UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The pronunciation of English in British Columbia : an analysis of the responses to the phonological section… Stevenson, Roberta C. 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 S76.pdf [ 12.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094132.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094132-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094132-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094132-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094132-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094132-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094132-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094132-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094132.ris

Full Text

THE PRONUNCIATION OF ENGLISH IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES TO THE PHONOLOGICAL SECTION OF THE LINGUISTIC' SURVEY OF B.C.-t POSTAL QUESTIONNAIRE (PQ3) by ROBERTA C. STEVENSON B.A., University of British Columbia, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF 1 MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Linguistics We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1976 (8) Roberta &l~Stevenson, 1-976: In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I a g ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thou t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f L i n g u i s t i c s  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date ^fJcst -*?A^ ABSTRACT The primary object of this thesis is the analysis of responses to the phonological section of the Linguistic Survey  of B.C.: Postal Questionnaire (PQ3) which was designed by James Poison and Dr. R. J. Gregg at the University of B.C. In analysing the responses to the questionnaire, major emphasis has been placed on the distribution of variants in the province as a whole, on the shifting distribution of variants from older to younger generation speakers and on the isolation of dialect areas within the province. With regard to the isolation of dialect areas, the overall area distribution is the focus of attention; discussion of regional age variations is of necessity brief since sample sizes in age/area categories are for the most part too small to allow a definitive analysis. In addition to the analysis of PQ3 data, correlations have been made with data from other B.C. dialect surveys at both provincial and regional levels. Responses to other surveys at the provincial level are for the most part in agreement with those of PQ3> however, for some items significant variations occur. Comparison of responses at the regional level is difficult due to small and/or disparate sample sizes. The analysis of PQ3 data and the comparison of the results of this survey with those of other B.C. surveys indicates the necessity of a more concentrated study of B.C. speech. To this end, some alternative approaches to the study of British Columbia dialect have been suggested. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................... V INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF B.C 5 II. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 17 III. ANALYSIS OF PQ3_ RESULTS 30 IV. COMPARISON OF FQ3 RESULTS WITH THOSE OF OTHER SURVEYS 54 V. B.C. DIALECTOLOGY:"SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 74 Appendix I. THE QUESTIONNAIRE. 84 II. TABLES AND MAPS...................................... 89 ABBREVIATIONS.............................................. 151 BIBLIOGRAPHY 152 i i i ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Bivariate Table of Responses to Items 12 and 1 3 . . Bivariate Table of Responses to Items 18 and 1 9 . . Bivariate Table of Responses to Items 20 and 21.. Graph Illustrating the Method of Assigning Values to POJI. Sub-areas..................., Assigned. Values for PQ3 Areas: Overall Distribution Significant Age Group Changes in Areas...... Assigned Values for PQ3 Areas: the o-Group.. Assigned Values for PQ3 Areas J the m-Group.. Assigned Values for PQ3 Areas: the y-Group.. Sample Sizes in Lower Mainland Groups....... 2. 3. 4. 5 , 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . Table I. Communities Represented. in PQ3_............... Ila, Background of Parents of informants-for B.C. and for the Age Groups...................... l i b . Background of Parents of informants-for Areas and for Area/Age Groups III. Distribution of Informants by Age and Area... IV. Sample Sizes and Distribution of Variants for B.C. and the Sub-areas : 1 Tomato s2 Vase.......... :3 Apricot  :4 Shone....... :5 Lever....... :-6 Root........ :7 Soot........ :8 Route....... :9 Schedule, :10 Rather.., j l l Zebra , :12 Father/bother, 113 Caught/cot. »l4 Marry/merry. : 15 Aunt/ant...................... :l6 Leisure/pleasure..................... :17 Bury/furry........................... 118 Mourning/morning  :19 Hoarse/horse. ;20 Fairy/ferry. ... ............, »21 Mary/merry................................... V. Number of Informants: Provincial and Mainland. Sample Groups VI. Distribution of Variants: Provincial and Main-land Sample Groups VII. Number of Informants: Regional Sample Groups.. VIII. Distribution of Variants: Regional Surveys.... 38 41 41 43 46 47 48 49 1° 62 89 93 94 96 97 98 99 99 100 100 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 108 109 110 113 114 i v Map I-IX. Location of Communities Represented I. Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands (I) 123 II. Fraser Val ley-Lower Mainland (L) 124 III. Western Cariboo (Cw)........................ 125 IV. Eastern Cariboo (Ce)........................ 126 V. Okanagan ( 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 VI. Kootenay (K)." 128 VII. Upper Mainland-West (Yw) 129 V i l l a . Upper Mainland-North TYn) 130 VHIb. Upper Mainland-East (YeJ 131 IX. Peace River (P) 132 X. B.C. and the Sub-areas 133 XI- ' XIII. Area Variations XI. Tomato, Route , 134 XII. Vase .- 135 XIII. Apricot..................................... 136 XIV. Summary of Area Variations.. 137 XV. Area S.G. 138 XVI-XVIII. Age Group Variations XVI. The o-Group 139 XVII. The m-Group 14Q XVIII. The y-Group 141 XIX-XXI. Age Group S.G. XIX. The o-Group 142 XX. The m-Group 143 XXI. The y-Group 144 XXII. Distribution of Variants of Apricot in 0 and Ce T 145 XXIII. Distribution of Variants of Route in 0 and Ce....... 146 XXIV. Distribution of Variants of Leisure in 0 and Ce. 147 XXV. Distribution of Variants of Apricot in K............ 148 XXVI. Distribution of Variants of Route in K 149 XXVII. Distribution of Variants of Leisure in K 150 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study could not have been undertaken nor would i t have been completed without the previous research and the assistance of many people. I would particularly like to acknowledge my indebtedness to the following: James Poison and Dr. R.J. Gregg, who designed PQ3_» Howard Woods, who gathered the Kootenay data, Mary Stott, who was responsible for tracking down so many suitable informants, Gabor Sandi, who undertook the computer programming, and above a l l to Dr. R.J. Gregg and Li l i t a Rodman, who provided inspiration, advice and encouragement—with a large measure of patience and forbearance. 1 INTRODUCTION The first articles describing speech in the Vancouver area of British Columbia were published in 1 9 5 7 by Dr. R.J. Gregg. Further study of dialect in the. Vancouver area and of dialect variation in other areas began some years later. In 1 9 6 5 t James Poison presented a report to the Canadian Linguistic Association outlining the results of a survey conduct-e d among some two hundred students' in three Vancouver high schools. The survey questionnaire was designed to e l i c i t variet--ies of pronunciation of approximately fi f t y words. ( 1 ) During the next four years the field of investigation was extended. Two smaller high school surveys provided inform--ation on the pronunciation of Duncan (Vancouver Island) and Hope (Fraser Valley) students; field studies in Victoria, the Okanagan and the Kootenays and two postal questionnaires conducted through regional newspapers added data on adult and student pronunciation in other parts of the province. (2) By 1 9 6 9 » the Linguistic Survey of B.C.; Postal Question- naire ( P Q 3 ) . designed to gather not only phonological but also syntactic and lexical information had assumed its final form. (3) The assembly of questionnaires, the search for possible informants, mailing of questionnaires and preliminary screening of returns was carried on until 1 9 7 3 when i t became apparent that few addit-2 -ional informants could be reached by mail. While the above was in progress, the publication of The Survey of Canadian English (SCE)provided an important source of information on B.C. speech. (4) Since SCE was a national rather than a provincial project, no attempt was made to sub-categorize B.Ci data on a regional basisj however, such a sub-categorization can be found in Rodman, 1975* at least with regard to Greater Vancouver and the rest of the B.C. mainland. The search for PQ3 Informants was abandoned in the spring of 1973. While a l l the completed questionnaires were returned to James Poison i n Montreal, copies of the informant data sheet and of the f i r s t two pages (phonological section) of the questionnaire were retained at the University of British Columbia. In the summer of 1973» I undertook the analysis of the data of the phon--ological section. If I cannot claim recognition for the develop--ment of the questionnaire, for the location of so many suitable informants or for the computer programming of data, I must assume the responsibility for the f i n a l screening of informants, for the decision as to their grouping by area and age group and for the interpretation of the data compiled. In analysing PQ3 data, I was primarily concerned with the distribution of word variants in the province as a whole, on the shifting distribution of variants from older to younger generation speakers and on the discovery of regional dialect areas-- i f such existed--within the province. I was also interested i n the correl--ation of PQ3 data with that obtained from the previous dialect 3 surveys outlined above. In analysing PQ3 and comparable data, I became increas-i n g l y aware of the difficulties of dialect study in an area as recently populated as B.C. This awareness led to the several suggestions for further dialect research found in Chapter V.. Whether or not the suggestions are of use, I hope that the data from PQ3 and from the comparison of results of the various sur--veys of B.C. speech will contribute in some meaningful way to our knowledge of B.C. dialect. 4 NOTES 1) Poison, 1965. 2) Poison, 19691 Gregg, 1973# 3) Poison 1969. 4) Scargill and Warkentyne, 1972 j Scargill, 1974. 5 CHAPTER I N e i t h e r d i a l e c t geography nor s o c i a l d i a l e c t o l o g y can be s t u d i e d e f f e c t i v e l y without r e f e r e n c e to a h i s t o r i c a l or a c u l t u r a l m i l i e u . Students o f language change must r e f e r to h i s t o r i c a l developments and s o c i o l o g i c a l changes i n the community or group of communities i n which the language under o b s e r v a t i o n i s spoken. Si n c e the survey, o r surveys, considered i n t h i s t h e s i s are e s s e n t i a l l y p i l o t s t u d i e s , a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f B.C. h i s t o r y i s not e s s e n t i a l ? however, b r i e f r e f e r e n c e should be made t o : 1) dates o f se t t l e m e n t of v a r i o u s p a r t s o f the p r o v i n c e , 2) o r i g i n s o f the f i r s t s e t t l e r s and l a t e r immigrants and 3) development o f communications l i n k s w i t h i n and beyond the borders o f the p r o v i n c e . I n f o r m a t i o n on dates of settlement and development of communications l i n k s can e a s i l y be found i n a g e n e r a l h i s t o r y o f B.C. I n f o r m a t i o n on the background o f B.C. r e s i d e n t s , on the oth e r hand, i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n . There are few r e c o r d s p r i o r to the date o f the f i r s t census and due to the concept of e t h n i c group in h e r e n t i n the r e c o r d i n g o f census data, e x i s t i n g census f i g u r e s are of l i t t l e use. For example, a B.C. r e s i d e n t would be c l a s s i f i e d as E n g l i s h whether h i s f i r s t a n c e s t o r 6 emigrating to the North American continent reached B.C. in 1886 or arrived in the Eastern United States in the late eighteeth century. What l i t t l e information I have found to date has been included in the following discussion. Although the earliest settlements in B.C. were establish--ed near the confluence of the Fraser and Nechako rivers (1), population in the northern areas of the province would remain sparse for over a century. With the decline of the fur trade, ex-Hudson's Bay employees at Fort George (Prince George) as well as at later established posts (2) turned to secondary industry? farming, cattle raising, flour milling and salmon export. How--ever, these isolated nuclei of future economic development were s t i l l dependent on the Hudson's Bay Company and on the British Government• Toward the middle of the nineteenth century, the grow--ing pressure of American claims to trade and settlement rights west of the Rockies led to the signing of the Oregon Boundary Treaty/.- In anticipation of the inevitable, James Douglas had been directed to find a suitable situation for a Hudson's Bay Company fort north of the Columbia River. He chose a location on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. Fort Victoria, established in 1846, became a Crown Colony in 1849. Both the Hudson's Bay Company and the Colonial Office intended that Vancouver Island, in addition to serving as a bulwark against American land grabbers should be 7 a c o l o n y o f B r i t i s h l a n d - h o l d e r s who w o u l d h o l d h i g h t h e s o c i a l a n d e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s o f m i d - V i c t o r i a n E n g l a n d a n d who c o u l d be c o u n t e d o n t o d e s p i s e t h e c r a s s e r v a l u e s o f t h e ' i r r e g u l a r s q u a t t e r s ' who f l o c k -- e d t o new l a n d s i n s e a r c h o f m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t . (3) D u r i n g t h e n e x t d e c a d e i t s e e m e d t h a t t h i s p r o - B r i t i s h c o l o n i a l p o l i c y m i g h t be m a i n t a i n e d . U n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f h i g h e r c l a s s E n g l i s h s e t t l e r s a n d o f o f f i c e r s o f t h e B r i t i s h N a v y s e n t t o p r o t e c t t h e c o l o n y f r o m ' l a n d - g r a b b i n g A m e r i c a n s ' , r e -- t i r e d o f f i c e r s o f t h e H u d s o n ' s B a y Company g r a d u a l l y a b s o r b e d t h e g r a c e s o f ' p o l i t e s o c i e t y ' . Many o f t h e s e l a t t e r b o u g h t f a r m s i n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a s a n d i n t h e C o w i c h a n a n d Coraox v a l l e y s , b e c o m i n g f o u n d e r s o f a c l a s s o f l a n d e d p r o p r i e t o r s . W i t h t h e new s e t t l e r s a r r i v e d m i d d l e a n d l o w e r c l a s s s e r v a n t s i l a t e r , a r r i v e d y o u n g p r o f e s s i o n a l m e n , g r a d u a t e s o f E n g l i s h U n i v -e r s i t i e s a n d p u b l i c s c h o o l s , who e n t e r e d i n t o t h e p o l i t i c a l l i f e o f t h e new c o l o n y . I n s h o r t , F o r t V i c t o r i a was r a p i d l y t r a n s m u t -e d i n t o ' L i t t l e E n g l a n d ' . (4 ) B u t t h e n o n - B r i t i s h e l e m e n t c o u l d n o t be b a r r e d f o r e v e r . I n 1 8 5 9 t t h e f i r s t s h i p l o a d o f m i n e r s e n r o u t e t o t h e C a r i b o o g o l d - f i e l d s a r r i v e d a t t h e F o r t f r o m S a n F r a n c i s c o . A s t h e s t r e a m o f m i n e r s i n c r e a s e d a n d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p r o f i t s b o o m e d , w i t h t h e m i n e r s came (among o t h e r s ) A m e r i c a n t r a d e s m e n a n d i n v e s t o r s who f o u n d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p l a c e s i n V i c t o r i a s o c i e t y . I n 1 8 5 2 , t h e H u d s o n ' s B a y Company w i t h a company o f S t a f f o r d s h i r e m i n e r s h a d b e g u n c o a l m i n i n g o p e r a t i o n s i n N a n a i m o . B y 1 8 8 6 , a r a i l w a y f i r m l y l i n k e d N a n a i m o w i t h V i c t o r i a . L u m b e r i n g h a d become a p r i m a r y i n d u s t r y i n t h e C o w i c h a n 8 valley by 1890. The area was also settled by retired naval and military officers and English 'younger sons' who could live there comfortably on l i t t l e money. Although the first pulp and paper mill was built in Port Alberni in 1894 and logging became a profitable enterprise especially at the northern end of the Island, the areas north of the Comox valley were relatively unsettled until the twentieth century. The news of the gold strikes at Hope and Fort Yale brought miners not only from California, but also from Washington, Minne--sota and Utah. In the spring of 1859» the men moved north to Boston Bar. By the autumn of that year an estimated one thousand men were working in the area between Fort Alexandria and Fort George. Others pushed eastward to Lac La Hache and along the Ques--nel river to the foothills of the Rockies. The richest strikes were made at Keithly Creek (i860) and Barkerville (1862) and attracted adventurers from Europe, the British Isles, the Atlan-t i c seaboard and Canada. A road providing easy transport of goods and gold was clearly necessary in order that the wealth and trade of the Cariboo be directed down the Fraser River toward British channels rather than down the Columbia to American seaports in Washington and Oregon. The Cariboo Road, supplemented by steamer transport, was completed as far as Barkerville in 1869. A second road led from Cache Creek to Savona, where steamers carried miners and provisions toward the Big Bend diggings. 