ANALYZING LITERARY REPRESENTATIONS 0F
RECENT NORTHERN URBAN NEGRO SPEECH:
A TECHNIQUE. WITH APPLICATION TO THREE BOOKS _

Thesis for the Degree of Ph‘ D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CONSTANCE WALTZ WEAVER

1970

 

J'HE‘C‘C

 

‘ ‘ “s'h'rm‘r

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ANALYZING LITERARY REPRESENTATIONS OF
RECENT NORTHERN URBAN NEGRO SPEECH:
A TECHNIQUE, WITH APPLICATION TO THREE BOOKS

presented by

Cons t ance W . We ave 1'

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Date Novembe r 1 7

 

0-169 ‘1

 

 

 

 

"a
.-

t\"' VII‘SG 1—1:“.

I
:-\.e.‘ ‘ U

FAQ.
...~:fi SIN; ":
3.2;.“ "WV“

21:32 me accuracj

ie::, one must refq

'~
I

-..:::e dialect in (

med ice speech of

.'-- eL.
‘4', metre was an 8‘;
‘0

If ‘ “9-3
“we, there we:

~«md335. Clearly

. .ezlect social var'

 

\

Effie-w -
“5351035 of Ur
“me PaSt six

 

 

.5rcal and 3,?
“103w“
E's:

 

 

ABSTRACT

ANALYZING LITERARY REPRESENTATIONS 0F RECENT NORTHERN URBAN
NEGRO SPEECH: A TECHNIQUE, WITH APPLICATION TO THREE BOOKS

By

Constance Waltz Weaver

In 1950 Sumner Ives argued in a still-definitive article that to
determine the accuracy of a literary representation of an American

dialect, one must refer to the Linguistic Atlas materials if these

 

cover the dialect in question ("A Theory of Literary Dialect,"

Tulane Studies in English 2:137-82). However, the Atlas researchers

 

examined the speech of only three informants in each urban community.
Also, there was an ethnic bias in the At_la_s_ sample: in New York City,
for example, there were no Jews, Italians, or Negroes among the
informants. Clearly the £133 researchers did not gather enough data
to reflect social variations within major cities, and therefore one can
hardly use the flag materials to determine the accuracy of literary
representations of urban speech, particularly Negro speech.

In the past six years, however, there have been highly competent
investigations of urban speech variations. Sociolinguists have
compiled data which shows conclusively that the use of nonstandard
phonological and grammatical features varies according to one's
socioeconomic status, ethnic background (Negro versus white,
particularly), speech context (casual situation versus formal), age,
and sex.

It is suggested in this thesis that literary critics use not the

Linguistic Atlas materials but the recent work of the sociolinguists

 

;2ze313e the ac u?

' '-. T"
5-5:, partlb iar-" 1
I“.
:2 areas. Tee (1.1.:

-::':e accuracy of ti'
lager 1 expiai:
starials to deterrine

.

:zspeeeh; it is t:

zfiizularly represent
Chapter 2 present
Ltzlsgieal and six 5

‘:I0;' 5“: . ‘
T“ ““95 Priest:

  
    

't- \' F
u ‘t- g '
. . \ v-
T "MUJZZEES .—
“I.

F;
I. I-

 

’ .l
‘ ‘1‘“:‘1. ("H

Mcationa]

.rzaes an investiz.

i-K‘,

“5‘55“ are: 1) r—

 

 

 

Constance Weaver

to determine the accuracy of literary representations of urban

Speech, particularly the Negro nonstandard speech found in Northern
urban areas. The data of the sociolinguists is then used in determin-
ing the accuracy of the dialect representation in three books.

Chapter 1 explains why it is impractical to use Linguistic Atlas

 

materials to determine the accuracy of literary representations of
urban speech; it is then suggested that the work of the sociolinguists
be used when determining the accuracy of urban dialect representations,
particularly representations of recent Northern urban Negro speech.
Chapter 2 presents detailed sociolinguistic data for five
phonological and six grammatical variables in Negro speech. This

chapter relies primarily on two works: 1) Volume 1 of A Study of

 

the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New
York City (Educational Resources Information Center, 1968), which
describes an investigation by William Labov and his associates; and

2) A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech, by Walter
WOlfram (Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969). The variables
discussed are: 1) the use of [in] versus [in] in pronouncing present
participles, verbal nouns, and other words ending in unstressed fling;
2) the use of standard [9] versus [t], [f], or no consonant at all; 3)
the presence or absence of consonantal [r] in various phonological
contexts; 4) the presence or absence of final [t] and [d] in monomer-
phemic consonant clusters; 5) the presence or absence of [t] and [d]
representing past tense or past participle; 6) the presence or

absence of [s], [z], or [42] representing noun plural; 7) the presence

or absence of [s], [2], or [#2] representing noun possessive;

 

. - .«7 r {8583:
:2: 511w?“ P

33,1112 use °‘ "“

I 3:;

5:123. Tee last se
{realization which
Lzarary represents: 1c

lap-tar 3 uses 5:
azacy of the diale:
1966?, 'u'arrea .‘11
332'53‘a22'3115 in t':
aree authors have
2:: taracters' per:
latticularly 333d
lists as he moves

3&5 using three :1:

 

t ea317 Wearies.

Elli. distinctions r

3.5“ r
- wages OI D035:

93 Ciffer markedl. A

menu variables, ’

 

't‘mtages for
fler.
D Contrast

 

Constance Weaver

8) the presence or absence of [s], [z], or [Iz] representing verb
third singular present tense; 9) the presence or absence of is and
.353; 10) the use of uninflected be where Standard English would
require am, is, or_§£g; and 11) the use or non-use of multiple
negation. The last section of Chapter 2 provides statistical
generalizations which may be useful in determining the accuracy of
literary representations of recent Northern urban Negro speech.
Chapter 3 uses statistics from Chapter 2 to determine the
accuracy of the dialect representation in Shane Stevens' Go Down

Dead (1966), warren Miller's The Cool WOrld (1959), and Claude

 

Brown's Manchild in the Promised Land (1965). It is concluded that
all three authors have reflected social distinctions by varying

their characters' percentages of nonstandard variants. Manchild

is particularly good in showing Claude's decreasing use of nonstandard
variants as he moves from adolescence to adulthood and in portraying
him.as using three different speaking styles during his late teens

and early twenties. But despite the general accuracy with which
social distinctions are reflected in the characters' differing
percentages of nonstandard variants, the percentages themselves

often differ markedly from Labov's and WOlframIs statistics. For

several variables, the characters in Cool WOrld use nonstandard

 

variants more often than real people of similar social backgrounds;

the percentages for the Go Down Dead characters frequently are even

 

higher. In contrast, the characters in Manchild often have lower
percentages of nonstandard variants than real people like them.
Chapter 4 suggests further study relevant to determining the

accuracy of literary dialect representations.

I“|","."\'r Y 7.1—:
.‘bk‘m.u-.‘d And.-.

5'3“.” :3::.

9..
O
Jud a. --\.I‘. o

 

H-
D
‘0

Cl)
' V

 

ANALYZING LITERARY REPRESENTATIONS OF RECENT NORTHERN URBAN
NEGRO SPEECH: A TECHNIQUE, WITH APPLICATION TO THREE BOOKS

By

Constance Waltz Weaver

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of English

1970

I

c“ \
.‘\

 

S“)

\k)

[3.

Copyright by
CONSTANCE WALTZ WEAVER
1970

 

' I .
. “ R' Q r
o v.53: to tnaAAK L.-

:117 int his helpf -

a

. 0. ~
" ‘IAV Ono-41 1r
gun—1:. ukUAngO

vv

0 a
u..oo..;

I I_ V

 

:2: rec c321ttee re:

34391 '21:,”5 ass:

Irena-ted. And I a:

"W .- 0 o I

““4:th mums:
. g ‘. , . .
:peuer trams 2

.011 to quote e

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank in particular my thesis advisor, William Heist,
not only for his helpful criticism but also for his unfailing patience
and understanding. Robert Geist merits special thanks too for his
tactful, thorough, and intelligent criticism. Credit goes also to my
other two committee members, James Stalker and Julia Falk.

Roger Shuy's assistance in planning this thesis is likewise
appreciated. And I am especially grateful to Owen Thomas for his
encomiastic criticism of my first draft.

Special thanks goes also to William Labov, for granting me

permission to quote extensively from A Study of the Non-Standard

 

English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City and from

 

The Social Stratification of English in New York City, and to Walter

 

Wolfram.and the Center for Applied Linguistics, for allowing me to

quote extensively from A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit

 

Negro Speech.

ii

 

it]: :62.25 a e o 0

11513133: Toward '

......
~~~~~~~~

........1:Les in 1'51:
we AACJ CF Of Li:'

a

EJOCi Clizg‘vists'

‘Tto:al Nariau -

.. EIinition of "V ..
S$35511 Englisr.

--L azov s and 313‘- it
-°T «is Study.

. ‘I
“42:23 Representauc"

 

~118Uistic Yer-as

'9‘

(J

n; 3a)
3

‘1
:41

c In omati :
l and "Ol‘r‘

‘ (J

., r.
1 «NE SE S:Ud},o

u‘.~

? The 393m NYC

The Segro Dr's

“‘1‘ I!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List Of Tables 0 o e o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Introduction: Toward Establishing a Means for Analyzing
Literary Representations of Recent Urban Negro Speech. . . .

1 Difficulties in Using Linguistic Atlas Materials To Determine
the Accuracy of Literary Dialect Representations. . . . . . .

 

2 The Sociolinguists' Data on Five Phonological and Six
Grammatical Variables in Negro Speech . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1 Definition of "Non-Standard Negro English" (NNE) and of
"Standard English" (SE) 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O

2.2 Labov's and Wolfram‘s Studies as the Sociolinguistic Bases
for this StUdYO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

2.3 Linguistic Terms and Symbols Used in This Study

2.4 Basic Information about Labov's SS Study, Labov'

Study, and Wolfram's Negro DET Study. . . . . .
2'1“]-TheSSStudy................
2'43 The Negro NYC Study . . . . . - . . - - . - -
2'4'3 The Negro DET Study . . . . - . . - - - ° - °
2'5 Phonological Variables. . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.1 The (ing) Variable. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2'5°2 The (th) Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2'5°3 The(r)Variab1e...............
2.5.4

The Presence or Absence of Final [t] and [d] in

Monomorphemic and Bimorphemic Consonant Clusters. . .

2'6 NNE Versus SE: Same or Different Deep Structure? . . .

2'7 Grammatical Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

vi

12

13

16

19

22
22
25
26
28
28
33
40

49

60
66

 

he (1‘) \‘aria‘: .

{3:13 Absence .

’o

o
I].

Ezrariazt b_e -

-
(7‘

Yaltiple Xegati.

LE Sae Sezeralizati.

'.,:.L‘ .
13.6.-83c I I O

’I n t i a I

.: use Sensing-41s
‘TI'A-.A. ,:
u.:C¢SDC\u - o o

L: Tze Estate of ""

An.

'1'. c. .' I
to‘ UnaLlStlcal Ge“ r
5“

«fa-F515 of the Li:
..=.e-:t in Three B-

1. Ct 3m Dead

Prat Synopsis.

:
t
,c

fia’afl. '

StFles

 

 

l“w‘
ksxyze

(I
n
«:7
I
D

2.7.1The(Zp1)Variable...................

2.7.2The(z )Variable.......... ......

pos
2.7.3 The (Zv) Variable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7.4 Copula Absence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7.5 Invariant_b_e_.......................

2.7.6MultipleNegation.....................

2.8 Some Generalizations about Phonological and Grammatical
variables. I I O O O O O O O O O I I I O O O O O O O O O O O

2.9 Some Sociolinguistic Generalizations about the Variables
Discussed. O O O O O l O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O

2010 The Nature Of NNE o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
2.10.1 NNE Compared with SE and with White Nonstandard Speech. .

2.10.2 NNE as the Most Nonstandard Variety of Negro Nonstandard
SpeeCh. O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O I O O O O O O O O O

2.11 Statistical Generalizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Analysis of the Literary Representation of Negro Nonstandard
DialeCt in Three BOOKS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

3.1 mom Dead 0 e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

 

3.1.1 Plot Synopsis. O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

3'1°2 Characters Whose Speech Was Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . .

3'1'3 StylesAnalyzed......................

3'14 Validity of the Statistics Presented . . . . . . . . . . .
3'1'5 TheVariablesAnalyzed..................
3.1.6

Overall Appraisal of the Dialect Representation in
$0 Down Dead 0 O O I O 0 I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

3'2%0001Wor1d.......................

3. 2 . 1 Plot SYDOPSiB o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O

3‘2‘2 Characters Whose Speech Was Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . .

3'2'3 StylesAnalyzed......................

iv

66
71
75
83
99

106

112

114

. 115

115

118

119

132
134
134
134
137
138

139

156
159

159

. 159

161

 

3.1.. Toe Variables .~.:

11.3 Natal pprazs,
’ C..1I€or1d .
##—

'n
1.3

.n . v1! 0 t {1‘
.x: 13.31.: to toe ..

—__——————'-’

2.3.1 Plot Synopsis.

1-.
. '

Earacters and

;..
L...

Tue Variables .1.

:1 .H- .. .-
....+ overall 1934.:

'5' 738 Ragresent ti.|

3153, The Cool 'n'

q--.

I “ .
“ransom . .

 

.rzlusian: Sugge
statistical Sign.

'; ': r T - ‘,

tr.
‘5’!» ;
fi...‘. d3“: .
I l ‘ . . .

 

 

3.2.4 TheVariablesAnalyzed. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

3.2.5 Overall Appraisal of the Dialect Representation in
me COO]- world 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

3.3 Manchild in the Promised Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1PlotSynopsis......................
3.3.2 Characters and Styles Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.3 The Variables Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3.4 Overall Appraisal of the Dialect Representation in
Manchild in the Promised Land. . . . ... . . . . . . .

3.4 The Representation of Negro Nonstandard Dialect in Go Down

Dead, The Cool World, and Manchild in the Promised Land:
A Comparison 0 O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O

 

4 Conclusion: Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Readers' Reactions to Literary Dialect Representation.

Bibliography. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

. 162

178

. 182

182
185

189

210

217
222
223
225

227

 

9.:,

us'

&; r: “‘ ‘l'

. Wasaant Cluste
.. yBe Absent
J. Deva-.6.
-, .ctt .tage of F
2' Percentage of T
1 ass or Plural /
J 3" a»
.. date of Posse
.3
,,. sense of Posse
~ “as oi Third S
‘ attl.
;‘ P ' I I I I
‘" 5358:; '
Per» ce of Thin
. .entage of S
3 :65, and laws
. .r:eata ' ‘
Pmm ge OI
.. 3 «In Slbjec
-E«C83tage 0‘ I?
.: {Wording to Cr
NI VQ'IA ‘
”wens.
$3” lute of C
5 a a Class
".61" >- .

. E3135 SCCial C:
. Percentaie Of [11'
, Erteztage 0f {1'
. Stylistic Stratii

. Eetzeztage of [f

.. Percentage of [r
. ?er:e2:age of Ir
. Eerceztage of l?

. Fem“

. Perc stage of

I
. Pattentage of IT
‘ I
. rerceatage of /

I). ‘9

AI‘ v' . .
. ....1.Soc*.al an:

V

55:11:5- - - '
By Social Class.
her“,

on. ‘.
karat .Héduo 0 ’

L stdbdge Of

Negro Barking Cl

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1 Kahl's Social Class Divisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.Percentageof[in]Forms..................
3. Percentageof[in]Forms..................
4. Stylistic Stratification of (th) for Peer Groups, Lames, and
Adults.... . . ........ ...... .
5. Percentage of [f], [t], and {6 Realization for (th) Variable:
BySocialClass.......................
6. Percentage of [r] for Peer Groups, Lames, and Adults . . . .
7. Percentage of [r] Absence: By Social Class. . . . . . .
8. Percentage of [r] Absence: Influence of Linguistic
Environment......................
9- Percentage of [r] Absence: By Style . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. Percentage of [r] Absence: By Age . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Percentage of [r] Absence: By Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12- Percentage of / t / and / d / Loss for Negro Youths and
Negro Working Class Adults . . . . . . . . . .
13. fidult Social and Stylistic Stratification of / t / and / d /
088............ ......... .....
l4. Consonant Clusters in Which the Final Member of the Cluster
MayBeAbsent........................
15' Percentage of Final Cluster Member Absence: By Social Class
16' Percentage of Final Cluster Member Absence: By Age. . . . .
17' I-C>ss of Plural / s, z / for Peer Groups, Lames, and Adults.
18' Absence of Possessive [s], [z], and [+2]: By Age. . . . . .
:3' Absence of Possessive [s], [z], and [#2]: By Sex. . . . . .
' I--C>ss of Third Singular / s, z / for Peer Groups, Lames, and
zAdults......... . .. .
2% Absence of Third Singular [s], [z], and [+2]: By Age. . . .
' Percentage of Standard Verb Agreement for Club Members,
23 Iaarnes,andInwoodWhites................. .
° Percentage of Full, Contracted, and Deleted Forms of _i_s with
24 1:’3t‘onoun Subject Versus Other Noun Phrase Subject . . . . . .
‘ Percentage of Full, Contracted, and Deleted Forms of is
25 According to Grammatical Category of Complement. . . . . . .
‘ ercentage of Copula Contraction and Zero Realization: By
26 Sc3cialC1ass........................
' Percentage of Copula Contraction and Zero Realization When
27 Preceded by a Noun Phrase or a Pronoun: By Social Class . .

Percentage of Contraction and Zero Realization of Copula
when Preceded by a Pronoun and Followed by Five Kinds of
complements. O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

35
36
41
42
43
45
46
46
50
52
54
54
56
68
72
73

76
77

80
86
87
92

93

94

 

D "J I “I 2'“ {-1.

1“ an

I}:

“I 50'.

. 332%: Dead Char

|.a‘
'34-”3 ICEO‘: l_S_ If
is

‘R .
' CC... "\s .
‘g ‘

“.88
2:8 “‘9 0f is i:
E52 of the COP;
:i'a? ariant b

‘ K.‘ e.
«4

32:22:15 ge of C3;
mm...“ ce of
Pet a2tage of _‘.>__e
3.31 JCC‘K'E" .CEE
Percentage of Re;
?e::e2:a age of Re;

a {-53:29 0f E to:

:lE-e I I O I O
Lsence of ‘9‘; li
“absezce of -§ 1:-

seof the Copu'.
se of the Ccupu‘.

‘Lant b_e. .
311? e Segati;
5'34 may; of Sta':
50:1 ' :rld Caa:.
Lei-:1 as
he“? 05 r fr-

t'rere . , .—
iiei ezze of Fina
elite Of -ec

Cite OI -s ‘T:

L;-
(I)

3%.

,_.
rt
r

11
'—
(D

Z]

m
J

n)

.,

A

..... :1, h
?\.‘d Clara”
“.31 ‘in ,—
.. “ a I
If: y‘fi s V

 

 

 

 

Table Page
28. Percentage of Contraction and Zero Realization of Copula

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Underlying Form is is or are: By Social Class . . . . . . 95
29. Percentage of Copula Zero —Rea1ization: By Age. . . . . . . . . 96
30. Percentage of Copula Zero Realization: By Sex. . . . . . . . . 96
31. Co-occurrence of Invariant b3 and Frequency Adverbs . . . . . . 101
32. Percentage of E in SE 3m, E, and fl Contexts . . . . . . . . 103
33. Total Occurrences of Invariant b_e_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
34. Percentage of Realized Multiple Negation: By Age . . . . . . . 109
35. Percentage of Realized Multiple Negation: By Sex . . . . . . . 110
35- Q Down Dead Characters Whose Speech Was Analyzed . . . . . . . 135
37. Absence of g from your, yourself, their, and the Expletive
there........................... 141
38. Absence of -ed Indicating Past Tense or Past Participle . . 144
39. Absence of -_s_ _Indicating Third Singular Present Tense . . . 146
40. Absence of _i__s from Third Singular Contexts. . . . . . . 148
41. Use of the Copula in SE a__re Contexts. . . . . . . . . 149
42. Use of the Copula in SE am —Contexts . . . . . . . . . 151
43.Invariant_b__e......._................. 153
44. Multiple Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
45. Summary of Statistics for Go Down Dead. . . . . . . . . 157
46. Cool World Characters Whose Speech Was Analyzed . . . . . 160
‘47- Final -_ng as Opposed to Final -in. . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
43- Going to, gain to, gonna, and go . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
\49- Absence of .E from your, your self, their, and the Expletive
1-'-1'lere........................... 167
50- Absence of Final -_t_:_ and -d from Monomorphemic Clusters. . . 168
51- Absence of -_g Indicating Past Tense or Past Participle . 170
52- Absence of -s Indicating Third Singular Present Tense . . 171
53' Absence of _i_s from Third Singular Contexts. . . . . . . . 173
54' Use of the Copula in SE are Contexts. . . . . . . . . . . 174
55°Invariantb_e_..................... 176
56° Multiple Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
57' Summary of Statistics for The Cool World. . . . . . . 179
58' 1“Ianchild Characters Whose Speech Was Analyzed . . . . . . 189
59' I“final -i_g as Opposed to Final -in. . . . . . . . . . . 193
2?’Mto,gonna,andg__............... .. 196
62. w:l.thasOpposedtorrzi____t_:. 197
63. Absence of -_t; from didn't and don't . . . . . . . . . . 199
64. lesence of -s Indicating Third Singular Present Tense . . . 201
65. Absence of i_s_ from Third Singular Contexts. . . . . . . . . 202
66. Absence of a_r_e from SE a_r_e Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . 205
67. liultiple Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
68. Summary of Statistics for Manchild in the Promised Land . . 211
' Statistics for Go Down Dead, Cool World, and Manchild . . . 219

 

vii

T3533 EST.

3.... ap.
ur" \'
gnu-Ibo

Ivezty years ag I

‘ ‘0 Q t
-I:f:."~' SLELECES. . .1

aces as tze 11“"

“5;
2:25 and Canada" ( f.

uh“ ' ' .
.... men, tne 711a

:. :1 ' '
.w... l o: hzs The

~u.
.D '

a ‘ ' 6‘-
~ any argued

.l.‘ :4 ,
‘t' «Cll'acv

.Ofali

N" m: ““1? G'Epe

“Zeta” Diaw'ept.
3;: -.

 

INTRODUCTION

TOWARD ESTABLISHING A MEANS FOR ANALYZING LITERARY
REPRESENTATIONS 0F RECENT URBAN NEGRO SPEECH

menty years ago Sumner Ives wrote that "a proper analysis of
literary dialects...is practically dependent on such questionnaire
studies as the linguistic atlases of France, Italy, and the United
States and Canada" (1950:174). At the time, Ives's idea was new;
until then, the chief and still definitive analysis of American
literary dialects was George Philip Krapp's chapter on the subject
in Vol. 1 of his The English Language in America (1925:225-273).
Ives rightly argued that the Linguistic Atlas work in the United
States made Krapp's work outdated, that if one wanted to determine
the Recuracy of a literary representation of an American dialect one
must not merely depend upon one's own observations of dialect, as
KraPP apparently had done, but must refer to the 5% materials if
these cover the dialect in question. Since 1950, Ives's "A Theory
Of Literary Dialect" has been definitive; his insistence upon the
impOrtsnce of the A_t]£§_ work in studying literary dialects has
remained unchallenged.

But since 1950, the work of the Atl_a_s_ researchers has been
awracked. The least serious indictment is that the At_1a£ data is
SimPly irrelevant to our current need to know more about the cultural

8“bgltoups within our cities. This irrelevance is suggested by Atlas

1

 

w I -,

m: as wrath s L
#1:: "In the Mk.
v Q? A
3:235 15 represe...eu
'. ' J '. ‘h ,,
3:13.331, tile otue.
zaefi: of a grade-st.
151:5 the larger ci:

N ' - a _
:aszzs. OavzouSLy .

2:32:25 abcut lang '

=:.:: seizing the C'

max 312.5: for ,
"'1‘.‘ v. 91- l. ..
.2 ~~-a uémOdOICg'.

:e Se: York City inf

raarchers did not i

9.
H.

«.1313 the accu:
tied; 1 . .,.
. a p‘LlCUlarl-
fl"; . ,

4.
ch :0

“a Current i:

 

 

edifinrHans Kurath's own description (1949:v) of the population

studied: "In the At—lag survey, nearly every county in the Eastern
States is represented by two speakers, one old-fashioned and

unschooled, the other a member of the middle class who has had the
benefit of a grade-school or high-school education. In addition,

uwst of the larger cities are represented by one or more cultured
persons." Obviously the M researchers could hardly make meaningful
statements about language variation within an urban speech community
after examining the speech of only three informants. Also there was

an ethnic bias: for example as William Labov notes in criticizing

the gig methodology, there were no Jews, Italians, or Negroes among
the New York City informants (1966b:375). Clearly the M
researchers did not gather enough data to provide an accurate account
of ethnic and other social variations in speech within the cities, and
therefore one would be ill-advised to rely on the _A_tl_a§_ materials for
determining the accuracy of literary representations of recent urban
Speech,1 particularly Negro speech. Yet it seems likely that there
lel be a decided increase in literary attempts to portray Negro speech,
due to the current interest in black culture.

Fortunately in the past six years there have been highly competent
investigations of urban speech variations. The pioneering study was
William Labov's The Social Stratification of Egnglfish in New York City
(1966b),2 which has been highly influential because of its

\

1
"Recent" speech is here defined arbitrarily as speech of
aPPI‘OXinmtely the last twenty-five years.

This is essentially Labov's 1964 Columbia University dissertation.

,1. ..a:.v me C65»-
as." o

v ' f

A: .; v'y. 0: .

seized a study rC-pl

-'v 0 I O,
;.:.;:::a:::: 1:: De...
x

existe Halter Wolf :

 

. o n
I. ‘fi'luafi A a :-
"‘5 august .93 u N“.

g

.ZE'E recent 5:1.

1.12:3?“ a: t. e

,-
\n

m . . .
mucus vztzin one

u.“ '
«2.0:: er 0 u

unre speed:

"--~.1:Suls:s

nave

._ v. ‘ aided iv- I

.. w»: L

‘14.:‘1hllbe mods .‘

\ I e.

‘V‘ ‘ are We 9.-

;:g:a:h"n 11' “d"

.;'-..‘ “a“? as L
"“ SUCh

 

sophisticated methodology and, even more important, because of its
concept of the linguistic variable.3 More recently, Labov and his
associates have investigated the speech of Negroes in New York City,
particularly the casual speech of Harlem adolescent males who belong
to gangs (A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto
gcan Speakers in New York City, 1968). In Detroit, Roger Shuy
organized a study reported in Linguistic Correlates of Social
Stratification in Detroit Speech (1967), and since then Shuy's
associate Walter Wolfram has used some of the data collected for
this study as the basis for A SocioliAnjguistic Description of Detroit
m Speech (1969c). Similar investigations of Negro speech are
being conducted in Washington, D. C., and other major cities.

These recent studies are revolutionary, in comparison with the
earlier work of the dialectologists, because they focus on language
variations within one speech community rather than on variations
between entire speech communities and between dialect regions. “The
sociolinguists have compiled data which shows conclusively that
language is influenced by such factors as socioeconomic status, ethnic
b‘5‘911‘81‘0und (Negro versus white, in particular), speech context

\

3A "variable" is a unit which consists of two or more "variants"
(or Which can be "realized as" two or more variants--the term "realize"
Will be explained in Chapter 2). For example, an underlying unit which
13' represented orthographically as -_i_n_g in words like running and
um in may be pronounced in more than one way: [in] and [in] are
two Connon pronunciations. (Trager-Smith consonant and vowel symbols
Will be used throughout this work; the square brackets here and in
Chapter I enclose broad phonetic transcriptions. This bracketing
System Will be modified somewhat in Chapter 2.) In other words, [in]
and [in] are two major "variants" of a "variable" which is represented
c’1111‘081'aphically as -in . Henceforth, parentheses'will be used to

‘22“? “Ch variables: the (ins) variable. the (r) variable, and so
rt .

grzicularly a casual
2;. ad sex, as well
27.2.2 that the grass
2:; in Harlem will 2'
ariz‘le class white
I: is also true, the:
53:5: is likely to 2’

1e fact that 5;
‘f—‘Ifigcrously desez
”'3' 05 literary 6
has a “3131' part c
l“ 5‘ka made Kra;

Le ”‘5‘ Chap:

4.". v . . . ‘

 

grarary representa:

_
~.; .31-

“med 5? tin..-

“I ills p11{PCse .

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  

wjuls

e I
Ls data fer
mental general

:2 ECG", n
.uraly of lit

L1.
5w prQch. Cha-
33:51

..es to deter:

215:3»! .

in.
~.'
\stn 5 Re cool _

(particularly a casual situation versus a formal interview situation),
age, and sex, as well as certain other factors. vIt perhaps seems
obvious that the grammatical system of a black member of an adolescent
gang in Harlem will differ somewhat from the grammatical system of
a middle class white adult, or even a middle class Negro adult.
It is also true, though less obvious, that such a youth's grannnatical
system is likely to differ slightly from that of his parents.

The fact that such language variation can be and indeed has
been rigorously described suggests that it is time to bring Ives's
theory of literary dialects up to date; the sociolinguists' work
makes a major part of Ives's article outdated, just as the Linguistic
TEE work made Krapp's work outdated.
The first chapter of this thesis discusses the feasibility of

using Linguistic Atlas materials to determine the accuracy of

 

literary representations of urban speech and suggests that the
data compiled by the sociolinguists is potentially more useful

for this purpose. Chapter 2 presents in detail much of the socio-
linBUists' data for several phonological and grammatical variables
in Negro speech; the last section of Chapter 2 provides some
statistical generalizations which may be useful in determining

the accuracy of literary representations of recent Norhtern urban
Negro Speech. Chapter 3 uses the sociolinguists' data for certain
variables to determine the accuracy of the representation of Negro

nonstandard dialect in Shane Stevens' Go Down Dead (1966), Warren

 

Miller's The Cool World (1959), and Claude Brown's Manchild in the

 

 

5.5%: 2336' (1963) -
“element to deter:

I
h‘

32:55 11611335 .

 

 

3
z. :vn, he x
'f C .
a, . feat is he
-..‘:-J8 to men:
< QantEd be \;Or
0' 2 > 1 ‘
\ lg. p‘EIEd det
an
1‘35“»? eel-tail.
.“5k 11 D
a .
‘-i‘:~ ‘1 p
‘._ use the 9"
“1°: .al

Promised Land (1965).4 Chapter 4 suggests further study which would

be relevant to determining the accuracy of literary dialect

representations .

These three books were chosen because in each book the
representation of Negro nonstandard dialect is extensive enough to
Permit at least some investigation of sociolinguistic differences:
how the characters' use of nonstandard features varies with socio-
economic status, ethnic background, speech context, age, and sex.
Furthermore, the Negro nonstandard speech the authors attempted
t° rePII'esent is Northern urban speech (New York City speech) of the
past five to twenty-five years. It was important that the speech
rePresented be Northern urban speech, since so far the sociolinguists
ave Completed detailed descriptions of only that Negro speech which
3 used in certain Northern urban areas. (For linguistic purposes,
W‘E‘Shj-Ilgton, D. C. and Los Angeles are apparently considered "Northern"
rather than Southern--see Labov 1969a: p. 50 of the ERIC docmnent.)

t Was also important that the speech represented be relatively recent,

:ecause the detailed sociolinguistic studies of Negro speech have all
een made since 1965.

IO“Q."-" . .-
.-S I\ ' ‘
shangV'thbLL o L.

ACCRA

is noted in the

,i 12””, ‘4 1
" iteosan cLa¢eCt5

no ‘014
A

2;. M aateria‘.
arisen-taunts of :1
Shading and, and:
gate: enough data 1
Na: variations 1:

The

it‘-
LAS maps

351 instances of

i-,.

J“¢¥%~7) in~1
2:3 7 " n

8‘ {flan :tanda
"his, and the {‘7 .2,

i}. '-. ..
.SuT's far mrc‘

iV‘lile 1
°n«y 252 C

3;: Cut 7
now many \-

kk up the insga-

 

 

CHAPTER 1

DIFFICULTIES IN USING LINGUISTIC ATLAS MATERIALS TO DETERMINE THE
ACCURACY OF LITERARY DIALECT REPRESENTATIONS

 

‘ As noted in the Introduction, Sumner Ives argues in "A Theory

of.Literary Dialect" (1950) that one should consult Linguistic

 

A2112 materials to determine the accuracy of literary representations
of American dialects. There are at least two difficulties with

using fl materials in determining the accuracy of literary
representations of recent Negro speech: the Ali—as maps are visually
misleading and, much more crucially, the Atlas researchers did not
gather enough data to provide an accurate account of ethnic and other
social variations in speech within any given locality.

The Elli“. maps are visually misleading because they indicate
actual instances of a given form. In a recent article, Raven McDavid
(1967c:36—7) includes M maps showing the distribution of 1133
(rather than Standard English he does) in Southern England, the Atlantic
states, and the Midwest. The map for the Atlantic states, in particu-
lar, shows far more uses of M by whites than by Negroes. But for
all one can tell, it may be that 100% of the Negro informants used 113
Q Whil-le only 25% of the whites used this form. Of course, one could
find Out how many Negro informants and white informants there were,
“th up the instances of M for both ethnic groups, and figure out

the Percentages for oneself. Nevertheless, the Atlas maps are visually

shading (and in t'r.
rake the ethnic di

infertmately till
L‘s-a_‘cr barrier to
22:21:? of literary

1;: gathered by the

2233111: various ,

 

22:11“er on t:

7.250 imprecise, 50
.'.;v:;;‘. “ '

~~ mini“: Atlantlc I.
225 nzonants into
15);. 1 - - .
....., oid-taszione
:zger, more under
$5.32? " ‘

“red enitured"
.rarisoas of spee'

fillet

.\

.J' 1- Dillard

3351 . ..
{IHQ‘VIQ'S a

u.‘

C
( : n
-'——'

 

 

misleading (and in this particular article, McDavid makes no attempt
to make the ethnic distribution clear).l

Unfortunately the misleading nature of the Atlas maps is not
the major barrier to using ELLLS materials in determining the
. accuracy of literary representations of recent Negro speech. The
data gathered by the M researchers is simply inadequate for
determining various socially-correlated differences in speech. One
can hardly rely on the Atlas materials to describe speech differences
between the major socioeconomic classes because the status assignment
was so imprecise, so subjective. For example, each investigator for
the Middle Atlantic states (including New York City) merely divided
his informants into three loosely-defined types: Type I included
"older, old-fashioned, poorly educated" informants; Type II included
"younger, more modern, better educated" informants; and Type III
included "cultured" informants (Bagby Atwood 1953:2). Valid ethnic
comparisons of speech differences are even less possible than valid

socioeconomic comparisons, particularly for urban areas; as Labov

1J. L. Dillard (1968) has even more vigorously criticized these

maps in McDavid's article. He points out that neither the maps
themselves nor McDavid's discussion of them gives any indication of
the Stamatical constraints which may be relevant in distinguishing
white uses of he do from Negro uses. For example, some speakers
Quite commonly use does in the affirmative (he does) but _dg in the
negative (he don't), whereas it may be that other speakers use $2
in the affirmative as well as in the negative; in fact this may be
a fairly consistent difference between white nonstandard speech and
Negro nonstandard speech. While Dillard's point is certainly valid,
it is apparent in other Atlas-based materials that the affirmative
M2 (for he does) and the negative he don't were tabulated
8el’el‘eltely. Thus the Atlas materials do provide the basis for such
c°"113el'-‘isons, and the lack of comparisons in McDavid's article is due
t° MeDaVid himself rather than to the Atlas maps. Dillard does not
make this fact clear.

 

 

 

‘- ’- 1
mated (ELL
Sexes a‘xflg the

55 a result .

iterates in 5?
7.2:: researe'. i
rate has shown 1

a

:2 the word b_e i

eaters did r.
i325: since ear".
~?-3_e in his '.
fifths word Le 1:
listed for; 3;

no}; A ‘
' fi 0tCJrr€13

 

fa

Dru ,
s' d“ \
&?. 15 d:

:Ib "

has noted (Social Stratification:375), for instance, there were no

 

Negroes among the New York City informants.
As a result of these limitations in the sampling procedures, the

Linguistic Atlas data is too limited to reveal certain crucial social

 

differences in speech which are now known to exist. For example,
.x'recent research in New York, Detroit, Washington, D. C., and else-
where has shown that many lower class Negroes, particularly adolescents,
use the word b_e_ in contexts where white speakers would use am, i_s_, or
air—e: I be here every day, he be late all the time, they be fighiting
9_ft_en (see, for instance, Negro NYC:231). Apparently the Atlas
research‘gs did not notice such occurrences of b_e among Negro speakers,
though since early in the days of slavery, some American Negroes have
used E in this way (see Stewart 1967 and 1968). Speaking of the use
of the word b_e_ in contexts where Standard English would have an

2

inflected form of BE, Bagby Atwood (1953:27) simply notes that the

word he occurred more frequently in How be you (for How are you) than

 

 

in any of the other four frames where a form of the BE verb was sought.
EE is especially common in this context in northeastern New England,
says Bagby; and both in New England and in those areas of New York

811d Pennsylvania where 133 occurs, this he is very characteristically

an Older form (presumably a form used by older informants). As is

now apparent, the M data on _bg gives a wildly erroneous picture

Of its distribution--at least of its current distribution: some

\

"BE" is used in this thesis to refer to the various forms of
the Verb "to be."

 

_ . '
Inning? a; 5

‘ ‘l-u" TA-un
I. UU“:e. “Va“

ti3.3-Case to a p-

H. u... ,_ LU." ‘
hot-geabta “ave

 

 

 

Negroes use the word in contexts where it is apparently never used

by whites (Labov Negro NYC:235).

Because the A£1§§_maps are misleading and, more importantly,
because the sampling procedures have made impossible any sound
comparisons between urban speakers of various socioeconomic levels
and ethnic groups, one must turn to the current work of the
sociolinguists to find a solid basis for determining the accuracy of
literary representations of urban Negro speech.3 Not that the
methodology of the sociolinguists cannot be legitimately criticized,
oficourse. Joan Baratz, herself a sociolinguist, notes in her
response to a paper recently presented by Roger Shuy that socio-
linguists have neglected to follow the necessary procedures for
analyzing the numerical data they have collected.4 Though they
have freely drawn conclusions about the significance of their
numerical data, they have not submitted this data to rigorous tests

for statistical significance.

3Lee Pederson's studies of Chicago speech should be mentioned, as
his methodology is somewhere between the methodology of the socio-
linguists mentioned here and the methodology of the dialectologists
(some of his work has been done in collaboration with Raven McDavid).
These Chicago studies (see Pederson 1964a, 1964b, and 1965) have
attempted to describe how phonological and morphological features
vary with place of birth, race, age, and socioeconomic status. But
aPParently Pederson and his associates have made no attempt to
discover the linguistic environments which might affect the occurrence
of the variants of a given variable, and the only style elicited has
been interview style. Thus this Chicago methodology seems inferior
to the methodology of men like Labov, Shuy, and Wolfram, even though
it is an improvement over the Linguistic Atlas methodology.

4Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table Meetinggon Linguistics
29d Language Studies, ed. James E. Alatis, 187. Georgetown Monograph
Series on Languages and Linguistics No. 22. Washington, D. C.,
Georgetown Univ. Press, 1970.

 

5:: their data
gaeral conclusic
523', for insta:
iglish speezh m
2: Least in the ‘

V’~ a
3C5IOC

..O IO'H
5A

1.:

t3;

_-.;_\. . ‘
five-35", that rt
rte tnan casual
111 adclescentg
-.,.“'...1' .

.‘“‘.“‘ve. 0

hr». .

«.9de had :

.‘Q
II

3‘4

 

 

10

If one must view with some skepticism the sociolinguists'
detailed conclusions about the significance of their statistics, at
least their data is always open to reinterpretation, and their
general conclusions can certainly be taken as valid. They have
found, for instance, that middle class speakers approximate Standard
English speech norms more than working class speakers do;5 that
at least in the working classes, whites approximate standard norms
more than Negroes (in particular, this is true of white versus Negro
youths); that relatively formal speech approximates standard norms
more than casual speech; that adults approximate standard norms more
than adolescents and preadolescents; and that women approximate
standard norms more than men. Sometimes the differences are
qualitative: one group (e.g. the upper middle class) never uses
a form common in another group (e.g. the working classes). More
often, however, the differences are quantitative: one group uses
a stigmatized form less often than another group.

In 1925, George Krapp concluded that scientific students of
language had discovered no obvious reality to which a writer of
dial-Get was obliged to conform (p. 227). Now, however, there is
°°n81derable data available concerning not only the nature of regional
dialects but also the nature of social dialects. The rigorous
analy31s of speech variations among differing socioeconomic classes,
ethnic groups, age groups, and so forth may significantly affect the

\

5Persons who have not completed high school are often characterized
2: WOrking class; persons who have finished high school are often
8 al‘acterized as middle class, particularly if they have had some
01"; of specialized training or have gone to college.

":ferences as at:

e ‘ '

H

:3: any one ex.

 

. .
;:ara:ure that
J .-
szarest'rged .2 ..
i
I . .' ' ‘0. a
3. ..e .132 u...

q
9

see may be tg;
2:13:me to
E: the author 2-
i: is variable;

Of Course
flies": he V1.
in in his Ch;

‘39:. e .
aft ~3eusatlonfi

 

11

writing of literary dialects and the study of literary representations
of recent speech. Hitherto, writers have tended to represent speech
differences as absolute: Lee Pederson (1965-66z3) notes, for

example, that in the Negro dialect in Huckleberry Finn, the use of

_d for standard £11 in these, those, them, and so forth occurs regularly
with only one exception, in more than five hundred instances. As
Labov says (l969dz60), it is a general characteristic of dialect
literature that "Behavior which is variable in actual speech becomes
stereotyped in novels and plays, so that forms which occur 30-40%

of the time will occur 100% of the time in the writer's treatment."
There may be two reasons for this tendency, Labov says: "(a) the
author wants to heighten or enrich the local flavor of speech, and
(b) the author hears the 'marked' behavior as invariant when in fact
it is variable."

Of course if a dialect writer is a sensitive observer of
dialect, he will notice these variations and will possibly record
them in his characters' speech. Literary critics studying dialect
representations may find it interesting to determine whether a
given Writer presents his nonstandard-speaking characters as
invariably using certain nonstandard forms, or whether he presents
these characters as sometimes using nonstandard variants and sometimes
“31118 standard variants of a given variable. The critic may further
Want to determine how closely the speech of such characters resembles
the sPeech of real people of similar social backgrounds. At any rate,
s““1101inguists are now providing the data needed to determine the

accul'acy of literary representations of urban speech, particularly

1:
ecellt Northern urban Negro speech.

 

 

. '. ._
Ins £24.:
5:: ,‘L‘qnfia A
:- ..‘v’e Pug.~.‘5
.é mustancar:
0‘ -- ‘ fl;
“ fie lse Vi
"d"! 9

'~- let: pres.

ii i: Pran‘uy‘ .

“HULL“.

nszressed fig;

‘1..._‘I
“std

H 0f LEI-'3

 

' ‘CCESQZC‘E: I
”ate 0‘ CDT:

‘1‘ S) the abs

36:5 “' .
‘ G 3:356an
:1: c.

~\. ‘Or \v‘a‘n

CHAPTER 2

THE SOCIOLINGUISTS' DATA ON FIVE PHONOLOGICAL AND SIX
GRAMMATICAL VARIABLES IN NEGRO SPEECH

“This chapter covers in detail the sociolinguists' investigations
of five phonological and six grammatical variables in Negro speech.
kThe nonstandard variants1 of the phonological variables discussed are:
l) the use of [in] rather than [in] in pronouncing the 1.9g endings
which form present participles and verbal nouns (running, thinking)
and in pronouncing the last syllables of other words ending in
unstressed 1.3g (nothing, something); 2) the use of [t] or [f]
instead of unvoiced £11 in words like nothing and w, or the omission
of a consonant where Standard English would have unvoiced fl; 3) the
absence of consonantal [r] from various phonological contexts (as
illustrated in cart, car was, car is, carat); 4) the absence of final
[‘1] and [d] from consonant clusters when the [t] or [d] would not
rePII'esent past tense or past participle (gig for M, 33.32. for band);
and 5) the absence of [t] or [d] representing past tense or past

participle (miss for missed, ban for banned). ’/ The fourth and fifth

 

X

1An example of a variable is the past tense morpheme which in
Standard English has the regular variants [t] (as in missed), [d]
6613 in banned), and [éd] (as in waited); a nonstandard variant would
wzithe absence of [t], [d], or [id] (miss for missed, ban for banned,
\t for waited). Parentheses will be used to indicate most
val‘Zlables: the (ing) variable, the (r) variable, and so forth.

12

.M.'~,~‘l“ 1 ' f;
Pfiflgbfla, ya

u. 0"? “‘ n f
l. . - ~33: '-
‘

32.313: present

 

E

MIRA n-s- pl.

fi-oo-Ai my, .,

h. P I . I
.. II l 111 CC"

~

"Y ;n I

U0 o: mere, v3-

\ g

:15: would {er

.
H .
u
0'. (In‘.‘.'\1nbn
“4...“,‘H H

M’

£3
(*9
D" I
m
‘.
{7' f
— .—-

“é :‘~ 1
‘ tef‘ p
r ~.n 02:
I".
llama]
Neard E“I _'
4L
a; .

‘Li‘h
. In L:
«‘9‘: S

 

 

13

phonological variables are discussed together in section 2.5.4.
The nonstandard variants of the grammatical variables are: l) the
absence of [s], [z], or [#2] representing noun plural (girl for 93133,
g for %, _b_ox for Mes); 2) the absence of [s], [z], or [#2]
representing noun possessive (£3.13 for cart's, car for car's, box for
M); 3) the absence of [s], [z], or [#2] representing verb third
singular present tense (hate for hates, love for loves, kiss for
51m); 4) the absence of E and are (he running home for £1.13.
runngg home, they running home for they are runniggiome), and the
use of _i_s in contexts where Standard English would require _a_m_ or 1133
(I is here, you is here); 5) the use of uninflected be in contexts
which would require _s_m, is, or a_re_ in Standard English (it sometimes
be incomplete, they don't be mean); and 6) the use of multiple
negation (b_e don't got none no more).

Before the use of these nonstandard variants can be described

in detail, certain terms must be defined and certain other preliminary

matters must be discussed.

2.1 DEFINITION OF "NON-STANDARD NEGRO ENGLISH" (NNE) AND OF
"STANDARD ENGLISH" (SE)

In the Introduction and in Chapter 1, such phrases as "Negro
noustandard Speech" and "Negro dialect" have been used to characterize
the speech of Negroes when that speech differs from Standard English
("Standard English" is yet to be defined). One needs, however, a
term to describe the most radically nonstandard variety of Negro
Speech. In Labov's description of the speech of Negro and Puerto

Rican speakers in New York City, he uses the term "non—standard

 

..o« 1' ‘ L531" (
Sew 415‘

lore racer:

1 ; .' 2
.. I . .
4.3. .31’ We ..

~.. ‘ ‘
.ov ._‘ ' '-
l....3] d a R“.

.

 

"0.. ‘ ~
no: ‘ :Caes c.4‘
;' e ’. 1 ,

"n'

 

 

l4

Negro English" (abbreviated NNE) to characterize the most radically
nonstandard variety of American Negro English, the casual speech

of male adolescent and preadolescent gang members in Negro ghettos.2
WOlfram.in his study of Detroit Negro speech also uses the term NNE
to describe the most radically nonstandard speech of Negroes, though
he does not specifically say that the Negroes who speak this most
nonstandard variety of Negro English are youthful gang members
(Wolfram.l969c:l).

,, More recently, the term "Black English" has been used as a
Label for the dialect of lower socioeconomic class Negroes.) Walter
Wolfram and Ralph Fasold use this term now because "the current use
of the term 'black' in throwing off pejorative stereotypes of Negro
Ithe matches our efforts to overcome the stereotype that this dialect
is simply bad English. VEinally, the name 'Black English' avoids the
negative connotations of terms which include words like 'dialect',
'substandard' and even 'nonstandard'" (WOlfram and Fasold 1969:151,
fn. 1).

'While admitting the validity of WOlfram and Fasold's arguments
for the term "Black English," I have nevertheless decided to use

\

2Labov et al. 1968: Vol. 1, p. 4. Labov says his work in New

York City and exploratory work in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago,
cleveleuni, and Los Angeles suggests that in the Northern ghettos, the
strueture of the language of male Negro adolescent and preadolescent
gang ulembers is essentially the same. The few differences found are
generallyregional differences characteristic of the surrounding
ggite community (Labov 1969a:p. 50 of the ERIC document), or

fer(ances due to the differing Southern geographic origins of the
egro populations in the various ghetto areas (Wolfram 1969c:24).

.'.' v ' are
2...:2. and DL

:just the a

0

exit; of Segre
s: from Stan
ties. Tzese dif
.a: is, RYE speee
rziard variants
flames) and i
flexes which are
:35: ifmtical
$532325).

1: addition
:23: :a the m5:
Z5562he PhrasJ

1: _
9““ u‘fers ..
he
:i";v.1
'§¢5.°* REV fly
J V~
fu‘n p
i
“a CI COTS-Jar-
. A!
~ iv. J
uubucm Ursa.
‘l
u A :v

 

“£1555.
~38 ter‘ H...
’2
La... .3. A
‘fiidru :‘a"
13‘“. .
\a'u. ,
\‘5’ v A ,
.c V¢r1
1::
4.
:‘:‘n. '
«I: V

 

15

the older and more widespread term "Nonstandard Negro English" or
usually just the abbreviation "NNE" to refer to the most nonstandard
variety of Negro nonstandard English, to that speech which differs
the most from Standard English and from the nonstandard speech of
whites. These differences are both quantitative and qualitative;
that is, NNE speech involves a higher percentage of certain non-
standard variants than even nonstandard white speech (quantitative
differences) and also, NNE speech shows the use of certain grammatical
features which are not found in white speech and the lack of certain
. other grammatical features which are found in white speech (qualitative
differences) .

In addition to using "Nonstandard Negro English" or NNE to
refer to the most nonstandard variety of Negro speech, I will continue
to use the phrases "Negro nonstandard speech" and "Negro dialect" as
more general terms referring to the speech of Negroes whenever that
8Peech differs from Standard English. Thus Negro nonstandard speech
in Seneral may or may not differ from the nonstandard speech of
whites of comparable socioeconomic status, age, and sex. For people
in Northern urban areas, though, there are frequently at least some
quantitative speech differences, Negro speech being slightly more
nonstandard .

The term "Standard English" remains to be defined. If
"N‘mstandard Negro English" (NNE) is used to designate the most
nonstandard variety of American Negro English, then logically the
term "Standard English" (SE) ought to be used to designate the most

standard variety Of American English, the most formal speech of such

 

.-
.

Q A v
31'"? eiututeu r

I: 5:315. be 05%

final situati

7.3 . "Av-H

+33" or '5;
ii educated
1.35 of S’“

‘-

'C “a -'. .
u L ayeaaers ‘
I. '

.I‘Aoq A
l"-
eu ““QV' h I“
A
I

5". ' I'
wig; .
' e
3 uggar
‘c
"'H.’
“q. :ee.
' .v“ss "P
4'. C-
5
.
\K. '
4‘ .
Ib\:‘ 3L; ‘
A Les
3*.
‘in a
, 5 re},
.5;
\ ‘n‘v‘
,.
‘*C: u
“3.63
is ‘

 

 

16

highly educated persons as lawyers, doctors, and college professors.
It should be obvious that the people one might characterize as "NNE
speakers" will not always use NNE; in relatively formal situations,
their speech will come closer to approximating SE norms. Conversely,
'SE speakers" will not always use Standard English; in relatively
informal situations, their speech will move away from SE norms.
Certainly other definitions of Standard English are possible,
but the one presented here seems best for my purposes: hence "Standard
English" or "SE" will be used to designate the most formal speech of
higkfly educated persons. Such persons will be referred to as
speakers of Standard English, or Standard English speakers, just as
persons who sometimes use Nonstandard Negro English will be referred

to as speakers of NNE, or NNE speakers.

2.2 LABOV'S AND WOLFRAM'S STUDIES AS THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC BASES FOR
THIS STUDY

Several sociolinguistic studies of urban speech, particularly
urban Negro speech, are currently under way; these studies are
umntioned in Wolfram l969b:34-7. Ralph Fasold is studying the social
stratification of Negro speech in washington, D. C., and is attempting
to formulate a structural description of various features of "Black
Englistfl';IRoger Shuy and his colleagues at the Center for Applied
LinSufi-Stics are investigating the relationship between the speech of
Southern whites and Southern Negroes of comparable socioeconomic
Classes” as revealed in data from Lexington, Mississippi; Bruce Fraser
and.cuolleagues at the Language Research Foundation are beginning the

Study of "Child Black English" in New York City; Stanley Legum,

 

. n' '4 a“
17:5 Ill.&a-5)
, v- u: Q: a
52:12.;zgns..u
u 1 Ir
;.a::s; tne fl

5: 5:: meme:

. .1
2:25, severe.

‘~I-~’O a ' ‘n‘o I»
taut.» nabs.d L

arr-'es ... .
nurse‘s .u.

male to :1:

-'”-‘“Jcl;me :5 : .
<
3.

 

 

17

Clyde Williams, and their associates are presently conducting
sociolinguistic investigations of the speech of child peer groups
in Watts; the investigators in the East Texas Dialect Project have
so far interviewed over two hundred informants representing different
races, several socioeconomic levels, and various age groups; and
Robert Parslow and his colleagues are conducting in Pittsburgh a
study similar to the Detroit Dialect Study conducted by Shuy and his
associates (this latter study is described in Shuy et al. 1967).
So far, no detailed descriptions of Negro nonstandard speech have
emerged from any of these studies.

William Labov's The Social Stratification of English in New

York City (1966b) provides some data on the speech of Negroes, but

 

the only detailed descriptions of Negro nonstandard speech which are
available to the general public are Labov and his associates'
two-volume A Study of the Non-Standard @Llish of 9‘3?" and Puerto
£Can Speakers in New York City (1968)3 and Wolfram's A Sociolinggistic
lL-‘lscription of Detroit Negr_o Speech (1969c). Henceforth, the first

Of these three studies will be referred to as "Social Stratification"
01‘ 811nply as "SS"; the second will be referred to as "Labov Negro NYC"
or Simply as "Negro NYC" and, unless otherwise indicated, the volume
referred to will be Volmne l; and the third work will be referred to

as "WOIfram Negro DET" or simply as "Negro DET."

\—

3Though Labov wrote the two-volume report himself (see the
Ere-face to Vol. 1), his associates Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins, and
oh“ Lewis did much of the work which forms the basis of this report.
or C.Onvenience, however, I will refer to this study of Negro and
"err-O Rican speakers in New York City as if Labov were the sole
nveStigator as well as the sole author of the two-volume final report.

Tnis cha;:e:
Rita's data i
lire arbitrar;
ta: Least two

‘ v u ' \'
5:17! 1.350“? S .\

"““M r ..
..é..3u.C ‘thv

 

tile Inner Ci'
\—
I'Iis'ilgtctl’ D.

 

a.
\l

“.5 _t_; data

¥-'~ u

'~'-,.,J .
("1 s 12 de.‘;_
he

‘:- \._
ME" “Etc 5

"Ming 5+ .1 I

‘ u
a“ ‘c‘-

1:, ‘. . :1 V
g', mq‘fie L;

‘Q“EA* ‘
N re 1' :
1a:

'5
s '- ‘
"'1!"

 

 

18

This chapter will present in detail much of Labov's and
Wolframis data for five phonological and six grammatical variables.
I have arbitrarily chosen to discuss only those variables investigated
in at least two of the three studies just mentioned: Labov's SS
study, Labov's Negro NYC study, and WOlframis Negro DET study. For
those who want information on other features of Negro nonstandard
speech, I highly recommend Ralph Fasold and Walter wolfram's "Some
Linguistic Features of Negro Dialect," in TeachingStandard English

in the Inner City, ed. Ralph W. Fasold and Roger W. Shuy, 41-86

 

(Washington, D. C., Center for Applied Linguistics, 1970).

There may seem to be little reason for discussing Wolfram's
Negro DET data in detail, since Wolfram's data is less useful than
Labov's in determining the accuracy of literary representations of
recent Negro speech. Unlike Labov, Wolfram did not elicit a casual
speaking style, the style most often represented in literary works;
also, unlike Labov, Wolfram did not explicitly study the Speech of
Preadolescent and adolescent Negro gang members, whose speech seems
to be portrayed with some frequency in recent fiction (in Go Down Dead

and The Cool World, for instance). But even though Wolfram's data

 

13 less useful than Labov's in determining the accuracy of literary
dialeCt representations, it seems important to present Wolfram's
data in detail. In the first place, only a detailed comparison of
the various sociolinguistic studies will show whether it is in fact
true, as Labov suggests, that the structure of NNE described in the
Negro NYC study is essentially the same as the structure of the

laugllage of adolescent and preadolescent Negro youths in other

 

kvgem ghetto. _-

. .5 bot-paril
ai .iiffereaces

3"".‘2'3 8.5:”:

stelevant to '.
;....._: .- ,, 1;;
.:.:...l21.215 ..,
team. It see

.. o...

’- ~46». readers

Eiéralizations
iéaiers who ate

"3313's are c

 

n3 LI:;E"Yn-p.

bui

' I
14: 3V and

32’- . .
if:

3I
D
‘u'
D I
“1.1211: -
““Z:
.
“"4 n
'N a
x .*
‘ ‘5. ‘e V
in.
.~ A

19

Northern ghetto areas (Labov 1969a:p. 50 of the ERIC document).

Thus my comparison of Labov's data with WOlfram's data may possibly
be a significant step toward understanding the structural similarities
and differences in the language of Negro youths from various

Northern ghettos.

Mere importantly, a detailed discussion of Wolfram's conclusions
is relevant to my immediate purpose, that of establishing criteria for
determining the accuracy of literary representations of recent Negro
speech. It seems important to present both Labov's and Wolfram's data
so that readers can compare these men's statistics and can judge for
themselves the validity of the highly simplified statistical
generalizations which are presented at the end of this chapter.
Readers who are not greatly interested in comparing Labov's data with

WOlfram's are advised to omit sections 2.5 and 2.7.

2.3 LINGUISTIC TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED IN THIS STUDY

Labov and his associates have used the theoretical framework of
transformational-generative grammar in their sociolinguistic studies.
0n the other hand, Shuy and his associates Wolfram and Riley, and
WOlfram in his Negro DET study, have used a stratificational frame-
work. (For an explanation of basic stratificational terminology, see
for example Sydney M. Lamb's 1964 article "0n Alternation, Transforma-

tion, Realization, and Stratification," in Report of the 15th Annual

 

Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, Georgetown
Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics No. 17, washington, D. C.,

Georgetown University Press, 1964.) One theoretical distinction which

feted; rather
it] or [2} or
Lazinalist, t':
.., a status e;

'
“9-... (4, ’-
4.:.G:.uafd pd:

 

 

“OZViFr
:f"e.‘:. '
"enlcatrc'
._ ‘ |
‘ :‘ratifi':

b
‘L Q
N: “I L“St:
§
I. u
"sigh; ‘
~57e s

 

 

20

is important to the present study can be illustrated by the differing
explanations of such sentences as he‘going now, he crazy, he a nut.
Labov explains that such sentences contain an underlying / iz / which
is contracted to / z /; then the / z / is deleted to give he going
and so forth (Negro NYC:205-6). Wolfram also is convinced that there
is an underlying copula, but he does not describe a process whereby
standard / iz / is contracted to standard / z /, which is then
deleted; rather, he implies that the copula is "realized" as either
[12] or [z] or ¢ (Negro DET:l75). In other words, for the stratifi-
cationalist, the nonstandard variant, the total absence of the copula,
has a status equal to that of the standard variants. By deriving the
nonstandard variant from the standard variants, Labov seems to imply
that the standard variants are more basic--and from this, the
linguistically naive might conclude that the standard variants are
more "normal," are "better" not only socially but morally.

In my initial presentation of Labov's and Wblfram's data, I will
use each man's own terminology. When speaking in my own voice, I
will usually use stratificational terminology. Although I find Labov's
transformational explanation of copula deletion, in particular, to be
quite convincing, there are two important reasons for using
stratificational terminology here. On philosophical grounds, I prefer
the stratificational terms because they are less likely to encourage
the linguistically naive to assume that some variants of a form are
morally superior to other variants. Second, the stratificationalists
have terminology which is appropriate for discussing literary

representations of Negro dialect. One could not accurately use the

 

D. .
..,..:.~ ”8’ ~ 3:-
:..:...M- -‘ ‘

retinal-gs e:

{J

.-

.
.v

e 41]

at tizes

ire to eqfl‘AI

“bdb‘

=.:res that

.., e.
"' sue I "V'pnc‘
l

t...-, . ‘
1*? are:

516‘

,
..‘n.

.fi-l‘ar to Wk,-

a...
o.‘ "_A : _
“byr‘pth'fi
A...
REES: e'
t..e d
~iev’l w“
‘V ' u
4‘38 N...
9‘”
‘JL .0-
546 word I
A
‘ ~
N 5““
u: '1
,
‘7.
"3i" ,_
‘ 40:33:?
e“
L“. Q
‘ : 5138’s
“ S
-:a.":.'A
.utagle __
\L.
figtetu

 

21

transformationalists' terms "deletion" and "loss" to refer to the
omission of a letter from the standard spelling of a word, but the
stratificationalists have an appropriate term: "absence." For
example, the spelling gl_for.gld_shows the absence of the letter d.
Along with stratificational terminology, I will use a transcription
system which is basically transformational; this system seems clearest
and most appropriate for my purposes. The consonant and vowel symbols
are those of the Trager-Smith phonemic alphabet. (Though transfor-
mational-generative phonologists do not recognize a phonemic level,
they at times use the Trager-Smith symbols.) Slant lines are used
here to enclose symbols which represent the bundles of distinctive
features that would comprise transformationalists' underlying
phonological representations; the representations here are similar
to the morphophonemic representations of structural phonology.
Square brackets are used here to enclose what transformationalists
call "phonetic representations." These phonetic representations are
similar to what structuralists have sometimes termed "broad phonetic
transcriptions." An example should help to make this terminology
clear: the distinctive features of the transformationalists'
underlying phonological level would here be represented as / heytZ /
for the word haggs, / levZ I for lgygg, and / kisZ / for kisses.
In each case, the third singular present tense morpheme (or the noun
plural morpheme; the examples are ambiguous) would be represented
by a single symbol, here / Z / , because the form of the suffix is
predictable from the nature of the sound which precedes it. The
phonetic representations of these three words would be, for Standard

English, [heyts], [levz], and [kiséz].

 

. IL‘YC Yth‘:
n. 31:. “’VA

STJY, 553

 

stiles t'" 'e
«9 Sr.
.tgtzg m age

-.. ..ur 33in
. .

:5“! 1.1-" -
:O Luaie :

as; gives a “-

 

 

22

2.4 BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT LABOV'S SS STUDY,_LABOV'S NEGRO NYC
STUDY, AND WOLFRAM'S NEGRO DET STUDY‘

2.4.1 The SS Study

 

In his study of the social stratification of English in New York
City (the SS study), Labov analyzed five phonological variables in
the speech of 122 adult informants (32 of them Negroes) from the
lower East Side of Manhattan, a tenement area (SS:193). Labov also
studied the speech of 68 children of these informants, children
ranging in age from 8 to 35 (SS:197). These informants were divided
into four major socioeconomic groups: lower class, working class,
lower middle class, and upper middle class. On p. 217 of the SS Study,
Labov gives a description of class characteristics which was originally

taken from Joseph Kahl's The American Class Structure;4 this description

 

is given here as Table l.

Labov studied four speech styles: casual style, careful style,
reading style, and word list style. Since literary characters rarely
if ever read word lists aloud, Labov's data for this style is not
included here. Literary characters do not often read passages aloud,
either, but Labov's data for reading style is given here for comparison
with Wolfram’s data because some of Wolframis percentages are for
careful style and reading style together.

The following are descriptions of Labov's three major speech

styles:

 

4The book was published in 1957 by Holt, Rinehart. Labov does not
give any page reference, and I am unable to find a similar chart in
Kahl's book. Labov's immediate source was a summary of Kahl's class
characteristics which was made by John A. Michael of the Mbbilization
for Youth project in New York City (see Labov's SS study, p. 218 and
p. 202).

 

 

a. 4:339 o—........................ .17... . .._-lu. .
4.533 Uufih uthuk Uu-ulwzshl Syria ~33 MEC~J L312:
5. 3....n a1.~-.dudtul.¢--t-u14:: a..~a.~|~n~ Inn....u.-~ “v-

— fan-five u---.~u,..~ . . .

OH had—_dau:
I-Ud.d 3. u .HU 4;... .1... .170
unhn-nJu Ulnu-JULau

1 IQOVVI

0' . nQIC.-.

up: «HI-India 323... 1‘ (nu—.‘AJIAIJ 3.2 IUquId—fi u .L.-v-ut.«:.- .2591
nor. a ho rd1¢~ «:5 blue-.- uU-ZnaLnu u
'lo-d-II->~A- "tflnv Itiyuuvz III

23

OH

on

on

H

 

nonumdmmom Hmsonumz
on» no ammuaoonom

unmavonm

.mumnsm no“
.smnnm on

.moaonmnxo on umnnm a wanna on

onmn now oawwnnum

.ouo ..>.H
.mnmo now ammonm

nonumonvo
omoaaoo m.nmnvanno
non o>mm on nwnoam

on unnoo horn
use awn: annasum

on assoc
on nonuon u.:on

 

monumnnouomnmno
oaooaH

maonmn>nn means nanuom m.nemn

Ou ummfl umhwhonwfl

noxnma nonma
onu mo honoa onu
um mnoxnos anHoo
moan "mm>numnmmo

amamummno
mam noamnom
.anHoo manna
.aoammoanwap anode

.mamcowmmomonmlnamm

mnonunmom mandamus
owan no Hononmmo
.Hmnnowmnma
.mdonmwomonm

an coanoonmo

mmocnmnn owan n
no nouonnmonm no
Hmnonmmo .nowmama
.Hmnonmmomonm
onmn umnnm

 

monumnnouomnmno
Hmaonumnsooo

.mmoa
no Hoonom oomno

noonom nwnm meow

noummononu wananwnu
wounamnoomm

sufiz hauamnvonw
.mumsomnw

noonom swam

oumnomnw owoaaoo

Hoonom
nounn man no
oumnvmnw owoaaoo

 

monumnnouomnmso
Hmsonnmonvm

.n magma

mmmau noBoq

mmmHu wanxnoa

mamao
anvenz.nosoa

mmmao
mavwfiz none:

mmmao none:

 

manna mmmnu

szyle to casual
fixation see—1‘-e

:nv-av‘ "re CS

acne—defid5
H l

 

I ' ‘
..eq yu-«e "“
doti-

3“" ‘6“5

93121 of the
reefs, and it
:eszri'e “‘1‘“?

unabAu

”121311311 1:.

 

.39.: casual 5‘

 

24

Style A: Casual Style. Casual speech is of course difficult

 

to obtain in a formal interview. The change from formal interview
style to casual style was considered to have occurred when the
situation seemed to indicate this and when there was also an
appropriate change in the respondent's speech tempo and/or in his
pitch range and/or in the volume or rate of his breathing. One
section of the interview was particularly designed to elicit casual
speech, and it often seemed to do so: the respondent was asked to
describe childhood rhymes and games and was also asked to describe

a situation in which he had thought he was in danger of being killed.
Often casual speech also occurred when an interviewee spoke to someone
else in his household or when he spoke to the interviewer after the
formal interview had ended (SS:98-110).

Style B: Careful Style. In contrast to casual speech, careful
speech is the kind of speech which usually occurred when subjects
answered questions considered to be part of the interview (88:92).

Style C: Reading Style. The interviewee was asked to read two
lstandardized passages which contained the chief variables. In one
reading, each successive paragraph concentrated on one of the
variables. In the other reading, there were a number of words which
fOrmed minimal pairs with respect to two variants of a variable. For
instance, there were pairs in which one word had an underlying
preconsonantal / r / and one did not, pairs such as ggagd and ggd)

source and sauce (SS:93-4).

 

\ .' ‘ 1 .
92:3; '33 Del;

:fSegroes in c
:5 these peer

.. speed“. of 1
Z: ;eer groups
Erierbirds (

0o~..',.'
3.:33y.es:e;t

were the CODY;

hi.

 

”NF-:35 i2:
1" J‘ .
a; “5 not

“5536“: .
“ a

ZN.
~v ?. 9 A

n. .“ .

 

25

2.4.2 The Negro NYC Study

 

\

In their study of the nonstandard English of Negro and Puerto
Rican speakers in New York City, Labov and his associates concerned
themselves primarily with the speech of male Harlem youth (mostly

V

The investigators

Negro) who belonged to gangs or "peer groups."

were especially interested in the speech of such youth because it
deviates from Standard English more radically than does the speech

of Negroes in other age and socioeconomic groups; in fact, the speech
of these peer group members is somewhat farther from SE norms than is
the speech of Negro youth living in the same area but not belonging

to peer groups. One preadolescent group was studied in detail: the
Thunderbirds (ages 9 to 13). Some data was also obtained from another
preadolescent group, the Aces. The major adolescent groups studied
were the Cobras and the Jets, most of whom were in their lower-to-
middle teens. There were also the Oscar Brothers, boys 16 to 18 years
old who together comprised an informal group but were not organized
into a gang.

In addition to these peer group members, there were the "lames":
isolated individuals who lived in areas dominated by peer groups but
who did not belong to a group. For comparison with these peer group
members and lames, almost all of whom were Negro rather than Puerto
Rican, Labov and his associates interviewed some working class white
peer groups in the Inwood section of Manhattan, where whites and Negroes
have little contact except in school. One preadolescent group and one
adolescent group were studied. Finally, in addition to these youth,

about 100 adults from Central Harlem were interviewed, some raised in

1’1

$553311 and
52.5135 that i
as iirided in:
:iile class at
15315196; ,
jaralleled the

i: 23.8 55 Stu:

Determine

 

group aez'oers.
itith the inf '.
mainly-plat:
113 the are.
i: is similar
SPeach Labov '

 

26

the North and some raised in the South (Negro NYC:3l-46). Labov
explains that in this study, the large working class adult group
was divided into two sections. The upper section paralleled the lower
middle class and the upper section of the working class in the SS study
(Negro NYC:98). The Negro NYC lower working class section apparently
paralleled the lower section of the working class plus the lower class
in the SS study.

Determined to record the genuinely casual speech of the peer
group members, Labov and his associates arranged group sessions in
which the influence of the investigators was at a minimum. These
carefully-planned sessions often resulted in excited verbal interaction
among the group members. Labov terms this "group" speech Style A;
it is similar to but probably somewhat less formal than the casual
speech Labov termed Style A in his SS study. In addition to recording
this group speech, the interviewers talked individually with several
peer group members. The interview style generally obtained was
termed Style B, as in the SS study. Style C, reading style, was also

obtained when possible.

2.4.3 The Negro DET Study

 

Wblfram's study of Detroit Negro speech was based on preliminary
work by Roger Shuy, WOlfram himself, and William K. Riley (see their

Linguistic Correlates of Social Stratification in Detroit Speech, 1967,

 

for a detailed discussion of the population they originally studied
and their methodology). Four socioeconomic classes were established:
Upper middle, lower middle, upper working, and lower working.

Educationally, the upper middle class was characterized by college

.11 313:1:ng c-a

. \—

1 V ‘ - v

' "" - .1.

6: out: .‘5g.0
OV‘V:' q c.
.Uaatafl . -.

.. .'.. g. «n

" “‘e SiCEBA‘

37."? SCCZCECCZ

v

0.. , ‘
: 'T‘HA ‘ ‘
4 ’rrcr m“~.

v

-. n ,9' ‘t. ‘I’
.4.) In“ .-
T- "- 1 .
.112’3 3p 0 1

‘1‘ ~. . ‘~

2:: at least I

éZtIiters, -.

G.

.I’: 3 o n
“‘4 are (

n
v a
n

.
‘v. ‘

ig".:"-\ I '
' .w‘dua

et:

..,:‘I
‘Q. 5'15

“‘45 of
"“5. I ’
“‘6 11f t;
L'. .

 

 

27

and usually some graduate training, the lower middle class by several
years of college, the upper working class by some high school,
possibly completed, and the lower working class by junior high school
or less (Negro DET:32, 35, 38-9). Educationally, at least, Wolfram's
two working class groups seem to parallel the working class groups

in the Negro NYC study.

WOlfram studied four phonological and four grammatical variables
in the speech of 48 Negro informants evenly distributed as to the
four socioeconomic groups. In each of these groups there were four
informants from each of three age groups, 10 to 12, 14 to 17, and
30 to 55. Both sexes were equally represented. For contrast with
the upper middle class Negro informants, there were 12 upper middle
class white informants, divided equally according to age and sex
(Negro DET:l4). The informants had to have been residents of Detroit
for at least ten years; children and teenagers had to be native
Detroiters, and preferably adults were to have lived in Detroit half
their life (p. 15). Wolfram notes that though it would have been
preferable to have had as informants only those adults who were lifetime
residents of Detroit, the random population sample did not produce
enough lifetime residents. Among the adult Negro population,
in~migration is clearly the rule rather than the exception (pp. 18-19).
The 1960 U. S. Census showed that close to 50% of Detroit Negro
residents had been born in Southern states (p. 23). Over 50% of the
parents of WOlframis 48 Negro informants were born in one of the
South Central states, usually Alabama or Georgia or Mississippi

(p. 24). WOlfram explains that this particular origin of Detroit

V

isyoft

V

fight, includ:
lexgia. Uolfr
are :‘ifferenm
the traced

0:131 two

.....'.1 u ‘
entail or 121-

3;. Tte reaii

2e Laws

I
av
uoha ‘

{22.7515 gnu'

Vain

-‘.‘v- '
u I a A 3 F
.“ U as:

..
r. ..‘_
N. PE“""*

NJ.“,~\J\: ‘

"3°" Tie (j-

55 Prev:

E:;.:‘Q
. Aggy.eS a

‘
5:333LDCad a.
fi \

"karat: 0:

q
. I
1
.~:

“to .

 

v.‘ .
I" :2 War

'I
.
u
(n
(D

"‘5
“ed :
..

 

  
 

'39:."
‘s d
5‘...

is s:

h
"n;
K ' .
:“Cthd"
‘3: ‘M‘
N. :_
‘1
.
.
1'.
‘M‘n.
'

28

Negroes contrasts with the in-migration pattern of Eastern cities
such as Philadelphia, New York, and Washington, D. C., which draw

a majority of their Negro population from the South Atlantic coastal
region, including South Carolina, North Carolina, and the coast of
Georgia. Wolfram notes William Stewart has suggested to him that
some differences in the NNE of Negroes in various Northern cities
can be traced to different Southern origins (p. 24).

Only two speech styles were elicited in this study (Negro DET:3):
careful or interview style (Labov's Style B) and reading style (Style
C). The reading passages used in Labov's SS study were also used by
the Detroit investigators in the expectation that careful comparative
analysis would be made of reading style and phonology in New York

City and Detroit (Shuy et al. 1967:Part II, 25).

2. 5 PHONOLOGICAL VARIABLES

2.5.1 The QILg) Variable

 

As previously mentioned, the fiEE’SUffiX used to form present
Participles and verbal nouns like go_i_r_1_g and standing may be
Pronounced as [in] or as [in]. (Actually, the vowel sound may be
different, or the entire suffix may be pronounced as a syllabic nasal.
The present discussion is concerned only with the fact that the nasal
may be velar or alveolar, but for convenience the variants will be
lrepresmated as [inland [in] rather than [0]" and [n].) The [in]
val‘ZLant is stigmatized by many educated American speakers as
“utieducated” or "incorrect," even though they themselves probably
use this [in] variant about 10% of the time in their casual speech

(SS : 398).

 

1; his 55
n

:f the (138) ~'

fifeczed by 36

3:: of the to:
".55: the [in]
itite infoma:
51715, the at}
Ya? great fc

Q

5’ ,
‘ ~ ! .
*0! tae I

r: ‘
I‘i’ or who ~

 

'
H
I
1*.
5::
:1.
O

 

29

In his SS study, Labov obtained data on the ethnic stratification

of the (ing) variable.’ For Negroes, this stratification was noticeably

affected by geographic origin, as indicated in Table 2 (83:397).

Table 2. Percentage of [in] Forms

Style B Style C
All adult white NYc5 31 13
All adult white out-of-town 37 08
All Negro NYC 62 18
All Negro out-of-town 77 42

Out of the total number of jing_occurrences, the Negro informants
used the [in] variant approrimately twice as often as the adult

white informants did in Style B, careful style.6 In Style C, reading
style, the ethnic difference is slight for the NYC informants but
very great for the out-of-town informants--8% [in] for the whites,
42% for the Negroes. The Negro out-of-towners' relatively high
percentage of [in] in reading style is most likely due to a

Southern influence.

‘

5"NYC" informants were those who had been born in New York
Cit)? or who had moved there before the age of 8; "out-of-town"
infan'mants were those who had moved to New York City after their
eighth birthday (33 : 188) .

6It seems to me that it may not be entirely reasonable to
connpare "all" Negro informants with adult white informants. Labov
Says (88:397) that white informants under age 20 used [in] only 1%
more than older informants; from this, Labov concludes that there is
no Serious difference between young and adult speakers with respect
to’ (ing). But the Negro NYC study showed a great difference in
the use of [in] between young and adult Negroes, particularly
working class Negroes (Negro NYCV:122).

In additi
{was abvious
Segr: out-of—t
5:12 C, 51131:
5:12 C.

In his 5:

’ ' F: 1..
131%.ty, EC.

., , .
‘. . '
.3; vanant

, a
n
\
I '- ‘—"' —
—
—
—

:2 Detroit

.,
U

4 $118 ft

“5:55 the r
5333 adults

-=.a dEIived

 

 

 

7; t
"“«e is I
‘5 3’s.

.‘1 as :

 

30

In addition to the ethnic and geographic differences, Table 2
shows obvious stylistic differenCes for all four groups. Even the
Negro out-of-towners, with their relatively high use of [in] in
Style C, show a sharp difference: 77% [in] for Style B, 42% for
Style C.

In his study of the social stratification of English in New
York City, Labov found little difference between young speakers and
adults in their relative use of [in] and [in]. Nor was [in] pre—
dominantly a male usage, though lower class males did use the

[in] variant slightly more often than females did (88:397). But in
the Detroit Dialect Study, males used the [in] variant 62% of the
time while females used [in] only 28.9% of the time (Shuy l969:7).

In_§ystematic Relations of Standard and Non-Standard Rules in
the Grammars of Negro Speakers (1967), William Labov and Paul Cohen
discuss the results of their interviews of a random sample of 100
Negro adults in three areas of South Central Harlem. Preliminary
data.derived from analysis of every fourth speaker in the sample
afforded the following observations about the socioeconomic
stratification of three variables, including the (ing) variable:7

1) In careful speech, the middle class speakers are much
closer to the prestige norm than working class speakers;

2) Both working class and middle class speakers shift away
from the prestige norm when they move from careful to

casual speech;

\__

d. 7In this Systematic Relations paper and in Negro NYC, the -igg_
iscussed is not merely suffixal '-ing but unstressed -'-ing; the (ing)
variable is tabulated for the, -ing in words like something and nothing

as Well as for the -ing suffix.

'.':2 mast inter
322:3. the £1:
:sage as the '.
representatic:

represent (1:;

 

3:35:23 USES --|
On page ,
22:22 3. Th:

variant occur

 

31

3) The shift of the middle class speakers is more extreme:
in casual speech they approach or surpass the working
class in distance from the standard.
The most interesting conclusion here is the last one, that in casual
speech the middle class speakers were at least as far from standard
usage as the working class. Obviously, then, literary dialect
representation is highly unrealistic if it uses fiin or jinf to
represent (ing) in the casual speech of working class Negroes but
\ always uses fing_for the casual speech of the middle class.
On page 122 of Negro NYC, Labov presents the data given in

Table 3. This table indicates what percentage of the time the [in]

variant occurred as the phonetic representation of underlying / in /.

Table 3. Percentage of [in] Forms

Styles: A B _Q
Thunderbirds 00 O [sic] 94
Aces 00 00 100
Cobras Ol 67
Jets 03 O8 100
Lames 23 100
Middle class adults 67
WOrking class adults
Upper--Northern 65
Upper--Southern 10
Lower--Northern 23
Lower--Southern 15
Inwood groups 02

0bViously there was considerable sociolinguistic stratification in

StYIe B, careful speech: the Negro peer groups and the white Inwood

\

8Quoted from Labov and Cohen 1967:2-3.

 

' a?
9"" LEO)»
2095
ts: adult gr-
mer wcrttng
l u '0 ‘
a;:a ago J
The nest
articularly .
7:23: used [121
'11: alzcst aj
(322:2 .\‘:'C:l£'
SHE diff
shifting
wife I
lfhich de
formal 5

move as
reading.

.....

H...” .

La“ Speate:
" 3.2, ',.'
"a." 31'; 1E

'2‘:th C185

 

 

r.
.13;:.',Er

 

 

32

groups almost never used [in], but the lanes used it 23% of the time;
most adult groups used [101 less than 20% of the time, except the
upper working class adults of Northern origin and the middle class
adults, who used [in] 65% of the time or more.
The most striking fact about this data is the style shifting,
particularly among the Negro peer groups and the Inwood groups.
They used [in] all or almost all the time in Styles A and B but used
[in] almost all the time in Style C, reading style. Labov concludes
(Negro NYC:121) with respect to the (ing) variable that
NNE differs from SE primarily in the wider range of style
shifting. This probably can be attributed to the fact that
uniform flin_pronunciation is more regular in the South,
which determines the form of the NNE vernacular; but since
formal speech is associated with Northern patterns, speakers
move as far away from.this Southern pattern as possible in

reading....

Wolfram's study did not include the (ing) variable.

§Qciolinguistic conclusions about the (ing) variable
Socioeconomic status. In the Negro NYC study, the middle class
sPeakers were much closer to the prestige norm than the working
Class speakers, in careful speech. But in casual speech, the SS
sttldymiddle class speakers used [in] even more often than the
WOinking class speakers.

Ethnic background. The SS study Negroes seemed to use [in]
about twice as often as the white adults, in careful speech
ChSNRever, see footnote 6, page 35). But like the Negro peer group
metfibers, the white nonstandard-speaking youth of the Negro NYC study

used almost all [in] in careful speech.

c.1222 Style

:3: for the 1

2‘2. r.
’ L'. '.
23: [a] a.

‘ F
'3“;- an o

