nettie HENRY Jeff JOHNSON Ben LEWIS Andrew PRICE Bessie WILLIAMS Patience AVERY John BROWN Liza BROWN Samuel Walter CHILTON Lilian CLARKE AnnaE. CRAWFORD Charles CRAWLEY Octavia FEATHERSTONE Minnie FOLKES Joe HARRIS Sarah Wooden JOHNSON Louise JONES Eliza ROBINSON Margaret TERRY Mary WOOD Celia BLACK Bob LEDBETTER Isom MOSELEY DCfl FL_f4 FL_m2 GA_ml GA_m3 LA_f6 LA_f8 MD_m2 NC_ml SC_m2 SC_m4 SC_m7 VA_f7 VA m4

ESR HOODOOl WPAMS(A) WPAMS(A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (M) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA ESR ESR ESR HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl

268 Appendix 2 1865-1874

1875-1884

1885-1894

1905-1914 1915-1924

AK_ml AL_fl GA_f7 GA_m2 GA_m4 GA_m6 SC_f8 SC_ml TN_f3 TN_f5 VA_f5 VA_ml VA_m2 FL_ml LA_fl LA_f4 LA_f5 LA_f7 MD_f5 MD_m3 SC_m3 SC_m5 SC_m6 TN_f6 TN_m2 VA_f6 VA_m3 FL_m3 GA_m5 LA_f2 LA_f3 MD_m4 TN_f4 TN_ml FL_fB FL_mC FL_fE FL_mA FL mD

HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl H00D002 H00D002 H00D002 H00D002 H00D002

Only those informants are included for whom the birth years are known or can at least be estimated.

Appendix 3 Informants by state

Table 9. Informants by state State AK AL

informant Delia Ned Lula Nettie Andrew Bessie Alice Isom Joe

FL

Eliza Ann

GA

Martha Jeff

LA

Bob

AK_ml BUCKLEY CHANEY COLEMAN HENRY PRICE WILLIAMS GASTON MOSELEY MCDONALD AL_fl FL_fE TAYLOR FL_m2 FL_m3 FL_f4 FL_mD FL fB MAYS JOHNSON GA_m5 GA_m6 GA_m4 GA_m3 GA_ml GA f7 LEDBETTER LA_fl LA_f3 LA_f4 LA_f5 LA_f6 LA_f7 LA_f2 LA_f8

sub-corpus HOODOOl WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) ESR ESR ESR HOODOOl H00D002 WPA VA HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl H00D002 H00D002 WPA MS (M) WPA MS (A) HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl ESR HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl

270 Appendix 3 MD

MS

NC

Charlie Sam Sam Ben Lewis Isaac James Rev. C.W.B. Delia Simon

SC

TN

TX

VA

Billy Laura Harriet Celia Charlie James Sarah Wooden Tom Joe

MD_m2 MD_m3 MD_f5 MD m4 BELL BROACH MCALLUM LEWIS WALLACE STIER LUCAS GORDON HARRIS HARE VA_f8 NC_ml SC_ml SC_f8 SC_m7 SC_m5 SC_m2 SC_m3 SC_m4 SC_m6 GA_m2 FL_mC FL_ml FL mA TN_m2 TN_f4 TNJ3 TN_f6 TN_£5 TN ml MCCREA SMALLEY SMITH BLACK SMITH BOATMAN JOHNSON HESTER HARRIS

HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl WPAMS(A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (A) WPA MS (M) WPA MS (M) WPA MS (M) WPA MS (M) WPA VA WPA VA WPA MS (A) HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl H00D002 HOODOOl H00D002 HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl ESR ESR ESR ESR ESR WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA

Informants by State 271 Sally Arthur Patience Minnie Louis Octavia Allen Charles John Liza Samuel Walter AnnaE. Louise Lilian Fannie Mary Mary E. Matilda H. Mary Allen Ella Amelia Margaret Eliza Jennie Liza Ishrael William Fountain

Wash., DC WV Charlie

ASHTON GREENE AVERY FOLKES FITZGERALD FEATHERSTONE CRAWFORD CRAWLEY BROWN BROWN CHILTON CRAWFORD JONES CLARKE BERRY WOOD —WSEY PERRY JONES WILSON WILLIAMS WALKER TERRY ROBINSON PATTERSON MCCOY MASSIE LEE HUGHES VA_m3 VA_m4 VA_f5 VA_f6 VA_f7 VA_m2 VA_ml DC_fl DAVENPORT

WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA WPA VA ESR HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl HOODOOl WPA MS (M)

Appendix 4 Historical demographics of the American South 1.

Alabama

Table 10. Alabama population by ethnicity 1800-1970 (in thousands) (The Statistical History of the United. States [SHUS], U.S. Bureau of the Census 1976, A195,199-201, p. 24) Year 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 1 9 127 309 591 772 964,5 997,5 1262,5 1513 1828,5 2138 2348,5 2647 2833 3063 3267 3444

white

black

85 190 335 427 526 521 662 834 1001 1229 1447 1701 1849 2080 2284 2534

42 119 256 345 438 476 600 678 827 908 901 945 983 980 980 903

Figure 1. Alabama population by ethnicity 1800-1970

other

%black

0,5 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 3 3 7

33,07 38,51 43,32 44,69 45,41 47,72 47,52 44,81 45,23 42,47 38,36 35,70 34,70 31,99 30,00 26,22

Historical demographics of the American South 273

2.

Florida

Table 11. Florida population by ethnicity 1800-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195, 199-201, p.26) Year 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 35 54 87 140 188 269 391 529 753 968 1468 1897 2771 4952 6789

white 18 28 47 78 96 143 225 297 444 638 1035 1382 2166 4064 5719

black 16 27 40 63 92 127 166 231 309 329 432 514 603 880 1042

other

%black 45,71 50,00 45,98 45,00 48,94 47,21 42,46 43,67 41,04 33,99 29,43 27,10 21,76 17,77 15,35

7000 6000 5000 • white •black

4000 3000 2000 + 1000

0

[IH· ι Γ^ ι m ι Γί ι Γί I J k l k o m 00

©

Ό 00

S 00

oι — 00

soo

o—ι On

o CI

Figure 2. Florida population by ethnicity 1790-1970

o co 0\

o¡o

1i

o S;

274 Appendix 4

3.

Georgia

Table 12. Georgia population by ethnicity 1790-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195,199-201, p.26) Year 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 83 162 252 341 517 692 907 1058 1184 1542 1837 2216 2609 2895 2908 3123 3444 3940 4578

white 53 102 145 190 297 408 522 592 639 817 978 1181 1432 1689 1837 2038 2381 2817 3391

black 30 60 107 151 220 284 385 466 545 725 859 1035 1177 1206 1071 1085 1063 1123 1187

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

0

Figure 3. Georgia population by ethnicity 1790-1970

other

0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 1 3 11

%black 36,14 37,04 42,46 44,28 42,55 41,04 42,45 44,05 46,03 47,02 46,76 46,71 45,11 41,66 36,83 34,74 30,87 28,50 25,93

Historical demographics of the American South 275

4.

Louisiana

Table 13. Louisiana population by ethnicity 1810-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, Al95,199-201, p.28) Year 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 76 154 215 352 517 707,5 727 940 1118 1382 1656 1799 2102 2364 2683 3257 3641

white 34 74 89 158 255 357 362 455 558 730 941 1097 1323 1512 1797 2212 2541

black 42 80 126 194 262 350 364 484 559 651 714 700 776 849 882 1039 1087

other

0,5 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 6 13

Figure 4. Louisiana population by ethnicity 1810-1970

%black 55,26 51,95 58,60 55,11 50,68 49,47 50,07 51,49 50,00 47,11 43,12 38,91 36,92 35,91 32,87 31,90 29,85

276 Appendix 4

S.

Maryland

Table 14. Maryland population by ethnicity 1790-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195,199-201, p.29) Year 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 320 341 380 407 447 470 583 687 780,5 935,5 1042,5 1188 1295,5 1449,5 1631 1821 2343 3100 3922

white 209 216 235 260 291 318 418 516 605 725 826 952 1063 1205 1354 1518 1955 2574 3195

black 111 125 145 147 156 152 165 171 175 210 216 235 232 244 276 302 386 518 699

other

0,5 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 1 2 8 28

Figure 5. Maryland population by ethnicity 1790-1970

%black 34,69 36,66 38,16 36,12 34,90 32,34 28,30 24,89 22,42 22,45 20,72 19,78 17,91 16,83 16,92 16,58 16,47 16,71 17,82

Historical demographics of the American South 277

6.

Mississippi

Table 15. Mississippi population by ethnicity 1800-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195,199-201, p.30) Year 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 9 40 75 136 376 607 791,5 828 1131 1290 1551 1797 1790 2010 2184 2179 2179 2217

white 5 23 42 70 179 296 354 383 479 545 641 786 854 998 1106 1189 1258 1393

black 4 17 33 66 197 311 437 444 650 743 908 1009 935 1010 1075 986 916 816

other

0,5 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 8

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200

0

Figure 6. Mississippi population by ethnicity 1800-1970

%black 44,44 42,50 44,00 48,53 52,39 51,24 55,21 53,62 57,47 57,60 58,54 56,15 52,23 50,25 49,22 45,25 42,04 36,81

278 Appendix 4

7.

North Carolina

Table 16. North Carolina population by ethnicity 1790-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195,199-201, p.32) Year 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 334 478 555 639 738 754 869 993 1071 1399 1618 1894 2207 2559 3171 3572 4061 4556 5082

white 228 338 376 419 473 485 553 630 678 867 1055 1264 1501 1784 2235 2568 2983 3399 3902

black 106 140 179 220 265 269 316 362 392 531 561 624 698 763 919 981 1047 1116 1126

other

1 1 1 2 6 8 12 17 23 31 41 54

Figure 7. North Carolina population by ethnicity 1790-1970

%black 31,74 29,29 32,25 34,43 35,91 35,68 36,36 36,46 36,60 37,96 34,67 32,95 31,63 29,82 28,98 27,46 25,78 24,50 22,16

Historical demographics of the American South 279 8.

South Carolina

Table 17. South Carolina population by ethnicity 1790-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195,199-201, p.34) Year 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 249 345 415 502 581 594 669 703,5 706,5 995,5 1151,5 1340,5 1515,5 1684,5 1739 1899 2117 2382 2590

white 140 196 214 237 258 259 275 291 290 391 462 558 679 819 944 1084 1293 1551 1794

black 109 149 201 265 323 335 394 412 416 604 689 782 836 865 794 814 822 829 789

other

%black 43,78 43,19 48,43 52,79 55,59 56,40 58,89 58,56 58,88 60,67 59,83 58,34 55,16 51,35 45,66 42,86 38,83 34,80 30,46

0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 1 2 2 7

2000 j 1800 -1600 -1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200

0 ^

^ & ^

^

^

^

Figure 8. South Carolina population by ethnicity 1790-1970

^

^

^

^

280 Appendix 4

9.