9 However, as the richness of the strikes increased, so did the difficulty of mining. Soon, only corporate interests could finance the machinery necessary to uncover the gold which was no longer found on or near the surface of the earth. The Hudson's Bay Company had already established a stock ranch at Fort Kam--loops. Many disappointed miners followed s u i t or turned to farming. Later, as the returns from the gold fields decreased, those who had been successful-- many of them Americans--also in--vested their profits in cattle ranching. By 1891» the once gold eolony on the B.C. mainland had developed permanent ranching and agricultural settlements and in the southern Cariboo, an emergent class of large-landed families. B.C. had also acquired a greatly needed cheap means of transport and a link with the rest of Canada— the Canadian Pacific Rail--road. Prior to the completion of the C.P.R., commercial growth on the Lower Mainland was slow. While the fur trade was s t i l l profitable, Fort Langley, benefiting from the construction of the Hope t r a i l from Fort Hope to the Similkameen (a t r a i l which pro-vided an alternate route to the old Brigade t r a i l from New Cale-donia to the mouth of the Columbia River) was a center of impor--tahce. However, with the transition of the mainland from fur trading empire to gold colony, the commercial center shifted to Fort Yale and Fort Douglas. When the Colony of British Columbia was established ia 1859» New Westminster was chosen as the sole port of entry for the 10 new colony but i t was toward Victoria, a free port, that the out--side trade for both Island and Mainland was directed. Although, Victoria lost her privi!• e'ges as a free port six years later, i t was not until the C.P.R. established its western terminus in the new city of Vancouver (and shortly after, the first ship from the orient arrived in the harbor) that the balance of commercial en-terprise shifted in favor of the mainland. In the meantime, agriculture and dairy farming were be--coming important industries in the lower Fraser Valley. In 1869# there were,between Delta and Chilliwaek, an estimated three hundred farms comprising twelve thousand cultivated acres. It is of interest at this point to digress for a moment on the subject of the attitudes of the inhabitants of Vancouver Island and the mainland with regard to each other. The early settlers of Port Moody and New Westminster were, for the most part, Canadians from middle class families in Ontario and Nova Scotia. They despised the class privilege of the English in Victoria and resented being governed by essentially British colon-- i a l officers in residence there. (Although the mainland was granted a legislative assembly in 1862, when the colonies of Vancouver Island and B.C. were joined in 1866 Victoria became the capital of British Columbian) It is likely that the Victorians, in their turn, looked down on the mainland residents and the establishment of the r a i l -way terminal in Vancouver rather than in Victoria could hardly have: ameliorated the situation. But while the people of Victoria 11 may have been considerably mollified by the construction of the Nanaimo- Esquimault railway, animosity toward Victoria persisted on the mainland until Vancouver acquired its own symbol of culture --a University, The C.P.R. brought a flood of immigrants to Vancouver. From Yale and other deserted construction camps drifted engineers, carpenters and common labourers. From Manitoba arrived young Englishmen, many of them graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, who had been •busted' on prairie farmsj from Winnipeg, lawyers...! from Toronto, Hamilton and London, Ontario, journal--ists t from Brockville, shrewd real estate men and brokersi from Montreal, officials of the Canadian Pacific Railwayj from the Ottawa Valley and New Bruns--wick, lumbermen and loggers.....) from the Maritimes and New England, fishermen and canneryment from Phila--delphia, ambitious young business men I from San Francisco, capitalists...} and before very long, from St. Paul, lumber magnates. From Ireland came young men grown impatient with the Irish nationalist agitat--ion) from England, upper-class families, contemplat--ing a new l i f e on western ranches, (and) from Wales and Cornwall, unemployed miners (5) By the turn of the century, Vancouver was well ora its way to becoming one of the largest industrialist- capitalist cities in Western Canada, The first white settlement in the Okanagan was establish--ed at Okanagan Mission in 1859* Here, the Oblate Fathers grew fruit trees and grape vines, thus initiating what was to become the major industry in the area. Cattle ranching prospered at the northern end of the Okanagan valley. In 1867» Cornelius O'Keefe moved north from Oregon to establish his cattle empire near Armstrong} a second ranch of sizeable proportion was established near Vernon by two Irish ex-army officers. 12 In 1892, the f i r s t commercial orchards were planted, i n 1899, an advertising campaign was commenced to a t t r a c t farmers with c a p i t a l to the area. The advertising campaign induced many r e t i r e d business men and farmers as well as younger sons of noble English families to purchase ranches near Kelowna and Vernon. Throughout the following years, immigration and expansion increas-e d . A large number of immigrants came from England but many p r a i r i e farmers were attracted to the area around Peachland, Summerland and Naramata. As a f i n a l step i n the development of the Okanagan Valley, a massive i r r i g a t i o n project i n i t i a t e d i n the early nineteen-twenties, converted the semi-desert country around Oosoyoos and Olive r into arable land. A gold s t r i k e near Fort Steele ( i n the East Kootenay) drew miners from Washington and Montana, prompting c o l o n i a l o f f i c -- i a l s to protect B.C. interests by posting gold commissioners at Fort Shepherd and St. Joseph's P r a i r i e (Cranbrook) and by extend-i n g the Dewdney T r a i l from :the Similkameen to the new s t r i k e area. The f i r s t R.C.M.P., barracks west of the Rockies was situated at Fort Steele and from there, steamer t r a f f i c followed the Kooten--ay River into Montana. Coal was discovered i n the East Kootenay i n the eighteen-nineties j lumbering became a p r o f i t a b l e venture which drew American c a p i t a l to eastern B.C. Among the f i r s t permanent settlements i n the northern part of the Kootenay, were Golden and Farwell (Revelstoke) which were established as construction camps during the building of the C.P.R. 13 The raining boom in the West Kootenay began in l893i by the turn of the century numerous towns had been incorporated and were flourishing. Copper mining was the basis of the economy of Grand Forks, Phoenix and Greenwood, Rossland and Riondel. Silver was discovered near Nelson and Kaslo, lead and zinc near New Den--ver and.-Sandon. Rossland's early population, at least, was American and sinee the C.P.R. at Revelstoke was too far to the north, ores from the Kootenay were shipped south to the United States via the Nelson- Fort Shepherd railway or from Rossland to the Northport smelters. However, immigrants from England, Scotland, Ireland and eastern Canada were also to be found in the area and, although Anerican capital, at fi r s t , financed mining ventures, British and Canadian investment soon followed. Prior to 1910, Hudson's Bay personnel at New Caledonia outposts, gold miners in the Omineca range and missionaries at Metlekatla (near Prince Rupert) were the only white inhabitants in northern B.C. However, the fishing and lumbering industries were developing on the north-west coast and canneries were estab-lished at Rivers Inlet and on Princess Royal Island in 1909. When in 1908 the announcement was made that the Grand Trunk Rail-way intended to extend its line to the Pacific coast, a rush for timber licenses along the Fraser, Nechako, Bulkley and Skeena Rivers began. Prince George became a boom town. The railway, (now a branch of the C.N.R.) was completed in 1915 with its ter--minus at Prince Rupert. 14 At this time, settlers beganvto f i l t e r into the Peace River area. By 1926, wheat growing was a well-established indus-try} the discovery of o i l in 1944 lent impetus to the growth of the economy and of the population of this most recently developed section of the province. The keynotes of the twentieth century in B.C. are in--creasing Canadianization and the consolidation of communications between various regions of the province. While the predominance of settlers of British background reached its peak at the turn of the century, after the First World War, immigration from the British Isles declined. 1912 saw an influx of immigrants from the United States, Germany, France and Russia (6)i the post-war years, an increasing number of set--tlers from eastern Canada. Many of the latter were veterans who had received basic training at army camps in B.C. In 1922, Mennonites from the prairies settled near Prince George and in the Fraser Valley. From 1929 onward, as Vancouver continued to grow and prosper, capitalists from the east (predominantly Canad--ian) and Maritime lawyers took up residence in the city and more and more of the industrial force was recruited from the prairies and eastern Canada. In 1941, 'Canadian' immigration reached a peak with the mass movement of laborers to the Pacific Coast, Of the roads, bridges and railways built between 1900 and 1955* a>nly a few can be listed herei the trans-Canada highway (which linked the Lower Mainland with the Kootenay and Alberta), the Okanagan highway, the Cariboo highway extension to Quesnel 15 and Prince George, the Patullo Bridge (designed to facilitate communication between Vancouver and the United States and between the Lower Mainland and the northern areas of the province), the Kettle Valley Railroad (which connected the Kootenay with the upper part of the Okanagan) and finally the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad which welded the Peace River to southern British Columbia. 16 NOTES 1) Between 1805 and 1807, Simon Fraser established Fort McLeod, Fort St. James, Fort Fraser and Gort George. It was Eraser's intention that the newly discovered territory be called New Caledonia and that the capital be Fort St. James. 2) Fort Kamloops (1812), Fort Alexandria (1821) and Fort Lang ley (1826)............. 3) Ormsby, 1958, p.101. 4) 'The country, said Dr Helmcken, was soon as " c i v i l i z --ed as any respectable village in England, with the few very few upper ten leading....what we were in England and Scotland was burnished and made most of! 1 1 " .', (Ormsby, 1958, p.107) 5) Ormsby, 1958, p.299.. 6) Except at this point, no mention has been made of the non-English speaking immigrants to the province. Needless to say, they make up a considerable proportion of the population of B.C. 17 CHAPTER II In this chapter, I am concerned with the means by which the informants for PQ3 were located, computer programming of the selected questionnaires and methods of analysis of responses and of mapping of variants. Concerning the communities to be surveyed, Poison wrotes I have tried to choose communities that have had contin-uous settlement since before 1900 so that i t would be possible to find elderly informants native to the region. In a number of cases i t has been necessary to select more recent settlements to give proper geographic repres-entation (the Peace River settlements are comparatively recent, for example) or to give representation to large communities (Powell River's 12,000 inhabitants should not be ignored, even though settlement dates back only f i f t y years). Many towns that were established in the last century have not been included. Hope, for example, was founded in 1849, but its population dwindled after Yale became the terminus of the Cariboo Road, and in effect, i t has been resettled in the last f i f t y years Geographic considerations such as lines of communication and natural barriers, have of course, been taken into account. Where a choice between nearby communities was necessary, I have selected the one more dependent on agriculture. (1) The procedure for locating informants in the selected communities was as follows* A letter of request for names of informants was sent to the secretary-treasurers of school districts in which the select-e d communities were located. Exoerpts from the letter of re--quest have been reproduced on page 18. 18 LINGUISTIC SURVEY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (POSTAL QUESTIONNAIRE) .... As you know, the English language is not used in the same way everywhere. People who live i n different areas often use different words for the same object, or i f they use the same words their pronunciation-may be different. We want to investigate the speech patterns of the people born in B.C. We know that people here don't talk in just the same way that people from the United Spates, the Mar--itimes, or even the Prairies do. We know, i n fact, that there are some differences between people from different parts of the province. What we intend to do is send out questionnaires to people from a l l over the province and then analyse the results. The results should t e l l us a lot about our Canadian language--as we speak i t in B.C., at any rate--and about the differences between regions... .... To make this project work the people who answer the questionnaire must be chosen very carefully We need people who were born in a particular area and have lived there most of their lives. For every community we are trying to find three people ©f different age groups. We need a) an old-timer— the older the-better as long as the person i s s t i l l mentally alert and w i l l have no trouble with reading and writing. b) a young person, preferably between 19 and 25. c) someone mid-way between old and young, preferably between 35 and 55* Each one of these people must meet the following condit-i o n s * 1. They must have been born i n the area--or at the ver;y least they must have come to the area at a very early age. 2. They must have lived i n the area most of their lives with very few absences. 