~~~w~l ; or

1223f [in] b1
u:'“aS the a
$2.. .1;

iiferezce v;

 

I ’ '
.“ ’n>

k" I 2
9.330? S 54

.IJ.2 Tune /4
\

A secs:

2‘ ‘3er 1i}:

“u: ‘ ‘ l
A
I‘
"we..- t2.

\

 

 

 

 

 

33

Style. For all the youth, there was a decided difference

between Style B and Style C. This difference was less for the lames

than for the Negro peer groups and the white Inwood groups, who
used [in] almost all the time in Styles A and B but used [in]

almost all the time in reading style.

Ase-

use of [in] by the Negro peer groups and the Inwood groups, and the

In Style B, there was a decided difference between the

use of [in] by the adults: the youth almost always used [in],

whereas the adults used it 23% to 80% of the time.

Sex. Among the working classes of the SS study, there was some

tendency for men to use [in] more often than women. This sex

difference with respect to the (ing) variable was more marked among

the informants in the Detroit Dialect Study than among the informants

in Labov's SS study.

2.5.2 The (th) Variable
A second phonological variable is the pronunciation of the Eh;

in words like thing, nothing, and breath. The prestige form is the

unvoiced £13, the interdental fricative [6]. Nonstandard variants

inIEIude an affricate, [t9], and a stop, [t]. Labov in his SS study

was concerned with the (th) variable in initial, medial, and final

p081tion. In the Negro NYC study, (th) was examined in initial

p081tion only. A (th) score of 0 would mean that the person or group

need all fricatives; a (th) score of 200 would mean the person used

aJJL stops; and an intermediate score of 100 would mean the person

152: all affr
telesced each

"the only
312' Kegroes s

3: the out-of

' l u I 1
:21: ezgntn

2:52 score c
:lass whites
:Lass whites

For Neg:
ignificant 1
iifferences
:E'nest scor
:der 20, a:
~38. 0f the

IgLiSh Wot:

\
9Y .
uaDOV

2'1
“1% :reEeLe I

an} .

..th 13 al. r
3M

EEC ‘9‘

 

 

34

used all affricates or that the number of fricatives and stops
balanced each other out.9

The only SS study data which can be used to compare whites
and Negroes with respect to the (th) variable is Labov's data
on the out-of-town speakers, those who moved to New York City after
their eighth birthday. The white lower class and working class
speakers had an average (th) score of about 90 for Styles A and B,
and a score of about 75 for Style C; the scores for the lower middle
class whites were all below 30, and the scores for the upper middle
class whites were all 0 (88:644).

For Negro out-of-town speakers in the SS study, there was no
significant class stratification and there were no great stylistic
differences either. The highest scores were for Style B. The
highest score (which occurred for the lower class in Style B) was
under 20, and Labov says that mostly what is responsible for the

level of the index being above zero is the use of [f] where Standard

English would have [0] (SS:645,644).

 

 

9Labov also made a similar study of what he terms the (dh)

Valtiable: the pronunciation of the Eh_in words like then, either,
and breathe. I am not discussing the (dh) variable at length because
unfortunately the data from Labov's SS study and from his Negro NYC
sttidy is not expressed in percentages; that is, Labov does not say
‘whuit percentage of the time the affricate [dB] or the stop [d] was
“Sad instead of standard voiced _t_h, [6]. However, some non-
8tatistical conclusions are apparent from Labov's Negro NYC, study,
in which he examined the (dh) variable in initial position only.

or both group style and careful style, the Negro peer groups used
the [d] pronunciation relatively frequently. In casual speech, the
white Inwood youths used [d] even more often than the Negro peer
g"~‘Oups. Working class Negro adults from the North used [d] somewhat

eSs often than the Negro youths; working class Negro adults who had
‘Qinne to the North from the South used [d] decidedly less often than
the.youths; and middle class Negro adults used [d] for voiced £h_only
infrequently, if at all (Negro NYC:94).

Table

F

Aces

Cabras

Jets

ER adClESCe
EtiaigleSC.
We 10%;: -
WIEQbViG:
(It is nOt

ti“ their

a the Pier:

“id B.

The a,

53' . 1

1'}!
‘9
“H". L

“L56;

1 v"
1211336..

cf

 

 

35

Labov's (th) scores from Negro NYC (p. 94) are given here in

Table 4.

Table 4. Stylistic Stratification of (th) for
Peer Groups, Lames, and Adults

Styles: .A B_
Thunderbirds 56 86
Aces 113
Cobras 71 67
Jets 79 58
Lames 90
Middle class adults (22) [sic]
Working class adults

Upper--Northern 46 33
Upper--Southern 13 14
Lower--Northern 25 10
Lower--Southern 14 32
Inwood groups 66 81

The adolescent Cobras and Jets had higher (th) scores than the
Preadolescent Thunderbirds in Style A, but the adolescents' scores
were lower than the preadolescents' for Style B. The adolescents
were obviously more aware of the prestige norm than the preadolescents.
(It: is not clear why the Thunderbirds' index for Style A was lower
ttuin their index for Style B.) The lames'(th) scores were similar
tc’ the preadolescents'. The white Inwood groups fell somewhere
between the preadolescent and adolescent Negro peer groups for Styles
‘A-iind B.

The adults--particularly those from the South-~had lower (th)
SCores than the youth. For these Negro adults, the index scores

did not seem to show a regular downward shifting as the context

£12 variants
;':::e:ic real
:a'iants as 1'
:2 square bra
:czec'ial am
:5: £20113 eve

Folfra:

1: me table

p:

“file £12155

x:"~

“ewes and

51136 for u:

Table

"V"
7 U
Rd

“A!
7‘ o
h”.

"v

Y
5'.

 

"1
"1
£3
(9

 

u
._ ,
Nc' tile 5'»

 

36

became more formal. Labov concludes that (th) is not an important
sociolinguistic variable for adult Negro speakers (Negro NYC:98).

Instead of examining initial (th) as Labov did in the Negro NYC
study, Wblfram tabulated the variants of (th) in morpheme medial and
final positions, as in gghgr and breath, respectively. He categorized
the variants as Q, f,_£, and g, though §_and t_have more than one
phonetic realization. (For consistency I will henceforth treat such
variants as if they were phonetic representations and will enclose them
in square brackets.) Wolfram says these variants are mainly restricted
to medial and final positions; initially (th) usually is represented by
[9] among even working class Negro speakers (Negro DET:83).

Wolfram presents both a table and a graph giving the percentage of
[f], [t], and ¢ realizations of / 9 / (Negro DET:84). Most of the data
in the table is presented here as Table 5. "UMW" stands for upper
middle class whites; "UMN" and "LMN" represent upper middle class
Negroes and lower middle class Negroes, respectively; and "UWN" and "LWN"
Stand for upper and lower working class Negroes, respectively.

Table 5. Percentage of [f], [t], and ¢ Realization for
(th) Variable: By Social Class

[f] [t] ¢ Total
UMW 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3
UMN 5.5 6.1 .6 12.1
LMN 11.0 5.8 .6 17.4
UWN 37.9 19.5 1.8 59.2
LWN 44.7 20.0 6.6 71.3

From the totals in the right-hand column, it is obvious

that the sharpest social stratification was between the

:‘éile clas
rites ha:

. Y
“E see [I
[Segre 35.:
had categ

In the

rate as of

V . .
112: {me 1;;

barking cla

  
   
   

«'5‘. '. .
echer ‘11.}:
\

6:..1 ‘
““41 30.;53

“Smut a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

middle classes and the working classes. The upper middle class
whites had a categorical absence of the [f] and ¢ variants, and for
them the [t] realization was found only in the lexical item gigh
(Negro DET:84). Also, 14 of the 24 middle class Negro informants
had a categorical absence of the [f] variant.

In the three lower classes the [f] variant was used approximately
twice as often as the [t] variant, and the ¢ variant was used only
rarely. WOlfram notes (p. 85) that the words gi£h_and nothing
accounted for the majority of the [t] and ¢ realizations. WOrking
class Negroes used [t] about 70% of the time in yigh and about 32%
of the time in nothing. Middle class Negroes used [t] about 24% of
the time in gigh and about 9% of the time in nothing. Only lower
working class Negroes had more than about 5% consonant absence for
either gigh or nothing; these speakers pronounced yi£h_without a
final consonant about 6% of the time and nothing without a medial
consonant about 26% of the time (Negro DET:86-8).

WOlfram.made no comparison of interview style (Labov's Style B)
and reading style (Labov's Style C) because (th) occurred so
infrequently in the reading passage.

There were, however, age differences. For the Negro upper
Iniddle and lower middle classes combined, (th) was realized as [f],
[t], or ¢ 25.5% of the time for preadolescents, 8.6% of the time for
‘teenagers, and 10% of the time for adults; for the middle classes,
the greatest age difference was obviously between the preadolescents
and the others. But for the upper working and lower working classes,

the adults used far fewer [f], [t], and ¢ variants than the youth:

:reaiclescent

75.12 of the

here we

tealizetrozs

relizations
T" upper we

..,... 9
“2:55, on {a

realizations

 

:4»
".e n]. ,
#Q:
a: 2
't .1.

 

s . vflifi fi. #1141...—

 

'38

preadolescents used these variants 74.1% of the time, teenagers
75.1% of the time, and adults only 46% of the time (Negro DET:93).
There was a definite sex difference with respect to the

realizations of (th). The combined percentage of [f], [t], and ¢
realizations was 34.9 for all the females, 44.7 for all the males.
The upper working class had the sharpest difference: 47.5% for
females, 70.1% for males. The men and women of the lower working
class, on the other hand, showed almost no difference in nonstandard

realizations of (th) (Negro DET:92).

Sociolinguistic conclusions about the (th) variable

Socioeconomic status. The lower class and the working class
out-of-town whites in Labov's SS study showed much higher (th)
scores than the other classes, but there was no significant class
stratification for the Negro out-of-towners. There did not appear
to be much class stratification in the Negro NYC study, either, but
in WOlfram's study of Detroit Negroes the working classes used a
considerably higher percentage of nonstandard variants than the
middle classes.

Ethnic background. The lower class and working class out-of-
town whites in Labov's SS study had considerably higher (th) scores
than any of the Negro out-of-town groups. But for the youth in the
Negro NYC study, there did not seem to be much difference between
‘the (th) scores of the white Inwood groups and the scores of the
almost exclusively Negro groups. WOIfram's study compares only upper
huddle class whites with Negroes. The upper middle class Negroes

of his study used nonstandard variants 12.1% of the time, whereas

:f the the
aim for t':
for the Neg:
siift patter-
erzludes t3.
for white ai
for Serro ai

its; in (the

A.