Tennessee

Table 18. Tennessee population by ethnicity 1790-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195, 199-201, p.34-5) Year 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 36 106 262 423 682 830 1003 1110,5 1258,5 1542,5 1768,5 2020,5 2184,5 2338,5 2617,5 2916,5 3292 3567 3923

white 32 92 216 340 536 641 757 827 936 1139 1337 1540 1711 1886 2139 2407 2760 2978 3294

black 4 14 46 83 146 189 246 283 322 403 431 480 473 452 478 509 531 587 621

other

0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 2 8

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

0

Figure 9. Tennessee population by ethnicity 1790-1970

%black 11,11 13,21 17,56 19,62 21,41 22,77 24,53 25,48 25,59 26,13 24,37 23,76 21,65 19,33 18,26 17,45 16,13 16,46 15,83

Historical demographics of the American South 281

10. Texas Table 19. Texas population by ethnicity 1850-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195, 199-201, p.35) Year 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 213 604 819 1592 2236 3049 3897 4663 5825 6415 7711 9580 11197

white 154 421 565 1197 1746 2427 3205 3918 4967 5488 6727 8375 9717

black 59 183 253 393 488 921 690 742 855 924 977 1187 1399

Figure 10. Texas population by ethnicity 1850-1970

other

%black 27,70 30,30 30,89 24,69 21,82 30,21 17,71 15,91 14,68 14,40 12,67 12,39 12,49

282 Appendix 4 11. Virginia Table 20. Virginia population by ethnicity 1790-1970 (in thousands) (SHUS, A195,199-201, p.36) Year 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

total 748 885 983 1075 1221 1250 1422 1596,5 1225,5 1513,5 1655,5 1855 2062 2309 2421 2678 3319 3966 4649

white 442 518 557 610 701 748 895 1047 712 881 1020 1193 1390 1618 1770 2016 2582 3142 3762

black 306 367 426 465 520 502 527 549 513 632 635 661 671 690 650 661 734 816 861

other

0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 26

4000 -r 3500 3000 2500 -2000 -

•white •black

1500 1000 500

0

Figure 11. Virginia population by ethnicity 1790-1970

%black 40,91 41,47 43,34 43,26 42,59 40,16 37,06 34,39 41,86 41,76 38,36 35,63 32,54 29,88 26,85 24,68 22,12 20,57 18,52

Appendix 5 Detailed listings of negated auxiliaries in indeterminate contexts by sub-corpus

Table 21. Negative auxiliaries with nonstandard indeterminates (WPA VA)

& 13

I

+

sα >I so ·£I> so £I Sβ s•¡ 1i *eι Ic I-5 ιc no NP nothing none never never ... nothing never... no more never... no NP never... none no more noone nobody nowhere nary one neither nothing ... nowhere

2 5

3 3

18

7 3

9 1 2

7 1

1 1 2

2

4 1

2 1

2 1

eα o

1

1 1

3

1

1

3

2

5 8

»

1

1

a ue 1 4 1 1

4 1

1

1

1

2 6 3 5 2 1 2 1 1

1 3 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 32

7

13

18

Plus some instances of negative inversion ain't + noone + Vpp 1 ain't + nobody + Vpp 1 ain't + none 2 ain't + nary one 1 ain't + nothing 1 tain' + nothing + no adj-er 1 wasn't + none 1

39 28 4 30

8

3

3

4

21

1 4

5

4

7

129

Plus some existentiels with dummy subject dey wasn't no NP 5 dey weren't never 1 8 dey weren't no NP 1 dey weren't nary NP 1

284 Appendix 5 Table 22. Negative auxiliaries with standard indeterminates (WPA VA) anyNP anything anyone anyhow ever

ain't + Vpp (près) ain't + Vinf (past) don't 1

didn't wouldn't 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 9

1 1 1

1 2

1

plus existential sentences: - ain't nary one of us done any studying - Ain't no body whut dots been done to ever - Ain't nary doctor's medicine ever beat hit Table 23. Negative auxiliaries with nonstandard indeterminates (WPA MS) a,

no NP nothing none no more nobody nowhere nohow no further no adj. no better no good nothing... no NP nobody... nobody no more... nothing no NP... nothing never never... no more never... no NP never... nobody never... nowhere never...no NP... nothing

£· > . S I α& 3 1

-r·

8· A a S £ s 3 £> δ i J 4 3 2 1 1 1 3

s

* ϊ « I I 7 34 1 9 19 1 2

1 1

4 1

ε - Ia

S

§ §

1 1

3 1 3 1 1

1

2

1 1 1 1

13

2 3

2

2

1 1

1

23 76 3

5

3 1 1 1 23

8

6

6

Plus negative inversion and existentials ain't no NP ain't nobody 4 ain't nobody ever 2 ain't nobody nothing ain't none of ain't nothing 2

1

2

4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2

^ 3Ί

2

8 1

60 38 4 3 7 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 23 2 5 1 1 1 163

50 !!)

dey ain't nobody dey wasn't no NP 3 dey wasn't nowhere didn't no NP 2 didn't no NP ever didn't nobody 5

hadn't nobody it ain't no NP 3 it wouldn't no NP twant (it wasn't) nothing wam't/wasn't nothing 2 wasn't nobody 3

Negated auxiliaries in indeterminate contexts 285 can't no NP couldn't nobody 2 couldn't nobody nohow dey ain't no NP3

didn't nobody no good didn't none of 3 didn't none of no NP

warn't none of wouldn't nobody didn't nothing

Table 24. Negative auxiliaries with standard indeterminates (WPA MS) any NP anything anymore any good anyhow ever aire

ain't + Vpp (pres) don't 2 2

didn't

wasn't

wouldn't

1 1 1 1 1 1 5

2

1

1

1

Plus negative inversion and existentials - dey warn't any NP - ain't nobody ever 2 - didn't no NP ever

=> 4

4 5

14 17

2

1 1

1 2

1 2 1

1 5 2

3

couldn't

won't

1

can't

didn't

10 3

wouldn't

don't

ain't got 5

ain't Vinf

1 1

wasn't

no NP nothing none no more nobody nowhere no better no good nohow nary one never never... none neither

ain't (cop) (pres)

ain't+ Vpp (pres)

Table 25. Negative auxiliaries with nonstandard indeterminates (EST)

2 3

2 1

1

1 1 1

1 1 5 1 6

2

5

16

1

12

36

2

1 10

6

8

Plus negative inversion and existentials didn't none - don't nobody... nothing - there wasn't no NP - there wouldn't nobody wasn't no NP 3 ·=Χ> 7

40 37 4 3 6 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 104

286 Appendix 5 Table 26. Negative auxiliaries with standard indeterminates (EST) didn't 2 1 2 1 6

don't 2

any NP any anything ever

1 3

4 1 2 2 9

no negative inversion and existentials Table 27. Negative auxiliaries with standard indeterminates (HOODOOl)

*« §· I anyNP 1 anything any anymore anybody anyone any good anywhere anyway anytime any adj. any further anybody... anyhing any NP... anything anything... anybody ever ever... any adj. 1

1 ·§ 12 13 3 2 1

I =8 4 9 1 1 2

Ii

ι as 1* ia »i ·§

1 1

2

1

1s 2 9

i3

1I

1 ä-

1 1

1 1

1 1

3 1 1

1

I 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 21

1 3

1

2

1

24 39 4 7 1 6 2 1 1

1

1 1 2 1 34

*

14 6

1 1

8

Plus negative inversion and existentials Existentials (it wasn't anyone, there wasn't any NP, there's no NP ever) "negative inversion" (anything can't non-application of negative attraction) o 3+1=4

5

1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 98

Negated auxiliaries in indeterminate contexts 287

OtHtOlfìlfì

SO

rt — — (S

not Ving may not needn't should n't couldn't

fn so

can't

—

M

O Ό

m -η Η » -

wouldn't won't didn't

Ol MO « Ν f- O « —

- S

•

1

1

12

13

1

2

3

7

6

2

2

4

2

2

+ "s 5

no N P nothing none no more nobody nowhere no good never never... (anything) never... no NP no NP ...no nothing nothing ...no NP (ever) nothing nobody no N P . . . no N P . . . nomare

I

e i

"s δ

:

•8 e

ε

δ

•8

δ β

> 1 0/... 2. deletion 2. contraction ζ -> 0 / . . . 3z ζ/... (For are the ordering would be alike, but since Labov only studied is, there are no orderings.) The single frequencies for is in ANSE and are in SE do not add up to Walker's totals, which is due to his rounding the percentages. I will not take Romaine Contraction into account here since the central point can also be made without it. Walker (1999:59) did statistical tests to find out which "rule ordering" a la Labov (1969) was the most likely one and reports that the log likelihoods indicate that deletion might really only work on contracted items. However, this test depends on which forms of the copula one includes and how the tokens are coded. And since Walker does not mention any "don't count" features, the validity of this procedure is hard to judge. Rickford et al. (1991:80) report: If we assume that contraction and deletion rules can operate independently, which requires the Straight formulas, contraction and deletion run contrary to each other as far as their frequencies by following grammatical environment are concerned (for more details about following grammatical environment in my data see 4.3.2.2). This discrepancy between contraction and deletion is prevented if one uses the Labov formulas. But Rickford et al. assume that this is an unjustified demand, since "there is no persuasive reason to expect AAVE ... contraction to follow a similar pattern [as deletion]." (84) It does not appear here. It is exclusively classified under WIT (what, it, that) since it is almost categorically followed by contracted is.

Notes 301 111. I will use is as a collective term here including all three variants. Whenever I refer to one certain variant, is will be attributed by "full", "contracted", or "zero". 112. In a recent article, Walker (1999) introduced the prosodie structure of the copula environment as an additional factor for the choice of the form of the copula. This is basically a very interesting approach. I will, however, stick to the more traditional ways of analyzing copula usage in Earlier AAE. 113. The ANSE and SE figures are from Walker (1999); the EPA figures from Rickfordetal. (1991). 114. This decreolization process might have been similar to the models presented by Singler (1991a) and Winford (1992) for Non-Settler Liberian English and Caribbean Creoles, respectively. Both posit that during decreolization basilectal, mesolectal and acrolectal speakers use different copula systems. The basilect still has creole preverbal markers, the mesolect has zero copula in a majority of environments, while only in the acrolect are there inflected forms of be. 115. The "pers. pron. (not he/she)" section in Table 64 summarizes all instances of is which are preceded by personal pronouns other than he or she. 116. In this table and the following ones I will only provide percentages for tokens when single frequencies are high enough to permit valid results. 117. Walker (1999:54-55) and Poplack and Tagliamonte (1991:327-331) also refer to this problem and conclude that it is justified to assume the "standard" copula as being the underlying form. 118. As already stated, this order is the reverse of the pattern found in some creóles, where NP subjects favor zero more than personal pronoun subjects: Barbadian (Rickford and Blake 1990, data from the 1980s), Jamaican (Rickford 1996), and Liberian Settler English (Singler 1991a). 119. What in addition is striking here is the range of zero proportions by environment (22% to 44% for he/she·, 10% to 20% for NPs), which an analysis of other extralinguistic factors in the subsequent sections might account for. The range is similar for "Labov Deletion". 120. Ewers (1996:198-199) found a much lower percentage of zero is after he/she and NPs in her study of the Hoodoo texts: EARLY has only 9,5% after NPs and 6,6% after he/she, for LATE she reports 8,2% and 16,3%, respectively. I do not have an explanation for these discrepancies between her results and mine which rest on an almost identical sample. 121. Rickford et al.'s (1991:75) "other pronouns" combine "these, somebody, etc." (72, footnote a in table 4.5) and can thus not be used for direct comparison. 122. I do not include Romaine Contraction here since Romaine's theoretical background assumes that there is no copula underlyingly present, which has been shown to be unlikely above.