3. Their parents must not have spoken any language but English i n the home. 4. Their parents should, i f possible, have been long time residents of the area. 5. The informants should be intelligent and knowledge--able, and should have no d i f f i c u l t i e s with reading. 0. They must have no education beyond high school. 7. Some knowledge of farming or ranching, and the outdoors would be useful, but i t is not essential. 8. They must be willing. ...What we would like YOU to do is write names and addresses of people who w i l l meet the above conditions and send them to us. A form is provided for this..... ........We'11 contact the people you name, explain the project to them and ask for their help....... 19 Questionnaires were then sent to the individuals whose names were suggested. If ne reply was received to the first letter of request, or the suggested informants who returned com--pleted questionnaires did not meet the requirements of PQ3. a letter of request was sent to another possible source in the community. This process was repeated until the required inform--ants had been located or until a l l possible sources of names had been exhausted. > In addition to the secretary-treasurers of school dis-t r i c t s , the appeal for names of informants was made to the pres-idents of district Chambers of Commerce, museum curators, l i b --rarians and newspaper editorsi i f none of these sources was productive, t© lawyers, justices of the peace,; proprietors of small businesses or as a last resort (especially in small north-e r n communities) to private individuals. (The, names of lawyers, business-men etc. were chosen at random from local telephone di--rectories.) No response was received from a number of communities in the Poison l i s t , for example, 100-Mile House, Alexandria, Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek. (2) Responses were received from a few not in the original l i s t , for example, McLure. In a l l , five hundred and eighteen completed question-naires were returned to the University of B.C. Of these, thirty --most from informants over sixty— were eliminated because the. informants did not meet even the more liberal birth and residence requirements adopted in the final screening of informants. 20 A further one hundred and th i r t e e n were eliminated because the informants had moved too frequently from one part of B.C. to another, spent too many years outside the province or did not meet education or language requirements. Six questionnaires had to toe discarded because the informant data sheet was incomplete. Thus, of the f i v e hundred and eighteen questionnaire respondents, three hundred and s i x t y eight were chosen. Table I l i s t s the communities from which responses were received and provides a key to the l e t t e r coding of communities on Maps I - IX. Figures i n brackets r e f e r to the number of i n --formants i n each of the age groups defined below. As may be expected, i n spit e of an intensive search, i n --formants meeting a l l the requirements of PQ3 were d i f f i c u l t to fi n d by mail. Thus, during the f i n a l screening of informants, modifications were made--particularly with regard to residence re-quirements. The amount of deviation from PQ3 standards can be seen i f one compares the requirements l i s t e d i n the l e t t e r on page 18 with relevant sections of the following b r i e f description of the informants chosen. They range i n age from f i f t e e n to ninetyi the men out-number the women approximately f i v e to four. They are fishermen, logging contractors, railway employees, millwrights, postmasters, housewives, business women, hairdressers, secretaries, c l e r k s — i n f a c t , are representative of nearly every occupation, although doctors, lawyers and other members of the professions are exclud-e d by the education requirement. 21 A number of the informants who were born in B.C. or came to the province at an early age have spent from one to six years outside of the area in which they are now living. Many of these were in active service for three to six years during one of the World Warsi others who have lived outside the area have generally moved once or twice during the period. Older informants born outside of B.C. have resided up to twelve years elsewhere, usually during the period from birth to arrival in the province. Only five informants were not born into English speaking families, but unlike those who were eliminated because of the language requirement, they were born in the province and/or have spent most of their lives in one area. A l l five have spoken En--glish since the age of five years. Informants with a high school education make up about fifty-six percent of the total. Approximately thirty-three per-cent have had a grade nine education and three percent finished grade five. Six percent had some post-secondary training (busi--ness school or community college), generally brief in duration and most often within the area of residence. Only one informant was uneducated (formally) and one had a University degree. Area residency requirements for parents were even harder to meet than were those for informants. However, no informant was eliminated ©n the basis of parental background. Tables Ila and l i b give details of the parental background of informants in each of the three age groups, for B.C. and for the sub-areas.(3) The informant data sheet and first section of PQ3 (along 22 with the instructions for f i l l i n g in the questionnaire) are re-produced in Appendix I. A l l informant data was coded with the exception of question number six (4) and, of course, those quest-i o n s included as an aid in eliminating informants who did not meet the requirements. Printouts were obtained for responses by age groups (in decades) for B.C. and for each sub-area and by parental background and educational level of the informant. Bi--variate tables were also prepared for a number of pairs of items. (5) Table III shows the number of informants classified by age-- i n decades and in the age groups used-- for sub-areas and for the province as a whole. Map X is a simplified outline of B.C. and the sub-areas. Age group boundaries were set in order to give as even as possible a distribution of informants between age groups. As a result, informants have been divided into three groupst the o-group (age 61-90) , the m-group (age 31-60) and the y-group (age 15-30) . The division also has the advantage of representing the various stages of B.C. settlement. The o-group (b. 1885-1915) are the pioneers or their immediate descendentsj the m-group were born and raised between two World Wars, during a period of decreasing immigration from the British Isles and of increasing Canadianizationj the y-group is the post-war generation, born during the years of increased immigration from and communication with eastern Canada and the United States. 23 The province has been divided into seven areas: Vancouver  Island (I), the Eraser Valley-Lower Mainland (L), the Cariboo (C), the Okanagan (.0), the Kootenay. (K), the Upper Mainland-Yellowhead  Route (Y) and the Peace River (P) . These areaMivisions were made on the basis of several assumptions: 1. Some degree of dialect differentiation exists in B.C. 2. PQ3 areas are to a great extent isolable units in the province—historically, geographically and industrially and therefore, 3» comparison of PQ3 area results is the f i r s t step in the search for speech differentiation. Items of pronunciation which vary considerably between areas are probably the ones i t would be most profitable to study in greater depth. There is no way, as yet, of proving that the area bound--aries as drawn for the purpose of PQ3 analysis are the optimum ones. In my opinion, Vancouver Island can be considered a .'well-defined' area on historical as well as geographical grounds. So, also, can the Peace River area. The Island, or at least the south-e r n portion, was settled early in the history of B.C. and by a f a i r l y homogeneous group of settlers: Peace River settlement was relatively late. The Island is separated from the mainland by what I have been told is a perilous stretch of water that Island-e r s are loath to cross; the Peace River is separated from the rest of the province by the Rocky Mountains and possibly has more in common with Alberta than with B.C. The Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland is also f a i r l y well-defined, separated geographically 24 and industrially from the Okanagan and industrially, i f not geo-graphically, from the Lower Cariboo. The divisions between the Okanagan and Cariboo, Okanagan and Kootenay and Kootenay and Cariboo raise minor questions. Por instance, does Grand Forks belong in the Kootenay or in the Okan--agan? Does Princeton have more in common with Okanagan communit--ies or with communities in the Nicola Valley (Merritt and Quil--chena)? The boundary between the Cariboo and Upper Mainland-Yellowhead Route is extremely tentative. A major problem here is whether to group the towns in the Bella Coola Valley with those in the Chilcotin or those in the Prince Rupert area. In two areas—Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley— further subdivision on the basis of urban and rural communities is indicated but impossible in the analysis of PQ3 data i f sample sizes are to approach adequacy. To determine significant variation between percentage re--sults for areas or age groups in PQ3, I have used the method described in Reed (1949) with two standard errors or more as the amount of variation required. (6) This method, with some modific--ation has also been used in the comparison of PQ3 results with those of other surveys. When the formula for the calculation of standard error is applied to the percentage differences between any two age groups either in the province as a whole or in the individual ar-eas, there are only two alternatives; the percentage difference is 25 either significant or i t is not. When the formula is used to determine significant variations between seven areas or between comparable age groups in the seven areas, complicationsarise. The best way to explain my procedure is analysing and mapping of this type of variation is to illustrate. The Data The percentages of variant X for questionnaire item Z in five areas of the province are as follows: I- 91% 0- 88% Y- 75% C- 70% K- 659S Procedure (note: standard errors have not been calculated for this data). The formula is applied to the areas with highest and lowest percent of the variant, here, I and K. Let us assume that the variation is two standard errors or more. I is then marked High and K, Low for the variant. The formula is then applied to I and C, 0 and K. Assuming that the variation between the two pairs is again more than two standard errors, 0 is marked H (=High)— in contrast to K, Low— and C is marked L (= Low)-- in contrast to I, High. The formula is applied again, this time to 0 and C$ this time the variation is less than two standard errors (as are variations between 0 and Y, Y and C etc.). The H marking is retained by 0 and L by C even though they vary significantly with only one area each, while I and K vary with two each. This ) 26 last statement is of importance when mapping of variants is con--sidered. It should be understood from the previous illustration that marking an area High for a particular form does not imply that i t varies significantly from a l l other areas, but only that i t represents one end of a continuum and contrasts to a measure--able degree with at least one area marked as Low. It should be also kept in mind that the sample size as well as the percentage of a variant in an area is involved in the calculation of the standard error of difference and by the same token, in the cal-culation of standard errors that i s , that in the illustration on page 25» the area G might well have contrasted with 0 and the area K might not since the sample size in C is seventy-three and the sample size in K is only fifty-five. The problem of mapping of variants is an interesting one. A line can easily be drawn between two areas that vary signif-i c a n t l y and have contiguous boundaries. Since the procedure in this study is from area to linguistic correlate and distinctions .between areas have been made on the basis of statistical measure--ment, this line can hardly be called a heterogloss. I have therefore coined the term statistical gloss (SG) for such a line. For areas which do not bound on each other the solution is more complex. Two methods have been used in this study. Areas are marked High or Low for variants by 1. the use of symbols (Maps XIV-XVIII) or 2. item numbers (Map XIV) or by 27 3* patterns of markings covering whole areas (Maps XI-XIII). The advantage of the first two methods lies in the fact that a number of items can be accommodated on the same map. How-ever , there are obvious space limitations, and in addition, the use of symbols does not allow for the indication of the degree of difference between areas (see Chapter III). If a larger num--ber of items were to be mapped, some form of shading (such as found in Map XIII) could be used. As a final note* i f the variations between areas in the illustration on page 25 were to be mapped, areas I and 0 would be marked High and areas C and K, Low on the maps in which symbols or area markings are used. However, a statistical gloss would be drawn between 0 and K which vary significantly but not between 0 and C which do not. 28 NOTES 1. Poison, 1969, pp. 23-24. Poison also lists the com--raunities chosen on pages 24-26. 2. Letters were mailed to a number of communities in the North West Territories. Although several people replied to the letters, most were summer residents. In one instance, the only non-native resident of the community was the local R.C.M.P. constable whose home was in the eastern part of Canada. 3. Parents are considered to be 'from B.C.' i f they meet the,criteria applied to informants. The figures in brackets in the total line for B.C. refer to birth place of parents. I had hoped that the information in these tables would add a degree of depth to the interpretation- of survey results. Useful or not in this respect, the tables provide data—difficult to find elsewhere--on the background of B.C. residents. 4. Lack of an adequate classificatory system at the time of computer programming was a major block here. It was also felt that sampling within the requirements of PQ3 would not result in the representation of a l l sociological groups to the extent nec--cessary for any valid statement to be made. 5« Little use has been made of these tables to date, though several references to them appear in Chapter III. 6. In brief: The reliability of a sample has been found to increase indirectly as the square root of the number of items counted (here, the number of informant responses-- or of informants) and indir--ectly as the square root of the product of the proportions :(in 3 percent)) of ..the variants. Standard error, the percent error that is likely t© occur in any given sample, is calculated by the for--mula» Standard error = . J (p) (q)  V N where p and q are the percentages of two variants and N, the field total. To compare two sample groups i t is necessary to determine the calculated standard error of differences that is, the amount of deviation that could be expected to occur due to fluctuation in the individual samples. 