.

We B to S
1,. .
the.
‘L -

 

 

39

the upper middle class whites used nonstandard variants 2.3%
of the time.

Sgylg. The SS study showed a clear pattern of style stratifi-
cation for the white out-of-towners, but no clear style stratification
for the Negro out-of-towners. Similarly, there was no clear style
shift pattern for the Negro adults in the Negro NYC study. Labov
concludes that while (th) definitely is a sociolinguistic variable
for white adults, it is not an important sociolinguistic variable
for Negro adults. The adolescent peer groups did, however, show a
drop in (th) scores from Style A to Style B and a sharper drop from
Style B to Style C.

.Agg. In the Negro NYC study, the youth definitely had higher
(th) scores than the adults and, in fact, the preadolescents
generally had higher scores than the adolescents. Wolfram found
that for the middle classes, the sharpest age difference was between
the preadolescents, on the one hand, and the adolescents and adults,
on the other hand. But for the working classes, the preadolescents
and adolescents (who together used nonstandard variants about 75%
of the time) both differed sharply from the adults (who used non-
standard variants 46% of the time).

§E§- In WOlframFs study, the males used nonstandard variants
‘44u7% of the time, whereas the females used nonstandard variants

.34w9% of the time.

In the E
2:21 and on
are smarize
speech, precc
fiza..y befo'
malized (a.
site New Yo
:ex: word he
shite speaks
malic pas:

This 1::
the Segre 3x“;
3““ 3311235
223-trad in:
3f [I] When
[ESL-3:38 ..,:
if [I] 's'her.
32:: 0r firs:

{3611 t:

 

. I
h:
“Jre
a w..
w.
.'. I
.\":fi 1
“ are;

 

40

2.5.3 The (r) Variable
In the SS study, Labov tabulated the presence or absence of
final and pre—consonantal [r] in words like car, bare, beer,

card, bared, beard. The results most pertinent to the present study

 

are summarized in Negro NYC (pp. 99-100). Labov says that in casual
speech, preconsonantal / r / within a word and / r / occurring
finally before a word beginning with a consonant are almost always
vocalized (made into a vowel sound by loss of constriction) by all
fiddle New Yorkers except the upper middle class. However, when the
'next word begins with a vowel, consonantal [r] is usually used. For
eddte speakers, there is never any vocalization of / r / in inter—
'vocalic position within a word, as in carat, merit.

This brief description of the SS results can be compared with
the Negro NYC data (p. 102), which is given in Table 6. The first
two columns show the percentage of [r] when the underlying / r /
occurred intervocalically; the next two columns show the percentage
of [r] when the underlying / r / occurred finally before a word
beginning with a vowel; and the last three columns show the percentage
of [r] when the underlying / r / occurred preconsonantally within a
‘word or finally before a word beginning with a consonant.

When the underlying / r / occurred preconsonantally or finally
laefore a word beginning with a consonant, the Negro peer groups
iilmost always vocalized it in both Style A and Style B. Their greatest
Style shift was between Style B and Style C. The lames had a higher
Percentage of consonantal [r] in Style C than any of the Negro peer

groups. The white Inwood groups, on the other hand, had no [r]

221512 6. Few

styles:
lees
kites
Jets

Lees

little 61355
adults

Hurling class
adults
Upper-x0 .
[poet-~50-
lower-NO-
Lower-So.

”mod groups

at all in the thre
preconsonantal [r'
iigher than that
elicited from the
hen the fin
sithavowel, the
assonmtal [r] i
hthis respect t
m the White n".
3 Style A and 87.
shits character:

5:?
"e B) than tl'

“335 adults; of

 

 

41

Table 6. Percentage of [r] for Peer Groups, Lames, and Adults

(VrV) (r##V) (r)
Styles: 2 a a. a a a 9.

Thtmderbirds 98 98 15 04 Ol 00 10
Aces 100 06 00 00 03
Cob ras 97 9 3 00 04 00 02 13
Jet s 100 96 ll 02 00 00 19
Lames 87 11 02 25
Middle class

adults 100 95 52 77 10 25
Working class

adults

Upper--No. 89 21 40 00 08

Upper--So. 78 23 40 09 11

Lower--No . 79 80 22 06 01 05

Lower--So. 79 37 12 (08) 09
Inwood groups 100 100 95 80 00 00 00

at all in the three styles discussed here. The adults' use of
Preconsonantal [r] and final [r] before a consonant was about 10%
higller than that of the youth, for Styles A and B (Style C was not
e!-'l-:f.<'.-.ited from the adults).

When the final underlying / r / occurred before a word beginning
With a vowel, the Negro peer groups and lames usually did not have a
consonantal [r] in Styles A and B; the range was from 2% [r] to 15%.
In this respect the Negro peer groups and lames were in sharp contrast
With the white nonstandard-speaking Inwood groups, who used 95% [r]
in Style A and 80% in Style B. The middle and upper working class
ad“11:8 characteristically had much higher scores, particularly for
StYle B, than the Negro peer groups, the lames, and the lower working

class adults; of these groups, the middle class adults had the highest

Percentage of [I
:‘se middle class
brood youth, be

Obviously a
tie. the underll'
if-‘E‘JEI, even Su
as that found a:
:ozstaadard spea
Euood groups, f
s:y.-istic contex

Wolfram Stu:
ftaland precon:
three examples 0:
(Lat: m) w‘
Percentages for 1
333110) are giv
that in most cas

Table 7.

 

"is.

..lte Standard

 

...__ 1..."

42

percentage of [r]: 52% for Style A and 77% for Style B. But even
the middle class adults used decidedly less [r] than the white
Inwood youth, before a word beginning with a vowel.

Obviously all groups had a high percentage of consonantal [r]
when the underlying / r / occurred intervocalically within a word.
However, even such a relatively infrequent loss of intervocalic / r /
as that found among these Negro speakers is not found among white
nonstandard speakers in New York City (Negro NYC:100). The white
Inwood groups, for example, had 100% intervocalic [r] in both
Stylistic contexts.

Wolfram studied the realizations of post-vocalic / r / in word-

final and preconsonantal position (car, bare; card, bared); also,

 

 

 

three examples of potential / r / in word-medial intervocalic position
(carat, yer—it) were tabulated for each informant. Wolfram's mean
Percentages for the absence of final and preconsonantal [r] (Negro
DET:llO) are given here in Table 7. Like Labov, Wolfram notes (p. 109)
that in most cases in which a constricted [r] is absent, a central

Vowel is present; in Labov's terminology, the / r / is vocalized.

Table 7. Percentage of [r] Absence: By Social Class

UMW 0.8
UMN 20.8
LMN 38.8
UWN 61.3
LWN 71.7

ObViously there was a great difference between the upper middle class
whites and the Negroes as a whole. In contrast to the Negroes, the

White standard speakers almost never showed an absence of [r] in

:31 or precon
s dearly an E

On. p. 114 l
aéerly'mg / 1' I
is followed by a
falleved by a wc

resented in Ta':

Table

LY)"
L‘i‘x’
"KN
LWN
‘EE ”P159! middle
taJulations cone:
(,1
1.1 absence OCCU]
"/ was follow;
Wigs, the love:
[I]. file cons

V

4.2g mrd‘final

 

 

43

final or preconsonantal position. Detroit, unlike New York City,
is clearly an r-pronouncing area.

On p. 114 Wolfram gives the percentages of [r] absence when
underlying / r / is followed by a vowel in the same word, when / r /
is followed by a word beginning with a vowel, and when / r / is
followed by a word beginning with a consonant. This data is

presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Percentage of [r] Absence: Influence of
Linguistic Environment

__v __#V __flc
UMN 2.8 10.8 25.3
LMN 5.6 34.1 40.8
UWN 13.9 57.5 70 2
LWN 16.7 65.7 79 1

The upper middle class whites were excluded from this and subsequent
tabulations concerning the (r) variable; Wolfram says their 0.8%

[r] absence occurred only in unstressed syllables when underlying

/ r / was followed by a consonant (Negro DET:llO). For the Negro
81:01-11», the lower the socioeconomic class, the greater the absence
of [r]. The consonantal [r] was most frequently absent when under-
lyi~ng word-final / r / was followed by a word beginning with a
cotlsonant:. For the upper working class Negroes, [r] was absent 70.2%

of the time in this environment; for the lower working class Negroes

 

it Was absent 79.1% of the time. The most nearly comparable data10
\

10
N The figures are not quite comparable, in two respects. In the
381:0

w1 NYC study, preconsonantal / r / within a word was tabulated along
th final / r / before a word beginning with a consonant. Wolfram's
ta here does not include preconsonantal / r / within a word. More

£12253? Negro 1
3:5IV0rki318 C:
3:510 adults-
:gpsiev style
Sagrses and 40'!
'n'nen word-1
easel, [I] asset
‘3; a word begin:
Segroes in 14011-1
beginning with a
533:. Again cl
:1] absence were
about 912 for lc
aiults had 482 I
for the Detroit
:iéile class Neg
absence of f inal
socioeconomic be
finically an 3‘!
The absence
hzeroocalic wit
is a 13.9z [r]

T455 Speakers l

 

 

any, L8:

sd.‘ram 3 data

 

44

from the Negro NYC, study (Style B) indicates about 90% absence for
upper working class Negro adults and about 93% for lower working class
Negro adults. The middle class Negro NYC adults had 75% absence for
interview style, compared to 25.3% for the Detroit upper middle class
Negroes and 40.8% for the Detroit lower middle class Negroes.
When word-final / r / is followed by a word beginning with a
vowel, [r] absence is less than when underlying / r / is followed
by a word beginning with a consonant. For the upper working class
Negroes in Wolfram's study, [r] absence was 57.5% before a word
beginning with a vowel; for the lower working class Negroes it was
65. 7%. Again the most nearly comparable Negro NYC percentages of
[1'] absence were higher: 60% for upper working class adults and
about 91% for lower working class adults. The Negro NYC middle class
adull-ts had 48% [r] absence in interview style, compared with 10.8%
for the Detroit upper middle class Negroes and 34.1% for the lower
middle class Negroes. The fact that these Detroit Negroes had less
abSenee of final [r] than the Negro NYC informants of similar
8°ciceconomic background accords with the fact that Detroit is
tyPically an E-pronouncing area whereas New York City is not.
The absence of [r] is least when the underlying / r / is

intervocalic within a word. Wolfram's upper working class speakers
had a 13.9% [r] absence in this environment, while the lower working

class speakers had a 16.7% absence. In this case, the most nearly

\

fiigrtantly, Labov's data is for adult speakers only, whereas

ram's data includes adolescent and preadolescent speakers.

wearable $8ng
absence for UPPE
wring class ad
adults were also
:iiile class spe
i: the way Negro
lying / r / uni:
absence of inter

According t
Stylistic influe

oata is given in

Tab.

DC;

V1"
V};
meacb case, t'n
Interview Style

As far as a

 

 

45

comparable Negro NYC. figures were not much different: about 16%
absence for upper working class adults and about 21% for lower
working class adults. The figures for the Negro NYC middle class
adults were also not much different from the figures for the Detroit
middle class speakers. Apparently there is not much difference
in the way Negroes in _t-pronouncing and E-less areas treat an under-
lying / r / which is intervocalic within a word; among all groups,
absence of intervocalic [r] is relatively slight.

According to Wolfram (Negro DET:llG), there is considerable
stylistic influence on [r] absence for all social groups. Wolfram's

data is given in Table 9.

Table 9. Percentage of [r] Absencesz Style

Styles : Interview Reading
UMN 25. 0 15. 2
LMN 38 . 1 2 3. 2
WN 66 . 2 55 . 5

In each case, the percentage of [r] absence drops noticeably from

interview style to reading style.

As far as age differences are concerned, Wolfram found no clear

Pattern for all socioeconomic groups.11 For the middle class groups,

\

c1 “It is impossible to determine to what extent this lack of a
ofear pattern is due to the limited size of Wolfram's samples. Each
the percentages in the age stratification tables is based on only
thpeakers. Labov says (SS:181) "we will find that from ten to
County individuals will give us a value for a social class which fits
o f 8fl-stently into an overall pattern of stratification, while groups
0 f £01m or five show unrelated fluctuation." This suggests that all
Olfram's age stratification statistics may be suspect. Wolfram
nwoielf says (1969b:34), with respect to his Negro DET study,
Par: fItem's limited sample (48 informants)...needs further extension,
titularly with reference to his conclusions about age, sex, and

1r] absence was 3
aialts. But uppe
ape: working cl;
taiaore [r] abs.
attoal figures f.

Essexe (Negro D

lab

13""

heal

1V“

LY}:
LWN
Wolfram fOu

{legro DET:ll7) .

Tab

 

46

[r] absence was greater for preadolescents and adolescents than for
adults. But upper working class adults had more [r] absence than
upper working class preadolescents, and lower working class adults
Wolfram's

had more [r] absence than lower working class adolescents.

actual figures for the age stratification of the percentage of [r]

absence (Negro DET:ll7) are given in Table 10.

Table 10. Percentage of [r] Absence: By Age

10-12 14-17 Adult
UMN 11.3 41.3 8.8
LMN 40.0 45.0 33.7
UWN 51.3 71.3 61.3
LWN 80.0 61.3 73.8

Wolfram found a rather definite contrast for the (r) variable
between males and females. Table 11 presents Wolfram's data

(Negro DET:ll7) .

Table 11. Percentage of [r] Absence: By Sex

Male Female
UMN 33.3 10.0
LMN 47.5 30.0
UWN 80.0 55.8
LWN 75.0 68.3

For each socioeconomic group, males had more [r] absence than females.

The greatest difference occurred between the males and females of the

upper working class .

\

r

nzcial isolation." Wolfram further notes (p. 39) that we still do

v ct l{now what is "the minimal number of informants in each social

theJ-l' for the linguist to adequately characterize the behavior of
at cell."

 

Socioeccnvt
_____,_

tie SS stud?» 0“
Realize / r / P
5.9513133 with a
Segre NYC study,
:iiiie class and
“ word final po:
sealers had [r]
carting classes <
m gradient rat}
fro: the others E
Lee of [r] decree
class level.
3533? found that
3??“ middle clas
=35 final / 1- / ‘
"nifran’s study

upper middle
SEéfses.

lien final

doe f°md that

31;? 4 c
. intrequent;

8'

re!
r/_ Wne:

 

47

_s_gciolifluistic conclusions about the (r) variable
Socioeconomic status. Among the predominantly white groups of

the 83 study, only the upper middle class did not almost always
vocalize / r / preconsonantally within a word or before a word
beginning with a consonant. Within the adult Negro groups of the
Negro NYC study, the only sizeable class difference was between the
middle class and the working classes in the use of consonantal [r]
in word final position before a following vowel; the middle class
speakers had [r] in this position decidedly more often than the
working classes did. In Wolfram's study the class stratification
was gradient rather than sharp: that is, no one group was set off
from the others by decidedly greater or less use of [r]; rather, the
use of [r] decreased fairly steadily with a decrease in social
Class level.

Ethnic background. In New York City, a so-called _g-less area,
Labov found that in casual speech both Negroes and whites (except
upper middle class whites) usually vocalized preconsonantal / r /
and final / r / when the following word began with a consonant.
wolftom's study showed 0.8% absence of preconsonantal and final [r]
for upper middle class white speakers, 20.8% for upper middle class
Negroes.

When final / r / was followed by a word beginning with a vowel,

Labov found that white speakers in New York City vocalized the / r /

only infrequently, whereas Negro speakers very frequently vocalized

t
he / r /. When / r / occurred intervocalically within a word, white

3
Deal(ers never vocalized it, whereas Negro speakers did so occasionally.

iclfram's 13353
Segroes in 3'?”

'r' r / béfOre a

City; in some t

aclear patter:
pteconsonantall
For the Negro ;
111's occurred
Style. The la:
5319C. For m
asharp increas
Tnderlging / r
L'Iliata was not
social class tn
5:”1 ‘n
:.e to mean
Se‘r
'5 095 than £0
.509 I .
it; n t.

iv

fliesceflts, bu

:56 stratificat

83' For

in; used [I]

“5 been

 

 

Gen thel

 

48

Wolfram's findings were similar, though there was a definite difference.
Negroes in r-pronouncing Detroit vocalized or totally omitted final
/ r / before a vowel less frequently than Negroes in _t-less New York
City; in some cases, the differences were striking.
m. For the Negro youths in the Negro NYC study, there was
a clear pattern of style stratification when / r / occurred
preconsonantally or followed by a word beginning with a consonant.
For the Negro peer groups, the greatest increase in the use of such
[r] '8 occurred between Style B, careful style, and Style C, reading
style. The lames also had a decided increase between Style B and
Style C. For middle class and upper working class adults there was
a sharp increase between Style A (casual style) and Style B when the
underlying / r / was followed by a word beginning with a vowel. Style
C data was not elicited for the adults. In Wolfram's study, for each
8(filial class the presence of [r] increased noticeably from interview
81Vile to reading style. The shift was greater for the middle class
NESli‘oes than for the working class Negroes.
$8.; In the Negro NYC study, the adults generally had a higher
Peteentage of [r] in both Styles A and B when a final [r] was followed
by a word beginning with a vowel. In Wolfram's study the middle class
adtilts used [r] more frequently than either the preadolescents or the
adolescents, but the working class groups showed no clear pattern of
age stratification.
leg. For each socioeconomic group, the males of Wolfram's
study used [r] less often than the females. The greatest difference

w a
as between the males and females of the upper working class.

2.3.4 Meet

Iabov and Wt
It] and [d] in at
[d] would not re;
and s_a_d) At tl
absence of final
where the [t] or
{as in giS_s_e_d or
constraints rele
clusters are 2115
Eliotp'nemic clus

Both Labov
DI absence of p;
"hell these OCCU
05 a consonant
of the Mt ten

Some of La
Table 12. The

1055 from no

1101‘

 

49

2. 5.4 The Presence or Absence of Final [t] and [d] in Monomorphemic
and Bimorphemic Consonant Clusters

Labov and Wolfram both studied the presence or absence of final
[:1 and [d] in monomorphemic consonant clusters, where the [t] or
[d] would not represent past tense or past participle (as in mist
and 1%). At the same time, both men studied the presence or
absence of final [t] and [d] in bimorphemic consonant clusters,
where the [t] or [d] would represent past tense or past participle
(as in missed or banned). As the data show, certain phonological
constraints relevant to the absence of [t] and [d] from monomorphemic
clusters are also relevant to the absence of these stops from
bimorphemic clusters.

Both Labov and Wolfram were concerned with the presence
01' absence of past tense and past participle [t]'s and [d]'s only
When these occurred or would have occurred as the final member
of a consonant cluster; neither man studied the presence or absence
of the past tense and past participle suffix “£11.12

Some of Labov's Negro NYC data (p. 128) is given here in
Table 12. The figures show the percentage of / t / and / d /
1088 from monomorphemic clusters and from bimorphemic clusters.13

\

12Fasold and Wolfram (1970:59) note that this [id] suffix is
1rarely absent in Negro dialect.

131 would use a single symbol, such as / D /, to express the

LInderlying phonological representation of the past tense and past
p articiple morphemes. For regular verbs, this / D / would, in
Quandard English, automatically become [t], [d], or [id], depending
We the preceding phonological environment. Since Labov and Wolfram
:1 re not concerned with the [id] realization, it seems best to use

“at / t / and / d / for the representation underlying past tense

l-
7. 5031 cases, h
m the followlr

nth a vowel-

fable 12. P«

Sula A (Group 0

Ihunderbird
Cobras

Jets

Oscar Broth

'u'orking cla

Thunderbirc
Aces

Cobras

Jets

Oscar Brot‘:

Working cl;

In both 3t

355(3th 0f m0

a]: Past partic
Effie beech La ‘
?‘ gas: tenSe .
: pron(’l‘lgical

50

In both cases, there are figures showing the percentage of loss
when the following word began with a consonant and when it began
with a vowel.

Table 12. Percentage of / t l and / d / Loss for Negro Youths
and Negro Working Class Adults

 

 

Monomorphemic Bimorphemic
___#K ___#V ___#K .__#V
Style A (Group or casual style)
Thunderbirds 97 36 91 23
Cobras 98 45 100 12
Jets 98 82 60 05
Oscar Brothers 97 54 85 31
Working class adults 89 53 60 22
Style B (Careful style)
Thunderbirds 94 59 74 24
Aces 98 64 83 43
Cobras 97 76 73 15
Jets 94 49 44 ' 09
Oscar Brothers 97 69 49 17
Working class adults 86 49 47 18

In both styles there was clearly a difference between the

t1'ea.tment of monomorphemic / t / and / d / and the treatment 0f

\

2nd past participle [t] and [d]. This seems particularly logical
ince both Labov and Wolfram consider the presence or absence
Past tense and past participle [t]'s and [d]'s to be primarily
Phonological phenomenon rather than a grammatical phenomenon.

 

generally 1:
man when t
There

and l d / b
Surprisingl
oore often
stop occurr
avowel. I
stones, in"
l

from: or CE

occurred ’3

 

and: Styli
following

Stilistic

word bee

 

 

51

bimorphemic / t / and / d /: deletion generally occurred more
frequently when the cluster was monomorphemic. Also, deletion was
generally much greater when the following word began with a consonant
than when the following word began with a vowel.

There are two major differences in the treatment of final / t /
and / d / between group or casual style and careful style.
Surprisingly, almost all of the peer groups deleted / t / and / d /
more often in careful style than in group style when the underlying
stop occurred in monomorphemic clusters before a word beginning with
a vowel. In past tense and past participle clusters, however, all
groups, including the adults, deleted / t / and / d / more often in
group or casual style than in careful style when the underlying stop
occurred before a word beginning with a consonant. There was not
much stylistic difference in monomorphemic clusters when the
following word began with a consonant, and there was not much
Stylistic difference with bimorphemic clusters when the following
Word began with a vowel.

For the white Inwood groups, the rate of deletion was less than
for any of the Negro groups, including the adults. The Inwood
Youths' percentages for group style are (Negro NYC:149): 67% loss
from monomorphemic clusters when a consonant followed and 9% when a
Vowel followed; 14% loss from bimorphemic clusters when a consonant
followed and 4% when a vowel followed.

Labov gives detailed data for adult deletion of / t /.and / d /
0n p. 149 of Negro NYC. Most of this information is included here

in Table 13.

fable 13

YT

WOT

 

 

52

Table 13. Adult Social and Stylistic Stratification of
/ t / and I d / Loss

Monomorphemic Bimorphemic
__#K .__#V __#K .__#V
Style A
Middle class adults 79 32 30 00
Working class adults
Upper--Northern 90 56 84 25
Upper--Southern 93 21 41 18
Lower--Northern 87 45 49 16
Lower--Southern 98 46 61 35
Style B
Middle class adults 60 28 19 04
Working class adults
Upper--Northern 90 40 19 O9
Upper--Southern 89 40 47 32
Lower--Northern 61 35 33 05
Lower--Southern 93 70 72 32

ilt is obvious that middle class adults generally deleted / t / and
/ «i / less often than working class adults. Lower working class
Northern speakers generally deleted / t / and / d / less often than
lupper working class Northerners; the reverse, however, was generally
‘true for working class speakers of Southern origin. For all groups
there tended to be less deletion in Style B, careful style, than in
Style A, casual style.

Labov discusses at some length the various constraints for
Negro speakers on the deletion of final alveolar stops. These
‘3Onsonants are least likely to be deleted if they occur singly rather
than as the last consonant in a consonant cluster (Negro NYC:134);

Whether the / t / or / d / occurs singly or is the final member of a

 

consonant ch
of final aim
the influeno
favors delet
sorphene bou
has not re;
{Negro Ni’Czl

Labov :
(a nononorp’
for white 5

vowel vers:

Emmetica.
constraint

In hi
ward‘fina‘.
W‘fina;

35 Table .

 

53

consonant cluster is the most important constraint on the deletion
of final alveolar stops. The second most important constraint is
the influence of a following vowel; anything which is not a vowel
favors deletion. The third most important constraint is a preceding
morpheme boundary; deletion occurs more often when the alveolar stop
does not represent past tense or past participle than when it does
(Negro NYC:136-7).

Labov says earlier studies showed that the grammatical constraint
(a monomorphemic cluster versus a bimorphemic cluster) was predominant
for white speakers but that the phonological constraint (a following
vowel versus a following non-vocalic environment) was predominant for
Negro speakers. In the Negro NYC study, the grammatical constraint
was found to be equal to that of the following vowel for the Jets,
the lames, the lower working class adults raised in the North, and
the middle class adults in casual speech. In careful speech, the
grammatical constraint was more important than the phonological
constraint for the middle class adults (Negro NYC:150).

In his study of Detroit Negro speech, Wolfram was concerned with
word-final consonant clusters in general. He summarizes different
word—final cluster combinations on p. 50; this list is given here
as Table 14. Clusters which are not completely voiced or voiceless
were excluded because speakers do not treat them in the same way.

All but two of these clusters end in / t / or / d /, so if Wolfram's
list includes all the different clusters he tabulated (it is
impossible to tell for certain from his text), then comparison

between his data and Labov's seems reasonable.

Table

n
..J
{7:
r 0
ID
"{

\_ \
(n U)
"L’ H

n.g.r9’<

\‘
.—

-k- \ \__ ~“
h (9‘ N 01‘ u:_

“<1
amt—f

H...
a8.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\

W’U

”\\k‘
”I“?

Holfra
03 pages 62
In €3Ch ca:
absence uh.
n4’3‘6011303

OI {amine

Table 15

 

 

For 5

c11‘h‘
«agers,

when the

 

54

Table 14. Consonant Clusters in Which the Final Member
of the Cluster May Be Absent

Cluster

/ st / test, post, list missed, messed, dressed

/ sp / wasp, clasp, grasp

/ sk / desk, risk, mask

/ st / finished, latched, cashed
/ zd / raised, composed, amazed
/ 2d / judged, charged, forged

/ ft / left, craft, cleft laughed, stuffed, roughed
/ vd / loved, lived, moved

/ nd / mind, find, mound rained, fanned, canned

/ md / named, foamed, rammed

/ ld / cold, wild, old called, smelled, killed

/ pt / apt, adept, inept mapped, stopped, clapped
/ kt / act, contact, expect looked, cooked, cracked

Wolfram gives tables for monomorphemic and bimorphemic clusters
on pages 62 and 68 respectively. These are included here as Table 15.
In each case, the figures show the percentage of final cluster member
absence when the following environment is consonantal and when it is
non-consonantal (when the cluster is followed by a vowel, a pause,

or terminal juncture).

Table 15. Percentage of Final Cluster Member Absence: By Social Class

Monomorphemic Bimorphemic

Cons. Non-cons. Cons. Non-cons.
UMN 66.4 11.5 36.2 2.8
UMN 78.9 22.6 49.2 6.8
LMN 86.7 43 3 61.7 13.3
UWN 93.5 65.4 72.5 24.3
LWN 97.3 72.1 76.0 33.9

For each social class in both monomorphemic and bimorphemic
clusters, the final cluster member was absent considerably more often

when the following environment was consonantal than when it was non-

cansoaantal.
i; the parse

:c- bimorphq

 
    
 
 

environment

513? COESOU

non-consona
the reading
figures, .1

the lover :

 

 

55

consonantal. When a consonant followed, there was a sharp drop

in the percentage of final consonant absence from monomorphemic

to bimorphemic clusters. The drop was even sharper when the following
environment was non-consonantal. In bimorphemic clusters, the final
stop consonant was almost categorically present for upper middle

class speakers, both white and Negro, when the following environment
was non-consonantal.

For monomorphemic clusters, there was a consistent but rela-
tively slight difference in final cluster member absence between
interview style and reading style when the following environment was
non-consonantal: for the white and Negro upper middle class groups
the reading style figures were about 5% lower than the interview style
figures, whereas the reading style figures were about 10% lower for
the lower middle class and the working class Negroes. When the
following environment was consonantal, the middle class Negro groups
had a greater difference than the other groups: the drop from
interview style to reading style was about 15% for the upper middle
class Negroes, 132 for the lower middle class Negroes. The difference
for the upper middle class whites amounted to about 5%, and the
difference for the working class Negroes amounted to about 1%

(Negro DET:75).

In bimorphemic clusters the working classes had more stylistic
difference than the other classes when the following environment was
non-consonantal; the stylistic difference was about 6% for the working
classes, less for the other groups. When the following environment
was consonantal, the upper middle class whites had the greatest drop,

a drop from 50.0% absence to 37.2% absence. The lower middle class

\‘ezrces ma
"Late was

Onp.

is given a

1
DC:

a. .\
7:5
1:5

m m
if decree

had great

ah

SEZQQ t

'66 r'.

“:38 c

56

Negroes had the next greatest drop--about 8%. For the working classes
there was actually a rise of nearly 4% (Negro DET:76).

On p. 79 of Negro DET WOlfram gives data showing age-correlated
differences in the percentage of final cluster member absence when
the cluster was followed by a non-consonantal environment. This data

is given as Table 16.

Table 16. Percentage of Final Cluster Member Absence: By Age

Monomorphemic Bimorphemic
10-12 14-17 Adult 10—12 14-17 Adult
UMW 7.9 9.5 14.3 5.6 0.0 2.9
UMN 26.5 23.3 17.8 9.5 8.5 2.6
LMN 53.5 43.2 31.9 12.5 11.6 15.2
UWN 61.2 71.4 79.2 33.3 29.0 17.8
LWN 75.0 66.7 74.4 41.9 26.8 32.5

In monomorphemic clusters the Negro middle classes had a pattern
of decreasing consonant absence with increasing age: the preadolescents
had greater absence than the teenagers and the teenagers had greater
absence than the adults. The upper middle class whites and the upper
working class Negroes had the reverse pattern, while the lower working
class Negroes had no clear pattern at all. For bimorphemic clusters,
the relative frequency of final stop absence was generally greater for
the preadolescents than for either the adolescents or the adults. For
upper middle class Negroes and working class Negroes, adolescents had
a higher final stop absence than adults. The upper middle class
white adults and the upper middle class Negro adults had a final stop
absence of between 2% and 32 for bimorphemic clusters.

In almost all cases, males had a higher percentage of final stop

absence than females. Generally the differences amounted to 10% or

less, but tr
535: :5, 1c
the time co:

had 79.12 a':

'«N'n‘nn m:
‘

'vsov.¢n v.

I
0". onnqua‘
Ob‘i- uv.£v..bl
_—

"AA;
. RP
>U~A~JCI

that middle
cften than
raised in t
the effect

mrPhemi:

:cnstrain:

 

 

 

57

less, but there were two notable exceptions: in monomorphemic
clusters, lower middle class males had final stop absence 57.6% of
the time compared to 30.9% for females, and lower working class males
had 79.1% absence compared to 55.6% for females (Negro DET:77).

Sociolinguistic conclusions about the absence of final [t] and [d]
from.monomorphemic and bimorphemic clusters

 

 

Socioeconomic status. In the Negro NYC study, it was found

 

that middle class adults generally showed [t] and [d] absence less
often than working class adults. For the lower working class group
raised in the North and for the middle class group in casual speech,
the effect of the grammatical constraint (monomorphemic cluster versus
bimorphemic cluster) was equal to the effect of the phonological
constraint (a following vowel versus a following non-vocalic
environment). For the middle class group in careful speech, the

effect of the grammatical constraint was greater than the effect of

the phonological constraint. In Wolfram's study, the higher the social
class, the more often the final stop consonant was present. Perhaps
the most significant class difference was the fact that, unlike the
other socioeconomic groups, both white and Negro upper middle class
speakers almost categorically pronounced the final stop consonant in
bimorphemic clusters when the following environment was non-consonantal.

Ethnic background. In Negro NYC, the white nonstandard-speaking

 

Inwood groups are compared with the various Negro groups. For these
white youth, the rate of [t] and [d] absence was markedly less than
for any of the Negro groups, including the adults. Wolfram compared
only upper middle class whites with the various Negro groups. These

whites showed final stop absence less often than the upper middle

£155 3'98”
{cites off
difference
eiites and
Segrnes and

the greate

 

:he fellow:

various a:
Style A :‘:
but relati

m the 33‘":

 

S‘n1

 

58

class Negroes. However, this difference did not sharply set the
whites off from the Negroes; rather, there was a fairly regular
difference (gradient stratification) between the upper middle class
whites and the upper middle class Negroes, the upper middle class
Negroes and the lower middle class Negroes, and so forth. Perhaps
the greatest ethnic difference occurred in bimorphemic clusters when
the following environment was consonantal: the white upper middle
class speakers showed a greater stylistic shift than any other group.

Style. In Labov's study there were two particularly significant
stylistic differences: 1) the Negro peer groups and working class
adults as a whole showed [t] and [d] absence from bimorphemic clusters
more often in Style A than in Style B when the underlying / t / or
/ d / occurred before a word beginning with a consonant; 2) for the
various adult groups, there generally tended to be more absence in
Style A than in Style B. In WOlfram's study, there was a consistent
but relatively slight drop from interview style to reading style
in the absence of final stop consonants from monomorphemic clusters.
The middle class Negro groups had a greater stylistic shift than
any of the other classes; this shift (about 15%) occurred when the
following environment was consonantal. In bimorphemic clusters the
working classes had more stylistic difference than the middle classes
when the following environment was non-consonantal, but when the
environment was consonantal the upper middle class whites had the
sharpest drop in final stop absence from interview style to reading
style.

.Ag_. In Labov's study, the Negro peer groups generally showed

less stylistic difference than the adults, except in bimorphemic

    
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

clusters vb
shaved less
follcwed an
I: ’inlfram'
clusters a
age; the or
bimorphemic

the preadol

59

clusters when a consonant followed. Also, the adults generally
showed less absence than the youth for Style A when a consonant
followed and less absence for Style B in monomorphemic clusters.
In Wolfram's study, the Negro middle classes had for monomorphemic
clusters a pattern of decreasing consonant absence with increasing
age; the other classes, however, did not show this pattern. For
bimorphemic clusters, final stop absence was generally greater for
the preadolescents than for the adolescents or adults.

§g§, The males in WOlfram's study had in almost all cases a
higher percentage of final stop absence than the females. The
differences generally amounted to 10% or less, though the lower
middle class and lower working class males had about 25% more stop

absence than the females, in monomorphemic clusters.

Linguistic conclusions about the absence of final [t] and [d]

 

It was consistently found that the absence of [t] and [d] from
bimorphemic clusters occurred less frequently than the absence of
[t] and [d] from.monomorphemic clusters. Apparently the lower
frequency of absence from bimorphemic clusters is due to the fact
that the final [t] or [d] represents a grammatical category. There
is, however, an important similarity in the absence of [t] and [d]
from the two kinds of clusters: in both cases, absence is inhibited
by a following non-consonantal environment. That is, the same
phonological constraints affect final cluster member absence from
both monomorphemic and bimorphemic clusters. Because of the
regularity of the phonological conditioning in bimorphemic clusters,

Labov asserts that the past tense and past participle [t]'s and [d]'s

in HE spee
they are a

in m spa;

3.5 NNE W

A naji
the: the p:
are not erl
the HE 5:;
have the s
framework.

Until

 

 

60

in NNE speech cannot be erratic borrowings from Standard English;
they are a regular part of NNE even though they occur less frequently

in NNE speech than in Standard English (Negro NYC:125).

2.6 NNE VERSUS SE: SAME 0R DIFFERENT DEEP STRUCTURE?

A.major linguistic controversy is brought up by Labov's statement
that the past tense and past participle [t]'s and [d]'s in NNE speech
are not erratic borrowings from Standard English but are part of
the NNE system. In general terms, the issue is whether NNE and SE
have the same deep structure, the same underlying grammatical
framework.

Until recently, most linguists have assumed that the English of
both whites and Negroes in America is essentially the same in
underlying structure. In 1924, for instance, George Philip Krapp
wrote

The Negro speaks English of the same kind and, class for class,

of the same degree as the English of the most authentic des-

cendants of the first settlers at Jamestown and Plymouth.

The Negroes, indeed, in acquiring English have done their
work so thoroughly that they have retained not a trace of any
native African speech.

A page later, Krapp concludes "Generalizations are always dangerous,
but it is reasonably safe to say that not a single detail of Negro
pronunciation or of Negro syntax can be proved to have any other
than an English origin."14 Considering that Krapp's statements were

based on relatively little objective comparison of Negro and white

speech, their unequivocal nature might seem ludicrous. But one should

 

14The quotes are from Krapp's 1924 article "The English of the
Negro," pp. 190 and 191. For similar statements, see Krapp's The
English Language in America (1925) Vol. 1, pp. 251, 252, and 263.

 

realize tha
23: Segroe
was shit
In 194
:hallenged
hglis'n in
mpu'nlishec
influence l
else had p
since
8336
acqui
initi
words
abnri
3Efsltovits
Slaves ca:
belt 0f K5
Ell-2&5 had
3112:9111:
fi Shiila:

<1

.
d

riGus x
35 in:

E:P'ln

Ying

 

61

realize that Krapp was trying, as best he could, to combat the idea

that Negroes had childlike minds and imperfectly developed speech

organs which made their speech inferior to the speech of whites.15

In 1941, in The Myth of the Negro Past, Melville Herskovits

 

challenged the idea that the speech of American Negroes was entirely
English in origin. Herskovits quotes extensively from the then
unpublished work of Lorenzo Turner, who pointed out that African
influence on Negro speech in America was much greater than anyone
else had previously assumed. Herskovits wrote (p. 280):
since the grammar and idiom are the last aspects of a new lan-
guage to be learned, the Negroes who reached the New WOrld
acquired as much of the vocabulary of their masters as they
initially needed or was later taught to them, pronounced these
words as best they were able, but organized them into their
aboriginal speech patterns.
Herskovits also argued (p. 295) that the major part of the American
slaves came from certain fairly restricted areas in the coastal
belt of West Africa and the Congo and that though vocabulary differ-
ences had made the various languages of these peoples mutually
unintelligible, the languages nevertheless "had substantial elements
of similarity in basic structure." His own field studies convinced
Herskovits that West African pidgin dialects and the languages of
various Negro groups in the New World all have "in varying degrees

of intensity, similar African constructions and idioms, though

employing vocabulary that is primarily European" (p. 291).

 

15Raven and Virginia McDavid make this point in their 1951

article "The Relationship of the Speech of American Negroes to the
Speech of Whites," pp. 4-5.

Appare
and nature
five years
Gilah Die}
that Grille!
more inpor
season to '

Caribbean,

 

eany Afric

Diale
of Turner,
he idea t
firitan 1;
Gullah. ]
5ences d:
SeEwes us

rEtained

It i
are ‘

 

 

 

62

Apparently Herskovits' challenge to Krapp's ideas on the origin
and nature of American Negro speech went almost unnoticed for twenty-

five years. Meanwhile in 1949 Lorenzo Turner's Africanisms in the

 

Gullah Dialect was published.16 In this seminal book, Turner showed

 

that Gullah had several thousand lexical items of African origin;
more importantly, he concluded that many structural features are
common to Gullah, to creolized languages of South America and the
Caribbean, to the pidgin-like trade English of West Africa, and to
many African languages (McDavid and McDavid 1951:11).
Dialectologists like Raven McDavid accepted these conclusions
of Turner, but still the dialectologists seem never to have accepted
the idea that there could be important structural similarities between
African languages and the language of U. S. Negroes who do not speak
Gullah. Instead, dialectologists argue that the language of some U. S.
Negroes differs structurally from the language of whites because these
Negroes use older English grammatical and phonological features not
retained by white speakers in the U. S. (McDavid and McDavid 1951:13):
It is also likely that many relic forms from English dialects
are better preserved in the speech of some American Negro
groups than in American white speech--not merely items of
vocabulary but also items of grammar and even of pronunciation,
so far as the occurrence of a given phoneme in a given group
of words is concerned. After all, the preservation of relic
forms is made possible by geographical or cultural isolation.
If Africanisms survive, say, in Gullah because of the long
inaccessibility of the Southern caste system which limited
contacts between white and Negro speakers, so can relic forms

from seventeenth-century English.

Certainly it is possible that, due to cultural isolation, relic forms

 

l6Gullah is a Negro dialect spoken along the South Atlantic

Coast; even today it differs far more radically from Standard English
than does other Negro nonstandard speech in the U. S.

A
U
I:

Q

'd 51

can-
=0 d

tech 5

"

ran 59‘
‘V

o
J.

e v. P o VIA
1 . a S a T. e r E : . . . . . - r .
.o . .l C a .i e .C .. e e r. .1 .h. .4 r \.._\. 1 a t at .4
P. 3 a . .l a. 2.. v . .1 Eu 5 S .Q I t g at E E ..2 a 2:
e c: v . .J. ”m... or. 0 .s. two new Q J“ ..t u _.... J. 2. E a s . s s
z a? t. :— . a J . n .r a. .. : . a . p r
.W Lune um» I- a a: ?. t «\u 1 a a.» r; v . v-N {3 ~ 1* (_s h.\.‘ 5 a» has ..yu‘ ”he sun

63

from seventeenth-century English could survive in present-day Negro
speech yet not survive in white speech. But it seems at least as
likely that structural patterns common to various African languages
could survive today in the speech of many American Negroes-~Negroes
who do not speak Gullah.

In the past five years, specialists in creole linguistics have
in effect returned to the ideas of Herskovits and Turner. They have
been arguing that grammatical features common to West African Pidgin
English and to many New WOrld creole languages spoken by people of
African ancestry, features not basic to English, do nevertheless

17 Both creole and NNE

appear in the speech of some U. S. Negroes.
speakers, for example, tend to omit i§_and are from their speech:

there nothing we can do, they sleepy. Also they use the word 22

 

to express habitual aspect, as in I don't be here Sunday (for

 

Standard English I am not usually here on Sundays)--Beryl Bailey

 

1968:574. Creole languages also express by means different from
those of Indo-European languages such grammatical concepts as past
tense in verbs, number distinctions in verbs and nouns, the possessive

relationship, and pronoun cases. The possessive, for example, is

 

7See for example William Stewart's "Continuity and Change in
American Negro Dialects" (1968). His 1967 "Sociolinguistic Factors
in the History of American Negro Dialects" is also relevant. Richard
Long (1969) says that certain phonological as well as grammatical
features characteristic of Nonstandard Negro English are found in the
Niger-Congo languages, which are the languages originally spoken by
the Negroes brought to America as slaves. For example, NNE speakers
often use stops and affricates (or no consonant at all) in place
of Standard English [5] and [9]. There well may be a causal
relationship between this fact and the fact that the Niger—Congo
languages do not have the interdental fricatives [5] and [6].

exnressed l
ending: a

ran tne E

{r

absence of
t:- express
Bailey men
:f sane E.
Bailey he:
Standard E
survival j
59031811 by
first bro:

In 51

64

expressed by a juxtaposition of words rather than by an inflectional

ending: an example in English would be the printer lead box rather

 

than the printer's lead box (Bailey 1968:573). Like the frequent

 

absence of the present tense BE forms i§_and §£g_and the use of be
to express habitual action, most of these other creole features
Bailey mentions are found also in the present-day nonstandard speech
of some U. S. Negroes. Such creole linguists as William Stewart and
Bailey herself argue that the differences between the grammar of
Standard English and the grammar of NNE may be due largely to partial
survival in NNE of the grammatical system of the creole language
spoken by Negroes generations ago, not many years after Negroes were
first brought to America.

In summary, then, there are two basic positions concerning the
origin of and current structure of Nonstandard Negro English in the
U. S. The dialectologists, who have been mainly occupied with
lexical and phonological matters, contend that there are no deep
structure differences between white speech and Negro speech and that
the nonstandard forms which are now peculiar to Negroes can be
explained as older English forms which have survived only in Negro
speech, due to the Negroes' cultural isolation. The idea that there
are no deep structure differences between NNE and Standard English
is reinforced by a tentative hypothesis of transformational linguists,
the hypothesis that various dialects of a language differ only in
surface structure features, not in deep structure. The creolist
position is diametrically opposed to this position of the dialectolo-

gists and the transformationalists. Creolists, primarily concerned

fit: gram-31
differences
cf certain A
spaken by it"

It see
cf the Engl

gramatical

investigati
collected :
Segre none;
instance,
Prior time
features .3
8150 50111: i
Pidgin Em;

53% as v"

 

65

with grammatical matters, argue that there age deep structure
differences between NNE and Standard English, due to the influence
of certain African grammatical features on the pidgin English first
spoken by New World slaves.

It seems obvious that the origin and the grammatical structure
of the English spoken by Negroes in the U. S. (particularly the
grammatical structure of present-day NNE) are matters for empirical
investigation. Both the dialectologists and the creolists have
collected data which supports their theories about the origin of
Negro nonstandard speech in America. The dialectologists, for
instance, have found that certain features of NNE existed at some
prior time in England, while the creolists have shown that certain
features of the English spoken by the early slaves in America are
also found in other New World creole languages and in West African
Pidgin English. But neither the dialectologists nor the creolists
have as yet carried out extensive studies of current Negro nonstandard
speech: the most thorough and reliable investigations of present-day
Negro nonstandard speech have been undertaken and are being undertaken
by the sociolinguists. One such investigation undertaken explicitly
to attempt to resolve the dialectologist-versus-creolist controversy
is Shuy, Fasold, and Wolfram's study of certain grammatical features
in the speech of some white and Negro lower economic class children
from Lexington, Mississippi. The investigators have concluded that
there seems to be one deep structure difference (at least one)
between the grammatical system of NNE speakers and the grammatical

system of whites: NNE speakers use 2g to indicate habitual action

66

(they don't be sleepy for they aren't habitually sleepy), whereas
whites do not use this habituative be_(Wolfram l969a:l4).

In resolving the controversy between the dialectologists and
the creolists, it is doubtless more important to compare the speech
of Southern whites and Negroes of comparable socioeconomic
backgrounds--as Shuy, Fasold, and WOlfram are doing--than it is to
compare the speech of Northern whites and Negroes: the latter
comparison necessarily involves some regional differences as well
as ethnic differences, since the families of most Negroes once came
from the South. Nevertheless, a detailed examination of Labov's
Negro NYC and Wo1fram's Negro DET data on grammatical variables should
give at least some objective basis for determining whether there are
or are not deep structure differences between NNE and the standard

and nonstandard English spoken by whites.
2.7 GRAMMATICAL VARIABLES

2.7.1 The (zpl) Variable

 

There are three grammatical variables whose regular SE variants
are phonetically the same: the noun plural variable, (Zpl); the noun

possessive variable, (Z ); and the verb third singular variable, (Zv).

pos
WOlfram investigated the presence or absence of all three of the
regular SE variants of these grammatical inflections: the [s] variant

(carts versus cart, bat's versus bat, hates versus hate); the [z]

 

 

variant (cars versus car, bar's versus bar, loves versus love); and

 

 

the [62] variant (boxes versus box, fox's versus fox, kisses versus

 

 

kiss)--Negro DET:l34. In contrast, Labov was concerned with the

67

presence or absence of only the [s] and [z] variants; furthermore,
he investigated the absence of the [s] and [z] variants only when
underlying / s,z / occurred as the final member of a consonant
cluster (Negro NYC:158).