302 Notes 123. A fairly comprehensive overview of copula studies in general but also of following grammatical environment in particular is presented in Rickford (1998). He compares evidence from "different types of evidence" (163) (historical attestations, diaspora recordings, creóles, African languages, English dialects) which AAE could have inherited its copula system from. 124. Walker's (1999) results for ANSE and SE are not easily compared to mine since his coding of prosodie categories blurs distinctions between grammatical and prosodie effects: As noted above, Walker does not only classify the item after the copula on grammatical grounds (i.e. complements) but also along the lines of prosodie complexity. Thus, he distinguishes between simple and complex phonological phrases, that is, the item directly following the copula is either a lexical category (e.g. He is rich·, She is swimming) or a functional category (e.g. He is very rich; She is gonna go out), [my examples], respectively. The VARBRUL analyses for contraction and zero are done separately for the two prosodie contexts. Walker reports that the orderings of adjective and locative complements are "sometimes reversed" (64) and concludes that "the hierarchy of the following grammatical category depends not only on grammatical structure, but also on the complexity of the prosodie environment" (64). A detailed review of Walkers procedures is beyond the scope of the present project, but it is obvious that comparisons to his findings would not be valid. Ewers' (1996) analysis of following grammatical environments unfortunately pools zero and contracted tokens for is and are (211) and when she studies them separately, she distributes them after subject type (214). Thus, it also becomes difficult to draw parallels to this study, too. 125. The VARBRUL package I am using here consists of several programs that run under DOS. The core programs for statistical calculations are IVARB (2 variables), TVARB (3 variables), and MVARB (4 or 5 variables). For details of IVARB and TVARB see below. 126. For the straight figures, I used TVARB (full, contracted and zero is are the variants). For the Labov figures I used IVARB: for Labov Deletion the variable context is zero is vs. contracted is (deletion is only possible after contraction), Labov Contraction contrasts full forms and non-full forms, thus, the two variables are contracted and zero is combined and full is (cf. the formulas in 4.2.2). 127. I do not regard zero as the most frequent variable in AAE in general, since the percentages of the three forms in Rickford et al.'s EPA data are pretty close to each other and it is easy to imagine that other sets of data might display different hierarchies. 128. Note, however, the weak increase of zero before NPs after 1890. 129. To my knowledge, no study of creóles has investigated this hierarchy through time. But I would not be surprised if towards the end of a

Notes 303

130. 131.

132. 133. 134. 135. 136.

137.

138.

139. 140.

decreolizalion process a loss of the sensitivity to following grammatical environment was reported. As indicated above, this is in the first place true for vowel-final subjects (in 67% of all cases zero is appears between vowel and consonant). As indicated above (4.3.2.1) all subcorpora are pretty similar as regards the influence of subject type on the choice of the copula form. Since this is also paralleled in the statewise distribution, a more detailed analysis at this point is unnecessary. Due to a very small number of tokens it became necessary also to exclude TX from the main body of the table. NC may once more have not enough tokens to make any valid conclusions. Figures from MS and NC are again too low to admit comparison. TX, NC and MS do not appear in the table because the figures for these states are too small to allow for any conclusion. Tottie and Rey (1997) and Tottie and Harvie (1999) also investigated relative constructions in the ex-slave recordings. Nevertheless, I have not adopted their figures but did an analysis of my own because my aim here is to distribute the informants on the basis of their birth years and their geographical origins, which could not be done on the data reported in these two articles. As a result, my single frequencies differ a little from Tottie's, Rey's, and Harvie's, but proportions remain essentially similar. The only qualitative difference that I found are two instances of who ("Well they had some of the, some of the slaves who worked in the house and then some who worked on the yard."; Laura Smalley; Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila 1991:64), whereas the two earlier studies report that who does "not occur at all" in ESR (Tottie and Harvie 1999:212). In addition to restrictive relative clauses, it might be interesting to examine the present corpus for adverbial relative clauses (as Tottie and Rey 1997 have already done for the ex-slave recordings), non-restrictive relative clauses, and postmodification by non-finite clauses (which are usually not regarded as relative clauses, but, I think, in a broader sense they are). Of course, Dillard tries to establish a connection to pidgins and creóles here by focusing on pleonastic pronouns (This man he is a ...); but as Schneider (1989:218) explicitly notices "he [Dillard] overemphasizes a farfetched superficial similarity" which does not take into account that pidgins, and to some extent also creóles, prefer coordination rather than subordination and thus do not favor embedded clauses. The studies with only one figure in the who/which column combine the two as w/i-pronouns. Percentages are recalculated from Cheshire's (1982:130) table 29, in which she gives a distribution of subject and object relative pronouns by

304 Notes

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146. 147.

148.

humanness of the antecedent. Unfortunately, she does not provide single frequencies. Hackenberg's (1972) figures are only available for me through Romaine (1982:206), Ball (1996:243), and Tottie and Harvie (1999:203), who quote Ball. Since Ball only mentions subject relative pronouns, the percentages in my overview are Romaine' s, who unfortunately pools all wÄ-forms, including what. But since these taken together comprise only about 10%, what does not seem to be a prominent variant in Appalachian English; Ball (1996:246) also concludes that it "appears to be an essentially wft-less dialect". Tottie and Harvie (1999:211) claim that they only include zero relatives in their table 7.1, in which they illustrate the subject / human and non-subject / non-human correlation; however, when comparing single frequencies here with those in their tables 7.3 and 7.4, in which totals for all subject and nonsubject relatives are listed, it is more likely that the initial table comprises all relative markers. The differences between my findings for ESR and Tottie and Harvie's (1999) might result from different totals: my analysis has a total of 53 subject relatives and 59 non-subject relatives, while their totals are 58 in both cases (213). For a more detailed discussion of discrepancies between results for ESR cf. note 163. These are not all constraints that are likely to influence the choice of the relative marker. Three further ones would be premodification of the antecedent, its syntactical function in the matrix clause and the category of the subject in the relative clause (see e.g. Tottie and Rey 1997 for both constraints on pooled subject and object relatives in ESR; Guy and Bayley 1995 for syntactic function of the antecedent; Quirk 1957 for category of subject in the relative clause). However, from a preliminary study of the constraints mentioned in this note, it appears that those I have picked to analyze in more detail are the ones to deliver the most robust results. Quirk (1957) had who and which in one category because the humanness constraint on the two forms is (almost) categorical. Therefore, the percentages for them in the human rows refer to who while the ones in the non-human rows refer to which. This must obviously originate from a relatively high frequency of who in their corpus but they only give pooled figures for vWt-forms. Quirk's (1957) results for zero being favored by non-human heads was confirmed in Tottie's (1997) study of the British National Corpus for spoken and written British English. In order to make the figures from Quirk (1957, Table 88, above) comparable to Dorset (Van den Eynden 1993) it is necessary to combine Quirk's percentages from the human / subject and human / object rows as well as

Notes 305

149.

150.

151.

152.

153. 154.

155. 156.

157.

158.

159. 160.

from the non-human / subject and the non-human / object rows and to divide the results by 2. Montgomery (1991) actually contrasts subject and object zeroes but the differences to non-subject zeroes should only slightly affect the statistics because zeroes outside subject and object positions occur at a relatively low rate, at least in my combined corpus, where they represent 34 out of 696 zeroes (~5%). This is also the mode of calculation used in Quirk (1957) and Guy and Bayley (1995) so that it is possible to compare their data to ANSE, SE and Earlier AAE as represented in my corpus. I do not consider superlatives here because they are too low in frequency. Also, they do not really fit into the "category of the antecedent" class as I use it here but would rather have to be included as a separate type when studying the effects of premodification on relative marker choice (cf. Tottie and Rey 1997). I have chosen to deliver sample sentences for the three central relative markers in my corpus only because due to the relatively low frequency of who and which it would have been difficult to find one for each environment. All instances of "0" are insertions that do not occur in the originals. As noted above (note 136), my figures differ a little from Tottie and Rey's (1997) and Tottie and Harvie's (1999), who only report on three variants, viz. that (38 tokens ~ 33%), what (10 tokens ~ 9%), and zero (68 tokens ~ 59%). But this does not have any impact on proportions. Concerning the validity of WPA VA as a source of Earlier AAE, these findings of course increase its value. If this is compared to Quirk (1957) we see that subject that behaves similarly in both my corpus and educated spoken British English, while nonsubject that has opposite preferences. Noie: I will compare my results to those from other studies in notes in order to keep the main text asfluentas possible. In Dorset, this difference in the use of what is concealed by pooling subject and non-subject what. Van den Eynden (1993) reports 8% of what after humans and 7% after non-human heads irrespective of its function (cf. Table 89). This result does not coincide with Tottie and Harvie (1999), who found this effect only for ESR. In SE the reverse is true, while in the ANSE data both environments favored non-subject zero at the same rate (cf. Table 87, above, and Tottie and Harvie 1999:217). Here, however, small token numbers might blur the results. Tottie and Harvie (1999) do not discuss the humanness constraint for subject zeroes but only state that "the humanness of the antecedent is tied to

306 Notes

161. 162. 163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

subject function of the relative marker" (218), which probably means that it might be difficult to distinguish between effects of the function of the relativizer and the humanness of the head. However, this is only a prerequisite for studying subject and non-subject relatives separately. It does not imply that testing subject relatives - or in Tottie and Harvie's case subject zeroes - for the humanness constraint is unnecessary. In fact, my data suggest that the preferences for subject zero are far from uniform. For a tabular summary of these results and the ones for the remaining constraints cf. the tables in 5.2.4. below. Due to low frequencies, I excluded the "numeral" context from tables throughout. These variable preferences come somewhat as a surprise because Tottie and Harvie (1999:219) report that indefinite heads have a clear incidence with subject zeroes in all three sets they analyze (ANSE, SE, and ESR). Here, my findings for ESR are essentially different from Tottie and Harvie's (1999:219). They report 1/9 (11%) subject zeroes after pronouns, 14/35 (40%) after definite NPs, and 9/13 (69%) after indefinite NPs and 0/1 (0%) after numerals and thus have indefinite NPs as the most likely environment for subject zeroes. This discrepancy could be connected to the fact that I have found only a total of 26 relative clauses after definite NPs, where they have 35. On the other hand my totals for relative clauses after pronouns (11) and indefinite NPs (15) are larger than theirs (9 and 13, respectively). It appears, once more, that it is an unwritten law in empirical linguistics that different researchers tend to gain different results from the same data. A clue to this might be different classification standards, although in this case (pronoun, definite NP, indefinite NP, numeral) differences should not be that great. This is identical to Huddlestone (1971; written scientific British English) but different from Van den Eynden (1993; Dorset, that favored by definite heads) although some caution is necessary because both do not distinguish between subject and non-subject relatives. In this case my results and Tottie and Harvie's (1999:215) agree and it seems as if the discrepancies concerning preferences for subject zero are not a matter of different classification strategies (cf. note 163). Tottie and Harvie (1999:219) found the same in their analysis of ESR, and ANSE also seems to follow this pattern. In Samaná English, however, zero seems to be favored when the head is non-adjacent. This finding is supported by Tottie and Harvie (1999:215), who have documented a fairly stable preference for non-subject zero in adjacent contexts in ANSE, SE, and ESR. Concerning that, which is the only relativizer of the three which is also used in the standard, Earlier AAE is in line with Quirk's (1957) findings for

Notes 307

169. 170. 171. 172. 173.

educated spoken British English. Unfortunately, the dialectal data available (e.g., Van den Eynden 1993) do not distinguish between subject and nonsubject function. Here, future work on other nonstandard varieties of English is desperately needed for comparison. This goes neatly hand in hand with Tottie and Harvie's (1999) findings for ANSE, SE and ESR. Again, Tottie and Harvie's (1999) results are along the same lines. Similar results are reported by Tottie and Harvie (1999) for Samaná English. For the exact distribution of informants see appendix 3. It is interesting to note that the state-wise distribution of relative markers in Schneider's (1989:249) sample, shown in the table below, is both similar to and different from the one obtained from my combined corpus. that what zero zero/ subj. zero/ nonsubj. wh-

174. 175. 176.

177.

178.