29 This is calculated by the formula: Std. Error of Diff. = /(Std. E ^ ) 2 * (Std. E. 2) 2 The actual percentage difference between the two samples is then divided by the standard error of difference and. the re--sul$ is expressed in terms of a number of standard errors. A difference of 1.97 standard errors has been found to indicate a high (less than five percent) probability that the difference between sample results arises from factors other than chance. The validity of this method of analysis, when applied to sample groups of less than f i f t y , is open to question. Thus, when the method is used to determine 'significant variations' between age groups within the areas or comparable age groups in the yar--ious areas, i t has been used only as a means of isolating those percentage differences which are potentially interesting or sig-n i f icant. Another very important point is that when the method is used to determine significant variation between percentages in large sample groups, the fact that a difference in percent is of the order of two standard errors or more indicates only that the difference is not due to chance. It is the linguist who must de-c i d e whether the difference i s , in fact, interesting or signif-i cant. This point will be illustrated and discussed in more detail in Chapter IV. 30 CHAPTER III In this chapter I w i l l present what I consider to be the most important facts of B.C. pronunciation revealed by the analy--sis of responses to PQ3» The chapter i s divided into four sectionss a general discussion of the distribution of variants of each item on the questionnaire! a summary of variant distribution and trends in pronunciation at the provincial level! a summary ©f regional variations and, f i n a l l y , a summary of significant var--iations between age groups within areas and between comparable age groups in the several areas, (1) A breakdown, item by item, of numbers of informants and distribution of responses for the province, areas and age groups can be found in Table IVt1-21 , Percentages in this as well as in following tables have been round-e d to the nearest integer. (2) At the beginning of the general discussion, references are given to the variable number used in the computer programming of PQ3 and, where applicable, to the cor--responding item number in The Survey of Canadian English. A General Discussion of Variants of PQ3 Items 1, Tomato  PQ3- #16 SCE- # 48 /tameitq/, chosen by 8796 of B.C. informants, is the pro-nunciation most prevalent in the province. Percentages increase 31 from 74$ of the o-group to over 90$ of the m- and y-groups. /tamaefco./ was chosen by only 8% of the total number of B.C. in--formants, while variants with /t>J, f%J or /bj in the stressed syllable were chosen by the remaining /tamsefcq/ and /tairmtq/ are used by 33^ and 25$ t respect-i v e l y , of the Vancouver Island o-group; a combination of these plus variants with /a/or faj in the stressed syllable by 30$ of the.Okanagan m-group. (3) Vancouver Island is the. only region in which there was any significant variation between age groups; namely, between the o- and m-groups—/tameitq/ increases from k2% in the former to 89$ in the latter. Vancouver Island and the Okanagan have been marked Low for /temeitq/, the Kootenay (and arbitrarily, the Peace River) High. (Maps XI and XIV) The Vancouver Island o-group is Low in contrast to the Lower Mainland, Cariboo and Kootenay, High, the Okanagan m-group is Low in contrast to a l l other areas but the Island. (Maps XVI, XVII) Statistical glosses for the areas are found on Map XV— for the age groups, on Maps XIX and XX. 2. Vase PQ3- #17 SCE- #27 /yoz/ is the pronunciation of choice for 63% of B.C. in--formants, /veiz/ for 26% and /veis/ for only 9f°* The occurrence of fv&zj and {vazj is minimal. Although /veis/ occurs mainly in o- and m-groups (except in the Cariboo and, marginally, in the Kootenay), there is.no .32 significant variations between province-wide age groups for-any of the alternates. (4) On the Island, the percentage of fvoij drops from 78% in the m-group to ky% in the y-group in which /veiz/ is the major competitor, and by a small margin, the variant of choice. (It should also be noted that /veiz/ was chosen by a relatively high percent of a l l age groups in this area.) Although the change is not statistically significant, / V T J Z / has also lost ground in the Cariboo y-group but here i t gives way to to a combination of /veiz/ and /veis/. In- the border areas— the Lower Mainland, Okanagan and Kootenay-- there is l i t t l e tendency to abandon the older British form /voz_/. The Lower Mainland has been'marked High for / v o z / , the Island and Cariboo, Lowt the Island is High for /veiz/, the Lower Mainland and Kootenay, Low. (Maps XII,XIV) The Lower Mainland and Kootenay y-groups are High for /vz>z/, the Island and Cariboo y-groups, Low, while the Island y-group (High for /veiz/) con-trasts with those of the Lower Mainland, Okanagan and Kootenay. (Map XVIII) Statistical glosses can be found on Maps XV (areas) and XXI (y-group). 3. Apricot  PQ3- #18 SCE- #19 59% of B.C. informants indicated that they used the pro--nunciation /eiptlkot/. There is l i t t l e or no variation between age groups at the provincial level. 33 Vancouver Island i s again the only area i n which there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n between age groups—and again, i t occurs between m- and y-groups. While 82% of the m-group chose /".eiprlktrt/, only 52% of the y-group did so. Considerable v a r i a t i o n i s found between areas and between comparable age groups from area to area, e i p r l k i f c / was the pronunciation of choice of 60-76$ of the informants i n the Kootenay and the Cariboo, on the Island and i n the Okanaganj but of only k2% on the Lower Mainland. (5) Maximal difference i s seen between the Okanagan and Lower Mainland. The Island, Okan-a g a n and Cariboo have been marked High for £ eiprlkBft/, the Low-e r Mainland, Upper Mainland (and, a r b i t r a r i l y , the Peace River), Low. (Map XIII, XIV) Age group variations are as follows* o-group- Okanagan, Hight Lower Mainland, Low. m-group- Vancouver Island, Hight Lower Mainland, Low. y-group- Okanagan* Hight Vancouver Island and Upper Main--land, Low.(Maps XVI-XVIII) The resultant s t a t i s t i c a l glosses are found on Maps XV and XIX-XXI. 4. Shone  PQ3- #19 Only nine informants gave ^ o u n / as a response. Six were i n the o-groupi s i x had at least one parent born i n the United States. (6) 5. Lever  PQ3- #21 SCE- #8 34 In the d i a l e c t of 72$ of B.C. informants, t h i s object i s a f l i v r / and there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n percent from i 65$ i n the o-group to 79-82$ i n the m- and yrgroups, respectively. The Kootenay i s the only area i n which a difference i n percent between age groups i s s i g n i f i c a n t . Here, /" l i v r / i s the choice of 87% or more of m- and y-group informants but of only 36$ of those i n the o-group. 36% i s also an unusually low figure when compared to the percentages i n a l l other area age groups i n the province. (7) With the exception of the Peace River, a l l areas are close i n o v e r a l l d i s t r i b u t i o n . Lower Mainland and Okanagan 0--groups have been marked High f o r f l i v r / , the Kootenay o-group, Low. (Maps XVI, XIX) ' 6. Root  PQ3- #22 / r u t / predominates i n a l l age groups, the p r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n being 95$« /TAXJ does not occur i n t h i s sample. / r v t / i s the variant of choice f o r 39$ of Vancouver Is--land 6-group informants and t h i s age group varies s i g n i f i c a n t l y with o-groups i n a l l other areas of the province. (Maps XVI, XIX) / r u t / i s also found i n a l l age groups i n the;Cariboo. 7. Soot  PQ3- #23 SCE- #103 /hut/ i s the pronunciation indicated by 80$ of B.C. i n --formants. Of the remainder, 15$ chose /sut/ and 5$ /sAt/. 35 /su*/ i n c r e a s e s from 58$ i n the o-group to 82$ i n the m-group and 92$ i n the y-group, with / s u t / d e c r e a s i n g i n a p a r a l l e l manner, (32$, 14$, 6$). The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f / s u t / i s f a i r l y even throughout the o-groups i n a l l a r e a s , a c c o u n t i n g f o r from 25$ to 39$ o f the r e -s p o n s e s i n these groups. Close to s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s are found between the Cariboo and Upper Mainland m-groups and those on the I s l a n d and Lower Mainland and i n the Okanagan. (8) S i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s o f /sut/ (and decreases o f / s u t / ) occur between o- and m- groups on the I s l a n d and Lower Mainland and between o- and y-groups i n the C a r i b o o . The Cariboo has been marked High f o r / s u t / , the Okanagan, Low. (Maps XIV and XV) 8. Route  PQ3- #24 SCE- #93 The t h r e e age groups demonstrate from moderate to almost t o t a l p r e f e r e n c e f o r the p r o n u n c i a t i o n / r u t / . 63$ o f the o-group, 77$ o f the m-group and 93$ o f the y-group checked t h i s response. The p r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i s 79$/21$. . JL A h i g h percent o f I s l a n d o-group informants chose / r u t / (the next h i g h e s t o-group percentage i s 6 7 $ i n the Okanagan), but with t h i s e x c e p t i o n , comparable age groups i n areas and i n the p r o v i n c e show r o u g h l y e q u i v a l e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f v a r i a n t s of r o u t e . S i g n i f i c a n t age v a r i a t i o n s are found on the Lower Mainland and i n the Kootenay between o- and m-groups and, i n the Okanagan 36 between m- and y-groups. The Island and Okanagan have been marked High for /rut/, a l l other areas (with the exception of the Peace River), Low. (Maps XI and XIV) Age group variations are as follows! m-group- Island and Okanagan, High! a l l other areas but the Peace River, Low. (Map XVII) y-group- Okanagan, Highi Island and Upper Mainland, Low. (Map XVIII) Statistical glosses are found on Map XV (areas)and Maps XX-XXI (age groups). 9. Schedule  PQ3- #25 SCE- #20 • This word is pronounced /skeehjl/ by 70$ of the total num--ber of B.C. informants. However, approximately half of those in the o-group and one-quarter of those in the y-group chose the alternate pronunciation ^ e.cb^l/. The latter variant is particularly popular in the o-groups of the Island , Lower Mainland and Cariboo, areas in which sig-nificant increases of f sk^djl/ are found between o- and y-group informants. 10. Rather  PQ3- #36 85$ of the informants indicated that they rhymed this word with lather. (9) 26$ of the o-group chose the alternate father, but only 17$ of the m-group and a marginal 8$ of the y-37 group, £ ryvar/ does not occur in this sample. (10) Significant increases in the frequency of £ ra&r/ are found between o- and m-groups in the Kootenay and m- and y-groups in the Cariboo. The only area variation found for: this item is between the m-group in the Kootenay (High) and the m-groups in a l l other areas. (Maps XVII and XX) 11. Zebra PQ3- #37 The provincial distribution for the variants £ z i b r a j and /"zebrg/ is 59$/ 41$. Both o- and m-groups are fairly evenly divided between the two alternatives but 77$ of the y-group chose £ zibrs/. In general, the trend from / zebra/ to / zibra/ in the sub-areas parallels that in B.C., although £ zebra/ accounts for a high percent of the responses in the m-group in the Kootenay. Significant variation between age groups within an area occurs only in the Lower Mainland, where the percent of /"zibra/ in-creases from 57$ in the m-group to 95$ in the y-group. The y-group in the Lower Mainland has been marked as High for £ zibr$/ in contrast with the y-group in the Cariboo. (Maps XVIII and XXI) 12. Father/bother 13. Caught/cot  PQ3- #26 , , PQ2- #30 SCE- #51 SCE- #78 72$ of the total B.C. sample group reported that the first 38 pair rhymed. Group percentages ranged from 60$ of the o-group t© 72$ and 78$ of the m- and y-groups (in that order) 90$ chose the rhyming alternative for the second pairj differences i n percent-ages between age groups spanned a smaller range (8l$-95$)« Figure 1 shows the percentages of responses (province-wide) for the four possible combinations. Father/bother R . NO Caught/ cot R 67 NO 23 Figure 1. Bivariate table of responses to items 12 and 13. Significant Increase'of rhyme of father and bother occurs between o- and y-groups in the Lower Mainland, between o- and re-groups in the Cariboo and between m- and y-groups in the Upper Mainland. Significant increase in rhyme of caught and cot i s found on the Island and in the Okanagan between o- and y-groups. The Lower Mainland and Upper Mainland y-groups have been marked High for rhyme of father and bother in contrast to the y-groups in the Cariboo, Qkanagan and Kootenay. (Maps XVIII and XXI) The Cariboo as a whole is High for rhyme of caught and cot in contrast with the Okanagan. (Maps XIV and XV) 14, Marry/merry  PQ3- #28 39 Questionnaire respondents are fairly evenly divided in the choice of /matri/ and /mtri/ as the pronunciation of marry. How--ever y-and o-groups are diametrically opposed, as 71$ ofthe o-group chose £msx'\J and 72$ of the y-group, the alternate. The m-group is about evenly split between the two variants. Individual areas, in general, follow the pattern for B.C. Significant increases in the frequency of /msri/ = marry are found between the o- and m-groups on the Island and in the Okan--agan and between m- and y-groups in the Kootenay. The Lower Mainland y-group has been marked High for /maeri/, the Kootenay y-group, Low. (Maps XVIII and XXI) 15. Aunt/ant PQ3- #32 SCE- #87 Only twenty-seven informants reported that this pair did not rhyme. Eleven were in the o-group, thirteen in the m-group. Of the fifty-four parents of the above, thirty-nine were born in the British Isles, two in the Unitfed. States and the remainder Canadian born. 16. Leisure/pleasure PQ3- #27; SCE- #66 / l E j r / is s t i l l the pronunciation of choice in B.C.; 62$ of the informants indicated this response. There is no signific--ant variation between age groups at the provincial level. A significant decrease from 90$ to 37$ is found between 40 o- and y-groups in the Kootenay and close to significant de-creases between o- and m-groups on the Island and m- and y-groups in the Okanagan, but these are the only areas in which f l i y c j may be gaining ground. Age group variations between areas arei o-group- the Kootenay is High for f l e y j t the Lower Mainland, Low. (Maps XVI and XIX) m-group- the Okanagan (High) contrasts with the Island, Lower Mainland and Cariboo. (Maps XVII and XX) 1?. Bury/furry  PQ3- #31 SCE- #41 These two words rhyme for 30$ of B.C. informantst age is not a factor according to PQ3 results. Distribution in the Peace River favors f b3ri_/ 57$/ 43$. 