The same phonological constraints affect the loss of the noun
plural, noun possessive, and verb third singular inflections.
According to Labov (Negro NYC:159), the most important phonological
difference stems from the phonological environment which follows, a

consonant (the cats fought) or a vowel (the cats ate it).18

 

 

Labov's data (pp. 161-2) for the (2P1) variable is presented
here in Table 17. The figures indicate the percentage of / s,z /
loss.

For almost all groups / s,z / was lost less often before a
word beginning with a vowel than before a word beginning with a
consonant; the lower working class adults of Southern origin are
the major exception to this pattern. In most cases / s,z / was
lost less often in Style B, careful style,than in Style A, casual
style; again, the lower working class Southerners are the major

exception. The white Inwood groups had 18% loss in Style A before

 

18These same constraints affect the loss of word-final / s /

and / z / when these consonants are not grammatical signals. Among the
Negro peer groups, lames, and Inwood groups, there was no loss of mono-
morphemic / s / or / z / in either Style A or Style B when the following
word began with a vowel (only Style B was elicited from the lames).

For all the Negro peer groups except the Thunderbirds, the loss was
under 10% in both styles when a consonant followed (the Thunderbirds,

in contrast, showed a 40% absence in Style Ar-but 0% in Style B). For
the lames, the loss was 2% in Style B when a consonant followed. The
white Inwood groups showed no / s / or / z / loss at all from mono-
morphemic clusters (Negro NYC:161).

'- ~d

—‘

68

Table 17. Loss of Plural / s,z / for Peer Groups, Lames, and Adults

Style A Style B
__flK. __#V __#K .__#V

Thunderbirds 13 08 15 09
Aces 08 00
Cobras 30 00 04 04
Jets 09 00 06 00
Oscar Brothers 21 10 ll 06
Lames 14 09
Middle class adults 02 00 01 00
WOrking class adults

Upper-~Northern 10 13 01 00

Upper--Southern 14 00 06 00

Lower--Northern 03 00 00 00

Lower--Southern 10 14 12 19
Inwood groups 18 00 00 00

a consonant but 0% loss elsewhere. Generally, the adults had less
/ 8,2 / loss than the youth.

Labov (Negro NYC:163) concludes from his investigations that
the plural is quite intact as a grammatical category in NNE speech.
The small amount of disturbance in the plural, he says, is the result
of 1) phonological processes of cluster simplification; 2) several

individual items that have zero plurals in NNE (cent, year, and

 

similar nouns of measure);19 3) a few speakers who show a much less
uniform use of the plural inflection than most.
In contrast to Labov, Wolfram studied the absence of plural and

possessive and third singular [s], [z], and [la] without reference

 

19Such zero plurals for nouns of measure occur in Northern
speech: He has two pound of butter, I have two pair of shoes,
and so forth (Shuy 1967:30).

 

 

 

tn the

.1 .
12;-‘JCI

83562:
' 1
Dr rm

up.

«as u:

noun f
quest
DC Co
Ciiur
“fire:

.3?
'V‘:

t.

«‘23

69

to the following phonological environment. Wolfram's tabulation
included all real or potential instances of the [s], [z], and [iz]
endings.

Wolfram's mean figures for the percentage of noun plural absence
are as follows for the various social classes (Negro DET:l43):
UMN, 0.5%; LMN, 1.2%; UWN, 4.4%; LWN, 5.8%. Obviously the plural
inflection was seldom absent, even for working class speakers. The
absence of plural [s], [z], and [42] was greater for nouns preceded
by plural quantifiers like £e§_and many_than for nouns not so preceded,
and plural absence was still higher for nouns which were preceded
by plural quantifiers and which themselves involved weights and
measurements--inch, pound, cent, dollar (Negro DET:l45).

In tabulating data to illustrate age and sex differences for the
noun plural variable, Wolfram considered only noun phrases with a
quantifier. The age stratification of (Zpl) in Wolfram's study shows
no consistent pattern. The greatest age-correlated difference
occurred among upper working class Negroes, for whom the figures
were: 17.2% absence for preadolescents, 3.4% for adolescents, and
5.0% for adults (Negro DET:lSO).

The males in Wolfram's study generally had greater plural
inflection absence than the females. The greatest difference was
again among the upper working class Negroes, males having 10.3%

absence and females having 5.8% (Negro DET:l49).

Linguistic conclusions about the (2P1) variable

 

There is clearly an underlying noun plural for NNE speakers.

When the plural inflection is absent, this absence is often

attrib:
is even
seasure

Socioli

_—

general
class g‘
were pe:
hird 5:
there we
between
even for

fit:
vlites 1
58138 tr
However,
is (mes:

IO! thes

70

attributable to a preceding plural quantifier; the plural inflection
is even more likely to be absent if the noun itself is a noun of

measure and is preceded by a plural quantifier.

Sociolinguistic conclusions about the (2P1) variable

 

Socioeconomic status. The middle class group in Labov's study

 

generally showed less absence of plural [s] and [2] than the working
class groups, and in fact Labov observes that the middle class adults
were perfectly standard in their use of plural, possessive, and

third singular inflections (Negro NYC:171). In Wolfram's study

there was also a clear difference in plural [s], [z], and [#2] absence
between the middle class groups and the working class groups. But
even for the working classes, absence of the plural was not great.

Ethnic background. Wolfram excluded the upper middle class

 

whites from his tabulation of noun plural absence, the implication
being that these speakers always pronounced plural [s], [z], and [#2].
However, the upper middle class Negroes had only 0.5% absence, so it
is questionable whether there is a significant ethnic difference

for these middle class speakers. In Labov's study the white
nonstandard—speaking Inwood youth showed plural [s] and [z] absence
only in casual style when a consonant followed, whereas most of the
Negro peer groups showed this absence in both styles and both
environments, though the absence was sometimes zero before a following
vowel. The lames had some [8] and [z] absence in careful style when
a consonant followed, but no absence when a vowel followed (casual
style was not elicited from the lames). This Negro NYC data suggests

an ethnic difference with respect to the plural inflection.

71

Style. In Labov's study, plural [s] and [z] absence was
generally greater in casual style than in careful style. WOlfram
did not compute the stylistic difference for the (Zpl) variable
because the plural inflection was so seldom absent from the reading
passages (Negro DET:l47).

'Age. Labov's adolescents and preadolescents generally showed
plural [s] and [z] absence more often than adults. There was no
clear age stratification in Wolfram's data.

Sex, Generally, Wolfram found that the absence of plural [s],

[z], and [#2] was greater among males than among females.

2.7.2 The (Z ) Variable

pos

 

Labov studied possessive [s] and [z] absence only when the
underlying / s,z / occurred as the final member of a consonant
cluster. Since the data is relatively scarce, Labov gives figures
for all the NNE peer groups together (Negro NYC:161). In casual style,
they had a 72% loss of / s,z / when the following word began with a
consonant; no figure is given for when the following word began with
a vowel. In careful style, the loss was 58% and 50% in the pre-
consonantal and prevocalic environments respectively. From these
statistics, Labov concludes that there is no stable noun possessive
inflection in NNE, in the Negro speech which differs most radically
from the speech of whites. But Negro adults are not NNE speakers:
Labov notes (Negro NYC:171) that the middle class adults in his study
did not lose noun plural or possessive or third singular / s,z / at
all, and for the working classes the processes which remove the

various / s,z / inflectional endings are now primarily phonological

rain-er ‘

Snut‘ner

72

rather than grammatical, except perhaps for the lower working class
Southern group. Thus although the members of the preadolescent
and adolescent Negro peer groups Labov studied do not have a stable
possessive, Negro adults of all classes apparently do. So do white
nonstandard-speaking youth: Labov says (Negro NYC:172) that among
the white Inwood groups there was no loss of possessive / s,z /.
Wolfram.gives the following mean percentages of possessive [s],
[z], and [i2] absence for the various classes: UMN, 0.0%; LMN, 5.8%;
UWN, 24.9%; LWN, 26.8% (Negro DET:l41). Two important observations
about this data are: l) the upper middle class Negroes showed no
absence of the possessive; and 2) there was a sharp distinction in
possessive inflection absence between the working classes and the
middle classes. But even for the working classes, possessive
absence was much less frequent than absence of third singular
[s], [z], and [éz] (see section 2.7.3 below).
Wolfram's figures (Negro DET:lSO) on age stratification for the

(Z ) variable are presented in Table 18. The figures indicate

pos

percentages of [s], [z], and [62] absence.

Table 18. Absence of Possessive [s], [z], and [iz]: By Age

10-12 14-17 Adult
UMN 0.0 0.0 0.0
LMN 7.6 3.6 6.2
UWN 20.9 36.6 17.4
LWN 45.2 19.2 15.9

Overall, the adults had a lower rate of possessive [s], [z], and

[iz] absence than the preadolescents and adolescents.

73

Wolfram found considerable sex differentiation for the (zpos)

variable. His percentages (p. 149) are given in Table 19.

Table 19. Absence of Possessive [s], [z], and [#2]: By Sex

Male Female
UMN 0.0 0.0
LMN 10.3 1.4
UWN 18.8 31.1
LWN 30.1 23.5

Though the overall pattern is not entirely consistent, the lower
middle and lower working classes followed the usual pattern of
greater male use of stigmatized variants--which in this case means

that males had a higher percentage of possessive inflection absence.

Linguistic conclusions about the (ZPOS) variable

 

Labov concludes that phonological processes generally account
for the absence of possessive [s] and [2] among working class adults,
and that all the Negro adults he studied apparently had a stable
noun possessive. Labov also concludes, however, that the members of
his Negro peer groups apparently did not have a stable possessive.
Wolfram concludes that the relatively low frequency of possessive
[s], [z], and [iz] absence for his working class informants as
a whole may seem to indicate that this inflection must be considered
an optional realization of the NNE system. Wolfram goes on to note
that in his study there were several individuals for whmm the
possessive was much more frequently absent than present (Negro DET:l42).
One is left wondering what conclusions Wo1fram would draw if he were

considering the working class youths apart from the adults.

Labov
inflection
had an abs
working c]
style. T:
be due to
Segroes.
come from
use the p
hire cone
Bake much

this exp}

SOCi-Ollng

74

Labov's Negro youths showed an absence of the noun possessive
inflection somewhat more often than Wolfram's youths: Labov's youths
had an absence of 50% to 58% in careful style, whereas Wolfram's
working class youths had an absence of about 20% to 45% in careful
style. This difference between Labov's and Wolfram's findings may
be due to the differing origins of New York City Negroes and Detroit
Negroes. The families of the majority of New York City Negroes have
come from.the eastern coastal area of the South, where Negroes seldom
use the possessive inflection; the families of most Detroit Negroes
have come from the central inland area of the South, where Negroes
make much greater use of the possessive endings (Wolfram Negro DET:l4l;

this explanation was suggested to Wolfram by William Stewart).

Sociolinguistic conclusions about the (Z ) variable

DOS

Socioeconomic status. Labov's middle class and WOlfram's upper

 

middle class adults showed no absence of the noun possessive inflection.
However, the working class adults in both studies did show some noun
possessive absence. The working class youth in Wolfram's study

showed considerably more absence of possessive [s], [z], and [iz] than
the middle class youth.

Ethnic background. The upper middle class whites in Wolfram's

 

study and the white Inwood youth in the Negro NYC study showed no
absence of the regular noun possessive endings. The middle class
Negro adults in Labov's study and all the upper middle class Negroes
in Wolfram's study likewise showed no absence of the possessive, but

all other Negro groups showed at least some absence.

great e
is a s:

categor

the f e:

75

§£11_. Labov's Negro peer groups showed greater absence of
possessive [s] and [z] in casual style than in careful style. WOlfram
did not compute stylistic variations because there were no potential
cases of the noun possessive inflection in the reading passage
(Negro DET:l47).

.Age. Labov says that possessive [s] and [z] absence is much
greater for Negro youth than for adults; in fact, the difference is
great enough to lead him to the conclusion that the noun possessive
is a stable grammatical category for Negro adults but is not a stable
category for Negro youth belonging to ghetto peer groups (NNE
speakers). WOlfram's data also suggests that adults generally have
a lower percentage of possessive inflection absence, but the
differences be found were apparently not as great as the differences
found in Labov's study (possibly because of the differing Southern
origins of the Negroes in New York City and the Negroes in Detroit).

Sex, Wo1fram found that the males in his study generally had
a greater percentage of possessive [s], [z], and [iz] absence than

the females.
2.7.3 The (Zv) Variable

2.7.3.1 Verbs followinggthe regular third singular pattern

Table 20 presents Labov's data (Negro NYC:16l-2) on the loss of
third singular / s,z /. The figures indicate what percentage of the
time the / s / or / z / was lost.

For the Negro peer groups and lames, the percentage of third
singular / s,z / loss was higher even than the percentage of possessive

/ s,z / loss, and the loss of both the possessive and the third

76

Table 20. Loss of Third Singular / s,z / for Peer Groups, Lames and

Adults

Style A Style B

___#K ___#V .__#K .__#V
Thunderbirds 60 100 61 70
Aces 42 71
Cobras 53 67 93 86
Jets 55 78 59 7O
Oscar Brothers 67 68 63 61
Lames 56 64
Middle class adults 00 OO 00 00

Working class adults

Upper-—Northern 31 00 00 00
Upper--Southern OO 23 47
Lower-—Northern 13 00 16 OO
Lower--Southern 33 20 64 82
Inwood groups 00 00 00 00

singular inflections was much higher than the loss of plural / s,z /.
Also, among these youths there was no uniform pattern of style shift
for third singular / s,z / loss and, surprisingly, no tendency for
a following vowel to reduce the loss of third singular / s,z /. Labov
concludes from these facts that there is no underlying third singular
inflection in NNE (Negro NYC:164).

In sharp contrast to the Negro peer groups and the lames, the
white Inwood groups and the middle class Negro adults had no loss
of third singular / s,z /. The working class adults had some third
singular loss, but only the Southern groups showed this loss before
a word beginning with a vowel. Clearly for these Negro adults (with

the possible exception of the lower working class group from the

hr.

0“.

77

South), there was an underlying third singular present tense
grammatical category.

On p. 136 of Negro DET, WOlfram.gives percentages of third
singular [s], [z], and [lz] absence for the various social classes.
The upper middle class whites were not included because no clear-cut
cases of third singular absence were found among these informants.

For the other groups, the mean percentages of third singular absence
are: UMN, 1.4%; LMN, 9.7%; UWN, 56.9%; LWN, 71.4%. There is obviously
a sharp difference in third singular absence between the middle class
groups and the working class groups. Wolfram notes that no informants
showed the categorical absence of the third singular, though for some
it was nearly categorical (p. 136).

For the middle class groups in WOlfram's study, there was
almost no difference in third singular absence between interview
style and reading style. But the working classes had 61.3% absence
in interview style and only 15.6% absence in reading style (Negro
DET:l47).

Wolfram's figures on age stratification for the regular third

singular inflection (Negro DET:lSO) are given in Table 21.

Table 21. Absence of Third Singular [s], [z], and [#2]: By Age

10-12 14—17 Adult
UMN 2.5 1.9 0.0
LMN 21.2 1.5 5.8
UWN 63.8 56.4 50.6
LWN 80.5 76.5 57.1

The adults generally had less third singular absence than

either the preadolescents or the adolescents, and the adolescents

A.-
‘0’.

..,.5

e E E . 3: f. r . .3 e

W. a.“ “C“ d _ . .Q ‘ a as ex

2 - . . . . .L . C. v .
h.” 12¢ E. a “b 0 Ta .1 T .\ :v. val.‘ t.

78

had less than the preadolescents. The difference was quite sharp
between the lower middle class preadolescents and adolescents.

The males of WOlfram's study generally had more third singular
absence than the females, but the differences were all under 5%

(Negro DET:l49).

2.7.3.2 Verbs with irregular third singular forms

 

In addition to the verbs which simply add [3], [z] or [iz] in the
third singular, there are some verbs which show the third singular
present tense inflection plus some other change: E‘LW are ~ _i_s,
_ha_ve r'v h_a_s_, _d_oN M, s_ay~ EL?” In addition there are the
alternating past tense forms were and was.

Labov found in his Negro NYC study that the NNE speakers
generally showed Standard English person-number agreement for am, is,
and egg. There was practically no lack of agreement in the first
singular: ‘I_i§_or simply I_plus zero copula occurred well below 1%
of the time for the preadolescent and adolescent Negro peer groups;
1;§£e_did not occur at all. In third person singular contexts, are
almost never occurred; either is occurred, or there was no copula.
l§_was used for are 5% of the time or less (Negro NYC:221).

Although these NNE speakers almost always had SE person-number
agreement for the present tense of the BE verb, they did not follow
the SE agreement pattern for other verbs which have irregular third
singular present tense forms, nor did they have the SE alternation
between were and E51:

Labov found that among the preadolescent and adolescent Negro

groups, the older Oscar Brothers, and the lames, has was almost never

 

(Ne

It’ll

+2,
Lu!

79

used; haze was overwhelmingly the NNE form. The white Inwood groups,
however, followed the SE pattern completely in their use of haze
and has, .Dgeg occurred even less frequently than has for the younger
Negro peer groups, the older Oscar Brothers, and the lames; again,
the Inwood groups followed the SE pattern. As for the third singular
negative of do, the preadolescent and adolescent Negro peer groups
almost never used doesn't, but the lames used doesn't over a third
of the time and the Oscar Brothers used doesn't about half the time,
dgglt_the rest of the time. The white Inwood groups used doesn't
about a third of the time. The SE form gay§_was almost never used
in third singular contexts by the preadolescent and adolescent Negro
peer groups or the lames, but the Oscar Brothers used gay§_in one
case out of three and the Inwood groups regularly used gays
(Negro NYC:247). Middle class adults followed the SE pattern in all
these cases. Among the working class groups, some did and some did
not follow the SE pattern. Interestingly, some speakers used fairly
regular agreement with these irregular verbs even though they did
not normally use the third singular inflection for verbs with regular
third singulars. On the other hand, many of the adults raised in
the South preserved the NNE pattern almost completely (Negro NYC:249).
For the past tense of the BE verb, the Oscar Brothers used were
nearly three times as often 33.E§§.in contexts where were_would be
the Standard English form, and they used no were in the first and
third singular. The lames had a similar pattern, and the white
Inwood groups followed the SE pattern even more closely. But the

preadolescent and adolescent Negro peer groups used was about five

80

times as often as were in contexts where werg_would be the SE form.
.Were_was used quite erratically: it occurred as often in first and
third singular contexts as in contexts where it regularly appears

in SE. Thus was is clearly the overwhelming NNE form in all contexts
(Negro NYC:249).

In Vol. 2 of Negro NYC (p. 182), Labov gives a table summarizing
his data on verb agreement for these verbs with irregular third
singular forms; were_is also included. This data is presented in
Table 22.

Table 22. Percentage of Standard Verb Agreement for Club Members,
Lames, and Inwood Whites

Verb form Club Lames Inwood
Members whites
h§§_(3rd sg.) 19 60 100
doesn't (3rd sg.) 03 36 32
.ggeg (3rd sg.) 00 13 100
says (3rd sg.) 04 00 100
were (2nd sg., 14 83 100

 

and plural)

The club members (all the Negro peer groups except the Oscar
Brothers) used d9, dealt, and ggy_a1most all of the time and haze
81% of the time in third singular contexts; the club members used
Igag 86% of the time in second person singular contexts and plural
contexts. The Inwood whites were in sharpest contrast, since the
only one of these five nonstandard forms they used was 922:5 for
doesn't, with dgnlt occurring about two-thirds of the time. For

three out of these five variables, the lames were much closer to the

81

white Inwood pattern than to the pattern of the Negro club members.
This emphasizes the fact that not all Negro nonstandard speech is
equally nonstandard. The lames used Negro nonstandard speech, but

they were not speakers of NNE.

Linguistic conclusions about the (2v) variable

 

Labov concludes (Negro NYC:164) that there is no underlying third
singular inflection in NNE, since: 1) the loss of third singular
/ s,z / was relatively high among the Negro peer groups and lames;
2) there was no regular pattern of style shift among these youth;
3) there was no tendency for a following vowel to reduce the loss
of third singular / s,z /; and 4) with verbs having irregular third
singular forms, the preadolescent and adolescent Negro peer groups
used the base form in third singular contexts (except for the BE
verb; NNE speakers usually had standard person-number agreement in the
present tense and nearly always used was in all past tense contexts).
Another indication of basic unfamiliarity with the third

singular inflection is the fact that it is extended to contexts
where Standard English does not have it. This occurs in formal
speech particularly, and more commonly among adults than among
children (Labov Negro NYC:165). WOlfram notes the same phenomenon.
Some of his recorded examples are (Negro DET:l37-9):

I plays that too (lst sg. context)

We plays in the street (lst pl. context)

...you goes places (2nd sg. or pl. context)

They heals up (3rd pl. context)

He knows how to spells big words (infinitive)

I ain't sees him from 1928 (past participle).

Wolfram found that for working class speakers, third singular

[5], [Z],
singular
use of ti

speech tc

Socioling

 

(I)
(7
)

adults 5‘
class ad
absence,
to 6072 a
Volfram'
Showed a
third 5i
least Sc

the mad

82

[s], [z], and [42] occurred over three times as often in third
singular contexts as in other contexts. Still, the inappropriate
use of the third singular inflection occurs often enough in the NNE

speech to indicate basic unfamiliarity with this inflection.

Sociolinguistic conclusions about the (Zv) variable

 

Socioeconomic status. In both studies, most of the middle class

 

adults showed no third singular absence. In Labov's study the working
class adults definitely showed some third singular [s] and [z]
absence, and the working class adults in WOlfram's study showed 50%

to 60% absence of the third singular.

Ethnic background. Neither the upper middle class whites of
Wolfram's study nor the working class Inwood youth of Labov's study
showed any third singular inflection absence for verbs with regular
third singulars. In contrast, all of the Negro groups showed at
least some absence, though the absence was relatively slight for
the middle class groups, particularly the upper middle class speakers
of Wolfram's study. With verbs having irregular third singular
forms, the nonstandard-speaking Inwood groups followed the standard
pattern in four cases out of five; the preadolescent and adolescent
Negro peer groups, on the other hand, consistently used base forms
in third singular present contexts (and used was rather than were
in past contexts).

Style, The Negroes in Labov's study showed no regular pattern
of style shift. For the Negro middle classes in WOlfram's study
there was little stylistic difference (but these groups showed

little overall absence of the third singular inflection). For the

 

:‘nird singu
possessive
group your?
graraaticaj
the loser r
adults gent
or adolesg.
this diffe
Six.

slightly g

Vfitsjs tL‘
a

'artiCiPlr

4.
“59339 i:

Ethane;

v-u ,
““e 3'01:

i‘te
q~ker.

83

working classes there was a sharp stylistic difference: they had
61.3% absence in interview style but only 15.6% in reading style.

EEL: In Labov's study, the Negro youth showed far greater
third singular [s] and [z] absence than the adults. As with the
possessive inflection, Labov concludes that while the Negro peer
group youth (the NNE speakers) have no underlying third singular
grammatical category, the adults do (with the possible exception of
the lower working class Southern speakers). In Wo1fram's study, the
adults generally had less third singular absence than the preadolescents
or adolescents, but Wblfram draws no particular conclusions from
this difference.

Sex. Wblfram found that the males in his study generally had

slightly greater third singular absence than the females.

2.7.4 Copula Absence

 

Another variable Labov and wolfram studied was the presence or

absence of is and are (he is going versus he going, they are funny

 

 

versus they funny). As with the absence of past tense and past
participle inflections, linguists disagree as to whether copula
absence is primarily a phonological phenomenon or primarily a
grammatical phenomenon. Labov advocates the former explanation,
while WOlfram and creolists like Stewart and Bailey advocate the
latter.

20

Labov notes that since i§_and are are often missing from Negro

 

20Most of the information on Labov's study of copula deletion
is taken from his 1968 paper "Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent
Variability of the English Copula," which is based on the Negro NYC

study. This paper will be referred to here as "Copula"; the page

nonstand
studied -
or auxil
contexts
575:177-1

l.

"embers to
“3352611: 8

21

that the 1
[“2th a?

84

nonstandard speech, some linguists--especially those who have
studied creole 1anguages--have concluded that there is no copula
or auxiliary BE verb. But, says Labov, there are several other
contexts where BE verbs do appear. For example (Copula:6-8; Negro
NYC:177-84):

l. ‘wag and were appear regularly to indicate past tense:

I was small; I was sump'm about one years 01' baby.
She was likin' me...she was likin' George too.

2. I'm is regularly found (the contraction of I am to I'm
is semicategorical in NNE, but the / m / is rarely,
perhaps never, deleted--Negro NYC:178):

I'm tired, Jeanette.
I'm not no strong drinker.

3. ain't is used as a negative BE form:

It ain't no cat can't get in no coop.
My sons, they ain't but so big.

Labov says one could argue that ain't is

simply a negative marker, but along with a sentence like
they ain't black one also finds they not black. Therefore
ain't seems to be a negative BE form.

 

4. 139 [is], thas [5 a s], whas [was] are found in
the great majority of cases, rather than just_it for it is,
and so forth (Negro NYC:180).21

 

numbers will refer to the ERIC document. The same basic data and
arguments are found in somewhat more detail in Chapter 3 of Negro NYC.

1

However, Labov says later in Negro NYC (p. 212; p. 38 of Copula)
that the final [8] of each of these forms is not the [s] of a con-
tracted and assimilated_i§. Rather, the process is as follows:

it ## iz

it ## ez vowel reduction

it ## z contraction

is ## z assibilation of / t /
is ## deletion

Labov says this assibilation of / t / occurs among white nonstandard
Speakers, but with a somewhat lower frequency than for NNE speakers.

a__;

I\

85

In addition to these various BE forms, one consistently finds is
and are under certain conditions even though these forms are often
missing before complements and participle forms. For example,
(Copula:7-8; Negro NYC:183):

1. .12 and ere appear under emphatic stress:

Allah‘i§_God.
39.12 an expert.

2. i§_and are appear in clause-final positions after ellipsis
has taken place:

(You ain't the best sounder, Eddie!)
I ain't! He is!
It always somebody tougher than you are.

3. _ig and are appear in embedded questions, after wh-attraction:

I don't care what you are.
Do you see where that person is?

4. .15 and are are often found in yes/no questions:

Is he dead?
Are you down?

This list of examples is not quite as comprehensive as Labov's, but
it should be clear that Negro nonstandard speakers do use various

BE forms, including i§_and are. (The quotes are mostly from the
youth in the Negro NYC study.) The question, then, is how to account
for the frequent deletion of_i§ and are_before complements and
participles.

Both the preceding and the following grammatical environment
affect copula deletion. Labov says that the most important constraint
on deletion in NNE and on contraction in SE is whether the subject is
a pronoun or whether it is some other noun phrase (Copula:16; Negro

NYC:193). As for the grammatical environment following the copula

Iabl

T ..

9h;

Con
Del

86

position, there are five relevant categories: a noun phrase, a
predicate adjective, a locative, a present participle verb, and

the particular item gonna (going to). Labov's data for the contraction

 

and deletion of_i§ in these preceding and following environments

(Copula:17-l8; Negro NYC 194-5) is given in Tables 23 and 24.

Table 23. Percentage of Full, Contracted, and Deleted Forms of i§_with
Pronoun Subject Versus Other Noun Phrase Subject
Style A (Group or casual style)
T-Birds Cobras Jets Oscar Working Inwood
Bros. class whites
adults
NP_ Pro_’NP_ Pro__NP_ Pro__NP_ Pro_ NP_ Pro_.NP_ Pro_
Full 44 07 45 00 54 00 51 04 61 01 41 01
Contr. 15 33 19 23 19 42 23 33 26 72 59 99
Del. 42 60 36 77 27 58 26 64 14 27 00 00
Style B (Careful style)
Full 63 05 56 O4 67 00 85 25 75 04 26 00
Contr. 25 44 26 29 15 39 11 60 17 80 74 100
Del. 12 51 18 67 18 61 04 15 08 16 00 00

It is immediately obvious that for all groups the percentage

of contracted and deleted forms was much greater with a pronoun

preceding than with some other kind of noun phrase preceding.

For

the preadolescent and adolescent peer groups in both styles and for

the older Oscar Brothers in group style (Style A), the percentage of

deleted forms was almost always much higher than the percentage of

contracted forms.

But for the Oscar Brothers in careful style

(Style B) and for the adults and Inwood groups, the reverse was

true.

whatsoever.

The white Inwood groups, in fact, had no deleted forms

87

Table 24 gives percentages of full, contracted, and deleted
forms of is according to the grammatical category of the complement,
for all NNE styles combined. Considering contraction and deletion
together, the least contraction and deletion occurred before a noun
phrase, the next least before a predicate adjective or locative, the
next least before a present participle, and the most before gonna.
The pattern for deletion alone was the same. But the pattern for
contraction was reversed: as deletion increased, contraction
decreased. For both groups in almost all cases the percentage of
deletion was higher than the percentage of contraction. That was
particularly true when a present participle or gggn§_followed.

Table 24. Percentage of Full, Contracted, and Deleted Forms of is
According to Grammatical Category of Complement

_NP __PA __Loc _V 7‘ ing _ gonna

Thunderbirds

Full 40 25 30 O4 00

Contracted ( 37 27 34 30 12

Deleted 23 48 36 66 88
Jets

Full 37 34 21 O7 03

Contracted 31 30 27 19 03

Deleted 32 36 52 74 93

A comparison of Table 23 with Table 24 makes it apparent that
the influence of the following environment upon i§_de1etion is not
as important as the influence of the preceding environment, though
both are significant. Labov's careful analysis shows that neither of
these environmental constraints is dependent upon the other, though

there is some degree of interaction (Copula:22; Negro NYC 198).

HI

and de
or non
end vi
full f
phrase
but in

From t

88

The most important phonological constraint for the contraction
and deletion of_i§ turns out to be whether the preceding pronoun
or noun phrase ends with a consonant or a vowel.22 Most pronouns
end with a stressed vowel, and as already noted, there are almost no
full forms after pronouns. There are fewer full forms after noun
phrases ending in vowels than after noun phrases ending in consonants,
but in both cases there are far more full forms than after pronouns.
From these facts, it is apparent that the effect of a preceding
pronoun upon contraction and deletion is only partly dependent upon
the effect of a preceding vowel. This opposing effect of a preceding
vowel versus a preceding consonant holds for all syntactic environments
except before a following gonna, where there are almost no full forms
at all (Copula:32,34; Negro NYC:201,206).

In NNE, are_very rarely occurs in full form, and even contracted
forms occur quite infrequently; are is usually deleted. Labov
(Negro NYC:219) presents data showing that deletion of are occurs
much more frequently than deletion of is. Overall, are_deletion
occurred 79% of the time for Labov's Negro adolescent groups and 84%
of the time for the preadolescents; when a present participle or
gonna followed, the adolescents deleted are 87% of the time and the
preadolescents deleted are 91% of the time. Apparently the working
class adults deleted ere about 60% of the time in casual style. In

careful style, upper working class adults deleted are about 14% of the

 

22Labov says that the effect of a following vowel or consonant is
inconsequential for younger groups, though it gradually assumes more
importance with age (Copula:30; Negro NYC:244).

.‘C

V -

 

 

t1?
31

89

time, whereas lower working class adults deleted a£e_about 65%
of the time. Middle class adults did not delete either i§_or are.
(These percentages are my calculations, based on raw data from Labov
Negro NYC, pp. 219 and 241.)

Differences in the following grammatical environment do not
seem to have nearly as much influence on are cmntraction and deletion
as upon the contraction and deletion of is, Judging from Labov's
explanation (Copula:4l-2; Negro NYC:219-20), are might be deleted
more often in rfless areas than in_rfpronouncing areas, and indeed
a comparison of Labov's data with WOlfram's (Negro DET:l74) suggests
that this is so. Labov points out that for NNE speakers, underlying
/ r / frequently becomes a vowel in final position, particularly when
the following word begins with a consonant. Once this / r / vocal-
ization rule has operated on are to give / as /, the first vowel is
weakened and then reduced to schwa; the second schwa is then lost;
and finally the first schwa is lost by contraction. Contraction of
.age is thus equivalent to deletion. This explanation accounts for
the fact that though are is very frequently deleted, contracted forms
are seldom found. "In any case," Labov concludes, "the net result
is that far fewer are forms survive in NNE than is: for many
speakers, deletion 0f.2£2 is (semi-)categorical" (Copula:42; see
also Negro NYC:220).

The question of the relationship between the contraction of
are and the deletion of are_brings up the general question of the
relationship between contraction and deletion in NNE. Basing his

conclusion on empirical investigation, Labov states emphatically:

90

"the following general principle holds without exception: wherever

SE can contract, NNE can delete is and are and vice-versa; wherever

 

SE cannot contract, NNE cannot delete is and are, and vice-versa"

 

(Copula:9; Negro NYC:185). From this observation and from additional
study of his data, Labov draws significant conclusions about the
relation between contraction and deletion in NNE. Contraction occurs
first, in transformational terms; deletion follows contraction.
Suppose, for example, that in a particular case there are 20% full
forms, 20% contracted forms, and 60% deleted forms. If deletion
follows contraction, then one should describe this situation by
saying that 80% of the forms are contracted and 75% of these contracted
forms are then deleted.

A lengthy discussion of Labov's conclusions about the relation
between contraction and deletion is inappropriate here, and such a
sketchy outline as this may not be convincing. (The interested
reader may wish to consult Copula:9-21 or Negro NYC:185-98.) But
it is important in understanding the following discussion to remember
Labov's assumption that the contraction rule precedes the deletion
rule.

On p. 241 of Negro NYC, Labov presents data showing social
and stylistic stratification in the use of the contraction and
deletion rules. Labov makes several significant observations
about this data: 1) in Style A, middle class adults used the contrac-
tion rule for is about half as much as the working class adults and
less than half as much as most Negro peer groups; 2) all groups used

the deletion rule for i§_much more in Style A than in Style B

phen

'1" ha
PM.»

VOCa

91

(except the middle class adults, who did not use the rule at all),
but the stylistic shift was more marked among adults than among the
youth; 3) the preadolescent lames very seldom used the deletion rule
for_i§, and the adolescent lames used the rule considerably less often
than the Negro peer groups; 4) the white Inwood groups and the middle
class adults did not delete either is or are at all; 5) the middle
class adults were the only group which had a high number of unreduced
.are's; and 6) the Negro peer groups showed no clear stylistic shift
for are, whereas the adults generally showed a sharp stylistic
difference (Negro NYC:242-3).

One important linguistic concern which remains for discussion
is the question of whether copula deletion is primarily a phonological
phenomenon or primarily a grammatical phenomenon.

In Labov's scheme, the removal 0f.§£2 is taken care of by
phonological rules prior to his deletion rule; a rule operates to
vocalize the final / r / and, after other rules have operated,
deletion is finally effected by the contraction rule (see p. 89
of the present study). 'Will is removed somewhat similarly. Labov's
deletion rule was designed to remove a lone oral continuant between
word boundaries (Copula:36; Negro NYC:209). Thus the / m / of
contracted am will not be deleted, since it is not an oral consonant;
this restriction in the rule is necessary if the rule is to account
for the fact that the / m / of am_is rarely, if ever, deleted. The
non-continuant / d / of contracted h§d_will not be deleted either;
this restriction is also necessary because had appears frequently

in NNE. The deletion rule will, however, delete the / s / or / z /

and

tOge

Tani

are

Pete
the :
Corr,

“P961

92

of contracted_i§ and also the / s / or / z / of contracted has,
plus the / v / of contracted haze.

The deletion rule depends upon a grammatical constraint:
these oral continuants are deleted only when they occur alone between
word boundaries. Nevertheless, the rule is a phonological one.

Thus both are and is are deleted by phonological rules, according
to Labov.

Wblfram treats copula absence under the heading of grammatical
variables, but he too notes that both grammatical and phonological
facts are needed to describe this copula absence in NNE.

On p. 169 of Negro DET, Wolfram gives percentages for contraction
and zero realization (absence) of the copula, both i§_and are
together. The mean percentages are given here in Table 25.

Table 25. Percentage of Copula Contraction and Zero Realization: By
Social Class

Zero
Contraction Realization Total
UMW 79.8 0.0 79.8
UMN 67.9 4.7 72.6
LMN 63.3 10.9 74.2
UWN 40.1 37.3 77.4
LWN 25.0 56.9 81.9

The combined percentages of contraction and zero realization
are approximately the same for all groups. But the relative
percentages of contraction and zero realization vary regularly:
the lower the social class, the lower the rate of contraction and,
correspondingly, the higher the rate of zero realization. (The

upper middle class whites, however, have no zero realization.)

that
in SE
which

which

ZErO

93

As Wolfram.points out (p. 168), this data confirms Labov's observation
that zero realization (deletion) in NNE corresponds to contraction

in SE. (Also, it was partly this sort of regular correspondence
which led Labov to the conclusion that deletion operates upon forms
which have already been contracted.)

Like Labov, WOlfram also investigated the influence of the
preceding and following grammatical environment on copula contraction
and absence; unlike Labov, however, Wolfram investigated the effect
of these environmental influences on are as well as on_i§. This data
(pp. 170, 172) is given in Tables 26 and 27.

Table 26. Percentage of Copula Contraction and Zero Realization When
Preceded by a Noun Phrase or a Pronoun: By Social Class

Zero
Contraction Realization Total
NP__ Pro__ NP__ Pro__ NP__ Pro__
UMW 46.5 96.2 0.0 0.0 45.6 96.2
UMN 39.3 92.2 1.8 6.2 40.8 98.4
LMN 40.0 83.1 6.3 13.8 46.3 96.9
UWN 24.3 49.4 18.9 40.7 43.2 90.1
LWN 20.5 32.4 30.1 63.1 50.6 95.5

The social stratification pattern displayed in Table 26 is the
same as that found in Table 25. But in addition to showing regular
social stratification, Table 26 reveals that contraction and zero
realization both occurred approximately twice as often after a
pronoun as after some other noun phrase. Contraction or zero
realization was, in fact, almost categorical after pronouns.

Table 27 shows that when a pronoun preceded, contraction and

zero realization together generally occurred about 90% of the time

\

Hot
co;

1
A

0

ID}

at

the

 

94

Table 27. Percentage of Contraction and Zero Realization of Copula
When Preceded by a Pronoun and Followed by Five Kinds of

Complements
_PA _PN _Loc _V 1‘ £15 _ gonna

Middle class

Contraction 95.1 93.3 80.0 87.7 61.9

Zero Realization 1.6 4.2 13.3 11 3 33.3

Total 96.7 97 5 93.3 99 0 95 2
WOrking class

Contraction 55.7 42.1 53.6 39.3 3.3

Zero Realization 36.5 47.3 44.4 50.1 78.9

Total 92.2 89.4 98.0 89.3 81.9

or more in each of the five grammatical environments following the
copula position. (This generally left a much lower percentage of full
forms than in Labov's somewhat comparable table, given here as Table 24.
One major cause for the difference is that WOlfram tabulated both

-i§ and egg, whereas Labov tabulated only is. Another major cause is
that Wo1fram tabulated only those forms which had a preceding pronoun,
whereas Labov also tabulated forms with other preceding noun phrases.)
Zero realization was greater before predicate nominatives than before
predicate adjectives, greater before Vfli§g_than before predicate
nominatives, and by far the greatest before gggna, The percentages
for zero realization before predicate locatives fell somewhere in
between. Wolfram points out (pp. 172-3) that the middle class's
relatively high percentage of zero realization before gg§g§_suggests
that zero realization preceding ggnna_is not as stigmatized as zero
realization in other environments. For the middle class, contraction
decreased consistently from the predicate adjective environment to
the ggng§_environment, reading the table from left to right; thus

,1
contraction generally decreased as zero realization increased. For the

95

working class, the pattern of decrease did not show quite the same
regularity, though generally there was a decrease in contraction
from the predicate adjective environment to the gggna environment.
For the latter environment, the working class speakers had only 3.3%
contraction, compared with 78.9% zero realization.

WOlfram.gives percentages of contraction and zero realization
for is and are separately (p. 174); these are given here in Table 28.

Table 28. Percentage of Contraction and Zero Realization of Copula
When Underlying Form is is or are: By Social Class

Zero
Contraction Realization Total
.lfi .EEE .lfi .EEE .li .332
UMN 66.7 69.5 0.7 7.6 67.4 77.1
LMN 68.6 64.4 5.1 17.9 73.7 82.3
UWN 54.9 24.4 17.2 46.9 72.1 74.3
LWN 36.0 19.5 37.1 68.8 73.1 88.3

The combined percentages of contraction and zero realization
were somewhat greater for are than for is, but the outstanding
difference is that zero realization was approximately twice as great
for are as for is. Wolfram points out one important reason for this
difference: absence of final [r] is effected by a general phonological
process in Negro nonstandard speech (see my discussion of the (r)
variable), whereas no such process generally operates to cause the
absence of final [8] and [z] (Negro DET:l74).

Slight decreases in zero copula realization were found for the
middle class Negro groups as they moved from interview style to

reading style (their percentages are under 8% for both styles).

96

For the working class, the difference was great: 41.8% zero reali-
zation for interview style, 7.9% for reading style (Negro DET:l77).
On p. 179, Wolfram gives percentages of zero copula realization

for three age groups; this data is given here in Table 29.

Table 29. Percentage of Copula Zero Realization: By Age

10-12 14-17 Adult
UMN 6.2 5.1 3.1
LMN 18.0 8.2 6.4
UWN 53.5 30.3 27.4
LWN 64.7 67.7 38.4

The adults had less zero realization than the adolescents, and
the adolescents had less than the preadolescents. The difference
was especially great between lower working class adults and youth.

The percentage of zero realization was consistently higher for
the males in Wolfram's study than for the females. WOlfram's data

(p. 178) is given here in Table 30.

Table 30. Percentage of Copula Zero Realization: By Sex

Male Female
UMN 6.4 3.1
LMN 16.4 5.3
UWN 45.3 28.7
LWN 66.3 47.5

Linguistic conclusions about copula absence

Copula contraction and deletion are affected by both grammatical
and phonological constraints. When a pronoun precedes the underlying
copula, contraction or deletion is almost categorical; however, these

processes occur much less frequently when some other kind of noun

97

phrase precedes. Contraction and deletion are also affected by the
following grammatical environment: deletion, in particular, occurs
much more frequently before ggnna_than before any other environment.
The most important phonological constraint is the effect of a
preceding vowel versus the effect of a preceding consonant: a
preceding vowel favors deletion.

Labov and Wblfram.agree that there is clearly an underlying
copula in NNE. Labov says his study shows that SE and NNE differences
in the use of the copula are low-level; they do not represent deep
structure differences. But in reference to Stewart's "Continuity
and Change in American Negro Dialects," Labov also remarks that the
situation may have been much different in eighteenth-century or
nineteenth-century America, and in fact the situation may be different
even today with speakers heavily influenced by Caribbean patterns,

as in Florida (Copula:51).

Sociolinguistic conclusions about copula absence

Socioeconomic status. In Labov's study, it was found that 1)

 

in casual style, middle class adults used the contraction rule for
i§_about half as often as working class adults; 2) unlike working
class adults, middle class adults did not omit either i§_or are; and
3) middle class adults were the only group which had a high number

of unreduced 353's. In Wblfram's study, the combined percentages of
copula contraction and zero realization were approximately equal for
all groups. However, there was regular variation in the relative
percentages of contraction and zero realization: the lower the social

class, the lower the contraction rate and, correspondingly, the

98‘

higher the rate of zero realization. There seems to be a definite
break between the middle classes and the working classes: the
‘middle classes had both contraction and zero realization decidedly
less often than the working classes.

Ethnic background. Neither the white middle class adults in

 

Wolfram’s study nor the nonstandard-speaking Inwood groups of Labov's
study had any copula absence. In contrast, all Negro groups in
Wolfram's study and all Labov's Negro groups except the middle class
adults showed at least some degree of absence.

Style. Labov found that middle class adults did not use the
deletion rule at all, but all other groups used the deletion rule
for l§_much more in casual speech than in careful speech. WOlfram
found that zero realization occurred less often in reading style
than in interview style. The difference was slight for middle class
Negroes, who had little zero realization in either style. For
working class Negroes, however, the style shift was great.

‘Age. The adolescent Negro peer groups in Labov's study had a
much higher percentage of deleted lg forms than contracted forms,
while the reverse was true for the adults. Also, the Negro peer
groups showed no clear stylistic shift for 2329 whereas generally the
adults had a sharp stylistic difference. WOlfram.found that the
adults showed less copula absence than the adolescents, and the
adolescents showed less than the preadolescents.

.Sex. In WOlfram's study, the males had more copula absence

than the females.

99

2.7.5 Invariant he

 

Wolfram studied what he calls "invariant 23?: the use of just

uninflected te_where Standard English would have will be (I be here

 

tomorrow for SE I will (or I'll) be here tomorrow); the use of just

 

 

te_where SE would have would be (if I was to stay longer, I be frozen

for SE if I were to stay longer, I would (or I'd) be frozen); and the

 

use of tg_where SE would have em, lg, or are (one possible "translation"

of NNE I be sad is I am sad frequently).

 

In a paper first made available in 1966 through the Educational
Resources Information Center, Marvin Loflin explains that in Negro
honstandard speech, a sentence like I be busy may be three ways

ambiguous: it may mean I will be busy, I would be busy, or I am

E frequently

habitually; _bggy. In order to account for the latter interpretation

23

 

Loflin postulates a habituative category in NNE.
More recent research supports Loflin's observation that sentences
like I be busy may be three ways ambiguous in NNE and that a new
grammatical category is needed to account for some instances of he.
WOlfram thoroughly discusses current findings on invariant tt_and, in
so doing, gives examples (pp. 180-5) of some actually occurring
instances of the three uses of te_that Loflin notes:
1. tt_apparent1y corresponding to SE will be:
I be 12 February 7.
He be in in a few minutes.

I been working there since 'bout January...
couple more weeks it be six months.

 

23This paper was published in Glossa in 1967. See Loflin
1967a: 26-8.