TX 7 (12%) 24 (41%) 28(48%)

MS 35 (33%) 49 (46%) 21 (20%)

TN 25 (42%) 1 (2%) 28(48%)

AL 12 (19%) 14 (22%) 31 (49%)

GA 46 (21%) 83(38%) 86(39%)

SC 40 (38%) 12 (11%) 48(46%)

NC 14 (22%) 17(27%) 17(26%)

1(2%)

1(1%)

1 (2%)

2 (3%)

5(2%)

5(5%)

2(3%)

27 (46%) 20 (19%)

27 (46%)

29 (46%) 81 (37%) 43 (41%) 15 (23%)

0 59

5 (9%) 59

6 (10%) 63

1(1%) 106

3(1%) 218

6(6%) 106

16 (25%) 64

The two distributions are similar in that in many states standard English whpronouns have only minority status. Moreover, first choices coincide for TX and AL (shaded cells). For the remaining states, however, first choices differ. Surprisingly, there is no state that has that as most frequent relativizer in Schneider's sample. In fact, zero is number one in five out of seven states. Further, what figures more prominently there than in my combined corpus in all states but TN. Note, however, that Schneider only distinguishes between subject and non-subject function only for zero, which might blur distinctions along the lines shown below for my combined corpus. Tendencies in apparent time have been shown to be similar (cf. 5.3.2). This is something that needs to be tested in future studies. Although what is favored by human heads in most subcorpora but by nonhuman heads almost throughout the period under study and in a majority of states, I assume the correlation with non-humans as the most likely one. But see the VARBRUL analysis below for contrary results. The correlation of zero with indefinite NPs has been shown to be the result of temporal change above because initially zero was preferred by definite NPs, too. In ANSE and SE subject zero is also preferred by indefinite NPs (Tottie and Harvie 1999:214-215) The same is true for subject zero in SE, but not in ANSE (Tottie and Harvie 1999:219).

308 Notes 179. This chapter is an extended version of Kautzsch (2000), in which I contrast negation patterns in Liberian letters (called LAL in the present study) and Virginian narratives (WPA VA). I would like to thank Michael Montgomery here, whose insightful comments on a preliminary version of this article helped me to strengthen my arguments and rethink some results. 180. Michael Montgomery (p.c.) indicates that the verb "repatriate" in this context appears to be somewhat imprecise because the former slaves sent to Liberia had been born exclusively in the United States. However, I decided to keep it in order to get a grasp of the attitude of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who used this term: They obviously saw their enterprise as one to return a people or race to their home continent who had been removed from there in earlier centuries. 181. According to Singler (1984:40) the ACS was founded in 1816. 182. The settlement was called "Monrovia" in honor of the former President of the United States and a Mend of the ACS, James Monroe (cf. Singler 1984:40). 183. Obviously, the name for the new settlement mirrors its aims. 184. For a more detailed description and discussion of the emigrants' social and historical backgrounds cf. Singler 1998a. 185. Barbag (1977) has slightly lower figures. This might be due to the fact that she probably did not draw upon the ACS records but on Dillard (1972) (Barbag 1977:105, fn.2). 186. I compared the originals of the following letters with Wiley's (1980) transcriptions: 1. Robert M. Page to Charles W. and Sarah P. Andrews (Wiley 1980:102-3, letter #89). 2. John M. Page, Sr. to Charles W. Anderson (Wiley 1980:103-4, letter #90). 3. Peggy Potter to Charles W. Anderson (Wiley 1980:102-3, letter #91). 4. Titus Glover to William W. Rice (Wiley 1980:181-2, letter #167). 5. Peyton Skipwith to John H. Cocke (Wiley 1980:52-3, letter #33). (1. and 2. are housed in the Perkins Library at Duke University, 3. and 4. at the Virginia Historical Society, and 5. in the University of Virginia Library.) 187. Michael Montgomery (p.c.) indicates that a problem here might be that e and i are often difficult to distinguish in a manuscript. But as far as the manuscript of this letter is concerned, my observations entirely rest on unambiguous spellings because the writer of this letter clearly dots the i's. 188. Although there are passenger lists of ships to Liberia available and edited (Shick, ed. 1974, Murdza, ed. 1975), many of the writers in this subcorpus cannot be identified concerning their age, origin or emigration date because the period they arrive in (1843 to 1865) is not documented in Shick or Murdza. 189. Judging from this geographic diversity, it is in principle untenable to regard the language used in the letters as homogeneous and it might be of interest

Notes 309

190.

191.

192. 193. 194.

195. 196.

197.

198. 199.

200.

201.

to see if the writers from Virginia show some similarities to the ex-slaves from Virginia in the spoken corpus. Montgomery (p.c.). however, argues that due to the writers' various degrees of literacy it is not possible to decide whether differences between individuals or states represent differences in geography or differences in the ability to write. Wiley (1980: 321, footnote 1 for Letter 74) identifies Mary Diana Sterdivant as Molly Haynes. Molly is probably her nickname and Haynes her husband's last name. Miller (1978) has two parts, "Letters from Liberia, 1834-1861" and "Letters from Alabama, 1847-1865". Almost all Liberian letters are also included in Wiley (1980) and I use them as they appear there. The only exception are three letters of James Skipwith. The Alabama letters were written by two people, George Skipwith and his daughter Lucy. For further information on this project see their website at http://www.inform.umd.edu/ARHU/ Depts/History/Freedman/home.html Many thanks to Michael Montgomery who, via Edgar W. Schneider, provided me with a listing of the letters that he and his associates used. I will only refer to LAL in this section because the proximity to speech of FBL has already been established by Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse (1993), for example. According to Cornelius (1991) there was a literacy rate of only 10 per cent in 1860. What this example also represents is the almost categorical absence of negative contraction in LAL, which also mirrors the fact that these letters are simply more standard than the spoken subcorpora. This phenomenon of low frequency of contraction has also been shown in Montgomery, Fuller, and DeMarse 1993. Single frequencies for the total written corpus (LAL plus FBL) and the spoken corpus deliver χ2=83.46 for modals, χ2=52.12 for don't/doesn't, 5^=40.16 for didn't, and χ2=2.83 for haven't/hasn't. [ ] are from Wiley's (1980) transcriptions in order to make the letters more comprehensible. 0 are mine. There is also one instance for zero copula in past tense context in LAL: "and on consulting he found they 0 all willing to stop here except himself and famly" (Washington W. McDonogh; Wiley 1980:123). I will not treat phonological contexts here because assimilatory processes seem to play a limited role in writing. Notice, however, that regional differences may as well just reflect different literary skills (cf. note 189, above). Differently from practice in describing the spoken corpus, I use going to here because this is the way it is written in the letters throughout.

310 Notes 202. Because of its low frequency in the letters I will not consider what in the analyses below. Its percentages, however, will be kept in the tables. 203. I combine which and who as wft-pronouns: Subject relatives: c2=95.26; nonsubject relatives: c2= 131.48. 204. I do not consider numerals here because therefrequencieswere too small to permit valid interpretation. 205. Differences across speech and writing are printed in bold type. Variable preferences in LAL and FBL are bold and underlined. 206. This does not imply that every writer in this set of data used higher proportions of nonstandard features in speech. It is of course possible that some of the settlers, as indicated above, even spoke Standard English. In principle, we cannot state anything about writers' speech when it does not surface in their writings (cf. Singler 1998b on similar matters in connection with his datafromLiberia and the ex-slave recordings). 207. For a more detailed account of the heterogeneous development of AAE see chapter 1, and e.g. Mufwene 1999, Rickford 1997, Winford 1997,1998.

References

Aitchison, Jean 1989 Spaghetti junctions and recurrent routes: some preferred pathways in language evolution. Lingua 77: 151-171. 1991 Language Change: Progress or Decay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anshen, Frank Stephen 1969 Speech Variation among Negroes in a Small Southern Community. Doctoral dissertation, New York University. Ash, Sharon and John Myhill 1986 Linguistic correlates of inter-ethnic contact. In: Sankoff (ed.) 1986: 3344. Bachman, James Kevin 1969 A comparison of nonstandard grammatical usage in some Negro and White working-class families in Alexandria, Virginia. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University. Bailey, Beryl Loftman 1965 Toward a new perspective in Negro English dialectology. American Speech 40: 171-177. [Reprinted in Harold B. Allen and Gary N. Underwood (eds.) 1971. Readings in American Dialectology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 421-427, and in Wolfram and Clarice (eds.) 1971: 41-50.] Bailey, Guy 1987 Contribution to panel discussion on "Are black and white vernaculars diverging?" American Speech 62: 32-40. 1993 A perspective on African American English. In: Dennis Preston (ed.) American Dialect Research, 287-318. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1997 When did Southern American English begin? In: Edgar W. Schneider (ed.) Englishes Around the World: General Studies, British Isles, North America. Studies in Honor of Manfred Görlach, 255-275. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 2001 The relationship between AAVE and White Vernaculars in th. American South: A sociocultural history and some phonological evidence. In: Lanehart (ed.) 2001: 53-92. Bailey, Guy, and Marvin Bassett 1986 Invariant Be in the Lower South. In: Montgomery and Bailey (eds.) 1996: 158-179.

312

References

Bailey, Guy and Natalie Maynor 1985 The present tense of be in White folk speech of the Southern United States. English World-Wide 6: 199-216. 1987 Decreolization? Language in Society 16: 449-473. 1989 The divergence controversy. American Speech 64.1: 12-39. Bailey, Guy, Natalie Maynor and Patricia Cukor-Avila 1991a Preface. In: Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (eds.) 1991 : ix-x. 1991b Introduction. In: Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (eds.) 1991: 1-20. Bailey, Guy, Natalie Maynor and Patricia Cukor-Avila (eds.) 1991 The Emergence of Black English. Text and Commentary. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bailey, Guy, and Erik Thomas 1998 Some aspects of African American English phonology. In: Mufwene, Rickford, Bailey and Baugh (eds.) 1998: 85-109. Bailey, Guy, Tom Wikle, Jan Tillery and Lori Sand 1991c The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3: 241264. Ball, Catherine 1996 A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language Variation and Change 8: 227-258. Barbag, Anna 1977 Sieira Leone and Liberia experiment: ι A historical and linguistic overview. Africana Bulletin 26,103-112. Baugh, John 1979 Linguistic style shifting in Black English. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 1980 A re-examination of the Black English copula. In: William Labov (ed.) 1980. Locating Language in Time and Space, 83-106. New York: Academic Press. 1983 Black Street Speech: Its History, Structure and Survival. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Bell, Michael Edward 1979 Hany Middleton Hyatt's quest for the essence of human spirit. Journal or the Folklore Institute XVI: 1-27. Bereiter, Carl, and Siegfried Engelmann 1966 Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pientice-Hall. Bereiter, Carl, Ernest D. Washington, Siegfried Engelmann and Jean Osborn 1969 Research and Development Program on Preschool Disadvantaged Children. Vol. 2: Curriculum Development and Evaluation. Urbana: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

References 313 Berlin, Ira, Joseph R. Reidy and Leslie S. Rowland. 1982 Freedom. A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867. Series Π. The Black Military Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berlin, Ira, Barbara J. Heids, Thavolia Glymph, Joseph R. Reidy and Leslie S. Rowland 1985 Freedom. A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861—1867. Series I, Vol. I. The Destruction of Slavery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berlin, Ira, Thavolia Glymph, Steven F. Miller, Joseph R. Reidy, Leslie S. Rowland and Julie Saville 1990 Freedom. A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867. Series I, Vol. ΙΠ. The Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Lower South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berlin, Ira, Steven F. Miller, Joseph R. Reidy and Leslie S. Rowland 1993 Freedom. A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867. Series I, Vol. Π. The Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Upper South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas 1993 Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8 (4): 243-57. Blake, Renee 1997 Defining the envelope of linguistic variation: The case of 'don't count' forms in the copula analysis of African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 9,1: 57-79. Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. London: Allen and Unwin. Botkin, Benjamin 1945 Lay my Burden down: A Folk History of Slavery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 10th impression 1973. Brewer, Jeutonne P. 1974 ITie verb be in Early Black English: A study based on the WPA ex-slave narratives. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1991 Songs, sermons and life stories: The legacy of the ex-slave narratives. In: Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (eds.) 1991: 155-172. Brewer, Jeutonne P., Ann P. Pember and Elian Turner 1998 "I'se Much a Man": An Autobiography of African American English. Paper Presented at NWAVE 27,1998, Athens, GA. Brooks, Cleanth 1935 The Relation of the Alabama-Georgia Dialect to the Provincial Dialects of Great Britain. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.