18. Mourning/morning 19. Hoarse/horse PQ3- #33 mi" #35 20. Fairy/ferry 21. Mary/merry PQ3- #34 PQ3_- #29 Theoretically, i f mourning and morning rhyme, hoarse and ftorse ought tot the same holds true for the pairs fairy and ferry. Mary and merry. Although B.C. percentages for the first set are identical (92$) and for the second set, close (83$, 85$), Fig--ures 2 and 3 on page 41 indicate that individual informants are not always consistent in pairing their responses. (11) On the basis of PQ3 responses, i t can only be said that 41 the phonemic oppositions /©/ / /$/ and /e/ ^ /€/ in stressed position before r plus a following vowel occur only marginally in B.C. A more definite statement must await further f i e l d work. Hoarse/ horse Mourning/morning R ,. NO 89 NO Figure 2. Bivariate table of responses to items 18 and 19. Mary/merry R ' NO < R 82 ; 6 NO 3 9 Fairy/  ferry Figure 3« Bivariate table of responses to items 20 and 21. A Summary of Variant Distribution and Trends in Pronunciation  at the Provincial Level /§vri/ and /rut/ = root^ are favored by over 90 % of the informants in a l l age groups. Increasing preference for younger speakers is clear for f tameito/, / ' l i v r / , /hrt/, /rut/ = route. f sktdajl/, /ra&r/, /"zibra/, /msri/ = marry, fint/ and the rhyme of the pairs father/bother and caught/cot. The fate of fn>z , 42 veiz, veis/, /eiprlkut/, /bsri/ and / l f i j r / is undecided. A Summary of Regional Variations If, as I have assumed, measurable dialect differentiation exists in B.C. and is most likely to be found within PQ3 areas, the examination of statistical glosses and the comparison of High and Low marking should yield some positive results in the direct--ion of isolating dialect areas. If dialect areas exist in the province, i t should be possible to discover some common denominat--or which characterizes them and distinguished them from other areas• A major stumbling block in the analysis of PQ3 data is the fact that relatively few items show significant variations cross-regionallly. As a result, an area may be marked for as few as two items and not a l l areas are marked for the same items. (12) This problem is more acute when we try to compare age groups cross-regionally but is also noticeable when distributions of variants for a l l age groups within areas are taken into consideration. Therefore, a secondary form of measurement of similarities and differences has been added. To illustrate the method of assigning values to areas, I will use overall area distribution data (with adaptations for the purpose of comparison of age groups indicated where applicable). In Figure 4, M is an axis representing the provincial distribution of each of the nine items--tomato.» apricot, lever, route, schedule, rather, zebra, marry and leisure—used in assigning values. For example, for apricot, M represents 59$ or 43 41$j for lever, 72$ or 28$i arid for route, 79$ or 21$, depending on which variant percent is used. (As w i l l become evident, i t does not matter which percentage is used as long as i t is the same one for each item throughout the procedure.) If age groups were being compared, M would represent the provincial distribut--ions of items in the age group under consideration. M apricot lever_ 3 B )$ 2< r i t i s <-> \% 1 h )$ « [ 1 1( Unericj (+) 1$ 21 in )$ 3 • )$ I • C L • L IC m i 1 I , X . 1 C L 1 +1 +2 1 1 > +* i \ M Figure 4. Graph i l l u s t r a t i n g the method of assigning values to P0.3 sub areas. The variants of each item are characterized as being American or B r i t i s h / For example, /tameito/ is characterized as American, a l l other variants of tomato. British j /Sbprlkzrt/, /raut/ /meri/ and / l i j r / are American, / e i p r l k i t / , / r u t / , /maeri/ and / I t j r / , British. (13) Each area is then graphed for the nine items according to: 44 1. the percentage variance between the area distribution and the provincial distribution of each item and 2. the direction of variances that i s , whether the area distribution of an item favors the American or the British var-i a n t . Areas for which the distribution of an item favors the American variant are graphed to the right or plus side of the axis, those areas for which the distribution favors the British variant to the left or minus side. In Figure 4, the Island, Lower Mainland and Cariboo have been graphed for apricot, lever and route. For each item which varies from 0 to 9$ from the provin-c i a l distribution, -an: area i s given a numerical value of plus or minus one (plus, i f the direction of variance is toward the American side of the axis, minus, i f toward the British side). For each item which varies from 10$ to 19$ from the provincial distribution, the area is given a value of plus or minus two, etc. Values for each area for the nine items are then totaled, the results being the assigned values for the areas. The assigned value for the Island in Figure 4 would bet / (-1x1) + ( - 3 x 1 ) / + / ( + 1 x 1 ) / =(-4)4.(~i)± - 3 . The assigned value for the Lower Mainland would bet / ( - 1 x 1 ) / + / (+2x1) + ( = 3 x 1 ) / =(-i)+(+5)= +4. The advantage of this method is that i t allows for degrees of contrast between areas—which High and Low marking does not. (14) The disadvantage (ignoring particular arguments against the use of the American/British dichotomy) is that variants of some 45 items cannot e a s i l y be f i t t e d into such a dichotomy. Returning to the discussion of regional v a r i a t i o n i n B.C., on the basis of the data available from analysis of PQ3 responses, Vancouver Island appears to have most i n common with the Okanagan with which i t shares three features that I w i l l designate as +B ( B r i t i s h ) — a Low marking f o r /t»meitq/ and a High marking f o r / r u t / = route and /eiprllczrt/. The Kootenay and Lower Mainland, sharing or characterized by +A (American) features--Low / r u t / = route i n both, Low / e i p r l k T j t / i n the Lower Mainland and High /tamelto./ i n the Kootenay--differ to the greatest extent from the Island. The Lower Mainland and Kootenay d i f f e r to a lesser degree from the Okanagan since a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower percent of /veiz_/ i n these two areas distinguishes them from the Island but not from th i s t h i r d mainland area. The Cariboo and the Okanagan share one +B feature—High f \ / e i p r l k u t / — b u t are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by one f e a t u r e — / r u t / = route i s High f o r the Okanagan, Low f o r the Cariboo. These two areas are also divided by two SG.—7 (/sut/) and 13 (caught = c o t ) — p eculiar to the Okanagan and Cariboo alone. The Cariboo i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from the Lower Mainland by High/Low markings f o r /vz>zj and / e i p r l k o t / . In b r i e f , even on the basis of the limited amount of data i n PQ3. comparison of High and Low feature markings establishes grounds f o r considering the Island and the Okanagan to be dialeSt areas within B.C. Assigned values f o r the areas shown i n Figure 5 emphasize the r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n of the Island and the Okanagan 46 from other areas and the +B orientation of both areas (indicated by both methods of comparison) is in keeping with what we know of B.C. settlement patterns. Figure 5, Assigned values for P Q 3 areas: overall distribution However, the status of mainland areas other than the Okanagan and their relationship to each other and to the Island and Okanagan is impossible to assess at this time, regardless of which method of comparison is used. A Summary of Significant Age Group Variations Age Group Variations within Areas Significant age group changes are shown in Figure 6 on page 4 7 . The direction of change is indicated by the form listed. The Okanagan and Cariboo seem to be the most stable areas, while the greatest number of changes are found on Vancouver Island. A l l changes are parallel to those in B.C.-- unless the increasing frequency of /seprlk-pt/ as a response on the Island can be said to oppose the B.C. 'trend'. c 0 K Y 0/M /tameitq/ /suty /suty father=bother i 4? M/Y /atprlkot/ / r l l r / /zibra/ /rut/=route /meri/ 0/Y caught=cot father=bother /s k ^ l / /rut/=route ./skecfcl/ /m£ri/ caught=cot /rut/»route fath^ersbother Figure 6. Significant age group changes in areas, Age Group Variations Cross-Regionally  The o-Group (Maps XVI, XIX) SG 6 sets the Island apart from a l l other areas in B.C., SG 1, the Island from the Lower Mainland (and a l l other areas but the Okanagan)• SG 3 divides the Okanagan from the Lower Mainland and Cariboo, 5t "the Kootenay from the Okanagan and Lower Mainland. The Kootenay and Lower Mainland are differentiated by item 16. On the basis ;of this limited data, i t can only be said that the Island is differentiated slightly from the mainland and that on the mainland the greatest contrast seems to be between the Lower Mainland and the Kootenay. Assigned values (figure 7) show the isolation of the 48 I s l a n d more c l e a r l y . They a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t the Okanagan d i f f e r s from o t h e r mainland areas but to a much l e s s e r degree than does the I s l a n d . In s p i t e o f , o r perhaps because o f , High and Low marking, the Kootenay and the Lower Mainland d i f f e r l i t t l e i n assigned v a l u e s . In these two areas there i s an i n t e r e s t i n g c o n t r a s t of • +A and +B v a r i a n t s . The Kootenay i s High f o r /it^rj (+B) and /l£vr/ (+A) and a l s o has a high i n c i d e n c e o f /§tprIkT>t/ and / z e b r a / (+A) and ^ e d j l / (+B). The Lower Mainland, on the other hand, i s at the o p p o s i t e end o f the s c a l e f o r each o f these items. F i g u r e 7« Assigned v a l u e s f o r PQ3 areass the ©-group The m-Group Changes i n SG. can be seen oh Map XX, High and Low mark-i n g on Map XVII. Although the I s l a n d i s now marked f o r one +A f e a t u r e — L o w f o r /lz,ycj--both t h i s area and the Okanagan are b a s i c a l l y +B a r e a s . /rut/= r o u t e and /r^v/cofrohrj are common to both, 49 the Island is High for /eiprlk-art/, the Okanagan, Low for /tameitoy. The Lower Mainland, Cariboo, Upper Mainland and Kootenay are, on the other hand,.,+A areas. The Lower Mainland and Cariboo share three +A features--Low /rut/ = route and /le^rj, High /tameitq/. The Kootenay and Upper Mainland are marked for two of these three features, the exception being /l£?|r/. Figure 8. Assigned values for PQ3 areas: the m-group Assigned values (Figure 8) also attest to the +B orient-a t i o n of the Island and Okanagan and the +A orientation of the remaining areas. However, comparison of Figures 7 and 8 reveals a certain amount of rapprochement between Island and Mainland. The y-group (Maps XVIII, XXI) In terms of feature marking, the Okanagan is s t i l l char-acterized by +B features—High /eiprlkTrt/ and /rut/ = route. However, the Lower Mainland is now marked by three +B features--High /ruty = route, /zitre/ and /mxci/—in place of the three +A 5 0 features of the m-group in this area and the Island has gained one +A feature—Low /eiprlkotz. The Cariboo, Kootenay and Upper Mainland are a l l marked by one less feature than they were pre-v i o u s l y : that i s , the Cariboo is marked by two—Low /rut7 = route and /zinr$/, and the Kootenay and Upper Mainland for one each—Low /mxri/ and Low /rut/ = route, respectively. Figure 9» Assigned values for PQ3 areas: the y-group Comparison of assigned values in Figures 8 and 9 as well as the changes in marked features noted above suggest that what-e v e r degree of dialect differentiation existed cross-regionally in the m-group is disappearing. However^ High and Low marking of areas for /v*?z/, /veiz/ and father=bother (variants or items not taken into account in assigning values) complicates the picture. While marking for one or both variants of vase differ--entiate the Lower Mainland, Okanagan and Kootenay from the Island and Cariboo, marking for father=bother divides Okanagan, Kootenay and Cariboo from the Lower and Upper Mainland. Perhaps i t need not be repeated that the preceding anal-51 -ysis of age group variations is supported by very l i t t l e con-crete data. Significant variations are found for few of the items on PQ3 and area age group sample sizes are small. I feel, however, that the analysis of PQ3 responses provides enough evid-ence of speech differentiation between age groups (particularly between the m-groups, in which sample sizes are larger than in the other groups) in the several regions of B.C. to warrant further investigation on a larger scale.• 52 NOTES 1. Since there are only four informants in the b-group in the Upper Mainland, this group has been ignored. Peace River m-and y-groups with seven informants each (and the Peace River as a whole) have not-been discussed unless they vary radically from other m- or y-groups (or areas). 2. Even a cursory inspection of Table IV will reveal that the number of informants in areas or in age groups vary from item to item. Fluctuations occur for several reasons. -a few informants indicated that they used more than one pronunciation variant for an item. In such a case, when respons-e s were computer programmed, each variant was counted as a sep-arate response, thus increasing the number of informants by one. -a number of questionnaires were missing the second page. -a number of informants had difficulties with R/NO type questions and either omitted them entirely or answered them in a manner which made i t impossible to interpret the responses. Several informants failed to answer some of the multiple choice questions. 3. The Okanagan was the only region in which informants wrote in their own rhymes eg., 'ah', 'car' etc. 4. The Cariboo is the only area in which some informants in each age group chose /veisj. In the Peace River area both m- and y-group percentages are high (m-group- 43$, y-group- 29$). 5. Only 36$ of the Peace River informants chose this variant. 6. Poison found 2% and 4$, respectively, in Vancouver and Duncan surveys. 2% is reported for teenagers and 4$ for adults in the Kootenay. (Gregg, 1973) 7. The m-group in the Peace River area could be an ex-ception. 8. /sAt/ is used mainly by m- and o-group informants scattered over most areas of the province. 9. One informant noted an ambiguity in the questions " lather as in 'shaving lather' not as in 'a lather' meaning some--one who uses a lathe* " 53 10. Both bother and father were given as alternatives to lather. Of the informants who did not .choose lather, a l l but one chose father. This suggests that bother and father rhymed for these informants and that their choice was dictated by the pre--sence-of the same letter representing the vowel in rather and father. 11. But, see G-P results for the Kootenay in Table VIII. 12. However, few of the items which could vary from * region to region in B.C. are included in this section of PQ3«-The phonological section of SCE contains forty-two items (only twelve; of which are found in P$3) and a further sixty or more grammatical and lexical items. 13* The designation of certain variants as American or British in an absolute sense could be disputed. For example, while /aprlk-wt/ and /meri/ are American, or to be more exact, not British, /l£vry, /raut/ and /zebra/ which are usually considered as^being American ar,e also use^ in Britain and 'British.' variants Afidjl/, /rcisJr/, / l e j r / and / l i v r / (as well as /eiprlkot/ and /maeri/) are a i s o usea in the United States. This classification i s , however, the most useful (and, perhaps, the only) one avail--able at the moment not only for assigning values, but also for characterizing High and Low marking for areas (see p.45). 14. For example^ thesis land, Okanagan and Cariboo have been marked High for /eiprlkot/ in contrast to the Lower and Upper Mainland areas. There is a difference between the Okanagan and Lower Mainland of 34$j the difference between the Cariboo and Lower Mainland is only 19$. 54 CHAPTER IV In the previous chapter I outlined the salient facts of B.C. pronunciation on the basis of PQ3 data alone. Here, I am concerned with external evidence, the question being« what do the results of other surveys in B.C. contribute to the interpretation of the above data? The major source of information for B.C. is The Survey of  Canadian English. Figures in the columns headed Rodman (Table VI) and SCE (Table VIII) are also derived from this survey. (1) Under Gregg-Poison (G-P) are grouped those surveys conducted through the Linguistics Department at the University of B.C. prior to 1972. Consideration must be given to the fact that the aims of other surveys are not the same as those of PQ3 and that their scope and the methods used differ as well. Among the aims of The Survey of Canadian English. Scargill enumerates the following! 1. to obtain on a large scale, information about Canadian Englishi 2. to observe linguistic changes in progress or already accomplished) and as a primary aim, 3. to compare the speech of the younger generation with that of their parents. (2) 55 One thousand questionnaires weve evenly distributed to schools throughout each province. Grade IX students were chosen to represent the younger generation. No attempt was made to dis-tinguish between urban and rural groups or to sub-divide the provinces regionally, and, although information was requested as to the educational level of parents, no attempt was made to gather further details of the background of students qr.parents. There are, then, three major differences between SCE and PQ3 which could influence the comparison of the two surveys. 