100

2. te_apparently corresponding to SE would be:24
I used to day-dream, I used to drift off in my
own little world, and she just be talking and
I wouldn't listen to a word she was saying.
Well, I used to hang around with this Puerto Rican
girl...She be talking and you couldn't understand
a thing she be saying.
3. te_marking an intermittent activity or state and corres-
ponding in surface form (though not entirely in meaning)
to SE gm, lg, or are (Wolfram's analysis shows that this use
of §g_occurs about three times as often as the other two
uses in the speech of the Negro working classes--p. 198):
They don't be mean.
See, we pass from class to class, we don't be in
the same one.
They sometimes be incomplete and things like that.
He sometimes be a operator doctor.
For the last set of examples, the original context of the
sentences made it apparent that tt_corresponded in surface form to
are or_l§, depending on the subject. Don't be apparently corresponded
roughly to SE aren't; it is interesting and quite possibly significant
that Se is not negated here as if it were an ordinary BE verb.-
Henceforth the term "habituativeitef will be used here to refer
to the occurrence of invariant tt_where SE would have gg,_l§, or are
(the terms "distributive he? and "iterative 22? are also in use--see
Negro DET:l95). An instance of invariant tg_is considered habituative
if, in the given context, the he does not seem equivalent to SE
will be or would be.

As in the last two of the examples from.WOlfram,‘t§_expressing

an intermittent activity or state is often accompanied by an adverb

 

2('Apparently the / 1 I of contracted will and the / d / of
contracted would are deleted by phonological processes which delete
final / 1 /'s and final / d /'s. See for example Negro DET:l84-5.

101

indicating frequency of occurrence. Ralph Fasold (1969b) has made
an extensive study of the co-occurrence of invariant tg_with these
adverbs. He listened to recorded interviews of 76 Negro speakers,
both male and female, and divided among children, adolescents, and
adults. Of these 76 speakers, 56 used invariant tg_in the interview
for a total of 357 instances. Out of these 357 instances, 84--over
25%-—occurred with frequency adverbs, as shown in Table 31 (Fasold

l969b:767).

Table 31. Co-occurrence of Invariant tt_and Frequency Adverbs

 

 

 

No. of
Meanin Adverb Occurrences Total in
of RE. Classification
Rare occurrence hardly 2
very seldom 1 3
Occasional occurrence sometimes 39
some days 2
every now and then 1
quite a bit 1 43
Frequent occurrence 0 O
Usual occurrence usually 7
on the holidays,
on Halloween 3
mostly 3
generally 1
on most occasions 1 15
Regular occurrence every time/day/mornr
ing 10
at night, in the
nighttime/morning 5 15
How often? How long? always 6
(Continuous occurrence) all the time 2 8

102

In addition to occurring with the frequency adverbs in
Table 31, te_also occurred fairly often in subordinate clauses
beginning with whenever or when and in main clauses modified by a

whengever) clause:

When people be talking, she'a give you a E right quick.
When he turns it, one be going this way and the other
be going all around.
Fasold found 37 occurrences of tg_in sentences with the subordinators
th22_and whenever. Thus te_co-occurred with a whengever) clause
11.5% of the time and with a frequency adverb 25.8% of the time
(Fasold 1969b:767).

To show the relevance of these statistics, Fasold also tabulated
the co-occurrence of gg,_l§, and gte_with the frequency adverbs for
18 of the informants who used invariant Se. Out of 538 instances
of gm, lg, 399.2229 only 8 co-occurred with a frequency adverb, and
in two cases the so-called frequency adverb may not actually have
been an adverb of frequency. Thus while a frequency adverb co-occurred
with te_over 25% of the time, such an adverb co-occurred with 59, lg,
or 2E2 only about 1% of the time (Fasold l969b: 767).

In his Negro NYC study (p. 234), Labov tabulated the percentage
of habituative Se, of Se in environments which would require gm, lg,
or 222 in Standard English. This data is presented in Table 32. The
figures indicate the percentages of te_compared with the total number
of forms in contexts where SE would require 33, lg, or £335 the data
is for careful style, Style B.

Labov speculates that the relatively high occurrence of te_in

contexts requiring are in SE may be due to the high deletion rate

103

Table 32. Percentage of te_in SE gm, lg, and are Contexts

SE context: §m_ .lg are
Thunderbirds 14 07 37
Jets 13 06 29
Cobras 16 15 32
Oscar Brothers 24 00 16

for 252 in NNE speech. However, as Labov also notes, that kind of
explanation can hardly account for the fact that he occurs in SE in;
contexts more often than in l§_contexts, since gm is almost never
deleted in NNE speech but lg fairly often is deleted (Negro NYC:234).
None of Labov's attempts to account for these various differences
are convincing.

Surprisingly, Labov found that though the Negro peer groups
used habituative Se in careful conversation (single interviews,
Style B), there was very little use of habituative bg_in group sessions.
This distribution is unusual because the group sessions usually showed
the most regular application of NNE rules. It is clear, though, that
habituative he was used more frequently by these peer groups than by
the other groups Labov has studied. None of the whites in his earlier

Social Stratification study used habituative RE: and even the white

 

Inwood youth did not use it. The lames in the Negro NYC study used
this tg_somewhat less frequently than the Negro peer groups, and this
pattern has generally proved characteristic of NNE features. Also,
habituative he is heavily age-graded. It occurs frequently among
preadolescents and adolescents in ghetto areas, but adults rarely use
it: Labov has collected only a few examples of habituative te_in all

of his adult interviews. Thus it seems that habituative te_is an

104

emphatic form which characterizes the deliberative speech of Negro
peer groups in ghetto areas (Negro NYC:235).

Wolfram in his Negro DET study simply counted for each interview
the number of invariant ts occurrences (St for SE will be, Se for SE
would be, and habituative tef-the word te_in SE gm, lg, and_ate

contexts). This data (p. 198) is given in Table 33.

Table 33. Total Occurrences of Invariant Se

(will) te_ (would) te_ Habituative tg_ Ambiguous
UMN 2 0 2 1
LMN O 0 2 4
UWN 3 5 21 14
LWN 8 7 69 47

The figures for habituative Re are particularly interesting:
this 22 occurred only 4 times in the speech of the middle class
Negroes, but it occurred 21 times in upper working class speech and
69 times in lower working class speech.

Wolfram found that invariant tg_was categorically absent for
upper middle class white speakers and that it only rarely occurred
among middle class Negroes: only 5 of 24 middle class Negro informants
had any occurrences of invariant tg_at all. The mean number of
occurrences for the Negro groups was: UMN, 0.4; LMN, 0.5; UWN, 3.5;
LWN 10.9. There was a decided difference not only between the middle
classes and the working classes but also between the upper working
class and the lower (Negro DET:197-8).

As for style differences, Wolfram found no instances of
invariant 22.1“ the reading style of his informants (p. 200). But of

course the reading passages contained no instances of invariant be.

105

Invariant tt_was rarely used by the middle classes, so for
them the age stratification was slight. However there were definite
age differences among the working class speakers. For the upper
working class, the age stratification was as follows: 4.3 mean
number of occurrences for the preadolescents, 4.8 for the adolescents,
and 1.5 for the adults. For the lower working class informants, the
stratification between the youth and the adults was much sharper:
the figures were 16.3 occurrences for the preadolescents, 12.8 for
the adolescents, 3.8 for the adults. WOlfram summarizes this data
concisely: "Invariant Se is a feature characteristic of working-
class pre-adolescent and teenage speech" (Negro DET:201).

The males in WOlfram's study used invariant te_slightly more

often than the females (Negro DET:200).

Sociolinguistic conclusions about invariant te_(particularly

 

habituative.te)

 

Clearly, as both Labov's work and WOlfram's work show, it is
typically ghetto youth who use invariant ES to indicate actions which
are habitual or iterative and to indicate (usually simultaneously) a
general condition or state of affairs over a period of time.

A few additional brief statements can be made about the socio-
linguistic stratification of invariant he:

Socioeconomic status. Invariant te_was rarely used by the

 

middle classes in Labov's and Wolfram's investigations. Also,
invariant te_was more characteristic of the lower working class

than of the upper.

106

 

Ethnic status. Apparently whites do not use habituative Se;
neither Wolfram nor Labov found any instances in white speech. Even
the white nonstandard-speaking Inwood groups of Labov's study showed
no use of habituative he.

Style, Wolfram found no instances of invariant te_in reading
style, which is not illogical since the reading passages contained
no instances of this t5, But surprisingly, Labov found few instances
of habituative he in the casual speech of the Negro peer groups.
Rather, habituative te_was characteristic of their careful speech.

'lge. The adults in the Negro NYC study rarely used habituative
'22: it occurred almost exclusively in the speech of adolescents
and preadolescents.

§£§3 The males of WOlfram's study used invariant te_slightly

more often than the females.

2.7.6 Multiple Negation

 

Multiple negation involves the realization of one underlying
negative at two or more points within a sentence. For example, a
single underlying negative element is realized at five different

places in the sentence We ain't never had no trouble about none of

 

us pullin' out no knife (Negro DET:153). This multiple realization
of a single negative element is foreign to Standard English, though
white nonstandard speakers use multiple negatives. Still, there are
both quantitative and qualitative differences between NNE speakers
and white nonstandard speakers in their use of multiple negation.
NNE speakers extend negative concord to all indefinites in a clause

more often than white nonstandard speakers do, and they also use some

107

types of multiple negative constructions not found among whites.

There are at least two such constructions not found among even

nonstandard-speaking whites:25

1. negative inversion, in which the reversal of tense
marker and subject characteristic of questions occurs
in declarative sentences (examples from Negro NYC:284-6):

Doesn't nobody really know that it's a god, you know.
Can't nobody stop it.

Won't nobody catch us.

wasn't nobody home.

2. extension of a negative element in one clause to a
pre-verbal auxiliary in a following clause (examples
from Negro NYC:282):

Well, wasn't much I couldn't do.
It ain't no cat can't get in no coop.

In SE, the first of these two sentences would be
Well, there wasn't much I could do; the second
would be something like There isn't any cat that
can_get in any coop.

 

White nonstandard speakers do not use either of these types of NNE
multiple negation.

NNE use of multiple negation also differs quantitatively from
that of other speakers, both white and Negro. Labov found (Negro
NYC:277) that 98% to 99% of the time, the Negro peer groups extended
a single underlying negative to all indefinites within a clause.

This almost categorical use of multiple negation was found in both

 

25Both Labov and WOlfram discuss the types of multiple negation

which characterize NNE. See Negro DET:153—5 and Negro NYC:275-87.
Labov and WOlfram.mention also a type of multiple negative construction
which is used by some white nonstandard speakers, but which was not
used by Labov's Inwood white groups (Negro NYC:276) and is not used

by white nonstandard speakers in Detroit (Negro DET:165). This type
of'multiple negation involves the extension of negative concord from
an indefinite preceding a verb phrase to a pre-verbal auxiliary:

Nobody didn't like her, Nobody can't step on her foot (Negro DET:154).

108

casual speech and careful speech. The lames used such multiple
negation 90% of the time in careful speech (the only style elicited
from them), whereas the Inwood whites had 80% negative concord

(again, in careful speech). While the great majority of the Negro

peer group members categorically extended a negative to all indefinites
within a clause, only 4 of the 15 Inwood youth did so (Negro NYC:277).
The adults showed such negative concord much less often than the

Negro peer groups (Negro NYC:279).

WOlfram similarly tabulated the instances of unrealized and
realized multiple negation for each informant. "Realized" multiple
negation apparently involved the extension of a single underlying
negative to all indefinites within a clause. When a single under-
lying negative had not been extended to all indefinites in a clause,
the clause was considered an instance of unrealized multiple negation.
In the following sentences, for example, only one element which could
be negated has been negated; this is unrealized multiple negation:

He didn't do anything.
He never does anything.

These sentences would be examples of realized multiple negation if
the indefinite anything were changed to nothing in each case. For
the various social classes, WOlfram.found the following mean percent-
ages of realized multiple negation: UMW, 1.2; UMN, 8.2; LMN, 12.3;
UWN, 54.7; LWN, 77.8. These figures show sharp stratification
between the middle classes, which had multiple negation relatively
infrequently, and the working classes, which had multiple negation

in more than half of its possible occurrences (Negro DET:156). There

were 7 informants (all preadolescents or adolescents) who showed

109

categorical multiple negation.26 Conversely, 11 of 12 upper middle
class white informants, 8 of 12 upper middle class Negroes, and 7 of
12 lower middle class Negroes did not use multiple negation at

all (p. 157).

One of WOlfram's interesting observations (p. 158) concerns the
occurrence of a negative adverb with a negative auxiliary or with
another negative adverb. Multiple negation of this sort does not
show such sharp social stratification as other types. WOlfram there-

fore concludes that a construction like The kids don't hardly come

 

home or The kids hardly never come home would be less socially

 

stigmatized than a construction like The kids don't do nothing or

 

He didn't cargy no knife.

 

Although the reading passage used in WOlfram's study contained
several instances of potential multiple negation, no multiple
negation occurred when the passages were read (p. 162).

Wolfram's data (p. 163) on age stratification of multiple

negation is presented in Table 34.

Table 34. Percentage of Realized Multiple Negation: By Age

10-12 14-17 Adults
UMN 13.6 11.0 0.0
LMN 34.7 1.6 0.9
UWN 57 8 72.7 33.7
LWN 90.2 77.3 65.8

 

26These informants had categorical multiple negation in what
WOlfram calls the "restricted count" (Negro DET:157). This tabu-
lation excluded the indefinite determiner 5 (He didn't have t knife)
‘because Labov had observed (in Negro NYC:278J‘ZBUT'EfiafIgfdoes not
operate under the same kind of categorical rule as other indefinites.

 

110

The adults consistently had less multiple negation than the
youth, and in three of the four classes the adolescents had less
multiple negation than the preadolescents. The lower middle class
preadolescents had a much higher percentage of multiple negation
(34.7%) than either the adolescents (1.6%) or the adults (0.9%).

In fact, only one lower middle class adult used multiple negation,
and no upper middle class adult realized a single negative element
more than once in a sentence (Negro DET:163).

The males and females in WOlfram's study showed definite
differences in the use of multiple negation. Wolfram's data (p. 162)

is given in Table 35.

Table 35. Percentage of Realized Multiple Negation: By Sex

Male Female
UMN 10.4 6.0
LMN 22.3 2.4
UWN 68.2 41.2
LWN 81.3 74.3

The sharpest difference here is between the lower middle class
males and females: the males realized multiple negation in 22.3% of
its potential occurrences, whereas the females realized multiple
negation only 2.4% of the time (this statistic for the females is
surprising, since upper middle class females had 6.0% realized multiple
negation). Also, 5 of the 7 working class preadolescents who showed
categorical multiple negation were males. Conversely, only 6 of
the 15 middle class informants who had a complete absence of multiple

negation were males (Negro DET:162).

111

Sociolinguistic conclusions about multiple negation

Socioeconomic status. Wolfram found sharp stratification

 

between the middle classes and the working classes; the latter used
multiple negation much more frequently. Also, nearly all of the
upper middle class whites and about three-fourths of the middle class
Negroes showed no instances of multiple negation, whereas no working
class informants showed the categorical absence of multiple negation.
Conversely, a little less than a third of the working class informants
categorically used multiple negation, whereas no middle class
informant did (Negro DET:157).

Ethnic background. There are at least two kinds of multiple

 

negative constructions used by NNE speakers but not used by nonstandard-
speaking whites. These two types are: 1) negative inversion, in
which the reversal of tense marker and subject characteristic of

questions occurs in declarative sentences (Didn't nobody know it);

 

and 2) extension of a negative element from one clause to a pre-verbal

auxiliary in a following clause (Well, wasn't much I couldn't do).

 

Labov found in his study that whereas the Negro peer groups extended
a single underlying negative to all indefinites within a clause
nearly 100% of the time in careful speech as well as casual speech,
the white Inwood groups did so only 80% of the time (only careful
speech elicited). Among the upper middle class informants in
Wolfram's study, multiple negation was used 1.2% of the time by the
whites and 8.2% of the time by the Negroes.

Stylg. For the Negro peer groups in Labov's study, multiple

negation occurred almost categorically in both casual speech and

112

careful speech. Wolfram found no instances of multiple negation
in reading style, though the reading passage did contain several
instances of potential multiple negation.

.lge. In WOlfram's study, the adults used multiple negation
less often than the youth, and the adolescents generally used
multiple negation less often than the preadolescents.

§E§3 The males in Wolfram's study definitely used multiple
negation more often than the females. The difference was greatest
for the lower middle class: the males had 22.3% multiple negation,

the females 2.4%.

2.8 SOME GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT PHONOLOGICAL AND GRAMMATICAL VARIABLES

Wolfram draws certain conclusions about the phonological and
grammatical variables in his Negro DET study, conclusions which are
valid for the present study as well since he studied all of the
variables discussed here except (ing), which followed the general
pattern for phonological variables.

Wolfram uses the terms "quantitative difference" and "qualitative
difference" in comparing phonological and grammatical variables. Both
kinds of differences can be illustrated by referring to two nonstandard
pronunciations of the final consonant 1“.E$£Er The upper middle class
whites and all the Negro groups Wolfram studied showed at least some
use of [t] in ylth, Thus with respect to the [t] variant, the
differences between the social classes were entirely quantitative:
all groups used the variant, and the social groups were differentiated
simply on the basis of the relative frequency of this It] variant.

But for the [f] variant of the final consonant in with, there was a

113

qualitative difference: one group (the upper middle class whites)
showed a categorical absence of this [f] variant which was used by
all the other groups. Among the Negro groups alone, the differences
were quantitative (Negro DET:84-6).

Wolfram notes that there are Eggs qualitative differences for
phonological variables, particularly as one breaks down the variables
according to relevant phonological environments. He concludes,
however, that phonological variables generally tend to show
quantitative differences rather than qualitative (Negro DET:217).

Although phonological variables tend to show mostly quantitative
differences, grammatical variables often show qualitative or at least
semi-qualitative differences. For example, WOlfram found that unlike
adult Negro speakers of other classes, upper middle class Negro
adults showed no absence of the possessive inflection, showed almost
no absence of the third singular inflection, and showed almost no
use of invariant pg. There are qualitative ethnic differences, too:
unlike the Negro youth, the white Inwood youth 1) showed no absence
of the possessive or the third singular inflection; 2) showed no
absence of lg or 2E2; 3) showed no use of habituative 225 and 4)
showed no use of three types of multiple negative constructions used
by some Negro youths in Detroit and New York City.

In addition to noting that phonological stratification tends to
be quantitative whereas grammatical stratification tends to be
qualitative as well as quantitative, Wolfram.points out that whereas
phonological variables usually show gradient stratification,

grammatical variables often show sharp stratification (Negro DET:217).

Furthe
a gnarr
marker

to be

2.9 S

Ct
ObSEIVl
middle
differs
(Negro

As
the nor
rEspect
Show no
the upp
the wor‘
Variant
the inf.
particuj

Ger
adoleSCE
DEI;205;
variablE
certain1

114

Further, Wolfram theorizes that "the sharper the stratification of
a particular variable, the more diagnostic its function as a linguistic
marker of social class" (p. 121). Thus grammatical variables tend

to be more socially diagnostic than phonological variables.

2.9 SOME SOCIOLINGUISTIC GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT THE VARIABLES DISCUSSED

Concerning socioeconomic stratification in general, Wolfram
observes that the clearest linguistic boundary is between the lower
middle class and the upper working class; the least clear-cut
differences are between the upper and lower working classes
(Negro DET:214).

As for stylistic differences, usually the more formal the style,
the more closely one's speech approximates Standard English with
respect to the variable in question. The working classes generally
show more stylistic variation than the middle classes (particularly
the upper middle class). This difference is not surprising, since
the working classes generally have a higher percentage of stigmatized
variants in their casual speech. Such style shifting indicates that
the informants realize, unconsciously if not consciously, that the
particular variable so stratified is a marker of social status.

Generally, adults use socially stigmatized variants less than
adolescents and preadolescents do. According to Wolfram (Negro
DET:205), this difference is considerably greater for the grammatical
variables than for the phonological variables. Labov's data
certainly seems to support this conclusion, yet he does comment that

the most important linguistic shift from adolescence to adulthood is,

115

for Negro ghetto peer groups, a rise in the importance of phono-
logical constraints such as the influence of a following vowel
(Negro NYC:185); on the other hand, such phonological constraints
are relevant to some grammatical variables as well as to phonological
variables, so this observation does not necessarily contradict
Wblfram's conclusion. Although one might assume that adolescents
would use stigmatized variants less often than preadolescents, this
is not always so. As both Labov and Wolfram agree, the high
frequency of nonstandard variants among adolescent youth is due
mainly to their explicit rejection of adult linguistic norms.
Females generally approximate Standard English norms more
than males do. Labov says (1969d:33) that the crucial difference
seems to be in the steeper slope of style shifting for women: "in
all but the lowest status group they may actually use more of a non-
standard form in their casual speech than men, but in formal styles
they shift more rapidly and show an excess of hypercorrect behavior

at that end of the scale."

2.10 THE NATURE OF NNE

2.10.1 NNE Compared with SE and with White Nonstandard Speech

It is sometimes assumed that what Labov and Wolfram call style
shifting is actually "code-switching"; that is, a speaker who almost
categorically uses a nonstandard variant of a given variable in one
style but almost categorically uses the standard variant in a more
formal style is assumed to be switching from NNE to Standard English.

Both Labov and WOlfram reject the idea that this shift is code-switching;

116

rather, it indicates inherent variability within a given speaker's
linguistic system.

If there is no full-blown code switching, however, there does
seem to be some borrowing on the part of NNE speakers, a certain
amount of dialect mixture. The third singular verb inflection, for
example, sometimes does occur in the speech of the youth here
characterized as NNE speakers. However, the erratic use of this
inflection in contexts where SE would not have it suggests that this
grammatical feature has not been regularly incorporated into the
NNE system (Negro DET:46). The lack of any regular stylistic shift
among the Negro peer groups for the (Zv) variable also suggests that
this inflection is an importation from SE.

Thus contrary to what one might suppose, style shifting does
not necessarily indicate dialect mixture, and in fact the converse
seems to be true: dialect mixture is apparently signalled partly
by the failure to shift from a preponderance of nonstandard variants
to a lesser percentage of nonstandard variants as the social context
becomes more formal. But inherent variability, not dialect mixture,
is the rule.

Labov's conclusions about the status of NNE are worth quoting
and paraphrasing extensively. He writes (Negro NYC:335): "To say
that there is no single relation between NNE and SE is to assert that
INNE is not simply a reduced form of SE, nor a generalized form, nor

.a Creolized form. It is not simply Southern regional English,27 nor is

27Labov does point out (Negro NYC:4), however, that many NNE
features are quite general in Southern speech, both nonstandard and

117

it a language independent of SE, which no one but native speakers
can understand."

The main difference between NNE and SE is that NNE extends
or generalizes SE rules. For example, in NNE an underlying / r /
is sometimes deleted from phonological environments which do not
allow / r / deletion in SE or in white nonstandard speech, and the
deletion of / t / and / d / from monomorphemic and bimorphemic
consonant clusters occurs far more frequently among NNE speakers than
among SE or white nonstandard speakers.28 Also, the NNE deletion of
222 and lg seems to be an extension of SE contraction, an extension
which is not made by white nonstandard speakers. And NNE speakers
use multiple negation much more frequently than either SE speakers or
white nonstandard speakers (Negro NYC:338).

Another difference between NNE and SE is that NNE lacks certain
SE elements, elements used by white nonstandard speakers as well as
by standard speakers. For instance, the possessive and the third
singular inflections seem to have a tenuous place in NNE. Also, the

complementizers lt_and whether are missing from NNE (Negro NYC:341).

 

standard. And the majority of the nonstandard phonological and
grammatical variants discussed here apparently are found among white
Southern speakers as well as among Negroes. Linguists so far do not
have enough data on Southern speakers to state precisely the relation
between NNE and Southern speech, either standard or nonstandard, white
or Negro. We need more studies similar to the Lexington, Mississippi
study undertaken by Shuy, Fasold, and Wolfram (this study is discussed
on p. 65 here; see also Wolfram 1969a).

28Labov's discussion mentions only differences between NNE and SE,
n0t differences between NNE and white nonstandard speech. In this and
the next two paragraphs, the comparisons between NNE speech and white
nonstandard speech are my own, based on Labov's data for the white
nonstandard-speaking Inwood groups.

118

A third difference is that NNE has some features which are not
part of the SE system. These include certain types of multiple
negation, invariant he, the copula deletion rule which extends SE
contraction, and various Southern English features (Negro NYC:342).
Again, NNE speakers differ in most of these respects from.white
nonstandard speakers: the latter do not use habituative te_or the
deletion rule, and they do not use certain types of multiple negation
used by NNE speakers.

As the foregoing discussion has shown, NNE differs both
quantitatively and qualitatively from Standard English and from

the nonstandard speech of whites.

2.10.2 NNE as the Most Nonstandard Variety of Negro Nonstandard Speech
There are several sociolinguistic differences among Negro
nonstandard speakers. The speech of Negro working class adults, for
example, is in many respects decidedly more nonstandard than the
speech of middle class Negro adults. Also there are age differences.
Though in the Negro NYC study there seemed to be no general linguistic
break between the preadolescent Thunderbirds, the adolescent groups,
and the older Oscar Brothers, there still were some decided differences:
for instance, the use of habituative te_and 0f.§iElE for didn't
increased with age until late adolescence; adults, however, rarely
used these nonstandard features (Negro NYC:257). There were other
definite differences, too, between the Negro youth and the adults
in Labov's study. Even the working class adults did not preserve
NNE uniformly: they seemed to have stable possessive and third

Singular inflections, for instance, and they showed copula deletion

119

much less frequently than the youth. Also, there were in the Negro
NYC study some definite linguistic differences between the lames

and the club members. For example, the lames clearly were closer
quantitatively to SE with respect to the (ing) variable, the deletion
of / r / when the following word began with a vowel, the deletion of
le, and multiple negation.

All of these kinds of sociolinguistic differences among Negro
nonstandard speakers, plus the style-correlated and sex-correlated
differences, serve to characterize NNE as the casual speech of
preadolescent and adolescent Negro males who belong to gangs in
Northern ghetto areas.29 NNE is by definition the most nonstandard

variety of Negro nonstandard speech.

2.11 STATISTICAL GENERALIZATIONS
This section offers statistical generalizations which may be
useful in determining the accuracy of literary representations of

recent Northern urban Negro speech.30

 

29
Labov notes that exploratory work in Detroit, Philadelphia,

Chicago, Cleveland, and Los Angeles shows that the structure of NNE
described in his Negro NYC study is essentially the structure of the
language of preadolescent and adolescent youth in other Northern ghetto
areas. The few differences found are generally regional differences
characteristic also of the surrounding white community (Labov,
Copula:50), or differences due to the differing Southern geographic
origins of the Negro populations in the various ghetto areas (Negro
DET:24).

30

For a thorough and excellent non-statistical discussion of the

nonstandard features currently found in Negro nonstandard speech,
consult Fasold and WOlfram, "Some Linguistic Features of Negro Dialect,"
in TeachingStandard English in the Inner City, ed. Ralph W. Fasold and
Roger W. Shuy, 41-86, Washington, D. C., Center for Applied Linguistics,
1970.

 

,.

120

Whenever possible, Labov's Negro NYC data is given rather than
Wolfram's Negro DET data. There are two reasons for this: 1) only
Labov specifically studied the speech of preadolescent and adolescent
Negro gangs, and much recent literature about Negroes depicts members
of such gangs; 2) only Labov elicited casual style, which is the
style most often represented in literature. Although the following
statistical generalizations are based almost entirely on data from
only New York City, the structure of NNE as described by Labov seems
to be essentially the structure of the language of Negro youth from
other Northern urban ghettos (Labov 1969a:p. 50 of the ERIC

document).31

The following are my statistical generalizations for the eleven
variables discussed:

1. One pronunciation usually considered nonstandard is the
use of [in] rather than [in] in the jltg_endings which form present
participles and verbal nouns like ggltg_and standing; the [in]
pronunciation may also be used in words like nothing and something,
in which the filtg is ordinarily unstressed. Spellings such as
standin', standin, and standen all might be used in dialect literature

to indicate the [in] pronunciation. Actually, speakers of Standard

 

1
3 The percentages given here generally are rough averages of

the statistics in each of Labov's classifications. However, averaging
Labov's statistics in this way will not necessarily produce a mean
percentage which accurately reflects Labov's raw data. In some cases
Labov does not state how many instances each of his percentages is
based on, so one sometimes has no way of knowing whether an average of
the statistics Labov does give will in fact be an accurate reflection
of the data he originally compiled.

121

English sometimes use this [in] pronunciation in both their casual
speech and their careful speech, but they use it much less often

than people who do not speak Standard English (Social Stratification:

 

398). Nonstandard speakers generally use the [in] pronunciation with
some frequency in careful speech as well as in casual speech. NNE
speakers (preadolescent and adolescent Negro males who belong to
gangs in Northern ghettos) use [in] about 95% of the time or more in
both casual and careful speech. The [in] pronunciation is used about
98% of the time in careful speech and presumably in casual speech
also by preadolescent and adolescent white gangs in Northern ghettos
(for convenience, these youth will be termed WNE speakers-~speakers
of a highly nonstandard variety of white nonstandard English). In
careful speech, middle class Negro adults and upper working class
Negro adults from the North use [in] about 34% of the time, whereas
lower working class Negro adults of Northern origin and working class
Negro adults who have come to the North from the South use [in] 85%
of the time. In casual speech, middle class Negro adults use [in]
even more often than working class adults; in careful speech, though,
these middle class adults are much closer to the prestige norm than
most Negro working class adults (Negro NYC:122; p. 31 here).

2. There are also nonstandard variants which occur instead of
the unvoiced tt_in words like nothing and breath. Initial tt_(ttlt,
thrust) is usually given the Standard English pronunciation, even by
Negro speakers of the working class. What would be in Standard
English a medial unvoiced th_(nothing,‘ettet) or a final unvoiced th

(with, breath) is sometimes pronounced as unvoiced th, sometimes

 

122

pronounced as [f], sometimes pronounced as [t], and sometimes not
pronounced at all. Upper and lower working class Negro youth use
these nonstandard variants about 75% of the time, whereas working
class Negro adults use them about 46% of the time. Middle class
Negro preadolescents use the nonstandard variants about 25% of the
time, whereas middle class Negro adolescents and adults use them
about 10% of the time. Lower middle class Negroes and working class
Negroes use the [f] variant about twice as often as the [t] variant;
they only rarely show no consonant at all for standard unvoiced th,
The [t] pronunciation and the absence of a consonant almost never
occur except in the items ylth_and nothing. For yltt, [t] is used
about 70% of the time by working class Negroes and about 24% of the
time by middle class Negroes. For nothing, [t] is used about 32%
of the time by working class Negroes and about 9% of the time by
middle class Negroes. Only lower working class Negroes have more
than about 5% consonant absence for either yltt_or nothing; these
speakers pronounce yltt_without a final consonant about 6% of the
time and nothing without a medial consonant about 26% of the time
(Negro DET:84-8, 93; pp. 37-8 here).

3. Another nonstandard feature is the omission of [r] from
various phonological contexts.

a. r-less areas
For teless areas, the omission of [r] is of course not always
nonstandard. In casual speech, preconsonantal t_within a word

(cart, bark) and E occurring finally before a word beginning with

 

a consonant (car was) are almost always pronounced as a vowel by

123

Negro speakers and by all white speakers except those of the upper
middle class. But when the next word begins with a vowel (car is),
white speakers usually pronounce the t_as a consonant. In Efless
areas the major difference between white and Negro pronunciation of
_t occurs when a final E is followed by a word beginning with a
vowel. As noted, white speakers usually pronounce the_t as a
consonant in this position. But in both casual and careful styles,
NNE speakers do not pronounce final E as a consonant about 95% of
the time when the following word begins with a vowel. In contrast,
WNE speakers fail to pronounce E as a consonant only about 5% of
the time in casual speech and about 20% of the time in careful speech,
when the following word begins with a vowel. Working class Negro
adults do not pronounce final t_as a consonant before a word beginning
with a vowel about 80% of the time in casual speech; upper working
class Negro adults do not pronounce final pre-vocalic E as a consonant
about 60% of the time in careful speech, whereas lower working class
Negro adults fail to pronounce such t's as a consonant about 90%
of the time in careful speech. Middle class Negro adults do not
pronounce final pre-vocalic t as a consonant about 50% of the time
in casual speech, about 20% of the time in careful speech (Negro
NYC:99-100, 102; pp. 41-2 here).

b. repronouncing areas
In tepronouncing areas, white speakers usually pronounce all t's.
WOrking class Negroes in urban tfpronouncing areas fail to pronounce
t_as a consonant about 20% less often than Negroes of similar social

status in teless areas; middle class Negroes in tfpronouncing areas

124

fail to pronounce t_as a consonant about 35% less often than their
counterparts in tfless areas (my generalization, based on Negro
NYC:99-100, 102,.and Negro DET:114; pp. 43-4 here)-

4. Another nonstandard feature is the absence of final [t]
or [d] from words in which the [t] or [d] would not represent past
tense or past participle@ for plat, l:_a_r_r_ for Sept). The absence
of final [t] and [d] is higher when the following word begins with
a consonant than when the following word begins with a vowel. When
a consonant follows, NNE speakers omit final [t] and [d] not repre-
senting past tense or past participle about 95% of the time or more
in both casual and careful style. When a vowel follows, NNE speakers
omit these final [t]'s and [d]'s about 50% of the time in casual
Style and about 65% of the time in careful style. In casual style,
WNE speakers have about 67% absence when a consonant follows and 9%
when a vowel follows. WOrking class Negro adults in their casual
and careful speech omit these final [t]'s and [d]'s about 88% of
the time when a consonant follows and about 51% of the time when a
vowel follows. Middle class adults in casual and careful speech
omit these [t]'s and [d]'s about 70% of the time when a consonant
follows and 30% of the time when a vowel follows (Negro NYC:128, 149;
pp. 50-2 here).

5. Another nonstandard feature is the absence of final [t] or

[d] indicating past tense or past participle (miss for missed, ban

 

for banned).32 In casual speech, NNE speakers do not pronounce these

 

32Neither Labov nor Wolfram investigated the absence of [dd]
representing past tense or past participle (as in wait for waited).
Fasold and Wolfram (1970:59) note that this [id] suffix is rarely

125

[t]'s and [d]'s about 85% of the time when the following word begins
with a consonant; when the following word begins with a vowel, NNE
speakers do not pronounce past tense and past participle [t]'s
and [d]'s about 13% of the time. In careful speech, the figures for
NNE speakers are about 70% absence before a following consonant
and about 20% absence before a following vowel. WNE speakers have
a much lower percentage of absence in casual style than NNE speakers
have: WNE speakers have about 14% absence when a consonant follows
and 4% absence when a vowel follows. Like the youth, Negro adults
show some stylistic variation in the use of past tense and past
participle [t]'s and [d]'s; however, adults' stylistic variation is
generally not as great. For casual style and careful style taken
together, working class Negro adults have about 54% absence of these
[t]'s and [d]'s before a consonant and about 20% absence before a
vowel; middle class Negro adults have about 25% absence before a
consonant and 2% absence before a vowel (Negro NYC:128, 149; pp. 50-2
here).

6. One nonstandard grammatical feature is the absence of [s],

[z], or [dz] representing noun plural (as in cart for carts, car for

 

t5t§,.tg§_for‘tg§e§). For most Negro speakers, these inflections are
absent no more than 15% of the time under any grammatical or stylistic
circumstance. Often the percentages are considerably lower, between
0% and 6%. Negro middle class adults show 0% or close to 0% absence
of these inflections. (Negro NYC:16l-2;.Negro DET:145, 150; pp. 68—9

here.)

 

absent from Negro speech.

126

7. Another nonstandard grammatical feature is the absence of
[s], [z], or [dz] representing noun possessive (cart for cart's,

car for car's, box for box's).

 

In New York City, NNE speakers have about 72% absence of
possessive [s] and [z] in casual style and about 54% absence in
careful style. Negro adults show the absence of possessive [s]
and [2] much less frequently; this is particularly true of middle
class Negro adults, who very rarely if ever omit these inflectional
endings (Negro NYC:171; p. 71 here).

In Detroit, lower working class Negro preadolescents have about
45% absence of possessive [s], [z], and [dz], and lower working class
Negro adolescents have about 20% absence. Adult Negro working class
speakers have about 16% absence of these endings. Lower middle class
Negroes of all ages have under 8% absence of possessive [s], [z], and
[dz], and upper middle class Negroes show no absence at all. The
percentages are all for careful style (Negro DET:150, 146; p. 72
here).

NNE speakers from New York City apparently pronounce the regular
noun possessive endings less frequently than lower working class
Negro youths from Detroit. (See p. 74 here or Negro DET:141 for
an explanation of this difference.)

8. Another nonstandard grammatical feature is the absence of
[s], [z], or [dz] representing third singular present tense (she walk,

drive, miss for she walks, drives, misSes).

 

 

a. Verbs following the regular third singularpattern

In casual and careful styles, NNE speakers have on the average about

70% absence of the third singular inflection. WNE speakers show no

127

absence of this inflection, and middle class Negro adults show little
or no absence (Negro NYC:161; Negro DET:150; p. 76 here).

In New York City, working class Negro adults in casual and
careful style generally have about 20% absence of third singular
[s] and [2] when the next word begins with a consonant; when the next
word begins with a vowel, working class Negro adults of Northern
origin show 0% absence whereas working class Negro adults of Southern
origin have a range of 20% to 82% absence (Negro NYC:16l-2; p. 76
here). In Detroit, adult working class Negroes (some of Northern
origin and some of Southern) have about 54% absence of third singular
[s], [z], and [dz], for careful style and reading style taken
together (Negro DET:150; p. 77 here).

b. Verbs with irregplar third siggular forms

 

NNE speakers generally have standard person-number agreement for

2, _ie, and £9: The form Large does not occur at all. _I_i_s and l

plus no copula occur well below 1% of the time. In third singular

present contexts, either lg occurs or there is no copula at all.

_lg occurs for £22 5% of the time or less (Negro NYC:221; p. 78 here).
NNE speakers use teye for te§_about 81% of the time. They use

.S2 for does, don't for doesn't, and eey for eeye nearly 100% of the

time. WNE speakers, on the other hand, follow Standard English usage

for these verbs except that they use ggp:t_about two-thirds of the

time instead of doesn't. Some working class Negro adults follow the

standard pattern for these verbs and some do not. Middle class

Negro adults follow the Standard English pattern (Negro NYC:249; p. 80

here.

128

NNE speakers use y§§_in place of ytte_about 86% of the time
(Negro NYC:249; p. 80 here).

9. Another nonstandard grammatical feature is the absence of
the present tense copula forms_l§ and 2325 a related feature is the
use of_l§ in contexts where Standard English would require EE.°r.§£E°

NNE speakers almost always contract l_§§ to llm; the :29 however,
is absent rarely if at all (Negro NYC:178; p. 84 here).

In contrast to em, the copula form l§_frequently does not occur
in NNE speech in contexts where Standard English would require lg.
The preceding grammatical environment makes a considerable difference
in the percentage of absence. When a pronoun precedes the copula
position, NNE speakers show about 61% absence of l§_in casual and
careful speech; when some other kind of noun phrase precedes the
copula position, NNE speakers have about 34% absence in casual
speech and about 16% absence in careful speech. The grammatical
environment following the copula position also makes a difference
in the percentage of lg absence: absence is highest when the form
£2222 follows, next highest when a present participle follows. NNE
speakers show about 91% lg absence before 82222 and about 71% absence
before a present participle. WNE speakers show no absence whatsoever
of lg: When a pronoun precedes the copula position, working class
Negro adults show about 27% absence of_l§ in casual style, 16% in
careful style; l§_is absent about half as often when some other kind
of noun phrase precedes the copula position. Middle class Negro

adults show no absence of le at all (Negro NYC:194-5; pp. 86-7, 89 here).

129

NNE speakers rarely reduce that's, what's, and it's to simply

 

that, what, and lt, The usual NNE pronunciations of standard that's,

 

what's, and it's can best be represented by the spellings thas, whas,

 

and leg, all of which are pronounced with a final [8] (Negro NYC:180;
P- 84 here).

.Ate_absence is even greater than l§_absence for most Negro
youth and adults. NNE speakers show EEE absence about 82% of the
time, overall; EEE is absent about 86% of the time before present
participles and 93% of the time before £2222: Apparently working
class Negro adults show about 60% absence of EEE in casual style; for
upper working class speakers this drops to about 14% in careful style,
but lower working class speakers show little style shift. Middle
class Negro adults do not show any absence of_§£e (Negro NYC:219, 241;
pp. 88-9 here).

NNE speakers use lg in em contexts less than 1% of the time;
they use lg in EEE contexts 5% of the time or less (Negro NYC:221;
p. 78 here).

10. Another nonstandard grammatical feature is the use of the
uninflected form he in contexts which would require gt, lg, or 2E2
in Standard English. This use of uninflected te_usually indicates
actions which are habitual or iterative or indicates a general
condition or state of affairs lasting over a period of time (ghee

ygu don't be talking about someone else all the time; I never be in

 

the fights). NNE speakers seldom use this uninflected "habituative"

 

22.1“ casual speech, but in careful speech they use uninflected 2e

about 34% of the time in contexts where Standard English would require

130

.2523 about 14% of the time in em contexts; and about 9% of the time
in lg contexts. WNE speakers do not use uninflected he at all in
em, lg, or 2E2 contexts, and Negro adults only rarely show this use
of uninflected te_(Negro NYC:234-5; p. 103 here).

11. Multiple negation is still another nonstandard grammatical
feature. Even standard speakers sometimes use such "double negatives"

as can't hardly and hardly never, in which a negative adverb is

 

 

combined with a negative auxiliary or with another negative adverb.
In nonstandard speech, some persons use other types of double

negatives (he didn't do no work, he ain't got none) but do not always

 

 

negate all indefinites in a clause: they may say he ain't never done

 

anything wrong rather than he ain't never done nothing wrong. In

 

 

casual and careful styles, NNE speakers extend negative concord to
all indefinites in a clause about 98% of the time. WNE speakers
extend negative concord to all indefinites in a clause about 80% of
the time in careful speech (Negro NYC:277, 279; pp. 107-8 here).
Lower working class Negro adults show about 66% negative concord, and
upper working class Negro adults show about 34%. Middle class Negro
adults almost never extend negative concord to all indefinites in a
clause (Negro DET:163; p. 109 here).

Naturally a literary critic is not likely to need all of this
data to determine the accuracy of the representation of Negro
nonstandard speech in any one literary work. On the other hand, the
critic will probably find these statistics sufficient for determining

the accuracy of literary representations of recent Northern urban

131

Negro nonstandard speech, speech of about the last twenty-five

years.

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF THE LITERARY REPRESENTATION 0F NEGRO
NONSTANDARD DIALECT IN THREE BOOKS

This chapter discusses the accuracy of the representation of

Negro nonstandard dialect in Shane Stevens' Go Down Dead (William

 

_n .21.“ w

Morrow and Company, 1966), warren Miller's The Cool WOrld (Fawcett,

 

1959), and Claude Brown's Manchild in the Promised Land (New American

 

Library, 1965). These three books were chosen because in each book
the representation of Negro nonstandard dialect is extensive enough
to permit at least some investigation of sociolinguistic differences:
how the characters' use of nonstandard variants differs with socio-
economic status, ethnic background, speech context (some situations
elicit a more casual style than others), age, and sex. Furthermore,
the Negro nonstandard speech the authors attempted to represent is
Northern urban speech (New York City speech) of the past five to
twenty-five years. It was important that the speech represented be
Northern urban speech, since so far the sociolinguists have completed
detailed descriptions of only that Negro speech which is used in
certain Northern urban areas. It was also important that the speech
represented be relatively recent speech, because the detailed
sociolinguistic studies of Negro speech have all been made since 1965.
Whenever possible, this analysis utilizes the data from Volume 1

of Labov's A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto

132

133

Rican Speakers in New York City (abbreviated Negro NYC) rather than

the data from Walter Wolfram's A Sociolinggistic Description of

 

Detroit Negtp Speech (abbreviated Negro DET). Labov's data is used
in preference to Wolfram's because only Labov specifically studied
the speech of Negro gangs like those in the books to be analyzed;
because only Labov elicited casual style, which is the style most
frequently represented in these books; and because the setting for
all three of the books is New York City, where Labov's investigation
was made.

To determine the accuracy of the representation of Negro
nonstandard dialect in each book, I first found out, so far as
possible, what percentage of the time each major character uses the
nonstandard variant (or variants) of each of the variables discussed
in Chapter 2. The present chapter presents my percentages along with
the comparable percentages from Labov (or Wolfram). When the percent-
ages seem reasonably close (obviously this is a subjective evaluation),
the dialect representation is considered "accurate"; otherwise it
is judged as more or less inaccurate. One must remember, of course,
that Labov's percentages are rough statistical averages and that they
may represent rather wide individual variation. Bearing this in
mind, I have nevertheless operated on the assumption that for each
character, the percentages of nonstandard variants should come
reasonably close to the comparable average percentages Labov gives,
if the dialect representation is to be judged as accurate. This
statistical method of criticism is most relevant in discussing the
accuracy of the representation of particular variables. If, for

instance, most of the major characters in a book use the nonstandard

134

variant of a given variable much more often than Labov's average
percentages suggest real people of similar social backgrounds would
use the nonstandard variant, then the author's representation of

that variable can be said to be inaccurate.

3.1 GO DOWN DEAD

 

3.1.1 Plot Synopsis ' -#1

 

Go Down Dead is narrated by its protagonist, Adam Clayton Henry--

 

better known as King. King is the lé-year-old leader of the Playboys, +'

 

a black Harlem gang whose chief enemy is a white gang, the Tigers.
The book describes a week in the life of King and his friends and
enemies, a week characterized by events which would shock the sensi-
bilities of many middle class whites: King is determined to get some
dynamite to blow up the Tigers, and he earns this dynamite by
performing in stag movies; he and another gang member take a taxi

to the Tigers' territory and shoot one of them; the Tigers dump in
front of the Playboys' clubhouse a girl who "belongs" to the Playboys
and whom the Tigers have raped, mutilated, and nearly killed. These
and other similarly disturbing events, commonplace for the Playboys

and the Tigers, culminate in a "rumble,' a gang fight arranged for

in advance by representatives of both gangs.