314 References Butters, Ronald R. 1989 The Death of Black English: Divergence and Controversy in Black and White Vernaculars (Bamberger Beiträge zur englischen Sprachwissenschaft, 25). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Chambers, J. Κ. 1998 Sociolinguistic Theory. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. Chambers, J.K and Peter Trudgill 1980 Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheshire, Jenny 1982 Variation in an English Dialect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam 1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, ΜΑ: ΜΓΓ Press. Clayton, Ronnie W. 1990 Mother wit: the ex-slave narratives of the Louisiana Writers' Project. New York, Bern, Frankfurt / Main, Paris: Lang. Cornelius, Janet Duitsman 1991 When I Can Read My Title Clear: Literacy, Slavery, and Religion in the Antebellum South. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Crowdy, Steve 1993 Spoken corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4): 259-65. Cukor-Avila, Patricia 1995 The evolution of AAVE in a rural Texas community: An ethnolinguistìc study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. 2001 Co-existing grammars: The relationship between the evolution of African American English and White Vernacular English in the South. In: Lanehart (ed.) 2001: 93-128. Davis, Lawrence M. 1969 Dialect research: Mythology and reality. Orbis 18: 332-337. [Reprinted in Wolfram and Clarke (eds.): 90-98.] 1970 Social dialectology in America: A critical survey. Journal of English Linguistics 4: 46-56. Day, Richard R. 1973 Patterns of Variation in Copula and Tense in the Hawaiian Post-Creole Continuum. Honululu: University of Hawaii. D'Elda, Sarah G. 1973 Issues in the analysis of Nonstandard Negro English: A review of J. L. Dillard's Black English. Journal of English Linguistics 7: 87-106. de Haan, Pieter 1992 The optimum corpus sample size? In: Gerhard Leitner (ed.) New Directions in English Language Corpora, 3-19. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

References

315

DeVere, Louise 1971 Black English: Problematic but Systematic. South Atlantic Bulletin 36: 38-46. Dillard, Joey L. 1972 Black English. New York: Random House. 1992 A History of American English. New York City: Longman. 1993 The relative value of ex-slave narratives. A discussion of Schneider's paper. Mufwene (ed.) 1993: 222-231. Donili, George Townsend 1986 Black and White Speech in the Southern United States: Evidence from the Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Dunlap, Howard G. 1974 Social Aspects of a Verb Form: Native Atlanta Fifth-Grade Speech The Present Tense of Be. University of Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Ebonics. LinguistList Topics Pages. http://www.linguistlist.org/topics/ebonics/ Edwards, Walter F. 1980 Varieties of English in Guyana: Some comparisons with BEV. Linguistics 18: 289-309. 1991 A comparative description of Guyanese creole and Black English preverbal marker don. In: Edwards and Winford (eds.) 1991: 240-255. Edwards, Walter F. and Don Winford (eds.) 1991 Verb Phrase Patterns in Black English and Caribbean Creoles. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Ewers, Traute 1996 The Origin of American Black English. Βe-Forms in the HOODOO Texts. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Fasold, Ralph W. 1972 Tense Marking in Black English: A Linguistic and Social Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 1976 One hundred years from syntax to phonology. In: Sanford Steever, Salikoko S. Mufwene, and Carol C. Walker, (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, 79-87. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1981 The relation between black and white speech in the South. American Speech 56: 163-189. Fasold, Ralph W., William Labov, Fay Boy Vaughn-Cooke, Guy Bailey, Walt Wolfram, Arthur K. Spears and John R. Rickford 1987 Are black and white vernaculars diverging? Papers from the NWAVEXVI panel discussion. American Speech 62: 3-80.

316

References

Fasold, Ralph W. and Walt Wolfram 1970 Some linguistic features of Negro dialect. In: Ralph W. Fasold and Roger W. Shuy (eds.) Teaching Standard English in the Inner City, 4186. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Feagin, Crawford 1979 Variation and Change in Alabama English: A Sociolinguistic Study of the White Community. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1986 Southern white in the English language community. In: Harold B. Allen and Michael D. Linn (eds.) Dialect and Language Variation, 259-283. San Diego: Academic Press. Freedmen and Southern Society Project [http://www.inform.umd.edu/ARHU/Depts/History/Freedman/ home.html] Gordon, Elizabeth and Peter Trudgill 1999 Shades of things to come: Embryonic variants in New Zealand English sound changes. English World-Wide 20,1:113-124. Graff, David, William Labov and Wendell Harris 1986 Testing listeners' reactions to markers of ethnic identity: A new method for sociolinguistic research. In: Sankoff (ed.) 1986: 45-58. Greenbaum, Sidney and Randolph Quirk 1990 A Student's Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Guy, Gregory R. and Robert Bayley 1995 On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70: 148-162. Hackenberg, Robert 1972 Appalachian English: a sociolinguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University. Hall, Robert A. 1966 Pidgin and Creole Languages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hannah, Dawn 1997 Copula absence in Samaná English: Implications on research on the linguistic history of African American Vernacular English. American Speech 72 (4): 339-372. Holm, John 1976 Copula variability on the Afro-American continuum. In: George Cave (comp.) Conference Preprints, First Annual Meeting of the Society for Caribbean Linguistics, 301-309. Turkeyen: University of Guyana. 1984 Variability of the copula in Black English and its creole kin. American Speech 59: 291-309. Howe, Darin M. 1997 Negation and the history of African American English. Language Variation and Change 9:267-294.

References

317

Howe, Darin M. and James A. Walker 1999 Negation and the creole-origins hypothesis: Evidence from Early African American English. In: Poplack (ed.) 1999: 109-140 Huddleston, Rodney 1971 The Sentence in Written English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyatt, Harry Middleton 1965 Folklore from Adams County Illinois. New York: The Alma Egan Hyatt Foundation. 1970-1978 Hoodoo-Witchcraft-Conjuration-Rootwork. Vol. 1.-5. Washington: Hie Alma Egan Hyatt Foundation. Johnson, Guy B. 1930 The speech of the Negro. In Folk-Say: A Regional Miscellany. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 346-358. Kautzsch, Alexander 1999 "That's sumpen I ain't never paid any 'tention to": Variation of the functions of ain't in Earlier African-American English. Paper read at NWAVE 28, Toronto, Canada, October 1999. 2000 Liberian Letters and Virginian Narratives: Negation patterns in two new sources of Earlier AAE. American Speech 75,1: 34-53. Kautzsch, Alexander and Edgar W. Schneider 2000 Differential creolization: Some evidence from Earlier African American Vernacular English in South Carolina. In: Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh and Edgar W. Schneider (eds.) Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages, 247-274. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Krapp, George Philip 1924 The English of the Negro. American Mercury 2: 190-195. Kretzschmar, William 1999 A 'new' resource for the history of AA(V)E. Paper read at NWAVE 28, Toronto, Canada, October 1999. Kulikoff, Allan 1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia. Kurath, Hans 1928 The origin of dialectal differences in spoken American English. Modern Philology 25: 285-295. Labov, William 1969 Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 725-762. 1972a Negative attraction and negative concord in English grammar. Language 48: 773-818.

318 References 1972b 1973

Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Language Characteristics: Blacks. In: Robert H. Bentley and Samuel D. Crawford (eds.) Black Language Reader, 96-116. Glenview, DL: Scott, Foresman. 1982 Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: The case of the Black English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society 11: 165-201. 1990 The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2: 205-254. 1998 Co-existent systems, in African American vernacular English. In: Mufwene, Rickford, Bailey and Baugh (eds.) 1998:110-153. Labov, William, Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins and John Lewis 1968 A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers of English in New York City. Cooperative Research Project No. 3288. Vol. 1: Phonological and Grammatical Analysis. Vol. 2: The Use of Language in the Speech Community. New York: Columbia University. Labov, William and Paul Cohen 1973 Some suggestions for teaching standard English to speakers of nonstandard urban dialects. In: Johanna S. DeStefano (ed.) Language, Society and Education: A profile of Black English, 218-237. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones. Labov, William and Wendell A. Harris 1986 De facto segregation of black and white vernaculars. In: Sankoff (ed.) 1986: 1-24. Lanehart, Sonja L. (ed.) 2001 Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lawrence, Ken 1977/79 Mississippi: Introduction. In: Rawick (ed.) 1977/79, Series 1, vol. 6: lxvii-cx. Lass, Roger 1990 How to do things with junk: exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79-102. Lewis, Roscoe 1940 The Negro in Virginia. New York: Hasting House (Reprint: 1969. New York: Amo Press and The New York Times.) Light, Richard 1969 Syntactic structures in a corpus of non-standard English. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University. Linguistic Atlas Projects. http://hyde.park.uga.edu/

References 319 Loflin, Marvin D., Nicholas J. Sobin and Joe L. Dillard 1973 Auxiliary structure and time adverbs in Black American English. American Speech 48: 22-28. Martin, Stefan and Walt Wolfram 1998 The sentence in African American Vernacular English. In: Mufwene, Rickford, Bailey and Baugh (eds.) 1998: 11-36. Maynor, Natalie 1988 Written records of spoken language. How reliable are they? In: Alan R. Thomas (ed.) Methods in Dialectology: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference Held at the University College of North Wales, 3rd-7th August 1987, 109-120. Cleveland, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. McDavid, Raven I. 1965 American social dialects. College English 26:254-259. McDavid, Raven I. and Virginia G. McDavid 1951 The relationship of the speech of Negroes to the speech of whites. American Speech 26: 3-17. [Reprinted in Wolfram and Clarke (eds.): 1971: 16-40.] McEnery, Tony and Andrew Wilson 1996 Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McKay, June Rumery 1969 A partial analysis of a variety of Nonstandard Negro English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. McWhorter, John 1998 The Word in the Street. New Yoik : Plenum Tade. Miller, Randall M. 1978 "Dear Master. " Letters of a Slave Family. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Montgomery, Michael 1991 The linguistic value of the ex-slave recordings. In: Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (eds.), 173-189. 1999 Eighteenth-Century Siena Leone English: Another exported variety of African American English. English World-Wide 20.1:1-35. Montgomery, Michael and Guy Bailey 1986 Introduction. In: Montgomery and Bailey (eds.) 1986:1-29. Montgomery, Michael and Janet M. Fuller 1996 What was verbal -s in 19th century African American English?. In: Schneider (ed.) 1996: 211-230. Montgomery, Michael, Janet M. Fuller and Sharon DeMarse 1993 "The black man has wives and Sweet harts [and third person plural -s] Jest like the white men": Evidence of verbal -s from written documents on 19th century African American speech. Language Variation and Change 5: 335-357.