1. SCE informants out-number PQ3 informants approximately 4:1, This large discrepancy.in sample sizes could skew the re-s u l t s of survey comparisons. In addition, the distribution of questionnaires evenly throughout the schools in B.C. has resulted in a heavier sampling of Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island where there is greater population density and therefore a larger number of schools.than in other areas in the province. PQ3 informants, on the other hand, are distributed fairly evenly over the province. Thus, to the possible skewing of results due to the discrepancy in' sample sizes must be added the possible skewing of results due to differences of informant distribution. I, therefore, decided to compare, as well, two sub-sets of SCE and PQ3 informants t the Rodman sample group (nGV) and a main-land sample group (PQ3-(I+GV)). In these subsets there are roughly equivalent numbers of informants, and, with certain exceptions (see area comparisons for further discussion) there is a 56 similar distribution of informants within the area. 2. SCE students are fifteen year olds, whereas the PQ3 y-group informants range in age from fifteen to thirty. These two groups have nonetheless been equated in this chapter. Al-though parents of SCE students could be as young as thirty-five or as old as seventy-five, they are more likely to correspond in age to the PQ3 m-group and have been compared with this group. 3. Although no data is available on the background of SCE informants, i t may be assumed that not a l l of them wouldV meet the requirements of PQ3. The aims of the G-P surveys, taken as a group, were the same as those of PQ3_. But althougha few informants were reached through the two postal questionnaires conducted prior to PQ3. the majority of the data was collected in the field. As field studies, the G-P surveys serve, to some extent, to check on the results of both SCE and PQ3. The number of informants interviewed in the individual surveys varied considerably--from eight (Victoria adults) to two hundred and forty-six (Vancouver high school students). The students were between fifteen and nineteen years old when the surveys were conducted ( 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 6 9 ) . Adults interviewed in the Okanagan and in Victoria were possibly classifiable as o-group by PQ3 definition at the time of interview, while Kootenay adults would be classified as m- and o-group informants. Table V shows the number of informants and Table VI, the distribution of variants in PQJI, SCE, PQ3-(I+GV) and Rodman sample 57 groups. (3) Comparison of SCE and PQ3 Results for the Province and  for the Mainland  1. Tomato- no significant variation. 2. Vase The percentage of responses for /v©z/ (r. paws) is much lower in SCE than i t is in PQ3i the reverse holds for /vaz7 (r. ahs). I have assumed, however, that the second response has been chosen by many SCE informants who could have chosen the f i r s t i ie. that ahs is frequently pronounced with a slightly rounded vowel (and many people answer multiple choice questions from the bottom up). If the percentage of B.C. residents native to the province who use the pronunciation /vaz/ is less than 4$ (and I suspect that i t is) i t can be assumed that there is no significant variation between questionnaires for this item. (The only possible significant variation would be between the PQ3-i (I+GV) and Rodman sample groups.) 4. Apricot- no significant variation. (4) 5. Lever According to PQ3 figures, the trend in B.C. is toward / l i v r / . Admittedly, this trend is significant only when the o-group percentage is taken into account. SCE figures point to a reverse trend both in the province as a whole and on the mainland. /livr./ is significantly higher in the SCE adult group than in the equivalent PQ3 group and also in the Rodman sub-sample as compared to PQ3-(I+GV). /livry is significantly lower 58 in the SCE student group as compared to the PQ3 y-groupi student/ y-group percentages in the two mainland sub-samples are about equal. (5) ?. Soot The SCE student group percentage for /sut/ is higher, province-wide, than that of the PQ3 y-group. Rodman/PQ3-(I+GV) groups vary in the same manner. Percentages for student groups, both SCE and Rodman, are also higher for /sut/ than are adult per-centages in a l l four sample groups. While PQ3 results point to a trend in the direction of fart/t SCE figures point to a trend toward /sut/. 8. Route Both SCE/PQ3 and Rodman/PQ3-(I4GV) student/y-groups vary significantly. More SCE and Rodman students chose / r a u t / , 9. Schedule Mainland student/y-group figures vary significantly with fewer informants in the Rodman group choosing /^edjl/. 12. Father/bother 13 . Caught/cot Fewer SCE students rhyme these pairs than do PQ3 y-group informants• 15 . Aunt More SCE students chose the non-rhyming pronunciation. 16 . Leisure More SCE and Rodman adults and students chose / l i j r / than did their PQ3 and PQ3-(I+GV) counterparts. Percentage differ-ences between adult groups, both mainland and provincial, are 59 exceptionally high compared to percentage differences between adult and student groups for other items. While (significant) percentage differences for other items range from 7$ to 16$, for / l i j r / , the difference between mainland adult groups is 27$» be-tween provincial adult groups, 28$. Variations between student/ y-groups are less pronounced (10$ and 14$). 17• Bury- no significant variation. Summary of Significant Variations- SCE/PQ3  Student/y-group The frequency of fx/ in soot, /acq/ in route, /Of in aunt and / i / in leisure is higher in SCE than in PQ3. The frequency of /!/ in lever and of rhyme of father/  bother and caught/cot is lower in SCE. Adult/m-group The frequency of /!/ in lever and in leisure is higher in SCE. Summary of Significant Variations- Rodman/PQ3-(I+GV) Student/y-group The frequency of fvj in soot, f&Xt/ in route, fx/ in leisure and /sk/ in schedule is higher in Rodmani the frequency of fctj in aunt is lower in Rodman  AduIt/m-group The frequency of fi/ in lever and in leisure is higher in Rodman. Trends In SCE and the Rodman sub-group the trends are in the dir-60 -ection of /sut/ and /leyr / j in PQ3 and PQ3- (I+GV) the trends are in the direction of /hxrtj and /livr./. In Chapter III, I outlined the age group percentages and directions of change in pronunciation in B.C. on the basis of PQ3 results alone. Comparison with SCE figures supports PQ3 indicat--ions of change for a l l but two of the twelve items common to both surveys. Adult percentages varied l i t t l e for ten items, student percentages for five. (6) Although G-P differences must be borne in mind here (see area comparisons), the similarity of results of the two questionnaires despite the differences noted at the beginning of this chapter, is a strong argument for the validity of both PQ3 and SCE data. As such i t focuses attention on variations where they occur. Are they due to disparities of sample sizes or informant distribution, or to age differences be-tween student and y-groups, or are they indicative of a greater prevalence of certain forms within certain sections of the gen-e r a l population? Comparison of mainland sub-groups reveals two adult and five student variations. Both adult and four of the student variations are also found between equivalent provincial groups. (7) This would suggest that disparities of sample sizes and of in--formant distribution have l i t t l e effect on the results of com--parisons of PQ3 and SCE and the answer to the question of why variations between survey results occur at the provincial level must be sought elsewhere. Further investigation of some sort is necessary before this question can be answered. 61 Comparison of SCE, PQ3 and G-P Results for Areas Table VII fives sample sizes and Table VIII, the distrib-ution of variants for PQ3_, G-P and SCE surveys at the regional level. Sinee a l l SCE questionnaires from Vancouver Island were returned to the University of Victoria, I have no SCE data for the Island. G-P surveys covered only the Island, Lower Mainland Okanagan and Kootenay. Therefore, comparisons are for the most part, between SCE and PQ3 or G-P and one of the two postal sur-veys. Only in the Kootenay is there a reasonably adequate body of data from a l l three surveys. Vancouver Island- G-P/PQ3 Of the ten items elicited in both student surveys ( 8 ) , only five vary to any marked,degree. A significantly higher percentage of G-P informants chose /r^ryc\3/n^rj / l i v r / , /m*ri/ and /zibrs/ were chosen by a larger ( i f not significantly so) number of G-P students. Differences in the distribution of the variants of soot merit further consideration. The percentage of /svt/ is significantly lower in G-P than in PQ3» The major competitor in the former survey is /s/it/ which was used by 29$ of G-P informants and none of the PQ3 y-group. Considering that the difference between /u/ and fisj is difficult to distinguish and that questionnaire informants are not trained linguists, the absence of /s/v±/ in PQ3 is explain--able. The difference between surveys, however, does provide an excellent illustration of the weakness of written questionnaires. Adult percentages for variants of tomato and of route 62 differ i f comparison is made with the PQ3 m-group but are in keep-i n g with percentages in the PQ3 m-group. The opposite is true for /eiprlkflt/. A Lower (if not significantly so) percent of Island adults chose /veiz/ than did informants in PQ3 m- or o-groups in that area. The Lower Mainland Two problems arise when we try to compare survey results on the Lower Mainland. The first is the proliferation of sur-veys and of sample groups within them. G-P surveys include one in Vancouver (GV) and one in Hope (nGV) and both PQ3 and SCE student and adult groups can be divided into sub-groups for GV and nGV. (9) The second problem is that of inadequate and/or widely disparate sample sizes. The dimensions of the problem can be seen in the following exerpt from Table VII. PQ3 G-P SCE Students GV 5 246 135 (=y-group) nGV 14 14 17 19 260 152 Adults GV 13" - ' ITJ (*m-group) nGV 18 - 28 31 141 Figure 10. Sample sizes in Lower Mainland sample groups. The PQ3 y-group sample (19 informants) is extremely small compared to G-P and SCE student samples and, while the Hope (nGV) sample and PQ3 and SCE nGV sub-samples are equivalent in size, 63 they are too small to provide much reliable information. (In addition, the Hope survey covered relatively few items.) I have, therefore, in this study compared G-P (Vancouver) and SCE student groups only. The disparity between the PQ3 m-group and the SCE adult group sample sizes is only slightly less than that between the sample sizes of students in those surveys. However, adult nGV sub-samples in both surveys are of adequate and equivalent size. I have, therefore, compared the PQ3 m-group (as a whole) with the SCE nGV sub-group. The percentages given in Table VIII for SCE students are for the most part adjusted figures for the whole Lower Mainland sample group. (10) Percentages were calculated separately for nGV, and GV sub-groups but since percentage differences between the two groups were found to be small and the proportion of nGV students within the total sample was low, skewing of GV percent--ages was slight when the two groups were amalgamated. Where marked differences occur,(cfr. route, schedule), figures are given in Table VII and the GV percentage used in the comparisons. With regard to the adult groups selected for comparison, PQ3 figures given in Table VIII are those for the total Lower Mainland sample. Again, percentages were calculated for both GV and nGV informants but since differences were found to be slight, the PQ3 m-group distribution can be considered represent-ative of both nGV and GV distributions. Calculation of percent-ages for SCE adults was carried out in the same manner as for 64 students and separate figures are given for GV and nGV sub-groups only when there is considerable variation between them. Students-SCE/G-P (GV) Four of the seven items common to both surveys vary to a considerable degree. Significantly more G-P students chose /veiz/ and /lE^r/ and significantly fewer chose /l£vr/. Although these variations cannot be considered significant, fewer G-P students chose / v e i s / and, possibly, fewer chose / w z / although i t is difficult to make a definite statement concerning the latter due to already mentioned ambiguities in the SCE questionnaire. As on the Island, the figures for soot in Lower Mainland surveys merit further consideration. The incidence of /sAt/ in the G-P survey is recorded as 23$ (equivalent to the Island fig --ure of 29$). However, in the Lower Mainland /sut/ accounts for 30$ of the responses in SCE but only 6$ in the G-P survey. A reason for the higher incidence of /sAt/ in a field survey has already been discussed but this does not explain the high per-centage of /sut/ in the SCE student group. Tomato (all variants), schedule and bury showed no sig-nificant variation. Apricot, route and aunt were not included in the G-P survey. Adults- SCE/PQ3 (nGV) Significant variations are found for three or possibly four out of ten items common to both SCE and PQ3, close to sig-nificant variation for another two items. 65 Significantly fewer SCE informants chose /bameitq/— 14$ were divided between pronunciation with [aj or fb\&,aj in the stressed syllable-- and significantly fewer chose ^tprlktrt/ and /levr/. The distribution of fwzj SCB/PQ3 is 54$/77$ but i t is impossible to decide how,many of the SCE informants who chose ahs as a rhyme for vase were indicating a pronunciation with a rounded vowel. Incidence of /raut/ was higher and /le^z*./, lower in SCE Distribution of variants of soot, schedule, aunt and bury was equivalent in both surveys. The Cariboo-SCE/PQ3 In SCE, the Cariboo is represented by one city, Salmon Arm. Sample sizes are small, especially for the student groups of both surveys compared here. Only two significant variations are found between surveys In this area. Fewer SCE students chose /l£vr/ and fewer SCE adults chose /lezr/» Close to significant variations are found between student groups for /ttprlk-pt/ and /l£^r/. In both cases, the incidence of the American variant was higher among SCE students. The fact that more SCE students use /feprlkot/ and more SCE students and adults use / l i ^ - r / is of some interest as Salmon Arm is located in an area where, according to the distribution of variants shown on Maps XXII and XXIV, these variants occur more frequently than in the rest of the Cariboo. The Upper Mainland-SCE/PQ3 Numbers of informants are small in both surveys, especial-66 -ly in the student groups. The school district from which SCE questionnaires were returned is labeled Skeena, no longer in ex-istence officially, but probably represented by schools in Prince Rupert, Terrace and Hazelton and possibly Stewart. No significant variations occur between student groups j in fact, for nine items there is an average variation of about 4$l The incidence of /bsri/ is about 28$ lower in SCE. Significantly fewer SCE adults chose /ranjt/ and fie^rj, Although the differences cannot be called significant, more SCE adults chose /feprlkat/ and /sut/ and fewer indicated /veiz/, /ievr./ and /hut/ as the pronunciation of choice. The Okanagan Sample sizes for adults in SCE and PQ3 are comparable, student informants more numerous in the first survey. SCE in--formants are from Penticton and Kelownaj that is, from the Okan--agan Valley proper. Since the G-P sample is small, very l i t t l e can be said about the differences in results of field study and written questionnaire. Students- SCE/PQ3 Pour out of ten items vary significantly. More Okanagan students than members of the PQ3 y-group in this area indicated that they used /5eprlk©t/, /sut/, /Taut/ and /ax&J, 22$ fewer SCE informants chose /le^r/. Tomato, vase, lever, schedule and bury show no significant variation. Adults- SCE/PQ3/G-P A significantly larger percent of SCE adults chose /raut/ 67 while a significantly larger percent of the PQ3 m-grqup inform--ants chose /l;am©to/^/tam<rto/ and /l€$rj. Variations close to significant occur between SCE and PQ3 groups for lever and schedule, for which fewer SCE informants indicated /lfivr/ and /^C°5^7 "to D e "their pronunciation. There is l i t t l e variation between groups for the remaining items. G-P figures for tomato differ radically from those of SCE and PQ3_. 