3.1.2 Characters Whose Speech Was Analyzed

 

I analyzed in some detail the representation of the nonstandard
dialect features of the narrator (King) and of several characters and

groups of characters in Go Down Dead. Only the longer of the

 

narrative passages were analyzed: pages 73-78; 138-141; 164-167;

135

173-181; 210-213; 232-236. For analyzing the dialect of the narrator,
only the first 50 variants were tabulated for most of the variables,
regardless of whether there were more than 50 variants in the corpus.
Table 36 lists the characters whose speech was analyzed and gives in
most cases the pages where the analyzed speech is to be found. The
entire corpus of each of these characters and groups of characters

was analyzed.

Table 36. Go Down Dead Characters Whose Speech was Analyzed

 

 

Character .Page Numbers of Corpus
King passim
Playboys 1
(excluding King) passim
King's mother 52-5; 71; 85-86; 120-121; 224-225
Mr. Johnson 214-218
The Dealer 108-112; 146-148; 172-173
Morris 142-144; 182-184; 187; 189-190
Tigers 205-207; 230-231
Bill Turner 162; 167-170
Sandy Arizona 57; 65-69

 

1I have also excluded a gang member nicknamed Lil Abner because
"He talk funny" (p. 18). Lil Abner's entire corpus is as follows:
"'Be telling us King man we be waiting on you for the news'" (p. 18);
"'Will you be telling us what he want for the fire?'" (p. 18); "'Are
you be telling us we don't going try and get them for what they done?‘"
(p. 33); "'What be the meaning of the picture do you wonder?'" (p. 92);
‘ and "'King man it getting close on that time. Maybe we best be
moving'" (p. 224). King accounts for the peculiarity of Lil Abner's
speech by noting that "he come from somewhere down South in the
mountains" (p. 18).

'- a n. 4" _
4

 

136

King and each of the Playboys are of course members of a black

adolescent Harlem gang, the "P1ayboys.' Therefore their speech should
approximate that of the adolescent Jets and Cobras whose speech Labov
describes in Negro NYC. Similarly, the speech of the white Tiger

gang should approximate that of the white adolescent Inwood gang that
Labov studied. King's mother scrubs floors in a hospital two days a
week; presumably she would be classified as lower working class
according to Labov's Negro NYC criteria. (Wblfram's lower working

class and upper working class seem to be roughly equivalent to the

classes with the same label in Labov's Negro NYC study.) Mr. Johnson

 

is a Negro preacher, but presumably he is not an ordained minister:
he has only a store-front church and he is clearly all too eager to
take the money of the poor people who come to him for help and
spiritual guidance (pp. 213, 216). Probably he too would be considered
lower working class according to Labov's Negro NYC scheme, though it
is possible he would be at the lower fringes of the upper working
class (see my Chapter 2, pp. 23 and 26, for a discussion of Labov's
social classifications). The Dealer is a supplier of drugs, an
important man in Harlem. He would probably be classified as upper
working class. Morris earns a good living making pornographic movies.
King the narrator tells us that Morris is "Very polite"; "Morris do a
lot of bizness with the white people that plain to see" (p. 142).

Like the Dealer, Morris would probably be classified as upper working
class according to Labov's Negro NYC scheme (but both would probably
be considered lower middle class according to the method of classifi—

cation Labov used in his earlier study, The Social Stratification of

 

English in New York City; see p. 217 of that study, p. 23 here).

 

137

Bill Turner is a white seaman whom King visits occasionally; probably
he would fit into the lower working class according to the Negro NYC
criteria. Sandy Arizona is a white woman about 30 years old, King
estimates; her social status is impossible to determine.

I am arbitrarily assuming that King the narrator has reported
these characters' speech accurately, that we are shown their speech
not just as perceived by King but also as Shane Stevens thinks it
"really is." This assumption is perhaps dubious, but it must be
made in order for my criticism to be valid. Otherwise any inaccuracies

in dialect representation might be attributed to King's possibly

 

faulty hearing, and Shane Stevens could no longer be held responsible.

3.1.3 Styles Analyzed

 

King the narrator is of course not using a speaking style at all
but rather a highly informal writing style, a style which nevertheless
proves to be very much like King's speaking style. Though occasion-
ally King talks to adults with whom he might be expected to use a
relatively formal style (in particular, the Dealer and Mr. Johnson),

most of the conversation in Go Down Dead is between the various

 

members of the Playboys, including of course King. That is, most of

the speech situations would be expected to elicit the "casual" style

 

described in Labov's Social Stratification study or the "group" style
of his Negro NYC youth. It seems that the latter style would be
somewhat less formal than the former, since the persons whose speech
was recorded were not talking directly to the interviewer, as they

often were when using the 'casual" style described in the SS study;

however, Labov labels both of these styles as Style A and apparently

138

considers them roughly equivalent. Therefore both styles will be
referred to here as "casual" style. Since most of the speech situations

in Go Down Dead seen to be ones in which casual speech would be used,

 

I did not try to distinguish between speaking styles in analyzing the
various characters' speech; I simply considered all the speech as

casual.

3.1.4 Validity of the Statistics Presented ' .L1

 

It is a moot question how many instances of a given variable

are needed to give significant results. In his §§_study (p. 181),

 

Labov says "we found that from 10 to 20 instances of a given variable
were sufficient to assign a value that fits consistently into a
complex matrix of stylistic variation, while at the level of three

or four instances, fluctuation unrelated to the matrix was noted."
This suggests that statistics based on fewer than ten instances of

a given variable may be suspect, and that statistics based on fewer
than five instances are very likely unreliable.

For most of the variables analyzed in the three books under
discussion, I tabulated the number of standard variants, the number
of nonstandard variants, and the total number of variants. I then
determined what percentage of the time the nonstandard variant occurs.
Since some of these percentages are based on fewer than ten variants,
I call attention to the dubious validity of these particular
statistics by placing one asterisk after percentages based on five
through nine instances and by placing two asterisks after percentages
based on fewer than five instances. It may seem more sensible to

exclude such dubious statistics altogether, but they are included

139

because many of the dubious percentages suggest tendencies which

might be confirmed if further data were available.

3.1.5 The Variables Analyzed

 

Careful preliminary reading of Go Down Dead revealed that it

 

would not be profitable to tabulate the standard and nonstandard
variants of all eleven of the variables discussed in Chapter 2, since
for some variables the nonstandard variant occurs only rarely if

at all. Present participles and other words ending in unstressed
fling are always written with fling, never with just fig. The standard
unvoiced Eh_pronunciation is almost always and perhaps always
indicated; I found, for example, no instances of gig or wif for
standard with, Final 15's and figfs not representing past tense or
past participle are almost always and perhaps always present. Since

the_£ is almost always missing from your, yourself, their, and the

 

expletive there (but not from the adverb there), the presence and
absence of £_in these words was tabulated.2 For other words, however,
I found only rare instances of grabsence: "nabahood," p. 161;
"bastuds," p. 95; "nigguh," p. 90; and "draw" for "drawer," p. 216.
Similarly, I found only rare instances of an uninflected noun which
in Standard English would have a final 1g to indicate its plurality:
"'we got four piece pipe'" (Ribbons, p. 129); "'She been off almost
two year'" (Tonto, p. 135). (In each of these cases, the noun is a
noun of measure and is preceded by a plural quantifier. It is in

such cases that NNE speakers are least likely to pronounce the plural

 

 

2Their and the expletive there are usually spelled th y.

140

inflection.) I found only rare instances also of possessive nouns
without a final fig: "'Keep you dog mouth shut too'" (King, p. 72);
"'What is Kingfish middle name?'" (King, p. 96).

Since nonstandard variants of six of the eleven variables
discussed in Chapter 2 occur only rarely if at all, just the following
were tabulated:

1. the presence or absence of.£ in your, yourself,
their, and the expletive there;

 

2. the presence or absence of jag indicating past
tense or past participle;

3. the presence or absence of f§_indicating verb
third singular present tense;

4. present tense copula forms:

a. the presence or absence of is in third
singular contexts;

b. the presence of are, the presence of_i§, and
the total absence of a copula in contexts where Standard
English would require age;

c. the presence of am, the presence of_i§, and the
total absence of a copula in contexts where Standard English
would require gm;

d. the presence of thas and that where Standard
English would require that's or that is (tabulated for the
narrator only);

5. the occurrences of invariant be;

6. the extension or non-extension of negative concord to
all indefinites within a clause.

Each of these variables will be discussed in detail.

3.1.5.1 The presence or absence ofig in your, yourself, their, and the
expletive there

Table 37 presents data for the presence and absence of_£_in your,

,yourself, their, and the expletive there. The first column gives the

 

number of occurrences of your and the other forms in which E is present;

 

141

the second column gives the number of occurrences of the Erless forms;
the third column gives the total of occurrences tabulated; and the last

column shows what percent of the time the Erless variants occur.

Table 37. Absence of_£ from your, yourself, their, and the Expletive

 

 

there
.3 Present £_Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Narrator 3 47 50 94
King 1 19 20 95
Playboys 1 15 16 94
King's mother 0 9 9 100*
Mr. Johnson 0 7 7 100*
The Dealer 0 13 13 100
Morris 5 10 50
Tigers 2 0 2 0**
Bill Turner 3 0 3 0**
Sandy Arizona 3 0 3 0**
All whites 8 0 8 0*

The narrator and all of the Negro characters except Morris use the
‘Efless variants between 94% and 100% of the time. It is not surprising
that Morris uses the Erless variants less often than the other Negro
adults, since Morris has frequent contact with whites. The white char-
acters whose speech I analyzed do not show any use of the Erless pro-
nunciations at all, though admittedly the data is somewhat scarce. (In
order to make a more valid generalization about the white characters'
use of £_in these words I combined under the heading "All whites" the
data for the Tigers, for Bill Turner, and for Sandy Arizona.)

None of Labov's or Wolfram's data would be completely comparable
to the data collected here, since their tabulations of 5 were not
confined to only four words. Still, some observations can be made

concerning Shane Stevens' accuracy in representing his characters'

 

142

pronunciation of your, yourself, their, and the expletive there.

Labov's Social Stratification study revealed that in casual

 

speech, an.£ occurring before a consonant (in the same word or the
next) almost always becomes a vowel in the speech of all white New
Yorkers except those of the upper middle class (§§:239, p. 40 here).
Therefore it is unrealistic for the Tigers and Bill and Sandy to
pronounce the {_in your and the other three words when the following
morpheme or word begins with a consonant, as it does in 7 out of

the 8 cases tabulated.

Labov found that in casual style preconsonantal [r] and final

 

[r] before a word beginning with a consonant were absent 100% of

the time for the Negro adolescent peer groups and were absent about
93% of the time for all the adults studied. In casual speech, final
[r] before a word beginning with a vowel was absent about 95% of the
time for the Negro adolescent peer groups and about 80% of the time
for the working class adults (Negro NYC:102; p. 41 here). It is
realistic, then, for Stevens to show his Negro youths as having about
95% absence of 3. However, the lOOZ'Efabsence of most of Shane's
Negro adults is probably slightly exaggerated. Mbrris is of course

the exception; his 50% absence of 3 may in fact be somewhat low.

3.1.5.2 The presence or absence of 12d indicating past tense or past

participle

 

What is here termed the "restricted count" included verbs whose
past tense or past participle is regularly formed by the addition of
[t] or [d]; what is termed the "full count" included also verbs whose

past tense or past participle is regularly formed by the addition

143

of [éd]. Since the [id] inflection is rarely absent in Negro dialect
(Fasold and Wolfram 1970:59), such a full count should reveal a
lower percentage of nonstandard variants than the restricted count,
if the dialect representation is accurate.
The tabulation of past participle forms included past participles

which occur in passive constructions (as in he was killed by the cops)

 

and past participles which occur in perfective constructions,
constructions in which the participle would be preceded by have, has,

or had in Standard English (as in the cops have killed him). However,

 

adjectivally-functioning words ending in jgg_were excluded because it
was often difficult to tell in the given context whether such words
were derived from verb forms. Most of the figg_words tabulated are
past participle forms rather than past tense forms, because the

narrator and the characters in Go Down Dead usually use the historical

 

present in describing past events.

The data for this variable is presented in Table 38.

The data in Table 38 shows that in each case the full count per-
centage is indeed lower than the restricted count percentage, as one
would expect of an accurate dialect representation.

Occasionally my tabulating procedure was not as refined as
Labov's. In the present case, for example, Labov studied the absence
of past tense and past participle [t]'s and [d]'s only when these
suffixes occurred or would have occurred as the final member of a
consonant cluster, whereas I did not place such a restriction on the
tabulation of 13g, A second difference between Labov's method and

mine is that Labov took into account the phonological environment that

 

’— I

144

Table 38. Absence of 13d Indicating Past Tense or Past Participle

jgd Present egg Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Narrator
Restricted count 1 36 37 97
Full count 4 40 44 91
King
Restricted count 0 22 22 100
Full count 1 25 26 96
Playboys
Restricted count 1 24 25 96
Full count 2 26 28 93
King's mothgr 0 0 0 --
Mr. Johnson 0 4 4 100**
The Dealer3 0 4 4 100**
Morris 0 3 3 100**
Restricted count 0 2 2 100**
Full count 0 3 3 100**
Tigers3 3 o 3 0**
Bill Turner 0 0 0 --
Sandy Arizona 0 --

followed, whereas I did not. I did not always use tabulating proce-
dures as refined as those of Labov because of the scarcity of the
data for some of the literary characters. As it is, many of my
percentages are probably based on inadequate data; in these instances,
further limitation and differentiation would have been useless.

In his Negro NYC study, Labov found that for the white Inwood
youths there was in group style a 14% absence of past tense and past
participle [t]'s and [d]'s when a consonant followed and a 4% absence

when a vowel followed (Negro NYC:149; p. 51 here).4 Among Shane's

 

3In the speech of Mr. Johnson, the Dealer, and the Tigers, there
were no verbs which regularly add [éd] to form the past tense and past
participle; hence there is a "restricted" count but no "full" count.

4Interestingly, Wolfram's upper middle class whites showed 36.22
absence of the past tense and past participle inflections when the

145

white characters there were only 3 past tense and past participle
verbs; in each case a vowel followed and the fee_was present. Three
instances are hardly conclusive, but at least with these instances
Stevens does accurately suggest that his white characters would
usually pronounce past tense and past participle suffixes.

Labov found that in casual conversation, the Negro adolescent
peer groups showed past tense and past participle [t] and [d] absence
about 85% of the time when the next word began with a consonant and
about 13% of the time when the next word began with a vowel. The
working class adults in casual conversation showed 602 absence
in the former phonological environment, 22% in the latter (Negro NYC:
128, 149; p. 50 here). Clearly the 96% to 100% absence (restricted

count) for all of Stevens' Negro characters is an exaggeration.

3.1.5.3 The presence or absence of fie indicating verb third singular
present tense

 

 

This tabulation excluded the verbs which do not simply add [3],
[z], or [52] in the third singular: heye, ee,‘eey, and of course the
copula. The procedure used here was essentially the same as Wolfram's.
Labov, however, placed further restrictions on his corpus: he did not
tabulate the presence or absence of the [#2] ending, and he tabulated
the [s] and [z] endings only when they occurred or would have occurred
as the final member of a consonant cluster. Once again, Labov took
into account the phonological environment which followed, whereas I--
and WOlframr-did not.

The results of my tabulation are presented in Table 39.

 

following word began with a consonant (Negro DET:68; p. 54 here).

146

Table 39. Absence of 1e Indicating Third Singular Present Tense

7e Present fe_Absent Total Percent
of
Absence
Narrator 0 50 50 100
King 1 36 37 97
Playboys 0 45 45 100
King's mother 0 3 3 100**
Mr. Johnson 0 l9 19 100
The Dealer 0 19 19 100
Morris 0 12 12 100
Tigers 1 1 2 50**
Bill Turner 10 0 10 0
Sandy Arizona 7 0 7 0*

Again the Negro characters show 100% or nearly 100% absence of
the inflection under investigation, the third singular fie. The white
adults, Bill Turner and Sandy Arizona, show 100% presence. Of course
the data on the Tigers--on1y 2 instances--is too scarce to be conclu-
sive, but it is interesting that they are between the Negro characters
and the white adults in showing a 50% absence of third singular 1e.

In his Negro NYC study, Labov found that in casual style the
white Inwood groups always pronounced the third singular inflectional
endings. The Negro adolescent peer groups showed about 70% absence of
third singular [s] and [z]. The working class adult groups showed 0%
to 33% absence in casual style, but in careful style the working class
adults of Southern origin had noticeably higher percentages of absence:
23% to 82% (Negro NYC:161-2; p.76 here). For casual style and reading
style taken together, Wblfram's lower working class Negro adults
(some of Northern origin and some of Southern) showed 57.1% absence
of the third singular inflection, and the upper working class adults

showed 50.6% absence (Negro DET:150; p. 77 here).

D x K 2" 1.5.1.7'

 

147

Since Labov's white youths did not lose the third singular
inflection at all, Stevens is presumably accurate in showing the white
adults with no loss of this inflection. One cannot fairly judge the
accuracy with which Stevens has represented the Tigers' use of this
inflection on the basis of only 2 instances. On the other hand, the
100% or nearly 100% third singular 1e absence for his Negro characters

is clearly an exaggeration.

3.1.5.4 Present tense cOpula forms

 

Labov's tabulating procedure was essentially followed in
analyzing present tense copula forms (see Negro NYC:190, 175, 218).
First, the tabulation excluded contexts in which Standard English

would require that's or that is, what's or what is, it's or it is;

 

 

these contexts were considered separately. Second, the tabulation
excluded environments in which a present or past tense copula is

obligatorily present: in clause-final position (I_know that's who

 

he is), in tag questions (she's not here, is she?), and in sentences

 

which emphasize the existence or non-existence of something (there ie

a God, there_ie no God). Third, questions were excluded. Labov does

 

not explain why he excluded them, but it may be because in casual

speech even SE speakers often omit the copula in questions such as

 

you coming? and where you going?, questions in which you is the deep

subject.

3.1.5.4.1 The presence or absence of ie in third singular contexts

 

The tabulations for the presence and absence of_ie in Go Down

Dead are given in Table 40.

 

148

Table 40. Absence of_ie from Third Singular Contexts

ie_Present ie_Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Narrator 8 42 50 84
King 10 28 38 74
Playboys 7 27 34 79
King's mother 0 5 5 100*
Mr. Johnson 8 5 13 38
The Dealer 12 8 20 40
Morris 11 0 ll 0
Tigers 3 0 3 0**
Bill Turner 5 0 5 0*
Sandy Arizona 3 0 3 0**
A11 whites 11 0 ll 0

It seems somewhat odd that the narrator should have 5% to 10%
more absence of ie than King and the Playboys have in speech; one
would expect King's writing style to be more nearly standard than his
speaking style—-at least one would not expect the reverse. Mbrris
is more nearly standard in his use of ie_than are the other Negro
adults, just as he was more nearly standard in his use of-e in yeee,
yourself, their, and the expletive gheee; Morris is in fact completely
standard in his use of ie. Even the Dealer and Mr. Johnson show only
about 40% absence, whereas King's mother shows 100%. This difference
is not too surprising, since she presumably is lower on the social
scale than the three men. The whites all show 0% absence 0f.£§-

In his Negro NYC study, Labov found that the white Inwood groups
did not show any absence of ie. In casual style, the Negro peer
groups omitted ie_about 61% of the time when a pronoun preceded the
copula position and about 34% of the time when some other noun phrase

preceded. For casual style, the adults had about 27%_ie absence in

149

the former environment, 14% in the latter (Negro NYC:194-5; p. 86
of this study).

Stevens is thus accurate in suggesting that his white characters
never omit_ie. But he is decidedly inaccurate in portraying the Negro
youths as having no ie 74% to 84% of the time, and he is rather
inaccurate also in portraying the Dealer and Mr. Johnson as having

3°.lfi about 40% of the time.

3.1.5.4.2 The use of the copula in contexts requiring are in Standard
English

 

For this analysis, the variants tabulated were the presence of
are, the presence of_ie, and the total absence of a copula in contexts

which require are in Standard English. This data is presented in

Table 41.
Table 41. Use of the Copula in SE are Contexts
Percent Total
are ie_ Copula Percent of Copula Percent
Pres. Pres. Absent Total of_ie Absence of Non-
standard
Variants
Narrator 0 56 45 101 55 45 100
King 0 29 39 68 43 57 100
Playboys 0 9 17 26 35 65 100
King's mother 0 6 0 6 100* 0* 100*
Mr. Johnson 0 9 3 12 75 25 100
The Dealer 0 21 3 24 88 12 100
Morris 2 4 7 13 31 54 85
Tigers 1 0 1 2 0** 50** 50**
Bill Turner 3 0 0 3 0** 0** 0**
Sandy Arizona 1 0 0 l 0** 0** 0**

There are interesting differences between the Negro youths and

most of the Negro adults in their use of the copula in contexts

150

requiring eee in Standard English. Neither the Negro youths nor
the adults use eee (except for Morris, who has eee in 2 out of 13
instances). However, the adolescent speakers have no copula at all
more often than they have ie, and the narrator uses_ie only 10%
more often than no copula. In contrast, most of the Negro adults
have ie far more often than no copula at all. Morris is again the
exception: he uses ie over 20% less often than no copula, and his
pattern on this point thus resembles the pattern of the Negro
adolescents rather than the pattern of the other Negro adults. As
usual the Tigers are the only whites who show any deviation from the
standard norm: they use eee once, omit it once.

Labov's data on p. 219 of Negro NYC (p. 88 here) shows that his
Negro adolescent peer groups omitted eee_about 79% of the time. .le
was used for eee 5% of the time or less (Negro NYC:221; p. 78 here).
Thus the Negro adolescents in Labov's study used nonstandard variants
a total of about 84% of the time in contexts where e£e_would be
required in Standard English. The working class adults omitted eee
about 60% of the time in casual style. The Inwood whites did not
delete eee (Negro NYC:241; pp. 88 and 91 here).

The percentages 0f.§£2 absence are low for all Stevens' Negro
characters. But since Labov's Negro adolescents used nonstandard
forms about 84% of the time and Stevens' Negro adolescents and adults
(with the exception of Morris) use nonstandard forms 100% of the time,
Stevens again seems to be slightly exaggerating his characters' overall
use of nonstandard variants. What seems particularly exaggerated,

however, is the frequency with which Stevens' characters use ie in

' 1 Fr: 1'

 

151

contexts where Standard English would require eee. His Negro youths
use ie_in.e£e_contexts 35% to 55% of the time and his adult Negro
characters (excluding Morris) use ie in ege contexts 80% to 100% of
the time, whereas Labov's Negro peer groups used ie_in.eee contexts
only 5% of the time or less. Apparently Stevens' dialect portrayal

is highly inaccurate in this respect.

3.1.5.4.3 The use of the copula in contexts requiring ee in Standard
English

 

The variants tabulated were the presence of e2, the presence
of 1e, and the total absence of a copula in contexts which require
22.19 Standard English. The general tabulating procedure for this
variable was the same as that used for i_s_ and are. The data for ere

is presented in Table 42.

Table 42. Use of the Copula in SE ee_Contexts

Percent Total Per-

.ee _ie Copula Percent of Copula cent of
Pres. Pres. Absent Total of ie_ Absence Nonstandard
Variants

Narrator 0 18 25 43 42 58 100
King 0 ll 19 30 37 63 100
Playboys 0 6 21 27. 23 77 100
King's mother 0 l 0 l 100** 0** 100**
Mr. Johnson 0 0 0 0 -- -- --
The Dealer 0 3 2 5 60* 40* 100*
Morris 0 4 4 8 50* 50* 100*
Tigers 0 0 0 0 -- -- --
Bill Turner 4 0 0 4 0** 0** 0**
Sandy Arizona 0 0 0 0 -- -- --

Ineee contexts as well as in are contexts, the Negro adolescents
use no copula at all more often than they use_1§; this time even the

narrator is included. Morris uses each of the two nonstandard variants

m

 

152

50% of the time, but the other Negro adults again reverse the pattern
of the adolescents: the adults use ie_more often than no copula at
all in contexts where Standard English would require ee,

Labov found that for his Negro peer groups, leie_or simply_l
plus zero copula occurred well below 1% of the time (Negro NYC:221;p. 78
here). In sharp contrast, Stevens shows his Negro characters using

nonstandard variants 100% of the time.

3.1.5.4.4 The presence of thas and that where Standard English would
require that's or that is

 

Stevens also apparently erred somewhat in his handling of

that's, what's, and it's. Labov notes (Negro NYC:180; p. 84 here)

 

that instead of using either the standard variants or the nonstandard

forms that, what, and ie, his Negro peer groups in the "overwhelming

 

majority" of cases used the forms thas [Baa], whas [was], and iss

6
[is]. The Negro characters in Go Down Dead all seem to use just

 

that, what,_and i£_unrealistically often. For example, out of a total

 

of 40 instances, the narrator uses thats or that is 13% of the time,

thas 47% of the time, and that 40% of the time.

3.1.5.4.5 Summary of the use of present tense copula forms
Stevens is apparently accurate in portraying his white characters
as having standard copula usage almost all the time (only the Tigers

show any nonstandard usage; they omit are once). Also, the Negro

 

6According to Labov's explanation the [s] of nonstandard [568],
[was], and [is] does not represent the copula. He says that in each
case the / t / of the underlying form becomes an [s] by assibilation
to the contracted copula. The copula sibilant is then deleted,
producing [Bee], [was], and [is] (Negro NYC:212; p. 34, n. 21 here).

153

characters do not omit e£e_more often than is realistic. But in
certain major respects, Stevens has inaccurately portrayed his Negro
characters' use of the copula. These Negro characters omit ie from
third singular contexts much more often than is realistic, and they
also omit ee_much too often. Further, they much too frequently use
ie_in contexts where Standard English would require eee_and e2. Last,
the narrator uses £he£_for that's more often than is realistic, and,

indeed, all the characters seem to overuse that for that's, what

 

for what's, and_ie for it's.

 

3.1.5.5 The occurrences of invariant ye

 

For this analysis, the tabulation included the actual instances
of will be or '11 be, the instances of Ee_which seemed to be preceded
by an implied gill, the actual instances of would be or 12.22: the
instances of he_which seemed to be preceded by an implied eeeld, and

the apparent instances of habituative 9e. This data is presented in

 

Table 43.
Table 43. Invariant he,
will be (will) be would be (would) be Habituative 2e

Narrator 0 8 2 2 2
King 0 13 0 2 0
Playboys 0 6 0 0 0
King's mother 0 0 0 0 0
Mr. Johnson 0 0 0 0 0
The Dealer 1 7 0 0 0
Morris 1 l 0 l 0
Tigers 2 0 0

Bill Turner 0 O 0 0 0
Sandy Arizona 0 0 0 0 0

154

For most characters there are so few instances of any of the
forms tabulated that no meaningful comparison of characters is
possible. However, it is clear that for the Negro youths, ye
preceded by only an implied gill is the rule rather than actual gill
plus Be. This is true for the Dealer also, though he does use will be
once along with his seven uses of he preceded by an implied gill.
Interestingly, there seem to be only two instances of habituative he
in the corpus examined: "they dont.be just a teach" (p. 138) and
"They dont be no mothers" (p. 141). Both of these occur as part of
the narration.

In Negro NYC (p. 235; p. 103 here), Labov observes that though
his peer groups used invariant 2e_in careful conversation, they

seldom used this Qe_in group sessions. In Go Down Dead, there seems

 

to be a parallel to this distribution: the narrator uses invariant
Qe_twice, but King and the Playboys do not use it at all in their
casual speech.

3.1.5.6 The extension or non-extension of negetive concord to all
indefinites within a clause

 

The tabulating procedure used for multiple negation was essen-
tially the same as Labov's (Negro NYC:276, 278-81); WOlfram's procedure
was similar (Negro DET:155). The tabulation included all instances of
potential or "unrealized" multiple negation, as opposed to all
instances of actual or "realized" multiple negation. The indefinite

determiner e (he didn't have_e knife) was excluded because Labov

 

says it should not be counted as a potential negative (Negro NYC:280).

The results of this tabulation are presented in Table 44.

155

Table 44. Multiple Negation

Unrealized Realized Total Percent
Realized
Narrator 2 48 50 96
King 2 19 21 91
Playboys 0 19 19 100
King's mother 0 2 2 100**
Mr. Johnson 0 2 2 100**
The Dealer 1 6 7 86*
Morris 6 3 9 33*
Tigers 0 l l 100**
Bill Turner 1 0 l 0**
Sandy Arizona 1 0 l 0**

The Negro youths have 91% to 100% realized multiple negation,
and King's mother and Mr. Johnson have 100% (but these adults'
percentages are based on obviously insufficient data). The Dealer
has 86% realized multiple negation; it is logical for him to have
less than King's mother and Mr. Johnson because the Dealer is
apparently of higher social status than they. Of all the Negro adults,
Morris is as usual closest to Standard English norms: he has only 33%
realized multiple negation. The data for the whites is insufficient,
but it is interesting that the Tigers have one instance of realized
multiple negation and no instances of unrealized multiple negation.

There seem to be no instances of the types of multiple negation
which are sometimes used by NNE speakers but which are not used by
whites (see p. 107 here for a discussion of these types).

Labov's Inwood white youths showed realized multiple negation
80% of the time in careful style (casual style was not elicited). The
Negro peer groups showed realized multiple negation 98% to 99% of the
time in both casual style and careful style (Negro NYC:277; pp. 107-8

here).

 

156

Labov gives no data for the adults, but apparently they showed
realized multiple negation much less often than the youths (Negro
NYC:299; p. 108 here). In Wolfram's study the lower working class
adults had 65.8% realized multiple negation and the upper working
class adults had 33.7%, for careful style and reading style taken
together (Negro DET:163; p. 109 here).

Since Labov's Inwood whites showed realized multiple negation
80% of the time, it is realistic that Stevens' Tigers should use
multiple negation--which they do in the one instance where they might
have it. Stevens was realistic also in having his Negro youths use
realized multiple negation 91% to 100% of the time. A comparison of
the percentages for Stevens' Negro adults with the percentages for
the working class adults in Wolfram's study suggests that Stevens
also realistically portrayed the Dealer's and Morris' use of
multiple negation. Stevens was unrealistic in showing his other
adult Negro characters as having 100% realized multiple negation, but

each of these percentages was based on only two instances.

3.1.6 Overall Appraisal of the Dialect Representation in Go Down Dead

Table 45 presents most of the statistics on the use of nonstandard

variants in Go Down Dead.

 

Stevens successfully distinguishes the white characters from the
Negro characters by their respective uses of standard and nonstandard
variants, and to some extent he similarly distinguishes the white
adults from the white adolescent gang members, the Tigers. Still more
praiseworthy is the way in which Stevens uses phonological and

grammatical features to distinguish Morris from the other Negro adults,

157

««O
««O
««OOH

«mm
«mm
««OOH
««OOH

OOH
Hm
em

on

«on

«OO

««OOH
mm

mm
NO

“H

««O

«OOH
«OOH

««OOH
OOH
OOH
OOH

M

««O
««O
««O

Hm

mm

mm
«OOH

mm
ma
mm

m.

 

Oman nBon

««O
««O
««Om

mm

OOH

OOH
«OOH

OOH
OOH
OOH

m

aoHuowws MHAHuHaa OoNHHmmu no N
.I. muxoucoo HIM. :H m. mo N
muxmucoo am cH mHsmou mo cocoons Hmuou can muxmuaoo.mm.aH.mm.mo monmmmun How N vocHnaoO

III: muxmuaoo mmm.aH mm.mo N
muxmuaoo mum aH «Hamoo mo moammnm Hmuou van muxmuaoo mmm.oH mm.mo moammmua How N OoaHnaoO
muxmuaoo HmstaHm Oanu aoum cocoons mm.mo N

anemone ml udewsHm OuHsu «0 N
Aunzoo OmuoHuummuv mauom mHmHoHuumm ummm was wmcou ummm aoum mosmmnm mw.mo N

 

«O
«O
««O

O

Oq
mm
«OOH

an
an
«m

H.

«O
O
««On

OOH
OOH
OOH
««OOH

OOH
NO
OOH

m.

00 How moHumHuMum mo mumaasm

OOH

.M

.me MHame

mumnu o>Humanm MSu use .uHonu .MHmmuaoh .unmw,aoum monomnmLH_mo N

««O
««O
««O

on

OOH
«OOH
«OOH

«a
mm
«m

.H

.H00
.H00
.HOO
.H00
.H00
.H00
.H00
.H00
.H00

HNMN‘I'lnwfiwm

muoNHu< mvawm
saunas HHHm
mumeH

mHuuoz
uonmO 05H
somanoh .uz
nonuoa m.waHM

m5onmmHm
waHM
Houmuumz

"GasHoo

158

all of whom are of lower social standing (with the possible exception
of the Dealer, who probably is also of the upper working class but
who may or may not have the contact with whites that Morris has).
Though Stevens is generally successful in reflecting social
distinctions by varying his characters' percentages of nonstandard
variants, the percentages themselves often differ markedly from
Labov's and wolfram's statistics. It is true that Stevens is
generally accurate in portraying his Negro characters' use of multiple

negation and omission of e_from your, yourself, their, and the

 

expletive gheee. But he misrepresents Negro nonstandard speech by
having his characters frequently use £2259.E§2£2 and 1E rather than
ghee, ghee, and lee. And he in several ways exaggerates the
nonstandard nature of his Negro characters' speech: these characters
(Mbrris is an exception) show the absence of past participle and

past tense fee_more often than is realistic; they show the absence

of the third singular je_and the copula ie_and the copula e2 far

more often than is realistic; and they far too frequently use ie

in contexts where Standard English would require §££.°r.223 In short,
for almost all of the variables, all of the Negro characters except
Morris are shown as using nonstandard variants nearly 100% of the time,
whereas real people of similar ages and similar social backgrounds

use the nonstandard variants of most of these variables much less
often in their casual speech. Stevens has, for the most part, greatly

exaggerated the nonstandard nature of his Negro characters' speech.

,C‘ Dab-.19». .I'V

VS} ? ‘5‘"

 

159

3.2 THE COOL WORLD

 

3.2.1 Plot Synopsis

 

Go Down Dead (1966) and The Cool WOrld (1959) are quite similar

 

 

in plot--so similar, in fact, that one wonders how much Shane Stevens'

book owes to The Cool World. This earlier book, Cool World, is

 

 

narrated by l4-year-old Richard Custis, called "Duke" by his friends.
Duke belongs to a black gang, the Royal Crocadiles; the WOlves, ‘ F

apparently also black, are the Crocadiles' chief enemies. Cool WOrld

 

is primarily a description of several days in Duke's life, days ;

 

during which he becomes the favorite of the Crocadiles' whore, Lu Ann;
he takes over the leadership of the Crocadiles from Blood, who has
become a drug addict; he tries to steal money from his grandmother

to buy a gun; he sells marijuana to earn money for a gun; and he goes
to Central Park and sells himself to hOmosexuals, again hoping to
earn enough for the gun. Still without the gun, Duke finally leads
his gang in a pre—arranged fight with the Wolves, after which he is
taken into custody by the police because members of his gang have

killed at least one of the WOlves.

3.2.2 Characters Whose Speech was Analyzed

I analyzed the representation of the nonstandard dialect features
of Duke the narrator, of Duke the character, of the Crocadiles as a
whole (excluding Duke), and of four other characters--the only char-
acters for whom there was enough dialogue to make such analysis
worthwhile. For the narrator, only the longer narrative passages were
analyzed: pp. 16-17; 22; 67-71; 84-86; 125-126; 138-140; and 148-150.

The entire corpus of each of the characters and groups of characters

160

was analyzed, but in no case did I tabulate more than the first 50
variants of a variable. Table 46 lists the characters whose speech
was analyzed and, in most cases, gives the pages where the analyzed

speech is found.

Table 46. Cool WOrld Characters Whose Speech was Analyzed

 

 

Character Page Numbers of Corpus
Duke passim
Crocadiles passim

(excluding Duke)

Lu Ann 37-39; 49; 54-56; 80-82; 93;
98; 101-102; 106-109

Mama 11-13; 28-29; 40-42

Royal Baron 43-49; 92; 127-129

Miss Dewpont 44-46; 113-118; 128

Like King and the Playboys, Duke and his Crocadiles are members
of a black adolescent Harlem gang. Lu Ann is the Crocadiles' whore:
she sells herself to them only, each time earning $1.00 for herself
and $.50 for the Crocadiles' treasury (Duke, however, pays her with
marijuana). Lu Ann is approximately the same age as Duke; she
apparently has had almost no education whatsoever. Duke's mother,
"Mama," is from Alabama. At the time the story takes place, she has
no "husband" (no man living with her); apparently she works in a
laundry or drycleaners. Like King's mother, Duke's mother would be
considered as lower working class according to Labov's Negro NYC
scheme of classification.

Royal Baron's social status is questionable. Royal is from the

West Indies. He is the founder of what he calls the "Poinciana

 

161

Company,"

an outfit which deals in drugs. The outstanding impression
one gets from reading Duke's reproduction of Royal's speech is that he
has had some education, but that he is not of high enough social
standing to know better than to try to flaunt his actually rather
meagre learning. The following passage is typical of Royal (p. 44):
"'Bobby came to me a year ago. A poor boy off the streets. Lackin
all the amenity of home and lovin parents. I took him into my home
and give him a start as Sales Man. Today that boy has an apartment
of his own. He has a 1957 Chevrolay an many friends of both sexes.'"
Because of Royal's obvious pretensions to gentility, he should
probably be classified as upper upper working class, or perhaps as
lower middle class.

Miss Dewpont, Royal Baron's "secretary," is probably his mistress.
Royal is black, but Miss Dewpont is white. It is impossible to tell

into what social class she best fits.

As with the narrator of Go Down Dead, I am arbitrarily assuming

 

that Duke the narrator of Cool World has reported people's speech not

 

just as he himself hears it, but as it "really is" according to the

author, warren Miller.

3.2.3 Styles Analyzed

 

As in Go Down Dead, all or almost all of the speaking situations

in Cool WOrld seem most likely to elicit a casual speaking style. In

 

addition to this casual speaking style there is, of course, the
informal writing style of the narrator; again, however, this informal
writing style turns out to be very much like the protagonist's

speaking style.

162

3.2.4 The Variables Analyzed

 

Preliminary reading of Cool WOrld revealed that it would not be

 

profitable to analyze all eleven of the variables discussed in

Chapter 2. As in Go Down Dead, nonstandard pronunciations in place

 

of standard unvoiced Eh are almost never indicated; the one exception
I noted was in a statement by Royal: "'1 like a Lad who get up bright
an early an start de day wit de sun'" (p. 43). When Duke notes that
Royal talks "real crazy" (p. 43), he is apparently referring to
Royal's use of [d] for standard voiced eh (92.f°r.EhE) and his use of
[t] for standard unvoiced £E.(El£ for High); however, Duke gives us no
more examples of this craziness.

Apparently £_is missing from no words except your, yourself (which
is written as two words, yee.eelf), eheie, and the expletive ehege;
again, therefore, the presence or absence of e_was tabulated for only
these words.

As for the noun plural inflection, there were only rare instances
of its absence: "'Lackin all the amenity of home'" (Royal p. 44); "his
family moved 16 time" (p. 69); "'He been on it 4-5 week'" (Duke, p. 34).
Possessive nouns were rarely uninflected, as in "Lu Ann place" (p. 53).

Since the nonstandard variant of four of the eleven variables
discussed in Chapter 2 occurs only rarely, just the following were
tabulated:

l. the spelling of present participles and other words
which end in unstressed -ing in Standard English:

a. the presence of final fieg as opposed to final
file in present participles and other words which end in unstressed
fileg_in Standard English;

b. the occurrences of the standard quasi-modal form
going to, as compared with the variants goin to, gonna, and gone;

163

2. the presence or absence of £_in your, ygur self, their,
and the expletive there;

 

3. the presence or absence of final 15 and fig not
representing past tense or past participle;

4. the presence or absence of fee indicating past tense
or past participle;

5. the presence or absence of fie indicating verb third
singular present tense;

6. present tense copula forms:

a. the presence or absence of_ie in third singular ;
contexts; ‘

b. the presence of_e£e, the presence of_ie, and the ;
total absence of a copula in contexts where Standard English 5:
would require eee;

c. the presence of e2, the presence 0f.l§; and the
total absence of a copula in contexts where Standard English
would require ee (tabulated for Duke only);

d. the presence of that, what, and ie_where Standard
English would require that's or that is, what's or what is,
it's or it is (tabulated for Duke only);

 

 

7. the occurrences of invariant he;

8. the extension or non-extension of negative concord
to all indefinites within a clause.

As in the previous tables of this chapter, I am calling attention
to the dubious validity of certain percentages by placing one asterisk
after those based on five through nine instances and by placing two
asterisks after those based on fewer than five instances.

3.2.4.1 The spelling of present participles and other words which
end in unstressed -ing in Standard English

 

3.2.4.1.1 The presence of final -ing as opposed to final TEE in
present participles and other words which end in unstressed
-ing in Standard English

 

 

 

The tabulating procedure used here was essentially the same as

Labov's (Negro NYC:122). In addition to present participles, this

 

164

tabulation included such words as morning, feeling, nothing, and

 

something. However, anything and everything were excluded from the
tabulation because the final syllables in these words are not
unstressed. All variants of the phrase going to were also excluded;
these were tabulated separately. The results of these two tabulations

are presented in Table 47 and Table 48, respectively.

 

Table 47. Final -ing as Opposed to Final fie_ -§«¢

IlEfi Present -in Present Total Percent of -in 5

—- '__ F

L

Narrator 5 45 50 90 ;
Duke 0 50 50 100
Crocadiles 3 47 50 94
Lu Ann 0 41 41 100
Mama 0 l4 14 100
Royal 5 28 33 85
Miss Dewpont 0 l6 . 16 100

It seems logical for the narrator to use the nonstandard
variant fie somewhat less often than Duke and his Crocadiles. It
is also logical for Royal to use the fiie_variant less often than
the other Negro characters, since he is apparently of higher social
standing, or aspires to be. But why, then, does Miss Dewpont--Roya1's
white "secretary"--use the nonstandard variant 100% of the time?
I think the answer is not that Miller has ineptly portrayed her speech,
but that she identifies with blacks. She tells Duke (p. 117): "'I
have try to be happy with my own kind an break thru with my own kind
but Duke I jus cant make it. When you cant make it with you own
kind then you have to break thru with the kind whut you can break

thru with be they whut ever color they may be.'"

165

In the Negro NYC study (p. 122; p. 31 here), Labov found that
for casual speech, the Negro adolescent gang members used [in] 97%
of the time. No casual style data was available for any other group.
But even for careful style, most of the working class adult groups
used [in] about 85% of the time (the exception was the upper working
class adult group of Northern origin, who used [in] only 34% of the
time in careful speech).

Thus Miller has accurately portrayed his Negro adolescents' use
of [in]. Probably his portrayal of Mama as using 100% [in] is close
to accurate too: Labov implies (Negro NYC:121; p. 32 here) that
uniform [in] pronunciation is quite frequent in the South, and Duke's
mother comes from Alabama. It is likely also that Miller's portrayal
of Royal as using 85% [in] is accurate. And the portrayal of Miss
DeWpont as using 100% [in] seems reasonable, since she is more

comfortable with blacks than with whites.

3.2.4.1.2 The occurrences of the standard quasi-modal form going to,
as compared with goin to, gonna, and gone

 

 

 

 

Table 48 shows the number of occurrences of going to, goin to,
geeee, and gee_.

The variants in Table 48 are presented in an order of descending
formality, from the most formal variant, going to, to the nonstandard
variant, gee_, The intermediate variants, goin to and geeee, are both
used colloquially by SE speakers. Obviously every character whose
language was analyzed always or almost always uses geeee rather than
any of the other variants. It is interesting, though--and logical--

that only Royal uses the more formal of the two intermediate colloquial

a.

 

166

Table 48. Goieg to, goin to, gonna, and gone

 

going to goin to gonna gone Total

Narrator 0 0 7 l 8
Duke 0 0 l9 0 l9
Crocadiles 0 0 45 0 45
Lu Ann 0 O 5 0 5
Mama 0 0 2 0 2
Royal 0 3 6 0 9
Miss Dewpont 0 0 2 0 2

forms, goin to. It is also interesting, but not logical, that only
the narrator has any instances of the nonstandard_gee_. This spelling
is probably meant to suggest the pronunciation [g5°], with a nasalized
vowel; Labov explains in detail how going to can be reduced to / g /
plus a single vowel plus a nasal and finally to [g] plus a nasalized
vowel. This pronunciation is common in the informal speech of
Negroes, particularly Negro adults (Negro NYC:251). Since [g5'] is
characteristic of informal speech, it seems odd that there should be
one instance 0f.EQEE in Duke's narration but no instances in any

character's speech.

3.2.4.2 The presence or absence of £_in your, your self, their, and
the expletive there

 

 

Table 49 presents data on the presence and absence of e_in your,

_your self, their, and the expletive there.

 

All the characters are represented as always pronouncing these
words without the 5. This time no distinction was made between Royal
and the other Negro characters.

As noted before, Labov found that in casual style preconsonantal

[r] and final [r] before a word beginning with a consonant were

 

167

Table 49. Absence of.£ from your, your self, their, and the
Expletive there

 

 

£_Present 3 Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Narrator 0 28 28 100
Duke 0 l9 19 100
Crocadiles 0 l4 14 100
Lu Ann 0 5 5 100*
Mama 0 4 4 100**
Royal 0 9 9 100*
Miss Dewpont 0 10 10 100

absent 100% of the time for the Negro adolescent peer groups and
about 93% of the time for all the Negro adults. Final [r] before a
word beginning with a vowel was absent about 95% of the time for

the Negro adolescent peer groups and about 80% of the time for the
Negro working class adults (Negro NYC:102; p. 41 here). In analyzing

Cool WOrld, as in analyzing Go Down Dead, I did not take into account

 

 

the phonological environment following the actual or potential £_in
the four words analyzed. Even so, it seems that the 100% grabsence

of the Cool WOrld adults is slightly high. The 100% grabsence of the

 

youths, however, is approximately accurate.

3.2.4.3 The presence or absence of final ޣ_and 79 not representing
peet tense orypast participle

 

 

For all speakers in Cool WOrld, the word and is always written

 

as e3, perhaps because even SE speakers seldom pronounce the e_of

and. Since some speakers in Cool WOrld use this conjunction far more

 

often than others, including the variants of and in the tabulation
would obscure the relevant differences or similarities which might

otherwise appear in the characters' use of final fe_and fie in

168

monomorphemic consonant clusters. Therefore the variants of and
were excluded form this tabulation. Table 50 presents the data for
the presence and absence of final 15 and 72 not representing past

tense or past participle.

