A Structural Atlas of the English Dialects

Peter Anderson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781138890671
• eBook ISBN: 9781317487517
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

First published in 1987, this atlas identifies structural patterns which exist in the sound systems of the dialects of England. It regards variation, not as something to be ignored or avoided, but as a central and essential feature of dialect, which must be accounted for in a systematic way. The study identifies some of the more prominent structural boundaries between dialect areas and argues that discrete boundaries do not exist: rather there are a number of areas separated by bands of dialects in which conflicting partial systems exist.

1

Introduction

This atlas grew out of a need for information about the structural realities underlying the dialect material presented in the Survey of English Dialects.¹ In the published material (Basic and Incidental) the presentation is generally orientated towards displaying the variety of forms which exist rather than indicating how those forms function within a particular sound system. This style of presentation was carried over into the Linguistic Atlas of England² (and also the Phonological Atlas of the Northern Counties³ though the format is rather different).⁴ The concept is broadly that each map portrays a single word and the responses are displayed on the map as fully as space allows. Such an approach is often justified by the nature of dialect evidence which rarely lends itself or appears to lend itself to systematically consistent patterning. A glance at the SED material for any item at once demonstrates the truth of Gillieron’s dictum that ‘every word has its own history’. An obvious drawback to this approach is that one never obtains an overall view of dialectal structure, wider trends tending to be overlooked in a mass of detail. Nor can the approach really claim to have dealt systematically with the problem of variability, since it has not initially defined any structural framework by reference to which problems of variation can be studied. The present study seeks for the first time to identify the structural patterns which exist in the sound systems of the dialects of the SED and seeks to regard variation not as something to be ignored or side-stepped but rather as a central and essential feature of dialect which must be accounted for in a systematic way.

The orientation of most dialect surveys has largely been diachronic, the discovery of the relationship between the current dialectal type and its historical ancestor. The validity of this approach has rightly been questioned and as a result linguists sought to study dialectal material without any reference to its history and with regard only to its current structural reality. This treatment was no less extreme than the approach which preceded it and there is no doubt that analyses produced by this method do not account in any way convincingly for the variability that is usually, though not invariably, present.

A primary aim of this study is to deal with this variability within a comparative framework. Given the diversity of the dialects involved, this is no easy task. The problems involved in formulating a methodology are well summarised by Petyt.⁵ The attempts at formulating an ‘overall system’, incorporating the essential features of the individual systems have given rise to many of the difficulties encountered, since because the approach was concerned with similarities and differences in phonemic inventories rather than with the lexical incidence of particular phonemes, the resultant correlations often indicated surface similarities or differences rather than more fundamental structural relationships.

On this point Kurath and Lowman comment:

‘The question has been raised whether a “diasystem” spanning the systems of a group of dialects on a purely synchronic basis can serve as a meaningful frame of reference in dialectology. I don’t think so. If the concept of a phonemic system as an organisation of interdependent units – as a set of interrelated habits of articulation and perception – is accepted, an abstract scheme of units spanning diverse systems is meaningless. To call it a “diasystem” or an “overall system” does not endow it with scientific relevance.’⁶

Kurath and Lowman demonstrate by reference to two dialects of English that surface similarities are irrelevant. Further difficulties arise when many sound systems have to be compared rather than just a few. A purely synchronic approach cannot provide a solution. What is needed is an overall system, primarily defined in terms of phonemic incidence, which embodies or is able to generate the structural contrasts of the constituent dialect systems. A historically based analysis does just this by setting up a basic phonemic system which underlies all forms of English. In a study of conflicting phonological systems in the speech of certain Central American Indians, Fries and Pike remark:

‘It is impossible to give a purely synchronic description of a complex mixed system, at one point in time, which shows the pertinent facts of that system; direction of change is a pertinent characteristic of the system and must also be known if one wishes to have a complete description of the language as it is structurally constituted.’⁷

The synchronic approach to linguistic description received a major impetus following its application to the native languages of North America where historical information was lacking or only available by extrapolation from modern forms. Where historical material is available, it seems shortsighted to restrict analyses to synchronic material only. In fact, the historical approach is not merely compatible with the structural approach but essential if systems are to be properly compared and the nature of structural contrasts understood. Both generative/structuralist and historical linguists have much to learn from each other’s methodologies. McDavid’s plea for a variety of approaches is apt:

‘In fact it is doubtful … whether one should work all the time within any single framework. The mere fact that there are differences in approach should lead to cross-fertilisation, to the discovery of phenomena that might be overlooked if one stuck to one framework.’⁸

A secondary aim of this study is to suggest that a suitable way of analysing dialectal systems and the variability in them is by reference not to a single phonemic system but to a number of partial systems often operating in conflict with one another. In an opening remark to their study of variability, Fries and Pike state:

‘The speech of monolingual natives of some languages is comprised of more than one phonemic system; the simultaneously existing systems operate partly in harmony and partly in conflict. No rigidly descriptive statement of the facts about such a language accounts for all the pertinent structural data without leading to apparent contradictions. These are caused by the conflict of statements about the phonemic system with statements about another system or part of a system present in the speech of the same individual.’⁹

A particular sound system can be seen as the interaction of a number of co-existent systems, some of which are present only in fragmentary form. The task of the dialectologist is to analyse the material into these sub-systems and to seek explanation for the form which they take. The analyses which emerge will take fully into account the systemic variation present in the dialect and enable comparisons to be made between the dialect under examination and other dialects.¹⁰ It follows from this type of analysis that neither phonological distinctions nor dialect boundaries are clear-cut but rather they should be measured by the relative predominance of different phonological systems. The discreteness suggested by isoglosses is unreal. At best they represent only approximations.

Partial phonemic systems may be expected to arise whenever two differing systems come into contact. This contact may be internal or external to the system in its method, and historical, geographical or social in type of contact. This gives six types of contact which may give rise to partial phonemic systems:

(a) Historical internal, i.e. contact between a current system and an earlier historical system. It reflects a purely internal change in the dialect, part of its natural ‘drift’. This is a rare source of internal conflict in a dialect system since change is largely conditioned by outside pressure, i.e. the geographical spread of differing forms. Normally this type of contact will be implicated only when no other source can be ascertained, i.e. the development is unique.

(b) Historical external, i.e. the influence of a historical form of a language on a current vernacular. This is not of great significance for English but is more important elsewhere, e.g. modern Arabic which has been strongly influenced by the classical form of the language.

(c) Geographical internal, i.e. a structural change takes place in a dialect by analogy with structural features of a neighbouring dialect. Certain mid Buckinghamshire dialects show a twofold development of ME /a:/ in bake etc. to /eə/, /eι/ but develop ME /ai/ in day etc. to /eι/. Two systems operate, one of which follows neighbouring systems to the east, merging the two groups, and one which maintains a distinction.

(d) Geographical external, i.e. direct structural borrowing from neighbouring linguistic systems. This arises primarily because of linguistic diffusion with the result that each dialectal sound system tends to resemble its neighbour. Changes which derive from this type of contact are typically phonetic changes but very often the effects are structural. For example, the dialects of Suffolk are recorded in the Lowman’s survey of the 1930s as contrasting /o:/ from ME /ɔ:/ in clothes etc. with /∧ ω/ from ME /ɔu/ in snow etc.; i.e. nose ≠ knows, [∧ω] for ME /ɔ:/ spreading from the Home Counties has tended to replaced /o:/ by a phonetic process. The result is the phonemic merger of ME /ɔu/ and ME /ɔ:/ as /∧ω/.¹¹

(e) Social internal, i.e. contact of different systems in use by different social classes within the same community. This aspect of structural influence has tended to be ignored until recent years but obviously assumes greater importance in larger communities where there are well-marked class differences in speech.

(f) Social external, i.e. contact with a socially more prestigious form of speech – a standard or local koine. This has always been an important source of structural change in dialect systems. The major difficulty is in identifying this type of contact-induced change. Often it is only possible by inference. For example, EEP records /ιə/ and /e:/ to represent ME /ε:/ in team, eat etc. in the South of England. SED records /ιə/ with a very much reduced frequency, usually noting /e:/. It is possible that EEP did not fully record the presence of /e:/, but on the other hand, the mixed distribution of the two types tends to suggest that the /e:/ type had infiltrated into the rural dialects of the South and has continued to do so since the mid nineteenth century. Since the type became obsolete in Standard English in the eighteenth century the source of the forms must be elsewhere. One is inclined to suggest that some urban centres (and some regional standardised accents) of the nineteenth century had /e:/ for ME /ε:/ and that this is the source of the innovation.

A more practical aim of this study is to identify some of the more prominent structural boundaries between dialect areas. As has already been noted, discrete boundaries do not exist. Rather there are a number of areas separated by bands of dialects in which conflicting partial systems exist.

The regions which show systems differing widely from Standard English are generally those along the margins of the country. There is thus a general contrast between peripheral/divergent systems and central/standardised ones. In nearly all the dialects evidence can be found of partial phonemic systems corresponding to the Standard English phonemic system. This is hardly surprising in view of the dominant position of Standard English. Nonetheless, it will be apparent from the maps presented in this atlas that the relationship between dialect and standard has not been exclusively one-way. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• List of Maps
• The International Phonetic Alphabet
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Middle English Short Vowels
• 3. Middle English Long Vowels
• 4. Middle English Diphthongs
• 5. Middle English Consonants
• Bibliography
• Index of Words Used
• Alphabetical List of Words Used