7/l8 G-P informants (38$) used the pronunciation /tanraetq/ while only 10/l8 (56$) used /tgmeito/. SCE and PQ^ fig--ures for these variants are 80$ and 20$, 70$ and 15$ t respectiv-e l y . Only l/l8 (6$) G-P informants gave /veiz/ as a response. The corresponding figures in SCE and PQ3 are 6/27 (22$) and 8/15 (31$). The percentage for /ratrt/ in G-P differs l i t t l e from that in SCE and the frequency of /rairt/ in both groups is significant--ly higher than i t is in the PQ3 m-group. (However, the incid-ence of /raut/ ih G-P is equivalent to that in the o-group of PQ3). The percentage of /l£vr/ in G-P is about mid-way between SCE and PQ3 figures. The Kootenay- SCE/PQ3/G:-P This area is the best in which to compare results of a l l three surveys. Thirty-three of the PQ3 informants are from the West Kootenay, the majority of these, from the southern portion. SCE informants live in Nelson, Trail and Kaslo which are also located in the south-western region of the Kootenay. The G-P survey was particularly concerned with the border area. Sample sizes in a l l three surveys are adequate and in addition, we have 68 comparable data for eighteen items G-P/PQ3 and ten items SCE/PQ3  Students Only two significant variations are found between SCE and PQ3. More SCE students chose /levr/ and fewer, /§£d^l/. The in--Cidence of /veiz/ is higher and of /voz/, lower in SCE butthese differences are not statistically significant. Variation between survey groups is less than 12$ for other items. The distribution of variants of vase, lever, soot and schedule was similar in both G-P and PQ3. Incidence of /veiz/ and /levr/ in both these surveys is significantly lower than in SCE and incidence of fvvzj and significantly lower. As in the Lower Mainland, significantly fewer G-P students chose /sut/. The percentage of /bari/ is significantly lower in G-P and the percentage of rhyme of father and bother, higher than in both PQ3 and SCE. For tomato, route, caught=cot, aunt and leisure there is l i t t l e or no variation between any of the survey groups. Only one of the ten items found only in G-P and PQ3 varies to a significant degree. The incidence of /zebrd/ is higher in PQ3. . . . , . . . . For root, rather, marry, and the last four items on the PQ3 questionnaire there is no significant variation. Adults Three significant variations occur between SCE and PQ3 sample groups. Percentages of /Znt/ and /bari/ are higher and of 69 r/, lower in the SCE adult group. Distribution of variants of other items is similar in both surveys. /v»z/, again, presents a problem but likely varies l i t t l e between survey groups although the incidence of this form in SCE is comparatively low. G-P percentages for variants of caught, leisure and bury are close to those of PQ3. Percentages of caught=cot and /le^r/ are significantly higher and of /ant/ and /bari/, lower in these two surveys than in SCE. For other items there is no significant variation between any of the three survey groups. Two of the ten items common to G-P and SCE alone show sig--nificant variation. More G-P adults used /rooty and fewer used /z£brs>/. None of the G-P informants distinguished mourning and morning or hoarse and horse phoneticallyt however, distinctions were made by some informants in the pronunciation of fairy and ferry and Mary and merry. It should also be noted that while only one informant out of twenty-four made the distinction fairy / ferry, three out of twenty-four made the distinction Mary / merry. When the results of SCE and PQ3 were compared at the provincial level or for the mainland sub-region, i t was found that percentages in adult groups varied significantly for only two items and in the student group for roughly half of the items common to both surveys. This was taken to be a fairly strong indication of the validity of both SCE and PQ3 results but also 70 raised the question of why some variations did occur. Although" several possible reasons were suggested (and some tentatively re-jected), no definitive answer or answers to this question could be supplied. Comparison of area percentages SCE/PQ3. unfortunately, can provide no clue as to the why of provincial variation, nor does i t allow us to say much about the validity of PQ3 and SCE results at the area level. Comparisons have been made of the var-i a n t distribution of ten items for two sets of informants (student/y-group and adult/m-group) in each of four areas and for one set of informants in one area. Thus, a total of ninety sig-nificant variations could occur at the area level. Although few of these--twenty in all— d o , in fact, occurv because sample sizes are small and/or disparate in -some areas and the distribution of SCE informants is restricted in others, no strong claims can be made on this basis. Where data is available from a l l three surveys and signify -icant variations are found between field study and written questionnaire, G-P results more frequently support PQ3 figures than they do those of SCE. Whether i t can be argued from this that PQ3 results are more reliable than those of SCE is open to question. Of more interest, perhaps, are the instances in which G-P figures differ from those of both SCE and PQ3_, cfr. father/ bother and bury in the Kootenay student/y-group. As stated previously, a more intensive investigation of 71 B.C. speech is necessary before any definite conclusions can reached. 72 NOTES 1. Rodman (1975) subcategorizes SCE questionnaires as followst " r BG1- Vancouver island questionnaires plus those from the mainland returned directly to the University of Victoria. ' BG2- mainland questionnaires returned to the University of B.C. from: GV- Greater Vancouver, and nGVr- the rest of the mainland. Some of the figures used in this study are taken from the above mentioned article, for the remainder and for those used in area comparisons, I am indebted to Miss Rodman. 2. Scargill, 197^, pp.11-12. 3. Both Scargill and Rodman give individual percentages for male and female informants in each age group. For the pur--pose of survey comparison, these percentages have been adjusted! that i s , the figures in the columns headed SCE and Rodman (Tables VI and VII) are percentages for a l l informants in each age group. Furthermore, SCE allowed for an either one choice for a number of itemsi namely, apricot, lever, route, schedule, leisure and bury. PQ3 informants had, of course, the option of checking more than one response. In coding PQ3_, the choice of two var-iants by one informant was coded as two separate informant re-sponses (see p. 5 2 ) . Therefore, a (second) similar adjustment has been made of SCE and Rodman figures. The number of informants (male and female) who chose the either one response has been added to the number of informants who chose variant A and to the number of informants who chose variant B (and, of course, to the total number of informants in the age group under consideration). Percentages for each variant have then been recalculated on this basis. The number of informants given for SCE and Rodman in Tables V; and VII is the actual number.,: not the inflated one pro--duced by adjusting for either one choices. 4. Althoughnthere is no significant variation SCE/PQ3 or Rodman/PQ3-(I+GV), SCE/Rodman/groups do vary. Fewer adults in the Rodman sub-sample chose /feprlktort/. PQ3/PQ3-(I+GV) groups, however, show no significant variation. 5. While there is a significant variation,between student groups SCE/Rodman (fewer Rodman students chose /l£vr/, variation of the same order is not found PQ3/PQ3-(I+GV). 1 73 6. In Chapter III (p.29), I noted that when the calculat-i o n of standard errors was used to determine significant variat-i o n between percentages in large sample groups, the fact that a variation in percent is of the order of two standard errors or more indicates only that the variation is not due to chance and further, that i t is the linguist who must decide whether the percentage difference is, in fact, interesting or significant (in a linguistic sense). To illustrate this point: Although i t can hardly be denied that the 28$ variation in the distribution of / l i j r / between adult groups SCE/PQ3 is both interesting and linguistically significant, we could question the importance of an 8$ variation in distribution. It may be necessary to add a second condition which must be met be--fore a variation is considered significant: ie., the variation must be two standard errors or more and greater than X percent. It is not my purpose, in this study, to decide exactly what value should be assigned to X. The point I wish to make is that i f X were to equal 10$, only five of the seven student var-iations would be significant (the percentage variation for lever is 8$, for caught=cot, 9$), If X were to: equal 12$ only one adult and three student variations would remain (the per-centage difference between adult groups for lever is 11$, between student groups for route and father=bother, 11$ and 10$). In brief, there may be a greater similarity between the results of SCE and PQ3 than the summary of variations of two standard errors or more suggests. 7. Only one significant variation (schedule) is found in the mainland student sub-group only. Since disparities of sample size and of informant distribution seem to have l i t t l e effect on other items and since this variation occurs between groups in which sample sizes are small but not between larger sample groups, i t could reflect a real difference in the mainland as a sub-area of the province. 8. tomato, vase, lever, soot, schedule, rather, zebra, marry, leisure, bury. 9. GV in SCE includes Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and Richmond, in PQ3, these plus North and West Vancouver and Surrey. nGV in SCE is represented by Powell River and Langley. 10. See note 3« To arrive at percentages for regional groups, adjustments had also to be made for varying numbers of informants in the communities representing the region. 74 CHAPTER V The Survey of Canadian English provides a wealth of data on B.C. speech. It can, however, t e l l us nothing about regional variation within the province. And although Rodman (1975) and other unpublished data from this study furnish information on dialect differences between Greater Vancouver and the rest of the mainland, this data is limited not only by the fact that i t in-volves only two regions but also by the fact that not a l l Great-e r Vancouver or mainland questionnaires were available for analysis, (see p.72) The results of G-P surveys suggested that dialect variat-i o n did exist in B.C. (1) The results of PQ3 support this con-clusion and on the basis of PQ3 data we can tentatively divide the province into three dialect areas: Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, and the rest of B.C. (2) However, conclusions based on PQ3 data are limited by several factors. First, few of the possible number of varying items are included in the phonological section of PQ3. (see p.53) Second, PQ3 data indicate that dial-e c t variation in B.C., although existent, is not of great order and is determinable only on a statistical basis, and since there are relatively few informants in the total PQ3 sample, i t is difficult, i f not impossible, to establish precise boundaries of dialect areas. Third, by the same token i t is even more difficult 75 to determine the extent of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between age groups i n one area or age groups c r o s s - r e g i o n a l l y . Comparison o f PQ3 and SCE f i g u r e s f o r the items common to both surveys adds somewhat to our knowledge o f B.C. speech. How--ever, few p h o n o l o g i c a l (not to mention grammatical or l e x i c a l ) items are common to both surveys7and while r e s u l t s are mutually s u p p o r t i v e f o r most o f these items, the f a c t t h a t f o r even one (e.g. l e i s u r e ) f i g u r e s v a r y r a d i c a l l y , r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s as to the v a l i d i t y o f r e s u l t s f o r other items i n both PQ3 and SCE. (3) In a d d i t i o n , both PQ3 and SCE are w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the l i m i t -- a t i o n s o f which are w e l l known. A n a l y s i s o f data from a l l surveys i s hampered by the l a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n on, the settlement p a t t e r n s * i n B.C. (with the con--commitant i n a b i l i t y to r e l a t e d i a l e c t s i t u a t i o n to c a u s a t i v e f a c t o r s ) as w e l l as by the absence o f s o c i o l o g i c a l c o r r e l a t e s . (4 ) The q u e s t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , a r i s e s as to what must or can be done to broaden our knowledge of B.C. speech. The r e s u l t s o f the s y n t a c t i c and l e x i c a l s e c t i o n s o f PQ3 should be a v a i l a b l e i n the near f u t u r e (5)» f u r t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n s based on SCE data should soon appear (6), and p i l o t s o c i o - d i a l e c t -- o l o g i c a l surveys have been begun i n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a . But although the above w i l l c o n t r i b u t e much to our knowledge o f B.C. d i a l e c t , the l i m i t a t i o n s and b i a s e s o f PQ3 and SCE (and the r e -s t r i c t e d s c o p e — i n a r e g i o n a l sense--of the Vancouver and V i c t o r i a surveys) i n d i c a t e t h a t a t h i r d f u l l - s c a l e survey should be made. 76 If this survey is to he fully effective, i t should be a field study. The limitations of written questionnaires, the nature of dialect differentiation in B.C. and the problem of locating suitable informants a l l point in this direction. It is not necessary, here, to elaborate on the limitations of written questionnaires. However, the problems raised by the nature of dialect differentiation and by the difficulty of locat-i n g suitable informants merit a brief discussion. As previously mentioned, PQ3 data indicate that dialect differentiation in B.C. is not of great order and is determinable only on a statistical basis. Therefore, any attempt to define dialect areas in the province requires the sampling of a large number of informants and that the informants be distributed fairly evenly throughout the province. (7) And i f , in addition PQ3 requirements for in--formants are to be met, the investigator would be forced into the field i f only to find the required sample. The question then becomes! how large a sample is necess--ary?, Although I am unable, at this time, to find any scientific --i.e. statistical—backing for the contention, I feel that a sample group of f i f t y is adequate for our purposes. If we main--tain the division of the province into seven areas and three age groups, the total number of informants required would be approx-imately one thousand. (7x3x50 =1050) There are additional complications. Although the primary aim of a B.C. dialect survey should be to study the speech of the life-time residents of the province, attention should be paid at 77 least to the speech of later arrivals i f not to that of residents who have returned to the province after an absence of a period of time beyond that allowed in the selection of PQ3 informants. The education requirement of PQ3 also excludes an important section of the population, not only hampering the correlation of speech and education, but also excluding certain socio-economic groups which may exert a strong influence on the speech of the community. In a province-wide investigation i t would be impossible to control sampling to the extent of including a representative sample of a l l these groups, but even i f i t means proliferation of the number of informants necessary, a random sample,'a"t least, should be included. Assuming that this latter group is in IsZ proportion to life-time residents, the total number of informants to be interviewed becomes approximately fifteen hundred. To find and interview some fifteen hundred informants using a questionnaire of at least one hundred items (see note 3) is a formidable task. Unless one has a large number of field-workers (which in B.C. we do not) or is content to extend the investigation over an indefinite period of time, some kind of compromise must be found between the ideal goal and the means at one's disposal. With the above in mind, I will outline several alternative approaches to B.C. dialect study. (8) I Full-scale Survey with Modifications The number of informants necessary for this type of study has already been determined as approximately fifteen hundred. 