Table 50. Absence of Final TE and fig from Monomorphemic Clusters

73 or Ti 13 or fie Percent of

Present Absent Total Absence
Narrator 37 p 13 50 26
Duke 42 8 50 16
Crocadiles 39 ll 50 22
Lu Ann 39 ll 50 22
Mama 32 7 39 18
Royal 45 5 50 10
Miss Dewpont 40 10 50 20

Duke has a 16% absence of :5 and fig, whereas the other Negro
youths have a 22% absence and the narrator has a 26% absence. I can
think of no logical explanation for these differences--if indeed they
are great enough to be significant. On the other hand, it seems
logical for the status-seeking Royal to have a lower percentage of
absence than anyone else, which he does, though admittedly his 10%
absence is only 6% lower than Duke's.

Labov again took into account the phonological environment
which followed, whereas I did not. Also, he apparently did not
exclude eed. Labov found that in casual speech the Negro adolescent
peer groups omitted final [t]'s and [d]'s from monomorphemic clusters

98% of the time when a consonant followed and about 50% of the time

when a vowel followed. For the working class adults in casual speech,

169

the average figures were 89% absence when a consonant followed and
53% when a vowel followed (Negro NYC:128; p. 50 here).

Obviously the percentages of fie and fe_absence for Miller's
characters are unrealistically low. These unrealistically low
percentages at first seem surprising, since writers of dialect
literature have generally tended to show their characters as using
an unrealistically high percentage of nonstandard variants (Labov

l969d:60); Go Down Dead is typical in showing this sort of exagger-

 

ation. But the explanation for the low percentages of je_and 79

absence in Cool World may be fairly simple: possibly Miller was

 

afraid that in many cases his readers would not know what word was
intended if the final fie_or fe_were omitted. Perhaps this is also

why Stevens in Go Down Dead did not even attempt to represent the

 

absence of final [t] and [d] from monomorphemic consonant clusters.
Would a reader be sure to recognize heee spelled as heel, for example,
or 2121 spelled 83.21217 Probably these words would be clear in
context, but it is understandable that a writer might hesitate to

omit the final letters of such words--particu1arly when, as with these
words, a reader could mentally add a final letter other than the one

intended (hang; mint, mine). Furthermore, words without their final

 

:5'8 and 1e's are especially difficult to interpret when there is no
apostrophe to indicate the omission of a letter from the standard

spelling. Neither Stevens in Go Down Dead nor Miller in Cool World

 

 

used apostrophes to indicate the omission of letters; apparently each
author was trying to create the illusion that his relatively

illiterate narrator actually wrote the book. The potential difficulty

170

of interpreting such apostrophe-less spellings as hee_and gig
perhaps accounts for the fact that Stevens did not even attempt

to represent the absence of such final [t]'s and [d]'s and the
fact that Miller's characters show unrealistically low percentages

of fe_and fie absence.

3.2.4.4 The presence or absence of fee indicating past tense or past
participle

 

 

Verbs which regularly take [4d] for past tense and past parti-

ciple were excluded from this tabulation. Adjectivally-functioning

‘——‘_.i\‘ " ' xix: S: .7" P
'I
n.-

words which end in fee_were also excluded because in some cases I
could not tell whether they were or were not derived from past
participle verb forms. The results of this tabulation are presented

in Table 51.

Table 51. Absence of jed_Indicating Past Tense or Past Participle

jee Present fee_Absent Total Percent of
Absence

Narrator 18 ll 29 38
Duke 6 6 12 50
Crocadiles 8 6 14 43
Lu Ann 0 l 1 100**
Mama 0 3 3 100**
Royal 3 0 3 0**
Miss Dewpont 3 3 6 50*

For past tense and past participle fee, the narrator has a
lower percentage of absence than Duke the character and the other
Negro youths, as would be expected. Lu Ann and Mama have 100%
absence, which is twice as high as the percentages for any of the

other characters; however, these high percentages are unreliable

171

because they are based on so few instances. Royal's 0% absence
is similarly unreliable, though by now one would expect him to
have a percentage at least somewhat lower than the other characters.
Miss Dewpont, as usual, has about the same percentage as the Negro
youths.

Labov found that in casual conversation, the Negro adolescent
peer groups showed past tense and past participle [t] and [d]
absence about 85% of the time when the next word began with a
consonant and about 13% of the time when the next word began with a
vowel. The working class adults in casual conversation showed 60%
absence in the former phonological environment, 22% in the latter
(Negro NYC:128, 149; p. 50 here). Thus the 38% to 50% jee absence
for most of Miller's characters is probably fairly accurate.

3.2.4.5 The presence or absence of fe_indicating verb third singular
present tense

 

 

This tabulation excluded the verbs which do not simply add
[8], [z], or [62] in the third singular. The results are given in

Table 52.

Table 52. Absence of fie Indicating Third Singular Present Tense

1e Present fie_Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Narrator 8 42 50 84
Duke 2 ll 13 85
Crocadiles l 23 24 96
Lu Ann 0 10 10 100
Mama 0 4 4 100**
Royal 2 5 7 71*

Miss Dewpont 0 6 6 100*

172

The other Crocadiles have a noticeably higher percentage of
third singular fie absence than Duke has. It is not surprising that
they should have a higher percentage than Duke the narrator, but
there seems to be no particular reason for them to have a higher
percentage than the character Duke. As with the past tense and past
participle flee, Lu Ann and Mama have 100% absence. The data on
which this percentage is based is rather scarce for Mama, but not
this time for Lu Ann. As usual, Royal has a lower percentage of
the nonstandard variant than anyone else and, also as usual, Miss
Dewpont has at least as high a percent as the Negro youths--higher,
in this particular case.

Labov found that in casual style his Negro adolescent peer
groups showed about 70% absence of third singular [s] and [2]. His
Negro working class adults showed 0% to 33% absence in casual style,
but in careful style the working class adults of Southern origin had
noticeably higher percentages of absence: 23% to 82% (Negro NYC:
161-2; p. 76 here). For casual style and reading style taken
together, Wolfram's lower working class adults (some of Northern
origin and some of Southern) showed 57.1% absence of the third
singular inflection and the upper working class adults showed 50.6%
absence (Negro DET:150; p. 77 here).

These figures from Labov and Wolfram make it apparent that the
percentages of third singular fie absence for Miller's characters are
unrealistically high, since all of the characters except Royal show

this absence over 80% of the time, and Royal has 71% absence.

 

173

3.2.4.6 Present tense copula forms

 

The same general exclusions were made here as in tabulating

copulas for Go Down Dead (see p. 147 here).

 

3.2.4.6.1 The presence or absence of ie_in third singular contexts

 

The tabulations for the presence and absence of ie are given

in Table 53.

Table 53. Absence of ie_from Third Singular Contexts

ie_Present 1e_Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Narrator 12 38 50 76
Duke 7 ‘ 26 33 79
Crocadiles 27 23 50 46
Lu Ann 2 6 8 75*
Mama 0 3 3 100**
Royal 15 ll 26 42
Miss Dewpont l 4 5 80*

Surprisingly, the Crocadiles' percentage 0f.£§ absence is
considerably lower than that of any single character, except Royal.
Otherwise the usual pattern holds: the other youths and Miss Dewpont
have about the same percentage of absence, here from 75% to 80%;

Mama has 100% absence (but again this percentage is based on very
few instances); and Royal has less 1e absence than anyone else, 42%.

In his Negro NYC study, Labov found that the white Inwood
groups did not show any absence of ie. In casual style, the Negro
peer groups omitted ie_about 61% of the time when a pronoun preceded
the copula position and about 34% of the time when some other noun

phrase preceded. For casual style, the adults had about 27%_ie

174

absence in the former environment, 14% in the latter (Negro NYC:

194-5; p. 86 of this study).

Thus the percentage of ie_absence for Miller's characters seems

unrealistically high.

3.2.4.6.2 The use of the copula in contexts requiring are in

 

Standard English

 

The variants tabulated were the presence of are, the presence

of ie, and the total absence of a copula in are contexts.

is presented in Table 54.

Table 54.

are

Pres.
Narrator 0
Duke 1
Crocadiles 1
Lu Ann 0
Mama 0
Royal 1
Miss Dewpont 3

Use of the Copula in SE are Contexts

Pres. Absent Total of ie

ie_ Copula
2 31
0 22
5 44
0 13
l 6
l 11
0 8

33
23
50
13

7
13

11

6
0

Total Per-
Percent cent of
Percent of Copula Nonstandard
Absence Variants
94 100
96 96
88 98
100 100
86* 100*
84 92
73 73

This data

The youths and Mama all use the nonstandard variants 100% or

nearly 100% of the time. Surprisingly, Royal uses nonstandard

variants 92% of the time, while Miss Dewpont uses nonstandard variants

only 73% of the time.

Mama has the highest percentage of ie in are

contexts: 14%. Lu Ann has the next highest percentage of ie, which

is to be expected because her use of nonstandard variants is normally

similar to Mama's.

Surprisingly, Royal is next highest with 8% ie,

_ufiwn-us... .

175

Labov's Negro adolescent peer groups showed an absence of eee
79% of the time and they used ie_for eye 5% of the time or less
(Negro NYC:219; p. 88 here). His working class adults omitted ege
about 60% of the time in casual style (Negro NYC:241; p. 88 here).
Most of Miller's characters show the absence of a copula in eee
contexts somewhat more frequently than 79% of the time; the rate of
copula absence ranges from 92% to 100% (with the exception of Miss
Dewpont, who shows only 73% absence). But for the presence of ie
in eye contexts, even Mama's 14% presence does not seem.a great deal

higher than would be realistic.

3.2.4.6.3 The use of the copula in contexts requiring e2 in Standard
English

 

The use of the copula in SE ee_contexts was tabulated for just
Duke the speaker. He has 1 instance of l_ee, l instance of le, 0
instances of i_ie, and 21 instances of l_without any copula. This
91% use of I_with zero copula is highly unrealistic, according to
Labov's data. He found that i_ie and 2 plus zero copula occurred
well below 1% of the time for his Negro peer groups (Negro NYC:221;
P- 78 here).
3.2.4.6.4 The presence of that, what, and ie_where Standard English

would require that's or that is, what's or what is, it's or
it is

 

 

In contrast to the characters in Go Down Dead, no one in Cool

World uses the variants thas, whas, and ie (all of which are pronounced

 

with a final [8]). Therefore I tabulated for Duke the speaker just

the occurrences of thats, whats or whuts, and its, as opposed to

 

176

merely that, what, and 12' For these three items, Duke has 10

 

instances with the fie_and 26 instances without, giving a 72%

occurrence of simply that, what, and ie. A separate tabulation of

 

thats as opposed to that yielded 9 instances with the fie and 11
without, for a 58% occurrence of that. Apparently these percentages
are much too high to be realistic: Labov says that instead of using

either the standard variants or the nonstandard forms that, what,

 

and ie, his Negro peer groups in the overwhelming majority of cases

used forms which can best be transcribed as thas, whas, and iss

 

(Negro NYC:180; p. 84 here).

3.2.4.7 The occurrences of invariant he

 

For this analysis, the tabulation included the actual instances
of full or contracted will be, the instances of he_with a preceding
implied gill, the actual instances of full or contracted would be,
the instances of ye with a preceding implied yeele, and the instances

of habituative be, This data is presented in Table 55.

Table 55. Invariant 2e_

will be (will) Qe_ would be (would) be. Habituative be

Narrator 1 0 0 0 0
Duke 1 8 O 0 l
Crocadiles O 7 0 0 0
Lu Ann 0 l 0 0 O
Mama 0 l 0 0 0
Royal 1 3 0 1 0
Miss DeWpont l 2 0 l 0

For Duke and the Crocadiles, 2e_preceded by only an implied will

is the general rule rather than he preceded by full or contracted will.

177

There seems to be a tendency for the other speakers to show this
pattern also. In all of the corpora analyzed, I found only one
sentence that seems to contain habituative he: "'Don't be botherin
me'" (Duke, p. 101). According to Labov, it is not unrealistic for
Duke and the other speakers to have almost no instances of habituative
be: Labov's Negro peer groups seldom used habituative ye in casual

conversation, and adults use it even less than these youths (Negro

NYC:235; p- 103 here).

3.2.4 The extension or non-extension of negative concord to all
indefinites within a clause

 

For this analysis the same exclusions were made as in tabulating

multiple negatives for Go Down Dead (see p. 154). The results of

 

this tabulation are presented in Table 56.

Table 56. Multiple Negation

Unrealized Realized Total Percent
Realized
Narrator 15 19 34 56
Duke 8 19 27 70
Crocadiles 3 15 18 83
Lu Ann 5 4 9 44*
Mama 3 4 7 57*
Royal 0 2 2 100**
Miss DeWpont 1 0 l 0**

The narrator shows realized multiple negation less often than
most of the characters, which seems logical. But why does Duke show
multiple negation 13% less often than the Crocadiles? And, much
more surprising, why do Lu Ann and Mama have less than 60% realized

multiple negation, since they usually use nonstandard variants 100%

178

of the time? Royal's 100% realization and Miss Dewpont's 0%
realization are equally puzzling, though admittedly the data is too
scarce for Royal's and Miss Dewpont's percentages to be reliable.
There does not seem to be any logical explanation for this unusual
patterning of the data.

In the Cool World corpora analyzed, there seem to be no instances

 

of the types of multiple negation which are sometimes used by NNE
speakers but which are not used by whites (see p. 107 here for a
discussion of these types).

Labov's Negro peer groups had 98% to 99% realized multiple
negation in both casual and careful style (Negro NYC:277; p. 107
here).

Labov's peer group data suggests that Duke and his friends have
unrealistically low percentages of multiple negation: the percentages
for Miller's youths are all below 85%, most of them considerably
below 85%. A comparison of the data for Wolfram's adults with the
data for Mama suggests that her 57% figure may be slightly low too:
WOlfram's lower working class adults had 65.8% realized multiple
negation. Royal's 100% realization is of course unrealistically

high, but this percentage is based on only two instances.

3.2.5 Overall Appraisal of the Dialect Representation in The Cool
World

 

 

Table 57 presents the most important statistics on the use of

nonstandard variants in Cool World.

 

Miller generally succeeds in suggesting social similarities

and differences through his characters' differing percentages of

179

aOHuowoc OHOHuHaa wouHHoou no N "O .HoO
muxoucoo one aH mm.wo N “O .Hoo
muxmuooo

 

 

one aH «Homou m mo monsoon Houou onu Odo monouaoo one aH mm.mo oudomoum on» you N OoeHoaoO "N .HoO
muxouaoo umHawaHm Oanu sown monomnm mm.mo N "O .Hoo
monomno mr HMstaHm qunu no N ”O .Hoo
wagon onHoHuuon anon Ono omdou ammo aoum moaomno.mmr mo N "c .HoO
muoumaHo oHamnmuosoooa scum cocoons mr Osm_mr mo N “m .Hou
muoSu o>Huonxo ago new .uHosu .MHmm “sow .uaoN Scum monomnoLH mo N "N .Hoo
waHnuoc Ono waHOcoum mm soon mouoz eH maHI amen Hoeumu_mmr mo N ”H .Hoo

««O O mm «OO «OOH «On ON OOH OOH Doomeon
mmHz
««OOH O NO NO «HN ««O OH «OOH mm Huhom
«NO «OH «OOH ««OOH ««OOH ««OOH OH ««OOH OOH new:
««O O OOH «ON OOH ««OOH mm «OOH OOH ea< 5H
mm OH Om OO Om me Nu OOH Om mmHHOmoouO
ON O OO ON mm on OHM OOH OOH oxen
OO O OOH ON «O Om ON OOH om Honouuoz

m m M m m H m. M H. "538

 

OHuoS HooO on& How moHumHumum mo auuaaam .Nm oHnoH

180

nonstandard variants. Duke and the other Crocadiles generally have
about the same percentages of nonstandard variants, which is logical.
Lu Ann uses a higher percentage of nonstandard variants than anyone
else except Mama. This seems understandable in an adolescent girl
who somehow has never learned that there is an Atlantic Ocean and
that she can reach it by subway. Mama's percentages of nonstandard
variants are presumably too high, relatively speaking, since Labov
and Wolfram found that the adults in their studies almost always had
a lower percentage of nonstandard variants than the adolescents.

But it may be relevant that Mama's percentages are often (more often
than anyone else's) based on fewer than five instances of the
variable in question. As for Royal, he is distinguished from the
others by having, in several instances, a lower percentage of
nonstandard variants. This is appropriate because he has a higher
social status than anyone else--and apparently aspires to an even
higher social status than he has. Since the white Miss Dewpont
identifies with Negroes, it is appropriate too that she should use

a very high percentage of nonstandard variants.

In some cases, Miller's characters have realistic percentages

of nonstandard variants. Miller accurately represents his characters'

use of [in] for standard [in], and the representation of past tense
and past participle flee absence is approximately accurate for the
youths. Further, the presence of ie_in.e£e contexts is generally not
much higher than is realistic. On the other hand, the percentages of
TE and fig absence from monomorphemic consonant clusters and the

percentages of realized multiple negation are unrealistically low;

 

181

the percentages of third singular 1e absence and ie_absence are
unrealistically high; and the percentages of grabsence and eye
absence are slightly high. But what seems most unrealistic about
the dialect representation is the frequent absence 0f.§Efi in Duke's
speech, for example, ee_is missing 91% of the time whereas according
to Labov's figures, it should be missing less than 1% of the time.

Another highly unrealistic feature is the frequent use of that, what,

 

and ie rather than that's, what's, and it's or thas, whas, and iss

 

 

[is]. Duke uses that, what, and i5 72% of the time, whereas Labov's

 

Negro peer groups used thas, whas, and iss in most cases.

 

One reviewer of Cool World has commented that somewhere along

 

the line, Miller's manner of representing Negro dialect becomes

mannered, "in an odd, tapping, manicured way."7

I must agree that--
from the very beginning, in fact--Miller's dialect representation
does often have an unnatural staccato effect, which I think is
primarily due to the omission of en and the use of such unrealistic
forms 33.2223 rather than ghee. On the other hand, Miller's dialect
representation is good in many ways--good enough, in fact, that I
can almost believe James Baldwin's statement that he could not tell

whether the author of Cool WOrld were Negro or white.8

 

 

7Anon. untitled rev. of The Cool World, in The New Yorker 35:16.169
(June 6, 1959).

8"Death of an Author": obituary notice for Warren Miller in
Newsweek 67:19.107 (May 9, 1966).

 

 

182

3.3 MANCHILD IN THE PROMISED LAND

3.3.1 Plot Synopsis9

Some of the facets of Claude Brown's life as described in
Manchild in the Promised Land are as likely to unsettle white middle

class readers as are the events in Go Down Dead and The Cool World,

 

even though--or perhaps because--Manchild is not a fictional work
but an autobiography.

Brown was born in Harlem in 1937; his parents had come to New

I". “LEVIN" 2-4.?-

York from South Carolina in 1935. By the time he was six years old,
Claude--called "Sonny" by his friends--had become part of the Harlem
street life: he spent much of his time fighting and stealing. When
he was eight, be for a while underwent psychiatric observation at

10 tells us "I had lots of fun in the nutbox

Bellevue Hospital. Brown
and learned a lot of new tricks, just as I thought" (p. 23). When
Claude was approximately ten years old, he and his friends started
their own gang, of which he was president (p. 56). At the age of
eleven, Claude was sent to the Wiltwyck School for emotionally
disturbed and deprived boys. He spent two years there, two enjoyable
years. Brown tells us that on one of his visits home he "just wanted

to get back to Wiltwyck and steal something and get into a lot of

trouble....We could all get together up at Wiltwyck, raise a lot of

 

9The terms "plot" and "character" and other terms used in dis-
cussing fiction are perhaps not entirely appropriate in discussing
autobiography, but they are used here for convenience because I am
dealing with an autobiography as if it were fiction.

I use "Brown" when referring to Claude Brown the writer of
Manchild, but "Claude" when referring to Claude Brown the character
in Manchild.

183

hell, and show people that we weren't pigs and that we couldn't be
fucked over but so much" (p. 98).

Claude continued this way of life when he was released from
Wiltwyck, and he began using and selling marijuana. (He tried heroin
only once, however; it made him so sick that he never used it again.)
When he was thirteen, Claude was shot while stealing sheets from a
clothesline. He was sent to Warwick reform school after his recovery.
Brown tells us of the benefits of Warwick (p. 146):

We all came out of Warwick better criminals. Other guys
were better for the things I could teach them, and I was better
for the things that they could teach me. Before I went to War-
wick, I used to be real slow at rolling reefers and at dummying
reefers, but when I came back from Warwick I was a real pro at
that, and I knew how to boost weak pot with embalming fluid.

I even knew how to cut drugs, I had it told to me so many times.

I learned a lot of things at Warwick. The good thing about War-

wick was that when you went home on visits, you could do stuff,

go back up to Warwick, and kind of hide out. If the cops were
looking for you in the city, you'd be at Warwick.
Altogether, Claude was sent to Warwick three times. He was released
for the last time in July of 1953, at the age of sixteen. He knew
he would never be going back to Warwick because of his age; the next
time he was arrested, he would be sent not to a reform school, but to
a regular prison. "I came back on the street and got ready for it.
I started dealing pot" (p. 159).

But even though the street life was the only life Claude knew,
he was no longer sure he wanted to be part of it. After all, he had
already been fighting and stealing for at least ten years, and he had
been using and selling marijuana for several years also. He no
longer had to prove his manhood. Yet he knew it would not be long

before he would get into a situation which would require him.to kill

someone in order to maintain his reputation, and he did not like the

184

idea of killing. Finally he stopped selling marijuana because he

was afraid he would have to kill some drug addict: addicts fairly
often held up the dealers in order to get the marijuana they couldn't
afford, and the code of the streets would require Claude to kill any
addict who held him up, or tried to.

By this time Claude had moved out of his parents' apartment.
Soon afterwards he enrolled in night courses at Washington Irving
High School in downtown Manhattan. Most of his friends were "in
jail or dead or strung out on drugs" (p. 179), but Claude had somehow
managed to avoid these disasters. And by the time he was seventeen
he had retired from street life, being determined not to go to jail
and not to kill anybody (pp. 179, 201).

Claude soon moved from Harlem to Greenwich village. While con-
tinuing in night school, he supported himself by working as a busboy,
watch-crystal fitter, shipping clerk, deliveryman, postal clerk, and
bookkeeper.11 He graduated from washington Irving Evening High School
in 1957 and returned to Harlem for a while, selling cosmetics and
playing piano with a jazz group.

The last chapter of Manchild begins "I haven't lived in New
York for nearly four years now" (p. 415). Brown does not tell us what
he did during those four years, but, in fact, he went to college. He
graduated from Howard University in 1965 and began law school. His

goal is a career in politics.12

 

 

11Current Biography 1967, p. 44.
12

 

Current Biography 1967, p. 45.

 

185

3.3.2 Characters and Styles Analyzed

 

Claude Brown's first person narration in Manchild is almost
entirely in standard dialect, except sometimes when Brown is
reporting his past thoughts: "I thought, Lord, don't tell me he's
gon give that away" (p. 114). Since such narrative passages with
nonstandard dialect features were relatively infrequent (and since
they seemed more like dialogue anyway), I did not analyze the language
of the narrator to determine the relative proportion of standard
and nonstandard variants. I analyzed only the dialogue, which was
defined as any group of words occurring in quotation marks.

Two of the characters whose speech was analyzed are Claude's
mother, "Mama," and his father, "Dad." They came from South Carolina
to New York in 1935, two years before Claude was born. Claude's
father had gone through only the fourth grade and his mother had gone
through only the fifth grade (p. 291). In New York, Claude's father
held a railroad job and his mother worked as a domestic.13

One needs to read Manchild only once to realize that the most
radically nonstandard representation of speech in the book occurs on
pages 40-44, in Mama's lengthy explanation to Aunt Bea of all the
trouble Claude has been causing, and in a discussion Claude has with
his younger brother, Pimp (so dubbed by the whore who took Mama to
the hospital the night the baby was born). It also is clear on a
first reading that Mama's speech is never so nonstandard as when she
is talking to Aunt Bea, who has come from South Carolina for a visit;

most of the rest of Mama's remarks are directed to Claude, who does

 

13Current Bingraphy 1967, p. 43.

 

 

186

not elicit nearly as nonstandard a style as Mama's relative from the
South. Therefore two styles were tabulated for Mama: an "Aunt Bea"
style and a "Claude" style.

Claude's speech on pages 42-44 is in several respects much more
nonstandard than his speech elsewhere in the book. It seemed likely
that his percentage of nonstandard variants might decrease as he
became older, so I analyzed his speech in three different age l
brackets: age 9 (preadolescence), age 13 through age 15 (adolescence), *

and age 17 through age 21 (late adolescence or even adulthood). When

 

Claude was 16 he was beginning to reject the street life and to accept
the fact that he needed to break away from Harlem; since this was a
transitional year, it was omitted from the tabulations. During his
late teens and early twenties Claude began moving toward a middle
class life style; in these years he seems to belong to the upper part
of Labov's upper working class. It seemed logical that as an
accompaniment to his rising social status, his use of nonstandard
dialect features would decrease during these years. I

It also seemed possible that in Claude's late teens and early
twenties, his use of nonstandard features might show some stylistic
variation. Therefore the age 17 through 21 classification was
divided into three subclasses: excited style, casual style, and
careful style. This "excited" style is comparable to the "group"
style Labov elicited in his Negro NYC study. However, Claude's
"casual" style would also be more comparable to this "group" style
than to the "single" style Labov elicited; it is Labov's "group"

style (usually referred to here as "casual" style) to which I have

compared the casual style of the characters in Go Down Dead and

 

187

Cool World. Claude's "careful" style is comparable to Labov's

 

"single" style (Negro NYC) or "careful" style (Social Stratification

 

study) and to Wolfram's "interview" style.

In Claude's case it was not on the basis of perceived dialect
differences that I devised these stylistic classifications. Rather,
I used non-linguistic criteria. Claude's speech was classified as
excited style only when it is clear from what Claude says or from the
narration that he is emotionally upset, as, for example, when the

reader is told "I just got mad, and I couldn't take it any more. Before

 

I realized what was happening, I was shouting at her" (p. 386). As for
Claude's careful style, this was defined according to two different
criteria. His discussion of the Black Muslims on page 340 seems
particularly mature and rational in tone, so I tabulated Claude's
speech on this page separately from his usual casual speech. Then,
on pages 352-360, Brown describes his love affair with a white girl,
Judy. It seemed logical that Claude would use his most standard
speech when talking to her, so I tabulated Claude's speech in this
section along with his discussion of the Black Muslims. Claude's
"casual" style includes all of his dialogue between pages 179 and 414
except that which is considered excited or careful style.

In addition to analyzing the speech of Claude's parents and of
Claude himself, I analyzed the speech of three other characters.
First, there is Johnny, age 21: "he was about the hippest cat on
Eighth Avenue, the slickest nigger in the neighborhood" (p. 108).
Johnny sold drugs, bought and resold stolen goods, and had a number

of girls whoring for him. To Claude and his friends, Johnny was

king of the street life. In addition to analyzing Johnny's speech,

188

I analyzed part of the speech of Danny. Four years older than
Claude, Danny and two of his buddies were responsible for intro-
ducing Claude to the street life. Danny was a heroin addict for
several years. The speech sample analyzed occurs after Danny has
cured himself of his drug habit; he is approximately 24 years old
at this time. Although he is selling drugs, in most other ways
Danny is no longer part of the street life.

The third minor character whose speech was analyzed is Judy,
the white girl whom Claude comes to love. She is about seventeen,
or so Claude thinks (p. 351). Her social status is uncertain. How-
ever, her piano playing, her family's strenuous opposition to her
involvement with Claude, and—-I admit--her speech, all suggest that
she is of at least the lower middle class.

Johnny's, Danny's, and Judy's styles are considered casual
because their speech situations seem likely to elicit casual style.
Dad's style I would classify as casual-to—excited, since some
instances of his speech occur when he obviously is upset. As
previously explained, Mama seems to have two styles, one which she
uses in talking to Aunt Bea and one which she uses in talking to
Claude. I would classify Claude's style at age 9 and at ages 13
through 15 as casual, since his speech situations seem likely to
elicit casual style. At ages 17 through 21, Claude apparently has
three basic kinds of speech situations: situations which are likely
to elicit an excited style, situations likely to elicit a casual style,
and situations likely to elicit a careful style. On the basis of these
three kinds of situations, Claude's speech at ages 17 through 21 is

classified as excited style or casual style or careful style.

189

Table 58 lists the characters whose speech was analyzed and
gives in most cases the precise page numbers where the analyzed

speech is found.

Table 58. Manchild Characters Whose Speech Was Analyzed

 

Character Page Numbers of Corpus
Mama

Aunt Bea style 40-42

Claude style passim, excluding 40-42 3"“
Dad passim :
Claude

Age 9 42-44

Ages 13 through 15 102-156 (passim)

Ages 17 through 21

Excited style all or in some cases part of

pp. 217; 224; 307-308; 322; 363-
365; 386; 397-398; 408-410
Casual style all of Claude's speech from pp.
179-414, except that analyzed as
excited style or careful style

Careful style 340; 350-362
Johnny 113-118
Danny 256-262
Judy 350-362

3.3.3 The Variables Analyzed

 

As noted previously, the most radically nonstandard speech in
Manchild occurs on pages 40-44. I therefore consulted these pages,
particularly the three pages containing Mama's speech, to determine
what nonstandard variants it might be profitable to tabulate in
Manchild. As expected, Mama's speech suggested that it would be
useful to tabulate only some of the variables discussed in Chapter 2.

I only rarely found nonstandard spellings indicating nonstandard

pronunciations of what would be unvoiced £2.13 Standard English.

190

Claude uses 2225: for neeeh and gig for El£§.(P' 43), and Mama uses
sumpin for something (Pp. 42, 43, 44). Except for these instances,
there are no uses on pages 40-44 of nonstandard spellings indicating
nonstandard variants of this variable. I decided therefore to
tabulate just something versus sumpin and, separately, to tabulate
yieh_versus gig. The former tabulation yielded results which again
can be described briefly. In talking to Aunt Bea, Mama uses sumpin
6 out of 6 times; throughout the book there seemed to be no other
instances of sumpin. Since gig for standard yieh_occurs somewhat
more frequently, the results of this tabulation are presented in
detail later in this section.

Instances of words with an 5 missing also occur very rarely.
Claude at age 9 has two such instances, two instances of heh_for he;
(p. 43). And in talking to Aunt Bea, Mama uses ehe for adverbial
'eege 3 out of 3 times and ehey for eheie 2 out of 2 times. But since
there are 5 instances of standard ee£e_but no instances of ehe_in
the style Mama uses with Claude, and since there are 2 instances of
.5hei£_but no instances of the nonstandard variant ehey, I concluded
that it would not be profitable to make a detailed tabulation of these
variants.

It is not often that final je's and fie's are missing from
monomorphemic consonant clusters, either. I noticed lie for jeee
(Claude, p. 64; Dad, p. 73); een: for een:t_(Johnny, p. 117); ele
for eld (Mama, pp. 24, 27); and Eele_for.eele_(Mama, p. 27). The
only similarly nonstandard forms which occur at all often are gen:

for don't and didn' for didn't. For this variable, I therefore

“Mi-U'JHI." ,
'I- "I .

191

tabulated only the presence or absence of fie_in don't and didn't.

In Manchild the phrase supposed to is usually written as

 

suppose to, even in the normally standard narrative passages. Used

 

.EQ likewise is usually written use to. Excluding these two forms, I

made (in the same way as for Cool World) a detailed tabulation of

 

the presence and absence of fiee indicating past tense and past
participle. However, this tabulation produced meagre results. Only
Mama shows any absence of past tense and past participle fee; she

has 18% absence in her "Aunt Bea" style and 6% absence in her "Claude"
style (each statistic is based on approximately 15 instances).

In Mama's speech on pages 40-42, there are 24 instances of noun
plurals; all are standard. There are 5 possessive noun phrases, and
2 of these lack the possessive file. But after examining Mama's
"Claude" style for possessives, I concluded that it would not be
profitable to examine everyone's speech for possessive file, there
are not enough possessive noun phrases to make such a statistical
analysis worthwhile.

While tabulating most of the other variables, I looked for
instances of invariant ye. Since there did not seem to be any
instances 0f.EE preceded by an implied yill_or yeeld, only the actual
occurrences of habituative Qe_were tabulated.

After eliminating the various unproductive and potentially
unproductive tabulations, I still found several tabulations worth
making and discussing in detail. The rest of this section presents

the detailed results obtained from tabulating the following:

 

192
l. the spelling of present participles and other words
which end in unstressed -ing in Standard English:
a. the presence of final -ing as opposed to final fin
in present participles and other words which end in unstressed
-ing in Standard English;

b. the occurrences of the standard quasi-modal form
going to, as compared with gonna and gon;

2. with as opposed to wit;

3. the presence or absence of final it in didn't and
don't;

4. the presence or absence of 1e indicating verb third
singular present tense;

5. present tense copula forms:
a. the presence or absence of ie_in third singular
contexts;
b. the presence or absence of are in contexts where
Standard English would require are;

6. the occurrences of habituative he;

7. the extension or non-extension of negative concord
to all indefinites within a clause.

As in the previous tabulations of this chapter, I am calling attention
to the dubious validity of certain percentages by placing one asterisk
after those based on five through nine instances and by placing two
asterisks after those based on fewer than five instances.

3.3.3.1 The spelling of present participles and other words which
end in unstressed -ing in Standard English

 

3.3.3.1.1 The presence of final -ing as opposed to final jig

in present participles audiother words which end in
unstressed -ing in Standard English

 

 

This tabulation excluded all variants of the phrase going to,
which were tabulated separately. The results of these two tabulations

are presented in Table 59 and Table 60, respectively.

 

193

Table 59. Final -ing as Opposed to Final fiin_

-ing Present fin Present Total Percent of fiin
Mama
Aunt Bea style 6 40 46 87
Claude style 22 68 90 76
Total for Mama 28 108 136 78
Dad 14 36 50 72
Claude
Age 9 l 7 8 88*
Ages 13-15 0 46 46 100
Ages 17-21
Excited 7 16 23 70
Casual 126 111 237 47
Careful 46 0 46 0
Total, 17-21 179 127 306 41
Johnny 0 10 10 100
Danny 39 14 53 27
Judy 36 0 36 0

Mama has jin a higher percent of the time in her "Aunt Bea"
style than in her "Claude" style, as expected. She and Dad both have
fairly high percentages of fin: 78% overall for Mama, 72% for Dad.
Claude's speech generally shows the kind of age and style stratifi—
cation that was expected: he has a higher percentage of nonstandard
fin at age 9 and at ages 13-15 than at ages 17-21. Within the latter
category, his excited style shows 70% flin, his casual style shows 47%,
and his careful style shows 0%. The only divergence from.the
anticipated pattern is that at age 9 he has 88% fie_whereas at ages
13-15 he has 100%.

Some pertinent observations can also be made about the other
characters' use of fiin. Johnny has 100% fin, which is logical because

he holds such a high place in the street life hierarchy. In one

194

sense Danny is still part of the street life, since he is selling
drugs. But in another sense he is not part of the street life:

he has cured himself of his drug habit and, like Claude, he no
longer has any need to prove his manhood. His use of nonstandard
variants might therefore be expected to resemble Claude's use in
casual style at ages 17—21 or to be somewhat higher than Claude's

at this time. In the case of nonstandard fiin, however, Danny's

27% use is lower than Claude's 47% use in casual style at ages 17-21.
Judy's 0% use of fiin is somewhat unrealistic. Although she is white
and apparently a speaker of Standard English, it is not logical that
she should have fling in every case, since SE speakers sometimes do
use the [in] pronunciation. Labov found, for example, that lower
middle class white New Yorkers used about 34% [in] in casual speech
and upper middle class white New Yorkers used about 10% (Social
Stratification:398). The contrast is interesting between Judy and

Miss DeWpont of Cool World. Miss Dewpont seeks out black men because

 

they are black, whereas Judy claims she is interested in Claude simply
because he is attractive as a total person. One might expect, then,
that Miss DeWpont's speech would resemble that of Negro nonstandard
speakers whereas Judy's would not. This is in fact the case.

In Labov's Negro NYC study (p. 122; p. 31 here), the preadolescent
Negro peer groups used [in] 100% of the time in both casual and careful
style; the adolescent Negro peer groups used [in] 97% of the time in
casual style and 92% of the time in careful style. For careful style,
the lower working class Negro adults who had come to the North from

the South used [in] 85% of the time; the lower working class adults

"7Fflflv

195

from the North used [in] 77% of the time; and the upper working class
adults from the North used [in] 35% of the time. (For this variable,
casual style was not elicited from the adults.)

These figures suggest that the percentages of fin for the
characters in Manchild are generally low, either somewhat low or
very low. However, the age, socioeconomic, and style stratification
is generally realistic. As an adolescent, Claude uses fin_a higher
percentage of the time than his parents. But after Claude returns
to high school and moves out of Harlem, he uses a lower percentage
of fiin than his parents. Danny, who has rejected most aspects of
the street life, also has a lower percentage of fiin than Claude's
parents. This pattern is realistic, as are the style differences for

Mama and Claude.

3.3.3.1.2 The occurrences of the standard quasidmodal form going to,
as compared with genna and gon

 

 

Table 60 shows the number of occurrences of going to, genne,
and.gen.

Surprisingly, Mama uses gen_only 33% of the time in talking to
Aunt Bea but 82% of the time in talking to Claude. Dad's 92% use of
.822.13 considerably higher than Mama's overall 70%; this difference
is in accordance with the general pattern of sex stratification
Wolfram found in his Negro DET study. It may at first seem surprising
that Claude's parents have a higher percentage of gen_than Claude has
even at age 9 and at ages 13-15. However, Labov notes that the
pronunciation of going to as [g] plus a nasalized vowel, the pronunci-
ation presumably indicated by the spelling gen, is most common in the

informal speech of adult Negroes (Negro NYC:251).

 

196

Table 60. Going to, gonna, and gon

going to gonna gon Total Percent
ofaea
Mama
Aunt Bea style 0 4 2 6 33*
Claude style 1 2 l4 17 82
Total for Mama 1 6 16 23 70
Dad 0 1 ll 12 92
Claude
Age 9 0 2 2 4 50**
Ages 13-15 0 4 10 14 71
Ages 17-21
Excited 2 l 5 8 63*
Casual 11 15 30 56 54
Careful 6 l 0 7 0*
Total, 17-21 l9 17 35 71 49
Johnny 0 l 14 15 93
Danny 4 2 10 16 63
Judy l 0 0 l 0**

Claude's use of gee_again generally shows the pattern of age
and style stratification that was anticipated. There is again one
break in the pattern: he uses 50% gen_at age 9 but 71% gee at ages
13-15. Then, however, his use of gen drops: for ages 17-21 he has
63% gee in excited style, 54% in casual style, and 0% in careful
style.

Johnny's 93% use of_gen is logical because of his high position
in the street life. Also as expected, Danny's 63% use of gen is not
much higher than Claude's 54% use in casual style at ages 17-21. Judy's

0% use of gon is likewise what one would expect.

3.3.3.2 With as opposed to wit

Table 61 indicates the number of occurrences of with and wit.

 

 

A _

197

Table 61. With as Opposed to wit

with wit Total Percent
of wit
Mama
Aunt Bea style 7 0 7 0*
Claude style 6 0 6 0*
Total for Mama l3 0 l3 0
Dad 5 l 6 17*
Claude
Age 9 l 2 3 67**
Ages 13-15 5 7 12 58
Ages 17-21
Excited 7 O 7 0*
Casual 15 1 l6 6
Careful 12 0 12 0
Total, 17-21 34 l 35 3
Johnny 1 2 3 67**
Danny 5 0 5 0*
Judy 5 0 5 0*

Surprisingly, Mama does not use gig at all, even when speaking
to Aunt Bea. But Dad uses Hie 17% of the time, and Claude too uses
.EEE- In this case, Claude has a higher percentage of the nonstandard
variant at age 9 than at ages 13-15. He again uses the nonstandard
variant less in late adolescence than when he is younger. The contrast
is, in fact, quite sharp: he uses gig about 60% of the time as a
preadolescent and adolescent, but only 3% of the time, overall, in
late adolescence. The fact that Claude has git 0% of the time in
excited style but 6% of the time in casual style suggests that some
passages considered "casual" might actually be more typical of Claude's
excited speech. Further examination of certain passages has confirmed
this suspicion; these passages have a relatively high percentage of

several of the nonstandard variants tabulated.

 

198

The data for the three minor characters is quite scarce. But
as expected, Johnny uses gig relatively frequently, in 2 out of 3
instances. Judy too follows the expected pattern with no instances
of Hie. Danny's 0% use is somewhat lower but not much lower than
Claude's 6% use in casual style at ages 17-21.

Only Wolfram investigated the pronunciation of the final consonant
in the particular item yien. He found that for careful style and read-
ing style taken together, lower working class Negroes used a [t] in
‘yith_72.7% of the time, upper working class Negroes used a [t] 69.7% of
the time, and upper middle class whites had 2.3% [t] (Negro DET:84, 86).
These figures suggest that Mama's 0% use of gig is unrealistically low.
Also, Dad's 3% use of git is unrealistically low, as are Claude's 3%
use at ages 17-21 and Danny's 0% use. However, the percentages for
Claude's use of yie_as a preadolescent and adolescent are probably

fairly accurate, as is Johnny's 67%. Judy's use is not unrealistic.

3.3.3.3 The presence or absence of final :5 in didn't and don't

 

This tabulation included all instances of didn't and gen:e, as
opposed t°.§$§EL and 922:; The data is presented in Table 62.

As expected, Mama uses the -tfless variants more often in talking
to Aunt Bea than in talking to Claude. Dad surprisingly has no
instances of the nonstandard variants. Claude has the fierless variants
67% of the time at age 9, 4% of the time at ages 13-15, and 1% of
the time overall at ages 17-21. These statistics for Claude are
somewhat unusual in one obvious respect: for the previous tabulations,
Claude's percentage of nonstandard variants has been nearly as high

or higher at ages 13-15 than at age 9. As for the minor characters,

199

Table 62. Absence of fie_from didn't and don't

_—
. *—I
t .g .
.- ; .i
..

 

:5 Present je_Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Mama
Aunt Bea style 7 7 14 50
Claude style 36 l 37 3
Total for Mama 44 8 52 15
Dad 21 0 21 0
n.
Claude
Age 9 3 6 9 67*
Ages 13-15 23 l 24 4
Ages 17—21
Excited 10 0 10 0
Casual 78 1 78 l ;
Careful 15 0 15 0 :
Total, 17—21 160 2 162 l "
Johnny 3 0 3 0**
Danny ll 0 ll 0
Judy 18 0 18 0

the fact that Johnny has no instances of the feeless variants is
particularly surprising, even though overall he has only 3 instances
of the words analyzed. Danny's 0% is close to Claude's 1% use of
the fiefless variants in casual style at ages 17-21. Judy, as usual,
has no nonstandard variants.

In his Negro NYC study (p. 128; p. 50 here), Labov found that
in casual speech the preadolescent Thunderbirds omitted final [t]'s
and [d]'s from monomorphemic clusters 97% of the time when a consonant
followed and 36% of the time when a vowel followed; the Negro
adolescent peer groups omitted these final [t]'s and [d]'s 98% of
the time when a consonant followed and about 50% of the time when a

vowel followed. For the working class adults in casual style, the

average figures were 89% absence when a consonant followed and 53%

200

absence when a vowel followed. In careful style the working class
adults had 86% absence when a consonant followed and 49% when a vowel
followed. Wolfram's upper middle class whites had 66.4% absence when
the following environment was consonantal, 11.5% when it was non-
consonantal; these figures are for careful style and reading style
taken together (Negro DET:62; p. 54 here).

The only approximately realistic statistic for Brown's characters
is Claude's 67% absence of fie at age 9; of the other statistics, even

Mama's 50% absence in her Aunt Bea style is somewhat low.

3.3.3.4 The presence or absence of fie indicating verb third singular
[present tense

 

 

This tabulation excluded the verbs which do not simply add [3],
[z], or [42] in the third singular. The results are presented in
Table 63.

Mama has 90% fie absence in her Aunt Bea style and 43% absence
in her Claude style; as usual she uses a higher percentage of the
nonstandard variant when talking to Aunt Bea. Dad has only 43%
absence of fie, and Claude shows 1e absence only at age 9; at that
age, Claude uses no fie in 3 out of 3 instances. Of the three minor
characters, even Johnny has no fie absence.

Labov found that in casual style, the preadolescent Negro peer
groups showed an absence of third singular [s]'s and [z]'s about 85%
of the time; the Negro adolescent peer groups showed about 70%
absence; and the Negro working class adults showed about 20% absence.
In careful style, lower working class Negro adults who had come to
New York City from the South showed about 73% absence of third

singular [s]'s and [z]'s; lower working class Negro adults from the

201

Table 63. Absence of fie Indicating Third Singular Present Tense

-s Present fie Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Mama
Aunt Bea style 1 9 10 90
Claude style 4 3 7 43*
Total for Mama 5 12 17 71
Dad 4 3 7 43*
Claude
Age 9 0 3 3 100**
Ages 13-15 0 0 0 --
Ages 17-21
Excited 4 0 4 0**
Casual 35 0 35 0
Careful 5 0 5 0*
Total, 17-21 44 0 44 0
Johnny 1 0 l 0**
Danny 6 0 6 0*
Judy 6 0 6 0*

North showed about 8% absence; and upper working class Negro adults
from the North had 0% absence of these endings. The Inwood whites
likewise had 0% absence (Negro NYC:161-2; p. 76 here).

It is odd that in Labov's study the lower working class Negro
adults of Southern origin had not much more than 20% absence of third
singular [s]'s and [z]'s in casual style but about 73% absence in
careful style. On the basis of such skewed data I hesitate to draw
any conclusions as to whether Mama's 71% overall absence of the third
singular inflection and Dad's 43% absence are realistic.

Somewhat surprisingly, Claude's 100% absence of the third
singular at age 9 is not a great exaggeration; Labov's preadolescents
had a relatively high 85% absence. The 0% figures are all of course

unrealistically low, except Judy's.

 

202

3.3.3.5 Present tense copula forms

 

The same general exclusions were made here as in tabulating

copulas for Go Down Dead and Cool WOrld (see p. 147).

 

 

3.3.3.5.1 The presence or absence of ie in third singular contexts

 

The tabulations for the presence and absence of ie are given

in Table 64.