320 References Montgomery, Michael and Guy Bailey (eds.) 1986 Language Variety in the South. Perspectives in Black and White. University of Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Mufwene, Salikoko 1983 Some Observations on the Verb in Black English Vernacular. Austin: African and Afro-American Studies and Research Center, University of Texas at Austin. 1986 Restrictive relativization in Gullah. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 1: 1-31. 1996a The development of American Englishes: Some questions from a creole genesis perspective. In: Schneider (ed.) 1996: 231-264. 1996b The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica ΧΙΠ: 83-134. 1999 Some sociohistorical inferences about the development of African American English. In: Poplack (ed.) 1999: 233-263. Mufwene, Salikoko (ed.) 1993 Africanisms in Afro-American Language Varieties. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Mufwene, Salikoko S., John R. Rickford, Guy Bailey and John Baugh (eds.) 1998 African-American English. Structure, History and Use. London, New York: Routledge. Murdza, Peter, Jr. 1975 Emigrants to Liberia: 1865-1904. An Alphabetical Listing. Newark, DL: University of Delaware, Department of Anthropology. Myhill, John, and Wendell A. Harris 1986 The use of verbal -s inflection in BEV. In: Sankoff (ed.) 1986: 25-32. Nichols, Patricia Causey 1983 Black and White speaking in the rural South: Difference in the pronominal system. American Speech 58: 201-215. Pardoe, T. Earl 1937 An historical and phonetic study of the Negro dialect. Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University. Perdue, Charles L„ Thomas E. Barden and Robert K. Phillips 1976 Weevils in the wheat: interviews with Virginia ex-slaves. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia [Reprinted 1992], Pintzuk, Susan 1986-1988 VARBRUL software package for DOS. Poplack, Shana 1999 Introduction. In: Poplack (ed.) 1999:1-32. Poplack, Shana (ed.) 1999 The English History ofAfrican American English. Oxford: Blackwell. Poplack, Shana and David Sankoff 1987 The Philadelphia Story in the Spanish Caribbean. American Speech 62: 291-314.

References

321

Poplack, Shana and Sali Tagliamonte 1989 There's no tense like the present: Verbal -s inflection in early Black English. Language Variation and Change 1: 47-89. [Reprinted in Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (eds.) 1991: 275-324.] 1991 African-American English in the diaspora: Evidence from old-line Nova Scotians. Language Variation and Change 3: 301-339. 1994 -S or nothing: Marking the plural in the African American diaspora. American Speech 69: 227-259. Poplack, Shana, Sali Tagliamonte and Ejike Eze 1999 Reconstructing the source of Early African American English plural marking: A comparative study of English and Creole. In: Poplack (ed.) 1999:73-105. Quirk, Randolph 1957 Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38: 97109. Rawick, George P. (ed.) 1972 The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. 19 vols. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood. Rawick, George P. (ed.) 1977/79 The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Supplement. Series 1 and 2. 12 and 10 vols. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood. Rickford, John R. 1974 Hie insights of the mesolect. In: David DeCamp and Ian F. Hancock (eds.) Pidgins and Creoles: Current Trends and Prospects, 92-117. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1977 The question of prior creolization in Black English. In: Albert Valdman (ed.) Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, 190-221. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1986 Social contact and linguistic diffusion: Hiberno English and New World Black English. Language 62: 245-290. 1987 Contribution to Are Black and White Vernaculars Diverging? In: Fasold et al. (eds.) 1987: 55-62. 1991a Representativeness and reliability of the ex-slave material, with special reference to Wallace Quarterman's recordings and transcripts. In: Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila eds. 1991:191-212. 1991b Variation in the Jamaican Creole copula: New data and analysis. Paper presented at the Beryl Bailey Symposium, American Anthropology Association meeting, Chicago, November. 1992 The creole residue in Barbados. In: Joan H. Hall, Nick Doane, and Dick Ringlet (eds.) Old English and New: Studies in Honor of Frederic G. Cassidy, 183-201. New York and London: Garland. 1996 Copula variability in Jamaican Creole and African American Vernacular English: A reanalysis of DeCamp's texts. In: Gregory R. Guy, Crawford

322 References Feagin, Deborah Schifimi and John Baugh (eds.) Towards a Social Science of Language. Vol. 1: Variation and Change in Language and Society, 357-372. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1997 Prior creolization of African-American Vernacular English? Sociohistorical and textual evidence from the 17th and 18th centuries, Journal of Sociolinguistics 1: 315-336. [Reprinted in Rickford (ed.) 1999: 233-251, which is quoted in the present study.] 1999a Phonological and grammatical features of African American Vernacular English (AAVE). In: Rickford (ed.) 1999: 3-14. 1999b Suite for Ebony and Phonics. In: Rickford (ed.) 1999: 320-328. 1999c Grammatical variation and divergence in Vernacular Black English. In: Rickford (ed.) 1999: 261-280. 1999d Preface. In: Rickford (ed.) 1999: xii-xxiii. 1999e Using the vernacular to teach the standard. In: Rickford (ed.) 1999: 329348. Rickford, John R. (ed.) 1999 African American Vernacular English. Oxford: Blackwell. Rickford, John R., Ametha Ball, Renee Blake, Raina Jackson, and Nomi Martin 1991 Rappin on the copula coffin: Theoretical and methodological issues in the analysis of copula variation in African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 3.1: 103-132. (Reprinted in Rickford (ed.) 1999: 61-89; which is quoted in this study). Rickford, John R., and Renee Blake 1990 Copula contraction and absence in Barbadian English, Samaná English and Vernacular Black English. In: K. Hall, J.-P. Koenig, M. Meacham, S. Reinman, and L. A. Sutton (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 257-268. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. [Reprinted in Rickford (ed.) 1999: 61-89, which is quoted in the present study], Romaine, Suzanne 1982 Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Sankoff, David (ed.) 1986 Diversity and Diachrony. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Schneider, Edgar W. 1982 On the history of Black English in the USA: Some new evidence. English World Wide 3: 18-46. 1983 The origin of the verbal -s in Black English. American Speech 58: 99113. 1984 A bibliography of writings on American and Canadian English. In: Wolfgang Viereck, Edgar W. Schneider, and Manfred Görlach (comps.) A Bibliography of Writings on Varieties of English, 1965-1983, 89-223. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

References 323 Regional variation in 19th centuiy Black English in the American South. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.) Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 467-487. Amsterdam: Benjamins. American Earlier Black English. Tuscaloosa, London: University of 1989 Alabama Press. 1990 The cline of creoleness in English-oriented creóles and semi-creoles of the Caribbean. English World-Wide 11: 79-113. 1993a Africanisms in Afro-American English: Weighing the evidence. In: Mufwene (ed.) 1993:209-221. 1993b Writings on varieties of American and Canadian English. In: Beat Glauser, Edgar W. Schneider, and Manfred Görlach (comps.) A Bibliography of Writings on Varieties of English, 1984-1992/93, 63124. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1996 Introduction: Research trends in the study of American English. In: Schneider (ed.) 1996: 1-12. 1997a Earlier Black English Revisited. In: Cynthia Bernstein, Thomas Nunnally and Robin Sabino (eds.) Language Variety in the South Revisited, 35-50. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press. Diffusion, selection and the evolution of New Englishes: The example 1997b of negation patterns. Paper given at 4th IAWE Conference, Singapore, 1997. Schneider, Edgar W. (ed.) 1996 Focus on the USA. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Schuchardt, Hugo 1914 Die Sprache der Saramakkaneger in Surinam. Amsterdam: Johannes Möller. For English translation of preface, see Schuchardt 1980: 891985

126.

1980

Pidgin and Creole Languages: Selected Essays. Glenn G. Gilbert, ed. and trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shick, Tom W. 1980 Behold the Promised Land: A History of Afro-American Settler Society in Nineteenth-Century Liberia. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP. Shick, Tom W. (ed.) 1971 Emigrants to Liberia: 1820-1843. An alphabetical listing. Newark, DL: University Press. Shuy, Roger, Walt Wolfram and William Riley 1967 Linguistic Correlates of Social Stratification in Detroit Speech. Cooperative Research Project No. 61347. East Lansing: Michigan State University. 1968 Field Techniques in an Urban Language Study. (Urban Language Series 3.) Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

324 References Singler, John V. 1977 Language in Liberia in the nineteenth century: The settlers' perspective. Libertan Studies Journal 7,2: 73-85. 1984 Variation in tense - aspect - modality in Liberian English. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, [printed facsimile: 1986. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International; Summary in English World-Wide 6,2: 292 (1985)] 1987a The city, the mesolect, and innovation. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 2,2: 119-147. 1987b Where did Liberian English na come from? English World-Wide 8,1: 69-95. 1988 The place of variation in the formal expression of inflectional processes: Evidence from Kru Pidgin English. In: Kathleen Ferrara, Becky Brown, Keith Walters and John Baugh (eds.) Linguistic Change and Contact Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation in Language , 345-353. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Department of Linguistics. 1989 Plural marking in Liberian Settler English, 1820-1980 American Speech 64,1: 40-64. 1991a Copula variation in Liberian Settler English and American Black English. In: Edwards and Winford (eds.) 1991: 129-164. 1991b Liberian Settler English and the ex-slave recordings: A comparative study. In: Bailey, Maynor, and Cukor-Avila (eds.) 1991:249-273. 1991c Social and linguistic constraints on plural marking in Liberian English. In: Cheshire (ed.) 1991: 545-562. 1998a The African-American Diaspora: Who were the dispersed? Paper presented at NWAVE27, Athens, GA. 1998b What's not new in AAVE. American Speech 73,3: 227-256. Smitherman, Geneva 1981 Talkin ' and Testifyin '. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Sommer, Elizabeth 1986 Variation in Southern Urban English. In: Montgomery and Bailey (eds.) 1986:180-201. Stewart, William A. 1966 Nonstandard speech patterns. Baltimore Bulletin of Education 43: 5265. 1967 Sociolinguistic factors in the history of American Negro dialects. Florida Foreign Language Reporter 5: 11-29. 1968 Continuity and change in American Negro dialects. Florida Foreign Language Reporter 6: 3-14. 1969 On the use of Negro dialect in the teaching of reading. In: Joan C. Baratz and Roger W. Shuy (eds.) Teaching Black Children to Read, 156-219. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

References 325 The National Atlas of the United States 1967 Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Tagliamonte, Sali and Jennifer Smith 1999 Old was, new ecology: Viewing English through the sociolinguistic filter. In: Poplack(ed.) 1999:141-171. Taglicht, J. 1973 The choice of relative pronouns in written English. Scripta Hierosolymitana 25: 327-336. Thibault, Pierette and Michelle Daveluy 1989 Quelques traces du passage du temps dans le parler des Montréalais 1971-1984. Language Variation and Change 1: 19-46. Tottie, Gunnel 1997 Relatively speaking: relative marker usage in the British National Corpus. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.) To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 465-481. Helsinki: Société Neophilologique. Tottie, Gunnel and Michel Rey 1997 Relativization strategies in Earlier African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 9,2:219-247. Tottie, Gunnel and Dawn Harvie 1999 It's all relative: Relativization strategies in Early African American English. In: Poplack (ed.) 1999: 198-230. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1976 Pidgins, creóles, and the origins of Vernacular Black English. In: Deborah Sears Harrison and Tom Trabassso. eds. Black English: A seminar, 57-93. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Troike, R 1973 On social, regional, and age variation in Black English. The Florida Foreign Language Reporter. Spring/Fall: 7-8. Trudgill, Peter 1988 Norwich revisited: recent linguistic changes in an English urban dialect. English World-Wide 9: 3 3 ^ 9 . U.S. Bureau of the Census 1918 Negro Population in the United Sates, 1790-1915. New York: Kraus Reprint [1969]. 1976 The Statistical History of the United States. From Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Basic Books. Van den Eynden, Nadine 1993 Syntactic Variation and Unconscious Linguistic Change: A Study of Adjectival Relative Clauses in the Dialect of Dorset. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.

326 References Van Herk, Gerard 1998 Don't know much about histoiy: letting the data set the agenda in the Origins-of-AAVE debate. Paper presented at NWAVE 27, Athens, Georgia. 1999a "Ye was very much Oppress": 18th-century AAVE texts and the origins debate. Paper presented at Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Los Angeles. 1999b The question question: Auxiliary inversion in Early African American English. In: Poplack (ed.) 1999: 175-197. Viereck, Wolfgang 1988 Invariant be in an unnoticed source of American Early Black English. American Speech, 63: 291-303. 1989 A linguistic analysis of 'Early' American Black English. In: Udo Fries and Martin Heusser (eds.) Meaning and Beyond. Ernst Leisi zum 70. Geburtstag, 179-196. Tübingen: Narr. 1995 Verbal -s inflection in 'early' American Black English. In: Jacek Hsiak (ed.) Linguistic Change under Contact Conditions, 315-326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Walker, James A. 1999 Rephrasing the copula: Contraction and zero in Early African American English. In: Poplack (ed.) 1999: 35-72. Weldon, Tracy 1994 Variability in negation in African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 6: 359-397. Wiley, Bell I. 1980 Slaves No More. Letters from Liberia 1833-1869. The University Press of Kentucky. Williamson, Juanita 1972 Selected features of speech: Black and White. College Language Association ΧΠΙ: 420-433. Winford, Donald 1992a Another look at the copula in Black English and Caribbean creóles. American Speech 67,1: 21-60. 1992b Back to the past: The BEV/creole connection revisited. Language Variation and Change 4,3: 311-357. 1997 On the origins of African American Vernacular English - A creolist perspective. Part I: The sociohistorical background. Diachronica 14: 305-344. 1998 On the origins of African American Vernacular English - A creolist perspective. Part Π: Linguistic features. Diachronica 15: 99-154. Wise, Claude Merton 1933 Negro dialect. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 19: 523-528.

References 327 Woodward, C. Vann 1974 History from slave sources. American Historical Review 79,2: 470-481. Wolfram, Walt 1969 A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 1970 Linguistic correlates of social differences in the Negro Community. In: James E. Alatis (ed.) Linguistics and the Teaching of Standard English to Speakers of Other Languages or Dialects, 249-257. Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table Meeting In Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1971 Black-White speech differences revisited. In: Wolfram and Clarke (eds.): 139-161. 1974 The relationship of White Southern speech to Vernacular Black English. Language 50,3: 498-527. 1990 Re-examining Vernacular Black English: Review article of Schneider 1989 and Butters 1989. Language 66: 121-133. Wolfram, Walt and Nona Clarke, eds 1971 Black-White Speech Relationships. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Wolfram, Walt, Kirk Hazen, and Jennifer Ruff Tamburro 1997 Isolation within isolation: A solitary century of African American Vernacular English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1:7-38. Wolfram, Walt, Erik R. Thomas and Elaine W. Green To appear The regional context of Earlier African-American speech: Evidence for reconstructing the development of AAVE. Language in Society. Wolfram, Walt et al. North Carolina Language and Life Project, [http://www.ncsu.edu/ linguistics/llp.htm] Yeager-Dror, Malcah .1989. Real time and apparent time change in Montréal French. York Papers in Linguistics 13: 141-154. Yetman, Norman R. 1967 H e background of the slave narrative collection. American Quarterly 19: 534-553.

Index abolition (of slavery) 7,213 acrolect 92,120 act of identity see linguistic identity adjacency (of relative marker and antecedent) 162,166-168,170, 173,179-182,184,189-193, 195, 200-201, 203-204,206, 208-210, 242, 250-252,256-257 adjective (after copula) chapter 4, chapter 6.3 adverb 78 Africa 5-6, 212-213, 219, 227 African 4,6-7,45, 90,100, 111, 127, 285 African American(s) 2,4, 6-9,13, 17-21, 24-26, 37-38,51-52,59, 64, 66,74, 88,103,120,150151,211,213,215, 219-222, 239,254,256-257 African Nova Scotian English (ANSE) 45-46, 90, 92,100-102, 105,110-114,119,156,158159,161,165,167,172,255 age 19, 28, 30, 33,153,217,237 Alabama 7,18-19, 23,25,28, 29, 35-38,41-42,48, 51-53, 59-60, 64,73-77, 80, 86,98,103-104, 106,124,147-148,150-152, 170,193-201,203, 212, 217218, 221, 239, 241, 257, appendix 4 aluminum disk recordings 20,22 amanuenses 219, 221 American(s) 3,7,17, 20,31, 37,52, 58,63,75-76,103,163,211, 213,215, 218 American Colonization Society 212-213 Ann Arbor 2, 285 antecedent (of relative marker) 159— 160,162,164-179,181,184-

192,195-201, 204-209, 211, 242,245-251, 253, 257 Appalachian 158-159 Archive of Folk Song 18,22 Arkansas 7, 25, appendix 4 assimilation (phonetics) 96,105, 107-108,118, 238 Atlantic South (US) 80 audio-recordings 10,12,16,18, 2029, 31-32, 92,156,159, 255 auxiliary verbs 40, 55-56,59, 61, 64-77, 88, 227-230, 236, 253, 257 Bailey, Guy 8-10,12,22-24, 29, 31-34, 36, 39,42-43,47, 61, 6566, 88, 90, 92, 94,97-99,104105,117-118,122,125,144, 154,160,165,168-170,256,285 Bajan/Barbadian 4,91-92,101 Barbados 5-6 basilect(al) 7,91-92 Baugh, John 92, 99,285 Berlin, Ira 10, 212, 219-222, 225228, 232, 235-238, 240-246, 248-250 biased speech (by ethnicity) 18,27 bidialectalism 2 black(s) see African Americans Botkin, Benjamin 14 Brewer, Jeutonne 9,11,18, 24, 38, 45,81 British (English) 5, 30, 81,157158,163-167,211 Byrd, Susie R. 21-22 Canada 3, 255 Caribbean 4, 6,7,120,138 change in progress 33-34,39,154 Cheshire, Jenny 158,211 Chomsky, Noam 29,30

Index 329 clause 156-157,163,165, 202, 204, 206-207,242, 246, 252 colonies 5-7, 35,120 competence 30,33 consonants 23,104-105,107,115, 118,133-137,139,146-147, 217,221, 223 contraction (copula) see copula copula (full, contracted and zero (0) forms) chapter 4, chapter 6.3 calculation / formula (Labov, Straight, Romaine) 109-115,123-126,130,132134,136-139,154-155, 222 corpus 10,12, 22, 24,28, 30-32, 35, 37, 39,40, 45,47, 50, 56-58, 62, 64, 68-69, 72,79, 81-84, 8689,95-98,100-101,104,106, 109-115,122-125,128-137, 139,142-143,146,156-157, 160-161,170, 172, 176, 182, 189,193,197, 203, 211-212, 219, 224,226-235, 238, 242252, 255-256, 258 county 37,103, 257 creole 4-6, 9, 39, 56, 89-92,101104,119-120,123-124,127, 138,144,146-147,150,154155,172, 211,242, 258 creolist 4-5, 89, 91, 102,144, 285 creolists' hypothesis 90 creolization 4, 6,102,120,139, 150,172,258 Cukor-Avila, Patricia 3, 22-24, 33 CVC-structure (phon.) 133 CV-structure (phon.) 135 decreolization 8,91,102,120,138, 144,147,154, 258 Delaware 221,225 deletion (copula) see copula

demographics 6,8,31,35,37-38, 51-52,59-60, 74, 87,103,139, 151, 214-215 diachronic 1,9-10, 32, 89,113114,140,182,191,193-194,207 dialect geographers 3 dialectologists 4-5, 89, 91, 285 dialectology 39, 89 Dillard, Joey 16, 20,23,157,285 divergence 1, 5,7-10,56, 88,113, 144,157,196 Dorset (England, relativization) 158, 163-164,166 Earlier Black English (EBE) 11,17, 38 East Palo Alto (EPA) 3, 8,92,95, 97,100-101,110-111,113-114, 119-120,127,139, 255 Ebonics 2,11, 285 economics 6-7,17,24, 35 Ediphone (recording machine) 26, 28 education 2,28, 84,219 emancipation 24, 58,213,219, 220 embryonic variants 59 emphatic copula 94 ethnic group 8, 37,215 ethnic marker see linguistic identity European American 2-3, 6-7 existential constructions 61, 82,232 ex-slave narratives 9-10,12-16, 18-22, 24, 29, 31-32, 35,45,46, 62, 68, 93, 98 ex-slave recordings (ESR) 10,16, 18,22-24, 31-32, 34, 36-38,40, 43-46,48, 51, 55-56, 62, 67-69, 79,81-84,100-101,119,121, 123,125-136,155-156,158162,164-165,167,171,173182, 212 extra-linguistic 15,17, 21, 33,47, 74,115,181,203,206,255

330 Index

Faulk, Henry 18,24 Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) 12-13 female see also gender, male 20, 38-39,77-78, 87,104,152, 203, 205, 255 fieldwork(ers) 18, 22,24, 26-27, 32 Honda 14, 23,25-26, 28-29,3638,42-43,48,51-54,59-60, 64, 66,73-77, 80, 86,95,103-104, 109,116-117,147-148,150152,160,170,172,193-203, 257, appendix 4 folklore 12,24-25 freed slaves 212-213 Freedmen's Bureau Letters (FBL) 219, 221-238,242-253 gender see also male, female 30, 32-33, 38-40,53-54, 60-61, 64,70,77-80,84, 87, 89,102, 104,115,152-153,155,170, 203-206,255 generative 115 geography 24,46,70,73,102,120, 133,156,166-167,170,176, 178,181-182,193,195,197198, 201-202,207, 256-257 Georgia 3-4,7,14, 18-20,23,25, 28-29, 35, 37-38,42-43,48, 5155,59-60, 64,73-78, 80, 82, 8687,103,125,147-148,150-152, 161,193-203,217-218, 231, 239,257, appendix 4 ghetto 2,8,63 ghettoization 120 Glasgow (English) 236 gonna (after copula) chapter 4, chapter 6.3 grammatical core (of AAE) 5,89 grammatical environment 90,92, 97,127,130-131,136,138-140,

144-147,151-152,155, 239, 241,257 Gullah 4-5,7, 22, 29,91,156,172 Guyana 101 Hawaiian Creole 92 heterogeneity (of AAE) 6,39,256257 hierarchies (copula deletion and contraction) 124-127,130-132, 140,144,146,148,151-152, 155,171,173, 253, 257 homogeneity (of AAE) 75,182, 257 hoodoo-texts 10,12, 24-25, 31-32, 62, 66,79 humanness (of antecedent; relativization) 159-160,162165,168,171,173,175,181182,184,191-193,195-197, 204-206,209-211, 242, 246, 251-253,257 Hyatt, Harry Middleton 10,12, 2429, 36-37,41-43,54-55, 61, 6566, 78, 82, 90,95-99,104,106107,109,116-118,124-126, 160-161,168-170,172, 231 hypercorrection 216 idiolect 47,62,72,75, 83,105,118, 172 Illinois 24 illiterate 220 imperative 61 imperfect 214 indefinite pronouns 122,124,136 indeterminates (any* / no*) 40, 61, 64-74,77-79, 81-84, 86,116, 136,166,227-233, 253 Indiana 13 informants 14,17,19, 20-21,2328, 32, 34-39,45-47,49,51-53, 61, 64, 68,72, 75, 77, 83, 87,96, 100,102-105,107-108,118,