Table 64. Absence 0f.$§ from Third Singular Contexts

_ie Present _ie Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Mama
Aunt Bea style 6 5 ll 45
Claude style 17 3 20 15
Total for Mama 23 8 31 26
Dad 9 1 10 10
Claude
Age 9 8 0 9 0*
Ages 13-15 10 2 12 17
Ages l7-21
Excited 8 0 8 0*
Casual 71 0 71 0
Careful 13 0 13 0
Total, 17-21 92 0 92 0
Johnny 1 0 l 0**
Danny 6 0 6 0*
Judy 7 0 7 0*

Mama again has a higher percentage of the nonstandard variant
in her Aunt Bea style than in her Claude style: 45% absence of ie
in the former style, 15% in the latter. Dad has only 10% absence.
Claude surprisingly has no absence of_ie at age 9 but 17% absence at
ages 13-15. At ages 17-21 Claude has 0% absence of ie. The minor

characters too have 0%.

203

Labov found that in casual style the Negro preadolescent
Thunderbirds had about 60% absence of ie_when a pronoun preceded
the copula position and about 42% absence when some other noun phrase
preceded; the Negro adolescent groups had 61% absence in the former
environment, 34% in the latter; and the Negro working class adults
had 27% absence after a pronoun, 14% after some other noun phrase.
In careful style, the Negro working class adults had about 12%
absence, on the average. The nonstandard-speaking Inwood whites
showed no absence of ie (Copula:17-18; Negro NYC:194-5; p. 86 here).

These figures suggest that Mama's overall 26% ie_absence is
slightly high. Dad's 10% absence is somewhat low. Claude's 17%
absence as an adolescent is decidedly low, and of course all the
0% absences are unrealistically low, except Judy's.

Both Labov and Wolfram found that copula absence was higher when
a pronoun preceded the copula position than when some other noun
phrase preceded; also, they found that copula absence was higher when
a present participle or the quasi-modaligenne (SE going to) followed
the copula position than when some other kind of phrase followed
(Copula 17-18; Negro NYC:194-5; Negro DET:170, 172; pp. 86-7 here).
To see whether these patterns would hold for copula absence in
Manchild, I additionally tabulated real or potential ie and e£e_only
when the copula position is preceded by a personal pronoun and only
when the copula position is also followed by a present participle
or genne or gen, In most cases this further restriction on the
tabulation of ie reduced the already small corpus so greatly that
meaningful comparisons are impossible. However, three relevant

observations can be made. First, Claude's 17% ie_absence at ages 13

204

to 15 is not as unrealistically low as it at first seemed, since

none of his 12 instances of the variable meet the conditions of the
restricted count. Second, Dad's use of ie_fails to conform to the
expected pattern: he has 10% ie absence in the full count but 0%
absence in the restricted count (the latter figure, however, is based
on only 4 instances). Third, Mama's use of ie_does conform to the
expected pattern: she has 26% ie absence overall in the full count
but 42% absence in the restricted count. This higher percentage in
the restricted count accords with Labov's and Wolfram's observations

of actual speech.

3.3.3.5.2 The presence or absence of are in contexts where Standard
English would require are

 

 

For this variable, the corpus was restricted in the same way
as for the original "full" tabulation of ie. The presence of ie_in
e£e_contexts was not tabulated because in the entire book I discovered
only 4 instances of this. Claude uses ie for SE e£e_4 times at age 9;
at this age, he has no instances of eye in_e£e contexts.

Table 65 gives the data for the presence and absence of eye.

Mama again has a higher percentage of the nonstandard variant
in her Aunt Bea style than in her Claude style, though admittedly the
100% absence for the former style is based on only 2 instances. Dad
has 100% eee absence. Claude's use of eye shows the expected pattern:
he has 70% eye absence at ages 13 to 15; at ages 17 to 21 he has 17%
absence in excited style, 5% absence in casual style, and 0% absence
in formal style. Johnny has 100% absence, as one might expect; however,

this statistic is based on only 3 instances. Danny has 0% are absence,

205

Table 65. Absence of are from SE are Contexts

are Present are Absent Total Percent of
Absence
Mama
Aunt Bea style 0 2 2 100**
Claude style 4 5 9 56*
Total for Mama 4 7 ll 64
Dad 0 6 6 100*
Claude
Age 9 0 0 0 --
Ages 13-15 3 7 10 70
Ages 17-21
Excited 5 1 6 17*
Casual 56 3 59 5
Careful 16 0 16 0
Total, 17-21 69 4 73 6
Johnny 0 3 3 100**
Danny 6 0 6 0*
Judy 8 0 8 0*

which is not much lower than Claude's 5% absence in casual style at
ages 17 to 21. Judy, as expected, has 0% absence.

Labov found (Negro NYC:219; p. 88 here) that the Negro pre-
adolescent Thunderbirds showed an absence of eee 84% of the time
and that the Negro adolescent peer groups showed eee absence 79%
of the time. These figures are for all preceding and following
grammatical environments taken together. When a present participle
or genne followed the copula position, the preadolescents had 91% eee
absence and the adolescents had 87% absence. The working class adults
omitted eee about 60% of the time in casual style. In careful style,
upper working class adults omitted eee about 14% of the time. The

Inwood whites did not delete are (Negro NYC:241; pp. 88 and 91 here).

206

Wolfram's upper middle class whites showed no absence 0f.§£fi
(Negro DET:169; p. 92 here).

Mama's 64% eye absence is rather accurate, whereas Dad's 100%
absence seems somewhat high. Johnny's 100% absence is also somewhat
high. Claude's 70%_e£e absence at ages 13 to 15 seems fairly accurate,
though perhaps somewhat low. Claude's 17% absence in excited style
and his 5% absence in casual style are low, and of course all the 0%
absences are low, except Judy's.

As with ie, I made an additional "restricted" tabulation of
.eee: I tabulated real or potential eee only when the copula position
is preceded by a personal pronoun and only when it is followed by a
present participle or genne or gen, Dad and Johnny of course still
have 100% absence of eee, and Claude still has 17% absence for ages
17-21 in excited style. For all the rest of the tabulations which
are above 0% in the full count, the percentages are higher in the
restricted count: Mama has 64% overall absence in the full count but
71% absence in the restricted count; Claude at ages 13-15 has 70%
absence in the full count, 100% absence in the restricted count; and
for casual style at ages 17-21, Claude has 5% absence in the full
count but 9% absence in the restricted count. (Each of these restricted
count percentages is based on 6 or more instances; most are based on
6.) Again, these higher percentages in the restricted count accord

with Labov's and Wolfram's observations of actual speech.

3.3.3.6 The occurrences of habituative he

 

As explained at the beginning of this section on the variables

analyzed, I looked for instances of invariant Qe_while tabulating the

207

other variables. Since there did not seem to be any instances of
.Ee preceded by an implied gill or Keele, only the actual occurrences
of habituative be_were tabulated.

There are 5 instances of habituative he_for Dad, 1 for Claude
at ages 13-15, and l for Claude in casual style at ages 17-21. Three
of Dad's instances occur in one sentence: "'You see that they [drug
addicts] be out there so long, look like they be dying, and they be
hanging around there for years'" (p. 326). It is surprising that
Dad should have more instances of habituative he than Claude has as
an adolescent, since Labov found that Negro ghetto youths used he
in this way much more frequently than adults. But even these youths
seldom used habituative Qe_in their casual conversation; they used
it much more frequently in careful speech (Negro NYC:235; p. 103 here).
Therefore Claude's obviously low frequency of habituative be_in
casual speech is realistic.

3.3.3.7 The extension or non-extension of negative concord to all
indefinites within a clause

 

 

The tabulating procedure used here was the same as for multiple

negation in Go Down Dead and Cool World (see p. 154). The results

 

 

of this tabulation are presented in Table 66.

Mama uses 100% realized multiple negation in talking to Aunt
Bea and 89% in talking to Claude; this difference is in accordance
with her usual stylistic variation. Dad also has a high percentage
of realized multiple negation: 90%. Claude has 100% realized
multiple negation at age 9 and 78% at ages 13-15. The only other
deviation from his expected pattern is that he has 0% realized

multiple negation in excited style at ages 17-21, but 23% in casual

Mama
Aunt Bea style
Claude style
Total for Mama

Dad

Claude
Age 9
Ages 13-15
Ages 17—21
Excited
Casual
Careful
Total, 17-21

Johnny
Danny

Judy

style; however, the 0% for excited style is based on only 4 instances.
Johnny has only 1 instance of potential multiple negation, and in this
case the multiple negation is not realized.

multiple negation, which is lower than Claude's 23% in casual style at

ages 17-21.

Table 66.

Unrealized

bko

208

Realized

15
32
47

18

NOVO um

0

Judy has, as expected, 0%.

Multiple Negation

Total

15
36
51

20

mm

31

38

10

Percent
Realized

100
89
93

90

100*
78*

0**

23
0**

19

0**

10

0**

Danny has 10% realized

Labov's Negro peer groups had 98% to 99% realized multiple

negation in both casual and careful style (Negro NYC:277; p. 107 here).

Labov gives no data for the adults.

Wolfram found that in careful

style and reading style taken together, his lower working class

adults had 65.8% realized multiple negation and his upper working

class adults had 33.7% His upper middle class whites (adults and

youths together) had 1.2% (Negro DET:156, 163; PP- 103-9 here).

209

The statistics for Wolframds adults suggest that Mama's overall
93% use of realized multiple negation and Dad's 90% are somewhat high.
Claude's 100% use at age 9 is fairly accurate. His 78% use at ages
13-15 seems somewhat low, his 23% use in casual style at ages 17-21
is decidedly low, and of course his 0% use in excited style and careful
style is very low. Johnny's 0% and Danny's 10% are very low also.
Judy's 0% use is approximately accurate.

In Mama's speech there are some examples of the kinds of negation
exclusively or almost exclusively used by Negroes (Negro NYC:275-287;
Negro DET:153—155; pm 107 here). One such type is the extension of
negative concord from an indefinite preceding a verb phrase to a

pre—verbal auxiliary; Mama has "nobody can't make him understand,'"

"'nobody ain't work no roots,‘ and "'none—a his daddy people ain't
never been no rogues'" (p. 40). Labov says that this type of multiple
negation is used by some white nonstandard speakers; however Labov

did not find this type among white nonstandard speakers in New York
City (Negro NYC:276; p. 107 here), nor did Wolfram or the other Detroit
Dialect Study investigators find this type among white nonstandard
speakers in Detroit (Negro DET:165; p. 107 here). One type of multiple
negation which is found exclusively among Negroes is negative inversion,
in which the reversal of tense marker and subject characteristic of
questions occurs in declarative sentences: in Mama's speech one finds

"'Ain!t no six-year-old child got no business drinking'" (p. 29) and

"'I sure hope ain't nothin' happened'" (P- 407)'

210

3.3.4 Overall Appraisal of the Dialect Representation in Manchild in
the PrOmised Land

 

 

Table 67 presents the most important statistics on the use of

nonstandard variants in Manchild in the Promised Land.

 

3.3.4.1 Sociolinguistic variation

 

Chapter 2 showed in detail how the percentage of nonstandard
variants a person uses depends partly on his socioeconomic status,
ethnic background, speaking situation (which determines the style),
age, and sex. The data compiled for the characters in Manchild
allows for comparisons within each of these five categories.

Socioeconomic status. Mama and Dad are members of the lower

 

working class, but Claude finishes high school in his late teens and
early twenties and thus acquires at least upper working class status.
Claude's mature independence in these years indicates that he is an
adult, despite his age, so it seems valid to compare Dad's speech with
Claude's casual style at ages 17-21. (It is of course better to
compare the speech of the two males than to compare Mama's speech
with Claude's, since the latter comparison would introduce the sex
factor in addition to the socioeconomic factor.) For all variables
except one, Dad has a higher percentage of nonstandard variants than
Claude. (The one exception is the use 0f.Q$§EL.and.§22:F Dad has 0%
use whereas Claude has 1%) In most cases Dad uses the nonstandard
variant more than 40% of the time, usually much more than 40% of the
time. In these cases the difference between Dad's percentage of
nonstandard variants and Claude's percentage ranges from 25% to 95%.
Of course the absolute percentages for Dad and Claude may be and often

are inaccurate, but at least Brown has presented the socioeconomic

211

««O
OH
««O

OH
««O

ON
««O

«ON
«OOH

Om
mm

OO
OOH

“H

«O
«O

««OOH

«OOH

«O
«OO

««OOH

”4

«O

OH
ON

OH
me

.m

«O
«O

««O

«O

««O

««OOH

«ma
HN

«ma
co

m.

 

sumo

OomHaoum osu GH OHHnoooz pom moHumHuoum mo NHMEEOO

O
O

««O

CHOP-1

«NO

OH

on

.m

coHumwoo onHuHoa wouHHoou mo
, monomom.mmm.wo
monsoon mm.mo
ooaomoa mr HOHOOan oanu mo
.aoo Ono Hg mo
:uHB ou Oomoaao mo uHa mo
.mmmmm.voo.mMIwmmmm.ou Oomoamo mm.mmm_mo
.mmmmmmm.oco.wmmmmmmm.oxHH ovuosvaHnwmmr HoaHm ou oomomao mm.mmr Hmch mo

u.ooo can u.ovHO ou vomommo on

«O
«O

««NO

ooom

««NO

«NH

«O
«O

m.

 

««O O
OO Nu
mm OOH
me HO

«O O
an Ne

«OO ON
HN OOH

««Om «OO
mm NN
ON ON
NO ON

«mm NO
m. .H
.NO oHomH

 

aaaHoO
naaHoo
:aoHou
nauHoo
naoHoo
oabHoo
oasHoO
naoHoO

NNNNNNNN
HNMQMONQ

Nash
mason
moonoh

HNINH .Hmuoe
Hawoumo
Haemou
amuHoxm

HNINH mmw<

mHumH mmm<

a «ma

oasmHo

won
282 How Houom.
OHmum mo:OHO

loum mom uo5<
mam:

“oaoHoo

212

contrast that one would expect on the basis of Labov's and WOlfram's
studies.

Ethnic baekground. Judy is the only white person whose speech

 

is represented in Manchild. It is impossible to be certain of her
class status, but I have assumed that she belongs to the lower middle
class. Since Claude at ages 17-21 apparently belongs to the upper
part of the upper working class, it seems reasonable to compare her
speech with his at these ages. I have characterized Judy's speech
as casual style, because it seems likely that she would use relatively
casual speech with Claude (or with any boy friend of equal or lower
social status). There are no nonstandard variants in Judy's speech,
but Claude often uses nonstandard variants in talking casually with
his family and Negro friends. It is logical that Claude's casual
speech should show more nonstandard variants than Judy's, since
Negroes tend to use nonstandard variants at least somewhat more often
than whites of similar social backgrounds, given situations of
comparable formality. (At least this was often true for the upper
middle class whites and Negroes in Wolfram's study.) Though Claude
uses nonstandard variants in casual speech, there are no nonstandard
variants in the relatively formal style which he uses in speaking with
Judy and in talking with Alley about the Black Muslims. It seems
reasonable for Judy's casual speech to be equated with Claude's
relatively formal speech, though of course in real life neither a
Claude nor a Judy would show complete absence of nonstandard variants.
(See pp. 215-6 here for a fuller discussion of this point.)

.§£Zl§- Both Mama's speech and Claude's speech illustrate stylistic

differences. For Mama, the difference in speech styles seems to be

213

due to a difference in audience: for almost all the variables,

she has a higher percentage of nonstandard variants when talking to
Aunt Bea than when talking to Claude. In talking to Aunt Bea, who
has come from South Carolina for a visit, Mama is apparently revert-
ing to a more radically nonstandard style which she used before
coming to New York.

Claude's stylistic variations seem to be controlled by various
factors. His speech was classified as excited style only when it is
clear from the narration or from what Claude says that he is emo-
tionally upset. His discussion of the Black Muslims was classified
as careful style because the content and tone of this discussion seem
particularly rational, and the speech used with Judy was likewise
classified as careful style because it seemed logical that he would
use his most formal style with a white girl. For the most part, the
data bears out the assumption that Claude would use a higher percent-
age of nonstandard variants in excited style than in casual style
and a higher percentage in casual style than in careful style. In two
cases he has 0% of nonstandard variants in all three styles. Other-
wise the only break in the expected pattern is that in three cases
his percent of nonstandard variants is lower in excited style than
in casual style. This suggests that perhaps some of the passages
classified as casual style might better have been classified as
excited style, and after looking at the nonstandard features in
certain passages I am convinced that this is so. The erroneous
classification occurred because I relied only on extra-linguistic

criteria, criteria.which perhaps were not inclusive enough. Still,

214

the data tabulated suggests that Claude does have three major
speaking styles in his late teens and early twenties.~

.582- There are two major age contrasts in the data compiled
from Manchild: l) the contrast between Claude's parents and Claude
as a preadolescent and adolescent; and 2) the contrasts in Claude's
own speech as he matures. The first contrast can best be illus-
trated by comparing Dad's speech with Claude's speech at ages 13-15
(the data is scarcer for age 9). In three cases Dad has a higher
percentage of nonstandard variants than Claude, and in four cases
Claude has a higher percentage than Dad. (In the remaining case
there is no data for Claude at ages 13-15.) Both Labov's study and
Wolfram's study show that adolescents usually have a higher percent-
age of nonstandard variants than adults. Thus the contrasts between
Dad and Claude are realistic approximately half the time.

Claude's speech was divided into three different age brackets:
age 9, ages 13-15, and ages 17-21. For three variables, Claude has
a higher percentage of nonstandard variants at age 9 than at ages
13-15, but the reverse occurs for four variables. This lack of a
uniform pattern is realistic. Although one might assume that pre-
adolescents would use stigmatized variants more often than adolescents,
WOlfram and Labov found that this is not necessarily true; adolescents
are perhaps even more likely to reject explicitly adult middle class
linguistic norms. There is a striking difference between Claude's
use of nonstandard variants as a preadolescent and adolescent and his
use of nonstandard variants at ages 17-21. Even in excited and casual

styles, Claude has fewer nonstandard variants at ages 17-21 than when

215

he is younger. This contrast obviously accords with the findings of
Labov and Wolfram.

See, For linguistic purposes, the major sex contrast in Manchild
is between Mama and Dad, both of whom are adult lower working class
Negroes who have come from the South. It is more relevant to compare
Dad's percentages with the percentages for Mama's "Claude" style than
with her overall percentages, since Dad is never shown talking to
Aunt Bea or anyone else from down South. His percentage is higher
than the percentage for Mama's "Claude" style for four out of eight
variables; hers is higher than his for three variables; and for one
variable, they have the same percentage. Wolfram's study of Detroit
Negro speech showed that in general, men use nonstandard variants
more often than women do. Thus the contrast between Dad's use of
nonstandard variants and Mama's use accords with Wolfram's findings

approximately half the time.

3.3.4.2 Accuracy of thepercentages of nonstandard variants

 

The discussion of sociolinguistic variations in Manchild shows
that, for the most part, Brown's representation of dialect features
accurately reflects social differences. However, the earlier
discussion of the individual variables showed that for all these
variables, the percentage of nonstandard variants was unrealistically
low for more than half the individual tabulations. Claude's consistent
0% use of nonstandard variants in careful style is especially
unrealistic: according to Labov's and Wolfram's statistics, Claude's
formal style could be expected to show 35% fin_rather than fing_in

present participles; about 70% use of wit rather than with; over 50%

216

use 0f.§lQEL and eeel_rather than the variants spelled with final

fie; about 13% absence of ie and eye; and about 34% realized multiple
negation. There is, of course, good reason for inaccurately
representing Claude as using no nonstandard variants in relatively
formal speech. In most literary works the dialogue is spelled in

the standard way, though even SE-speaking characters would certainly
use colloquial pronunciations and for some variables, would sometimes
use what have been considered here as nonstandard variants. For
example, in careful conversation Standard English speakers could be
expected to have about 8% [in] rather than [in] in present participles,
and at least 66% absence of final 12's and 1e's from.monomorphemic
consonant clusters when the following word begins with a consonant
(SS:398; Negro DET:62). The percentage of nonstandard variants would
of course be even higher for casual speech. Thus when Brown shows
Claude as using no nonstandard variants in careful speech, he is
merely suggesting that on appropriate occasions Claude speaks as
standard a variety of English as anyone else. This may not be
entirely realistic, since Negroes tend to use nonstandard variants
somewhat more often than whites of similar social backgrounds, given
situations of comparable formality. But if Judy is to be presented
as having no nonstandard variants in casual speech, even though a
real person like Judy would have some nonstandard variants, then
certainly Claude ought to be presented as having no nonstandard

variants in his relatively formal speech.

217

3.4 THE REPRESENTATION OF NEGRO NONSTANDARD DIALECT IN G0 DOWN DEAD,
THE COOL WORLD, AND MANCHILD IN THE PROMISED LAND: A COMPARISON

 

 

 

One need not criticize Shane Stevens (Go Down Dead), Warren Miller

 

(The Cool World), or Claude Brown (Manchild in the Promised Land) for

 

not representing all of the different nonstandard variants which would
actually be used by adolescent Negro youths like King, Duke, and
Claude. As Sumner Ives noted in "A Theory of Literary Dialect"
(1950:138), most examples of literary dialect are deliberately
incomplete:

The author is an artist, not a linguist or a sociologist,

and his purpose is literary rather than scientific. In

working out his compromise between art and linguistics,

each author has made his own decision as to how many of

the peculiarities in his character's speech he can pro-

fitably represent.
Naturally the extent to which an author represents a dialect will
depend partly upon his knowledge of the dialect and partly upon the
feasibility of representing the dialect in standard orthography, but
consideration for his readers is another major factor: an author
does not want his writing to appear too formidable to his intended
audience, nor does he want his audience to be uncertain about what
words some of his spellings are supposed to represent. George
Philip Krapp (1926:523) went so far as to say that the more thoroughly
a literary dialect represents the actual speech of a group of people,
the less effective it will be from a literary point of view. Though
such an extreme statement may not be tenable, it seems reasonable not
to expect a writer to include in a literary representation all of the

nonstandard features that would actually be used by people of the same

social background as his characters. It is more important to

218

represent a dialect accurately with respect to the features one does
choose to represent than to represent it extensively, and it is on
the basis of such accuracy that Stevens' and Miller's and Brown's
dialect representations must be evaluated.

Shane Stevens, Warren Miller, and Claude Brown all have
reflected social distinctions by varying their characters' percentages
of nonstandard variants. One sociolinguistic distinction in Go Down
.QEEQ is particularly outstanding: Morris--the maker of pornographic
movies--is distinguished from the Negro adults of lower social stand-
ing by his having, in several instances, fewer nonstandard variants
than they. A particularly good feature of the dialect representation

in Cool World is the portrayal of the white Miss Dewpont as having a

 

high percentage of nonstandard variants, since she identifies with
black people. ‘Manchild is especially good in showing Claude's
decreasing use of nonstandard variants as he moves from adolescence
to adulthood; also good is the portrayal of Claude as using three
different speaking styles when he is in his late teens and early
twenties.

The main differences in the three books' representation of
nonstandard features are in the actual percentages of these features.
To facilitate comparison, Table 68 presents certain data for the
narrator and the protagonist in each of the two novels, data from
Claude at ages 13-15, and Labov's statistics for his Negro adolescent
peer groups' use of the variants tabulated.

Only Stevens does not use a final fin_in words like standing and

nothing to reflect an [in] pronunciation. The standard -ing spellings

219

muaoomoHoOm

 

unmsamuoaa H m Helen oN mm Na .>onma
AnHumH mommv
O O O NH II «ON OOH ovomHO
Om HO O ON mO ON OOH axon
II II O ON «O OO OO nououumz
It OOH ma ON NO HO O OoHM
3 OOH mm «O OOH OO O noumuumz
umnu mo _mm.mo muxouooo monomo< monomo< aoHumwoz .mwr mo
unmouom muomHum> who OH mm.mo mr mo onHuHaz unmouom
Oumvnmumeoz mm.mo unmouom unmouom OouHHoom
mo unmouom unmouom mo udoouom

 

aHHaoamz can .aHuoz Hooo .aman mean as you monumfiumum .OO «Home

220

look very much out of place along with such nonstandard spellings as

they for their, ge_for goes, want for wanted, and so forth.

 

The high percentages of realized multiple negation for King and

the narrator of Go Down Dead are realistic. Miller's characters and

 

Claude have unrealistically low percentages.

Stevens' and Miller's characters have unrealistically high per-
centages of ie absence from third singular contexts. In contrast,
Claude's percentage is low; unrealistically low percentages are
typical of Manchild. Miller's characters have unrealistically high
percentages of third singular fie absence, and Stevens' narrator and

protagonist in Go Down Dead have even higher percentages. Indeed,

 

Miller's percentages are in several cases unrealistically high, and
Stevens' percentages are frequently even higher. There is no data
for Claude's use of third singular fie.

King and the narrator of Go Down Dead have unrealistically high

 

percentages of_ie in are contexts. The narrator of Cool World, though,

 

has a realistic 6% presence of ie, and Duke's and Claude's 0%
presence is not far from realistic.

The nonstandard variants of en_inc1ude the presence of ie in
en contexts and the total absence of a copula in ee_contexts.
Stevens' characters show 100% use of nonstandard variants, which is
highly unrealistic. Unlike King and the narrator of Go Down Dead,
Duke does not use ie_in.ee_contexts. But he has a 91% absence of ee,
and this is highly unrealistic. In contrast, Claude consistently
uses L_a_m or, more frequently, _I_i_m, which is what Labov's Negro
adolescent peer groups used at least 99% of the time (Negro NYC:178;

p. 78 here).

221

The narrator of Go Down Dead and Duke of Cool WOrld both have

 

 

rather high percentages of ehe5_rather than that's or ehee; Claude,
in contrast, has no instances of ehee, Labov does not give precise
statistics, but he notes that his Negro adolescent peer groups used
.£225 in the overwheLming majority of cases; both that's and EEEE
occurred infrequently (Negro NYC:180; p. 84 here).

The comparison of these percentages from the three books shows

that the nonstandard dialect representation in Cool World is some-

 

what more accurate than the dialect representation in Go Down Dead.

 

The percentages of nonstandard variants are often unrealistically

 

high in Cool World, but the corresponding percentages are usually even

higher in Go Down Dead. The percentages of nonstandard variants are

 

often unrealistically low in Manchild in the Promised Land, but the

 

dialect representation is approximately accurate in certain respects:

the characters do not use ie in ege contexts (except rarely);

they do not omit ee_from contexts where Standard English would require

this copula form; and they do not use enee_rather than that's or ghee.
In two of these respects, Brown's dialect representation in

Manchild in the Promised Land is much more accurate than Warren Miller's

representation in The Cool World; Brown's representation is much more

 

accurate in all three of these respects than the dialect representation

in Shane Stevens' Go Down Dead.

 

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION: SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Chapter 1 of this thesis explained why it is impractical to use

Lingeistic Atlas materials to determine the accuracy of literary

 

representations of urban speech; it was then suggested that the work
of the sociolinguists can be used to determine the accuracy of urban
dialect representations, particularly representations of recent
Northern urban Negro speech. Chapter 2 presented detailed socio-
linguistic data for five phonological and six grammatical variables

in Negro speech; the last section of this chapter provided statistical
generalizations which are potentially useful for determining the
accuracy of literary representations of recent Northern urban Negro
speech. Chapter 3 used statistics from Chapter 2 to determine the

accuracy of the dialect representation in Shane Stevens' Go Down Dead

 

(1966), Warren Miller's The Cool World (1959), and Claude Brown's

 

Manchild in the Promised Land (1965). It was concluded that all three

 

authors have reflected social distinctions by varying their
characters' percentages of nonstandard variants; however, the percent-
ages themselves often differ markedly from Labov's and Wolfram's.

This concluding chapter suggests further study relevant to
determining the accuracy of literary dialect representations. First,
further study is recommended to determine the statistical significance

of the sociolinguists' numerical data and of similar numerical data

222

 

223

which has been or might be compiled for literary characters in
attempting to determine the accuracy of literary dialect
representations. Second, this chapter suggests research to
determine readers' reactions to the accuracy or non-accuracy of

literary dialect representations.

4.1 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Certainly one may question the significance of the statistics
originally compiled by Labov and by Wolfram, especially WOlfram,

and of the statistics compiled for Go Down Dead, The Cool World,

 

and Manchild in the Promised Land.

 

The validity of Labov's and Wolfram's mean percentages may be
questionable because so far the sociolinguists have not had their
data analyzed for statistical significance.1 Wolfram's age strati-
fication statistics are particularly suspect because they are based

on only four speakers. Labov says that in his Social Stratification

 

study, ten to twenty individuals in each social class generally were
sufficient to reveal a consistent pattern of class stratification,
while groups of four or five showed unrelated variation. Similarly,
from ten to twenty instances of a given variable produced averages
showing a consistent pattern of stylistic variation, while three or
four instances produced inconsistent fluctuation (SS:181). Wolfram

himself says the limited sample (48 Negro informants) in his study

 

 

1Joan Baratz made this point in commenting on a paper by Roger
Shuy. See Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table Meeting on
Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. James E. Alatis, 187. George-
town Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics No. 22, Washington,
D. C., Georgetown Univ. Press, 1970.

224

of Detroit Negro speech needs further extension. And he notes that
we still do not know what is "the minimal number of informants in
each social 'cell' for the linguist to adequately characterize the
behavior of that cell" (l969b:34, 39).

A number of the statistics for the use of nonstandard variants

by the characters in Go Down Dead, The Cool WOrld, and Manchild in

 

the Promised Land have the same limitation as some of Wolframis

 

statistics: they are based on apparently insufficient data. Since
Labov's Social Stratification study suggests that from six to ten
instances of a given variable may be inadequate and fewer than six
instances are almost certainly inadequate for characterizing a
person's use of the variants of that variable, some of the statistics
presented in Chapter 3 are of dubious validity. Such dubious
statistics may well suggest tendencies which might be confirmed if
further data were available, but one must be cautious in drawing
conclusions about the accuracy of the representation of a character's
use of a variable when there are very few instances of that variable.
In discussing the representation of nonstandard speech in the
three books analyzed, I operated on the assumption that for each
character, the percentages of nonstandard variants should come
reasonably close to the comparable average percentages of the socio-
linguists, if the dialect representation is to be judged as accurate.
This assumption again involves the question of statistical signifi-
cance: how should one define "reasonably close"? In practice, I
generally assumed that percentages which differed from Labov's or
Wolfram's by about 10% or less were reasonably close to theirs, but

this subjective judgment is not entirely satisfactory.

225

The kind of statistical analysis undertaken here can be made
more objective and more valid if sociolinguists determine the sta-
tistical significance of their numerical data, if they discover how
many instances of a variable are needed to accurately characterize
one's use of that variable, and if one can establish objective and
statistically valid criteria for judging a literary character's use
of nonstandard variants to be reasonably close or not reasonably

close to real people's use of such variants.

4.2 READERS' REACTIONS TO LITERARY DIALECT REPRESENTATION

One issue obviously raised by this thesis is whether it makes
any difference if a dialect representation is accurate or not--and
if so, what kind of difference it makes. A related issue is whether
unrealistically high percentages of nonstandard variants are in any
way better than unrealistically low percentages, or vice versa. One
might be inclined to argue, for example, that unrealistically high
percentages are preferable because they seem more likely to heighten
the characterization, to serve an author's purpose of emphasizing
characters' differentness from standard speakers. Or, on moral
grounds, one might argue for unrealistically low percentages because
they seem less likely to encourage the erroneous idea that the speech
of some people is nonstandard in all ways and at all times.

Of course one may advocate accuracy in literary dialect
representations simply because one values truth for truth's sake.
But one has no basis for preferring unrealistically high percentages
of nonstandard variants to unrealistically low percentages, or vice

versa, unless one can demonstrate that readers do react differently

 

226

to relatively low percentages of nonstandard variants than to
relatively high percentages. Would most readers notice, for example,

that Morris in Go Down Dead uses several nonstandard variants only

 

50% of the time or less? Or would they erroneously think he invar-
iably uses these nonstandard variants?

Questions such as these suggest the need for subjective reaction
tests or perception tests to determine readers' reactions to

2 to determine whether people do

literary dialect representations,
in fact notice such subtleties in the representation of nonstandard
variants as those found in the three books analyzed here. Such a
study is needed to provide an objective basis for preferring

unrealistically high percentages of nonstandard variants to un-

realistically low percentages, or vice versa.

 

 

2William Labov suggested this type of investigation to me in a
personal communication of September 19, 1970.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. untitled rev. of Warren Miller, The Cool World. 1959. The New
Yorker 35:16.169.

Atwood, E. Bagby. 1953. A Survey of Verb Forms in the Eastern United
States. Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan Press.

Bailey, Beryl Loftman. 1965. "Toward a New Perspective in Negro
English Dialectology." American Speech 40:3.171—77.

. 1968. "Some Aspects of the Impact of Linguistics on Language
Teaching in Disadvantaged Communities." Elementary English
45:5.570-8, 626. Reprinted in On the Dialects of Children,

ed. A. L. Davis, 15-24. Champaign, Ill., National Council of
Teachers of English, 1968.

Baratz, Joan C. 1969. "Teaching Reading in an Urban Negro School
System." In Teaching Black Children to Read, ed. Joan C. Baratz
and Roger W. Shuy, 92-116. Washington, D. C., Center for Applied
Linguistics.

Bernstein, Basil. 1964. "Elaborated and Restricted Codes: Their
Social Origins and Some Consequences." American Anthropologist
66:6.Part 2, 55-69. Reprinted in Communication and Culture,
ed. A. G. Smith, 427-41. New York, Holt, Rinehart.

Billips, E. P. 1923. "Some Principles for the Representation of Negro
Dialect in Fiction." Texas Review 8:99-123.

Board of Education of the City of New York. 1968. Nonstandard Dialect.
Champaign, Ill., National Council of Teachers of English.

Bowdre, Paul Hull. 1964. "A Study of Eye Dialect." Dissertation,
University of Florida.

Brown, Claude, .1965. Manchild in the Promised Land. New York, New
American Library.

"Death of an Author." 1966. Newsweek 67:19.106-7. Obituary article
on Warren Miller.

Dillard, J. L. 1964. "The Writings of Herskovits and the Study of
the Language of the Negro in the New World." Caribbean Studies
4:2.35-41.

227

228

. 1968. "Non-standard Negro Dialects." The Florida FL
Reporter 6:2.9-10, 12.

 

. 1969. "The DARE-ing Old Men on their Flying Isoglosses;
or Dialectology and Dialect Georgraphy." The Florida FL Reporter
7:208-10’ 220

Fasold, Ralph W. 1969a. "Orthography in Reading Materials for Black
English Speaking Children." In Teaching Black Children to Read,
ed. Joan C. Baratz and Roger W. Shuy, 68-92. Washington, D. C.,
Center for Applied Linguistics.

1969b. "Tense and the Form Be in Black English." Language
45:4.763—76.

. 1970. "Distinctive Linguistic Characteristics of Black
English." In Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table Meeting
on Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. James E. Alatis, 233-8.
Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics No. 22.
Washington, D. C., Georgetown University Press.

 

Fasold, Ralph W., and Walt WOlfram. 1970. "Some Linguistic Features
of Negro Dialect." In Teaching Standard English in the Inner
City, ed. Ralph W. Fasold and Roger W. Shuy, 41-86. Washington,
D. C., Center for Applied Linguistics.

Foster, Charles William. 1968. "The Representation of Negro Dialect
in Charles W. Chesnutt's The Conjure Woman." Dissertation,
University of Alabama.

Harris, Joel Chandler. 1911. Nights with Uncle Remus. New York,
Houghton Mifflin. First copyrighted 1881.

Haskell, Ann Sullivan. 1964. "The Representation of Gullah-Influenced
Dialect in Twentieth Century South Carolina Prose: 1922-1930."
Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Herskovits, Melville. 1958. The Myth of the Negro Past. 2nd ed.
(lst ed. 1941). Boston, Beacon Press.

Hibbard, Addison. 1926. "Aesop in Negro Dialect." American Speech
1:9.495—9.

Ives, Sumner. 1950. "A Theory of Literary Dialect." Tulane Studies
in English 2:137-82.

 

. 1954. "The Phonology of the Uncle Remus Stories."
Publication of the American Dialect Societnyo. 22, 3-59.

. 1955. "Dialect Differentiation in the Stories of Joel
Chandler Harris." American Literature 27:88-96.

 

 

229

Kenyon, John Samuel. 1964. American Pronunciation. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
George Wahr Publishing Company.

 

Kenyon, John Samuel, and Thomas Albert Knott. 1953. A Pronouncing
Dictionary of American English. Springfield, Mass., C. C.
Merriam Company.

 

 

Krapp, George Philip. 1924. "The English of the Negro." American
Mercury 2:6.190-5.

. 1925. The English Language in America, Vol. 1. New York,
The Century Company.

 

. 1926. "The Psychology of Dialect Writing." The Bookman
63:5.522-7.

 

f -...

Kurath, Hans. 1949. A.Word Geegraphy of the Eastern United States.
Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan Press. 1

 

Kurath, Hans, and Raven I. McDavid, Jr. 1961. The Pronunciation of
English in the Atlantic States. Ann Arbor, Mich., University of
Michigan Press.

 

 

Kurath, Hans, et a1. 1939. Handbook of the Linguistic Geography of
New England. Providence, R. 1., American Council of Learned
Societies.

 

Labov, William. 1964. "Phonological Correlates of Social Strati-
fication." In The Ethnography of Communication, ed. John J.
Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 164-76. Special publication of the
American Anthropologist, 66:6,ii.

 

 

. 1965. "Stages in the Acquisition of Standard English." In
Social Dialects and Languege Learning, ed. Roger W. Shuy, 77-103.
Champaign, Ill., National Council of Teachers of English.

 

. 1966a. "The Linguistic Variable as a Structural Unit."
Washington Linguistics Review 3:4-22. Also available from the
Educational Resources Information Center: ED 010 871.

 

. 1966b. The Social Stratification of English in New York City.
Washington, D. 0., Center for Applied Linguistics.

 

. 1967a. "Linguistic Research on the Non-Standard English of
Negro Children." Yearbook 1966 of the New York Society for the
Experimental Study of Education, pt. 1, 20-39.

 

. 1967b. "The Nonstandard Vernacular of the Negro Community:
Some Practical Suggestions." U. S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare. Available from.the Educational Resources
Information Center: ED 016 947.

230

. 19693. "Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of
the English Copula." Language 45:4.715-62. Also available from
the Educational Resources Information Center: ED 027 514.

. l969b. "The Logic of Non-standard English." In Linguistic-
Cultural Differences and American Education, ed. Alfred C. Aarons
et al., 60-74, 169. A special anthology issue of The Florida FL
Reporter, 7:1. Also in Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages
and Linguistics No. 22, 1-43. Washington, D. C., Georgetown
University Press, 1970.

 

 

. l969c. "Some Sources of Reading Problems for Negro Speakers
of Nonstandard English." In Teaching;B1ack Children to Read,
ed. Joan C. Baratz and Roger W. Shuy, 29-67. Washington, D. C.,
Center for Applied Linguistics.

 

 

. l969d. A Study of Nonstandard English. Champaign, Ill.,
National Council of Teachers of English. Also available from the
Educational Resources Information Center: ED 024 053.

 

. 'Tfill -—
l

Labov, William, and Paul Cohen. 1967. "Systematic Relations of
Standard and Non-Standard Rules in the Grammars of Negro Speakers."
Project Literacy Reports No. 8, 66-84. Ithaca, N. Y. Also

available from the Educational Resources Information Center:
ED 016 946.

Labov, William, Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins, and John Lewis. 1968.
A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican
Speakers in New York City. Vol. 1: Phonological and Grammatical
Analysis; Vol. 2: The Use of Language in the Speech Community.
Washington, D. C., Educational Resources Information Center:
ED 028 423 and ED 028 424.

 

 

 

 

 

Loflin, Marvin D. 1967a. "A Note on the Deep Structure of Nonstandard
English in Washington, D. C." Glossa 1:1.26-32. Also available
from the Educational Resources Information Center: ED 010 875.

. 1967b. "On the Structure of the Verb in a Dialect of American
Negro English." Technical Report No. 26 of the Group Psychology
Branch of the Office of Naval Research. washington, D. C.,
Center for Applied Linguistics, mimeographed.

. 1969. "Negro Nonstandard and Standard English: Same or
Different Deep Structure?" Orbis 18:1.74-91.

Long, Richard A. 1969. "The Uncle Remus Dialect: A Preliminary
Linguistic View." Washington, D. C., Educational Resources
Information Center: ED 028 416.

McDavid, Raven I., Jr. 1967a. "A Checklist of Significant Features
for Discriminating Social Dialects." In Dimensions of Dialect,
ed. Eldonna L. Evertts, 7-10. Champaign, I11,, National Council
of Teachers of English.

 

 

231

. 1967b. "Historical, Regional, and Social Variation."
Journal of English Linguistics, 1:25-40.

 

. 1967c. "Needed Research in Southern Dialects." In Perspectives
on the South: Agenda for Research, ed. Edgar T. Thompson, 113-25.
Durham, N. C., Duke University Press.

 

 

McDavid, Raven I., Jr., and Virginia Glenn MtDavid. 1951. "The
Relationship of the Speech of American Negroes to the Speech
of Whites." American Speech 36:1.3-17.

 

Miller, Warren. 1959. The Cool World. Greenwich, Conn., Fawcett.

 

Moore, Mary Jo., comp. 1969. "A Preliminary Bibliography of American
English Dialects." Washington, D. C., Center for Applied

Linguistics. Available from Educational Resources Information
Center: ED 033 327.

Moritz, Charles, ed. 1967-68. "Brown, Claude." Current Biggiaphy,
1967. New York, H. W. Wilson Company.

 

Pedersen, Lee A. 1964a. "Non-standard Negro Speech in Chicago."
In Non-standard Speech and the Teachinglof English, ed. William
A. Stewart, 16-23. Washington, D. C., Center for Applied
Linguistics.

 

. 1964b. "Some Structural Differences in the Speech of Chicago
Negroes." In Social Dialects and Language Learning, ed. Roger W.
Shuy, 28-51. Champaign, 111., National Council of Teachers of
English.

 

. 1965. "The Pronunciation of English in Metropolitan Chicago."
Publication of the American Dialect Society No. 44, 1-87.

. 1965-66. "Negro Speech in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."
Mark Twain Journal 13:1.1-4.

 

 

Pickford, Glenna Ruth. 1956. "American Linguistic Geography: A Socio-
linguistic Appraisal." Word 12:2.211-33.

Read, Allen Walker. 1939. "The Speech of Negroes in Colonial America."
Journal of Negro History 24:3.247-58.

 

Shuy, Roger W. 1967. Discovering American Dialects. Champaign, Ill.,
National Council of Teachers of English.

 

. 1969. "Sex as a Factor in Sociolinguistic Research." Presented
at the meeting of the Anthropological Society of Washington,
Washington, D. C., Feb. 18, 1969. Available from the Educational
Resources Information Center: ED 027 522.

 

232

. 1970. "Subjective Judgments in Sociolinguistic Analysis."
In Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table Meeting on
Linguistics'and Language Studies, ed. James E. Alatis, 175-88.
Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics No. 22.
Washington, D. C., Georgetown University Press.

Shuy, Roger W., walter A. Wolfram, and William K. Riley. 1967.
"Linguistic Correlates of Social Stratification in Detroit Speech."
Final Report, Cooperative Research Project 6-1397, U. S. Office
of Education. Available from the Educational Resources Informa-
tion Center: ED 022 187.

Stevens, Shane. 1966. Go Down Dead. New York, William Morrow and
Company.

Stewart, William A. 1964. "Foreign Language Teaching Methods in
Quasi-Foreign Language Situations." In Non-standard Speech and
the Teaching of English, ed. William A. Stewart, 1-15. Washington,
D. C., Center for Applied Linguistics.

. 1965. "Urban Negro Speech: Sociolinguistic Factors Affecting
English Teaching." In Social Dialects and Language Learning, ed.
Roger W. Shuy, 10-18. Champaign, Ill., National Council of
Teachers of English.

 

. 1966-67. "Nonstandard Speech Patterns." Baltimore Bulletin
of Education 43:2—4.52-65.

 

. 1967. "Sociolinguistic Factors in the History of American

Negro Dialects." The Florida FL Reporter 5:2. Reissued by the
National Council of Teachers of English, 1968. Also available
from the Educational Resources Information Center: ED 012 435.

. 1968. "Continuity and Change in American Negro Dialects."
The Florida FL Reporter 6:1.3-4, 14-16, 18.

. 1969. "On the Use of Negro Dialect in the Teaching of Reading."
In Teaching Black Children to Read, ed. Joan C. Baratz and Roger

W. Shuy, 156-218. Washington, D. C., Center for Applied
Linguistics.

. 1970. "Historical and Structural Bases for the Recognition

of Negro Dialect." In Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table

Meetinglon Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. James E. Alatis,

239-247. Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics
No. 22. Washington, D. C., Georgetown University Press.

Tarone, Elaine. 1970. A Selected Annotated Bibliegraphy on Social
Dialects, for Teachers of Speech and English. Speech Science
Laboratories Reference Series C404. University of Washington.

233

Walker, Ursula Genung. 1968. "Structural Features of Negro English
in Natchitoches Parish." Master's thesis, Northwestern State
College, Natchitoches, Louisiana. Available from the Educational
Resources Information Center: ED 022 184.

Wolfram, Walter A. 1968. "Social Stigmatizing and the Linguistic
Variable in a Negro Speech Community." Paper presented at meeting
of the Speech Association of America, Chicago, 111,, December 1968.

. 1969a. "Black/White Speech Differences Revisited: A Prelimi-
nary Report." washington, D. C., Center for Applied Linguistics.
Available from Educational Resources Information Center: ED 033 356.

. 1969b. "Social Dialects from a Linguistic Perspective:
Assumptions, Current Research, and Future Directions." Presented

at Center for Applied Linguistics conference on Approaches to

Social Dialects, washington, D. C., Oct. 31 to Nov. 1, 1969.
Available from Educational Resources Information Center: ED 032 535.

. l969c. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech.
Washington, D. C., Center for Applied Linguistics.

 

. 1970. "Linguistic Correlates of Social Differences in the
Negro Community." In Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table
Meetinglon Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. James E. Alatis,
249—57. Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics
No. 22. washington, D. C., Georgetown University Press.

 

Wolfram, Walter A., and Ralph W. Fasold. 1969. "Toward Reading
Materials for Speakers of Black English: Three Linguistically
Appropriate Passages." In Teachinnglack Children to Read, ed.
Joan C. Baratz and Roger W. Shuy, 138-55. Washington, D. C.,
Center for Applied Linguistics.

 

 

 

rlflflf'ljfllflill‘lflfljfijh[will