Index 331 120,150,156,158,172,182, 193,204,207,211-212,221, 231,255-256, 258 interethmc bias / tensions 17-18,20 interrogatives 61 interview(er)s 10,12-29, 32-34,36, 45,101,104,106,119,156,164, 171,255 intonation 94 invariant be 4,8 inversion 61,97 irrealis 91 iterative 91 Jamaica 5,91,101 Jesperson, Otto 166 Kansas 7 Kentucky 13,217, 221,232, 239, 241, 245,249, 250 Kretzschmar, William 3 Labov, William 2-3, 8, 34-35, 38, 40,45, 63,92,97,99-100,104105,109-115,123-125,127, 130-134,136-138,154,157, 256 language acquisition 4,6,7, 33-34, 36-37,155, 203, 253 letters 9-10,19,212, 214-228, 230, 232-246, 248-254,258 Lewis, Roscoe 20,22 Liberia 4, 23,29, 36,212-214, 218-219, 221,285 Liberian and Alabama Letters (LAL) 212,218,221-236,238, 242-253 Library of Congress 14,22 linguistic atlases 3,33 Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States (LAGS) 3 Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States (LAMSAS) 3

linguistic change 6,9,33-34,40, 50, 58, 70, 86,114,140,146, 155-156,166,177,182,187, 189,191-193,207,209, 256 linguistic identity 8,59,88,140, 256 linguistic prestige 214 literacy 84, 213-214,220, 222-223, 226-227, 231-232, 253,258 literary attestations 9,212,222 locative (after copula) chapter 4, chapter 6.3 Lomax, John 14-16,19, 21,24 Louisiana 13, 23, 25, 28-29, 36-38, 43,52-53, 59-60, 64,73-77, 80, 83, 86, 99,103,117-118,147148,150-152,193-203,217219, 221,226, 228, 239, 241, 246, 257, appendix 4 Lower Louth (US) 7,220 male see also female, gender 38-39,77-78, 87,104,152,203, 205, 255 manuscripts 20-21, 215-217, 221, 223,253 Maryland 23, 25, 28-29, 37,52,72, 74-77, 80, 82, 86-87,103,116, 118,170,217-218, 221-222, 228,235-236,257, appendix 4 Maynor, Natalie 8-9,12,14-16,19, 22-24, 29, 33-34, 36, 39, 61,6566, 88, 90,92,94, 97-99,104105,117-118,122,125,160, 168-170,285 mesolect 91-92,138 methodology 3,10-12,21,28,32, 70,89,91,93,108,114-115, 120,130,167,173,180, 206, 211,215,217,221,258 Michigan 2,242,244 migration 7,212

332 Index minority 11,59,106,108,155-157, 176,184, 251, 258 Mississippi 7,12,15,18-19,25, 227, appendix 4 Missouri 36, 217,221,226, 237238, 243 modal verbs 65-77, 88, 227-230, 255 Monrovia 213 Montgomery, Michael 10,16,158— 159,164-165,214, 219,221223, 236, 253, 285 morphology 3,15, 23 morpho-syntax 217 Mufwene, Salikoko 3,5-7, 34-35, 47, 88,120,139,144,156,172, 256 negation chapter 3, chapter 6.2, appendix 5 negative attraction chapter 3.4, chapter 6.2.3 negative concord chapter 3.3, chapter 6.2.2 negative postposing chapter 3.5, chapter 6.2.4 negative transfer 40,78,81 neocreolization 8 New York City 92 non-finite be 108 non-restrictive relative clauses 156, 158,173,206 nonstandardness 11,16,19,27, 31, 38, 255-256, 258 negation 40, 61-62,64-80, 8288 copula 104,119-120,122,136 relativization 156-159,167,171, 184,190,205,211 written vs. spoken 212, 214,217, 219, 222-224,227, 229-230, 232-233, 242-244, 252-253 NORMS (dialectology) 202

North Carolina 3, 7,19, 25, 28-29, 36-38,46,52-53, 59-60, 64, 66, 73-77, 80, 86, 95,97,103-104, 147-148,150,152,193-203, 217, 221,239, 241, 257, 285, appendix 4 Northern (US) 221 noun phrase 78,81,256 after copula chapter 4, chapter 6.3 relativization (category of antecedent) chapter 5, chapter 6.4 Nova Scotia English see African Nova Scotian English numerals 166,168,170,176 Oakland, CA, Schoolboard 2 Ohio 3,13,51, 221,225, 255 origins discussion 4,6,9-10,30, 80-81,109,139,156,211,255, 257 overseer 41,54 participles (after copula) chapter 4, chapter 6.3 passive 117 past tense 19,45^6,56, 67, 80-81, 93,217, 223, 226 Pennsylvania 221, 243 perfectives 41,43-44,46-47,50, 52,55-57, 60,224-226, 229,234 performance data 30 phonetics / phonology 3,14-15,23, 59,97,99,104-105,107-109, 115,118-120,133-137,147, 216,221-222, 238 phonological environment 99,105, 107-108,115,118-119,133,137 pidgin 5, 6 plantations 19,213-214,250 Poplack, Shana 5,10-11,89-92, 94,97, 99,102,120,255-256

Index 333 population proportions see demographics postmodification 156 postvocalic environments 106 present tense 16,45-48,50,55,67, 93,109, 237 prestige see linguistic prestige pronouns before copula chapter 4, chapter 6.3 relativization (category of antecedent) chapter 5, chapter 6.4 pronunciation 15,19,105,216 quantification 4, 56, 89, 91,115, 140,157-158,164,172-173, 211,242 Quirk, Randolph 156-158,163165,167, 211 racism 213 Rawick, George P. 9-10,12-21,29, 32, 35,42,54-55, 61, 65-66,78, 82,93-94, 96-97,100,109,116118,122,126,158-160,164165,168-170 reconstruction 6,9-10,13,24, 63, 212,217, 220-223, 242, 252, 255 regional analysis 3-5,7,11, 30, 32, 35-37, 39-40,45-46, 51-52,59, 64,74,79, 87, 89,102-103,136, 147,152,154-155,177,182, 201,238-239,257 regionalism 46 register 215 relativization chapter 5, chapter 6.4 reliability (of sources) 9,14-17, 2224,27-28, 32,126, 217 repatriation (of slaves) 212-213 restrictive relative clauses 156-158, 160

rhoticity 96,105-108,118

Rickford, John 1,3-6, 8-9,23, 35, 89-93,97, 99, 101,105,109114, 120,123-124,126-127, 130-131,139,173, 255, 285 Romaine, Suzanne 110-112,114, 119 Samaná English 45,90,92,100, 102, 111, 113,119,156,158,255 Schneider, Edgar W. 8-9,11, 15-17, 35, 37-38,45-16,55-56, 62, 81-82,102-103,147,157159,164-165,172, 257, 285 Schuchardt, Hugo 285 schwa h i 96,104-106 semi-literate 222,253,258 sibilants 107-109,115,118,133 slavery 4, 7,64 sociohistorical background 5, 6, 8, 35 sociolinguistic interviews 33,104, 106,119,172,255 South (US) 4,7,13-14, 24, 28, 35, 51,75-76,102,104,120, 217, 223, 236, 239, 241, 253 South Carolina 4, 6-7,14,22,25, 28-29, 35-38,43, 48, 51-53,5960, 64-66, 73-77, 80, 86-87, 9496, 98, 103-104,107,116-118, 124,126,147-148,150-152, 168-170,193-203, 221,228, 239-240,257, appendix 4 spelling 23,214-217, 219,221224, 253 standard(ization) 2-3,14-17,1921,27,40-41,46-50, 52-53, 55, 61-69,71-72, 74-75,77, 82-88, 100,116,119-120,158-159, 164,166-167,171,205,211212, 214-215, 223-224, 226233, 254,256, 258 standardization of dialect 14,19,21 standardness 93

334 Index standard-nonstandard continuum 74, 76, 87, 215,219 state (variation by) 1,7-8,13-15, 17-18, 23,25-26, 28, 33, 35-38, 40,46-48, 51-52,54, 59-61, 64, 73-76, 80, 84, 86-87,89,91, 103-105,115,126-127,138139,147-148,150-152,154155, 193-203,206-209, 217, 221, 239, 241,255-257 statistics 23, 60, 87, 99,104,109, 114,154, 203, 205,209,210,255 stigmatization 38, 226, 253, 255, 258 syllable 23,134, 216 synchronic 1, 3, 10, 50 syntax 3,15,23,99,159,161-162, 184,192, 203,244,251 Tagliamonte, Sali 10,38,90-92 Telediphone (recording machine) 26, 28 Tennessee 13, 25, 28-29, 36-38, 42,52-53, 59-60, 64,73-77, 80, 86, 90,103,107,117,125,147148,150-152,161,193-203, 217, 221, 227, 257, appendix 4 Texas 8,23, 28-29, 33, 36-38,48, 51-53, 59-60, 64,73-77, 80, 86, 92, 103,105,147-148,152,193203, 257, appendix 4 TMA markers 4 Tottie, Gunnel 156-159,161,164167, 172, 211 transcription (of speech) 10,12,1420, 22-23, 26-27, 29, 33,45, 89, 94,96,105-106,119,133,215217, 221, 224, 255 Trinidad 4,91-92,101 Trudgill, Peter 33,59 U.S. Bureau of the Census 38, appendix 4

Upper South (US) 77, 220,257 VARBRUL 113,123,136-137, 163,209, 210 variability / variation 23, 28, 32-35, 38-40,44,46-47,49-51,53, 5659,61-62, 64, 68-70,74, 76, 81, 84, 87, 89, 91, 93-97,99-105, 107,109,113-116,119-120, 126,128-130,132-136,139140,142,144,146-147,150, 152,154-159,161-162,165166,171,173,175,177,181182,184-187,189-193,196201,204, 206-210,215, 221, 226,230, 234-235,238,242243,251-252,255,257-258 variety/-ies 2-5,7-9,11,14, 19, 24, 30-31, 33, 35, 38-39, 49,54, 56,58, 64-65, 89-90,92-93, 96, 101-102,105-106,113-114, 120,138,140,154,156-159, 167,190, 210, 214, 236,255258, 285 V-ing (after copula) chapter 4, chapter 6.3 Virginia 6-7,12,14,20-21, 23-25, 28-29, 31-32,34, 36^2,44-46, 48,51-56,59-62,64, 67-69, 7284, 86, 95,98,100-101,103104,117,119,121,123,125135,147-148,150-152,155156,158-162,168,171-181, 193-201, 203, 212, 217-218, 221, 231,239,257, appendix 4 vocalization of/r/ 105 vowels 96,105-108,115,118,133137 W C (phon.) 133 Washington, DC 19,25,28-29,37, 93-94, 96-97,103,118,169, 219, 221

Index 335 West Virginia 19,28-29, 37,52 white (southern) vernaculars 4,8-9 white American dialects 2,6,158, 211 Winford, Donald 1,4, 6-7, 35,92, 94,99,120,138,173,285 Wolfram, Walt 3,16, 37-38,92, 94, 99,104-105,123,157, 285 Works Progress Administration (WPA) 12,16,20,29, 31-32, 34, 37-42,4Φ46,48, 51,54-56, 62, 67-69,79, 81-84,100-101,119, 121,123,125-136,146,155156,158-162,171-182, 212

written sources / writing 5 , 1 0 , 1 5 18, 21-22, 29, 31, 45, 94, 106, 133,158,163, 166-167, 212, 215-224, 226-239, 241-247, 250-253, 255, 258, 285 zero (0) copula see copula relative see relativization third singular 217