78 Modifications »1. The Questionnaire and Interview Where PQ3 and SCE results are available, the productivity of certain questions bould indicate items to be excluded from the questionnaire. For example, shone, mourning, hoarse, fairy and Mary could be excluded on the basis of PQ3 data since the minor-i t y variant was nowhere chosen by more than fifteen percent of the informants and no significant variation between areas or age groups was found for these items. Interview time could be shortened by the use of a written questionnaire for syntactic or lexical information. (9) The use of two questionnaires is an alternate method of shortening inter--view time. The first questionnaire would include a l l items chosen for the study, the second, those for which eighty percent of SCE or PQ3 informants chose one variant. The latter question--naire could be administered to every second informant in m- and y-groups. 2. Informant Sele ct ion The shortening of interview time is a factor which benefits both interviewer and informant but is of less importance when measured against the ambunt of time required to find inform--ants who meet the requirements of the study at hand. (10) The number of informants required could be reduced by sampling in terms of only two age categories. The y-group would consist of seventy-five informants from age fifteen to f i f t y and the o-group, the same number from age fifty-one to ninety--a 79 total of one hundred and f i f t y per area and approximately one thousand in a l l . The third age category, the m-group, could then be set up by selecting from the first two groups approximately seventy-five informants between age thirty-one and sixty. Al-though this method (which I call the overlap method) has the advantage of cuttingdown the number of informants required, i t could result in the blurring of differences between age groups, II Survey of PQ3-type Informants Only The number of informants required for this type of survey is approximately one thousand and use of the overlap method of sampling could cut this number to seven hundred. Since the time required to find and interview informants would be less (though the size of the province must s t i l l be considered), general knowledge of B.C. speech could be obtained more quickly than i f the first approach were taken. However, we would lose province-wide socio-dialectological data and, i f the overlap method was. used, much information on age group/area variations within the province, (li) III Interrim Suggestions 1. Socio-dialectological Studies in Vancouver and Victoria Pilot studies have already been begun in these areas and will, without doubt,.increase our knowledge of socio-dialectolog--ical variations in B.C. They will also provide insight into a methodological approach to this type of study in other parts of the province. Unfortunately, such surveys require time. Can a province-80 wide survey await their results? 2 . An In-depth Survey of A l l Age Groups in One Area This type of survey has much in common with the socio--dialectological study previously discussed, and, in fact could be easily combined with such a study using a more generalized questionnaire in which items chosen for the socio-dialectological survey are embedded. Again, however, there is a question of time involved and also the problem of dove-tailing the results with those of any future province wide investigation. ( 1 2 ) 3. Survey of the o-Group The question: how long can we wait? has been asked or hinted at in the course of the discussion of both the above inter--rim plans. It is of particular importance here. One of the goals of dialect study in any area is that of recording the speech of early residents. On Vancouver Island, at least, these people are rapidly vanishing from the scene. Al-though we are s t i l l faced with the problem of the amount of time required to traverse the province, with as few as five-hundred informants to be interviewed (7 x 75= 5?5) o-group sampling could be accomplished relatively quickly. The investigation of B.C. speech has scarcely been begun. Hopefully, this investigation will in future be of interest to more than the handful of people already involved. Whichever approach or combination of approaches is taken to the study of 81 B.C. dialect will, in the final analysis depend on the number of people in the field—and on their own particular interests. 82 NOTES 1. See Gregg (1972) for a resume of Vancouver Island, Okanagan and Kootenay surveys. 2. The PQ3 Peace River'sample is too small to allow any definite conclusions to he reached from the data. I suspect, however, that the speech of this area has more in common with that of Alherta than with that of B.C. If this suspicion is proved correct, we would have a fourth dialect area in B.C. 3» PQ3 in its entirety, contains one hundred and ten items, SCE, the same number. 4. I should, at this point, add that in this chapter and throughout this study I have virtually ignored work done at the University of Victoria. The reason is simple. Little or nothing has been published up to this time and I have had l i t t l e opportun-i t y to familiarize myself with the available data. 5. Analysis of the responses to a l l questionnaire items is at present being carried out by James Poison at Sir George Williams University. 6. Warkentyne (1971) gives some data on the correlation of speech and education although on a Canada-wide basis. Dr. Warkentyne has also informed me of the imminent publication of further articles. 7. A grid of some sort is obviously necessary. What PQ3 areas do not reflect is the distribution of population. An alternative unit could be the federal electoral riding or some multiple of the same. The drawbacks of this type of division are that the con-centration of population in Greater Vancouver and Victoria would result in either the proliferation of sample units or the merging of large sections of the B.C. interior into one unit. On the one hand we would be faced with a major increase in the number of informants necessary, on the other, thinning of distribution in the B.C. interior. Of the two alternatives, the former would be the most acceptable. However, even i f PQ3 area divisions were to be used, some provision for Greater Vancouver and Victoria would have to be made; that is, we would have at least nine areas in place of the original seven. It will be argued that in a province-wide in-vestigation a thorough socio-dialectological study is impossible. 83 Such a study should be and is being undertaken in Vancouver and Victoria. If we were to isolate these areas for separate invest-igation, the boundaries of the remaining PQ3 areas should coincide fairly closely with those of federal electoral ridings. 8. Throughout the following discussion, I will maintain the PQ3 division into seven areas and three age groups strictly for the purpose of comparing approaches. If Greater Vancouver and Victoria,were omitted in a province-wide survey, there would s t i l l be seven areas—ie. the rest of the Island and of the Lower Mainland would s t i l l be separate areas. If Vancouver and Victoria were included, we would have nine areas. Furhtermore, PQ3 data suggest that an eighth (or tenth) area should be set up, This area would include at least Armstrong, Enderby, Grindrod and Lumby (Okanagan)> Salmon Arm Chase and Sicamous (Cariboo) and possibly Revelstoke and Golden (Kootenay). (see Maps XXII-XXVII) Finally, another type of grid (note 7) could vary the number of areas to be considered. 9. This technique was used by Dr. H.K. Warkentyne in a survey of o-group Vancouver Island residents, 10. In B.C., the distance to be covered within provincial boundaries is a major problem. 11. Two further aspects of dialect study have been omitted in this chapter. a. Computer Programming A computer program is essential even for the least compre--hensive survey plan. Details of the program should be estab-lis h e d before field work is begun since this enables the field-worker to record data on code sheets as work progresses, thus speeding analysis at a later date. Provision for computerized mapping is also essential except, perhaps, in the case of (following) interrim suggestions. b. Historical Data As previously mentioned, this type of data is difficult to find in provincial or federal statistical material or in volumes of provincial history. Local histories could provide much information! however, the most profitable method of invest-igation (also profitable for dialect study) would be conversation with the informants themselves. 12. Poison (1969) outlines two arguments against a piece-meal type of approach. First is the problem of reconciling trans--criptions of two or more field-workers who have no trained to--gether and may have different methods of approach. Second is the fact that results of a survey often lead to deletion or addition of items so that the dialectologist who undertook a second survey would be faced with the (probably impossible) task of finding the original informants or be forced to resurvey the whole area. 84 APPENDIX I INSTRUCTIONS POR THE B.C. LINGUISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE Please read these instructions before trying the questionnaire. This is NOT a test. We do NOT presume to judge people's speech habitss we merely record them. So when you answer the questions, PLEASE put down what you actually say. Do NOT put down what you think you SHOULD say. Do NOT put down what your friends and relations think you should say. We picked YOU as our informant and we want YOUR answers. Don't let anyone else t e l l you what to put down. If someone else wants to add his two-bits worth and you think the information might be interesting, add a note to your answer telling who the other per--son is and where he comes from. But PLEASE don't let the other person influence your answers. It isn't very likely that you'll be able to answer a l l the quest-ions . Don't worry about i t . The fact that you don't use a particular word can be just as important as the fact that you do. It would be helpful, though, i f you would put something in every space so we'll know you haven't overlooked anything--such as "don't know", "never heard of i t " , "can't remember", "the quest-i o n isn't clear" or whatever. YOUR COMMENTS ARE WANTED. Not much work has been done on B.C. speech and there is an awful lot we don't know. Furthermore, we're city boys. If you would assume that we're shockingly ig-norant about most things, and try to set us straight, or give explanatory notes, or add information, i t would be helpful (and don't worry about your writing—we're not snobs). Comments of ANY kind are welcome. If there is not enough space under the question, use the back of the previous page. As well as correcting us, giving explanations, or adding information, consid-e r adding comments along these lines* I used to call i t such and such when I was a boy, but now it's a This word was used in the old days but you never hear i t now. Teenagers say My father used to say I've heard people say. 85 The ranchers (loggers, fishermen, etc.) say, This word is old-fashioned. This word is only used in a joking way. I use this most often, but sometimes I say.. If you can think of any word or usage that might interest us but is not related to any question asked, make a note at the end of the questionnaire. Some of the questions ask you to choose alternatives and have parentheses in which you can put a check mark or an X. e.g. The long suits of underwear worn by men are called red flannels ( ), long-Johns ( ), Stanfields ( ). PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG INVOLVED Some questions have a blank that must be filled with one or more words• e.g. If you were talking about whether a child resembles its father or mother, you might ask» "Does he • •••••• his father or his mother?" When you've finished the questionnaire put i t in the stamped en-velope and mail i t back to us. We don't want to rush you we are a bit short of time, so the sooner we get the completed question-naire back the better. MANY THANKS 86 Linguistic Survey of B«C»* (Postal Questionnaire) Informant Number: 1-3 Name: Date: Address: 4-5 6 Age: Sex: Occupation (or Spouse's): 7-8 Where were you born? How long have you lived here? Have you lived outside this area? If so, where and how long? 9-10 Where was your mother born and raised? 11-12 Where was your father born and raised? Did you speak any language other than English as a child? 13-14 How much formal education have you had? Do you have any interesting details to add about your li f e and background? 87 Linguistic Survey of B.C.t (Postal Questionnaire) 1) 16 1. In the word tomato do you pronounce the middle part of the word as eight, at, or ought? If none of these words f i t , give a word containing the 'a' sound you use. a) eight ( ) c) ought ( ) b) at ( ) d) other 17 2. Would you rhyme-vase with 'face', 'days', 'cause' or 'has* ? If you don't rhyme i t with any of these, supply your own rhyme. a) face ( ) c) cause ( ) b) days ( ) d) has ( ) e) other 18 3» Do you pronounce the"first part of apricot to rhyme with 'cap* or 'cape' ? a) cap ( ) b) cape ( ) 19 (Do you normally use any other term for this fruit?) 20 4a) Does 'shone' as in 'the sun shone brightly' rhyme with 'John' ( ) or 'Joan' ( ) ? 21 b) Does 'lever' as in 'pull the lever' rhyme with 'clever* ( ) or 'cleaver* ( ) 22 c) Does 'root' as in 'root of a tree' rhyme with 'foot' ( ), "boot* ( ) or 'but* ( ) ? 23 d) Does *soot' as in 'chimney soot' rhyme with 'foot* ( ), 'boot* ( ) or 'but' ( ) ? 24 e) Does 'route' as in 'paper route* rhyme with 'shoot' ( ) or 'shout' ( ) ? 88 Linguistic Survey of B.C.* (Postal Questionnaire) 2) 25 26 28 30 32 34 36 27 29 31 33 35 5. 6. 8. Does 'schedule' begin with a 'sk' as in 'ski' ( ) or a 'sh* as in 'she' ( ). Read the following l i s t carefully and mark with an •R' each pair that has a perfect rhyme. Write 'NO' py any pair that does not rhyme. Examples t sad-mad father-bother marry-merry caught-cot aunt-ant fairy-ferry R) cough-rough leisure-pleasure merry-Mary bury-furry mourning-morning hoarse-horse (NO) Which of the following words would you choose as a rhyme of 'rather' ? 'mother' or 'father' ( ), 'lather' ( ) ? ( ), 'bother' ( ) Does the first part of 'zebra' rhyme with the FEB of FEBruary ( ) or the FEEB of FEEBle ( ) ? 89 APPENDIX II TABLE I Communities Represented %n PQ3 •o=o-group (age 61-90) m=m-group (age 31-60)y=y-group (age 15.30) Letter Code Community Number of I n f n r M n t . »(o,m.y) mv It Vancouver Ts land and the Gulf Islands A- Alert Bay (0,2,2) C- Courtenay (0,3.2) D- Duncan (2,0,1) E- Pender Island (2,1,1) G- Galliano Island (0,0,1) I- Port Albe m i (1,1,2) L- Ladysmith (1,1.2) N- Nanaimo (1,1,1) 0- Saturna Island (1,0,0) P- Parksville (1,0,0) R- Campbell River (2,1,2) S- Saltspring Island (0,1,1) T- Tofino (0,3,0) U- Uclulet (1,2,2) V- Victoria (0,1,1) (1.1.3) W- Cowichan Lake Map H i Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland A- Abbotsford and I- Matsqui (2,2,1) B- Pemberton (1.2,0) C- Chilliwack and S- Sardis (1,2,2) D- Delta (Ladner) (1.0,0) E- Sechelt and K- Roberts Creek (0,1,2) F- Fort Langley (1,0,0) G- Cloverdale (1,1,0) H- Haney and T- Pitt Meadows (2,2,3) J- Bow en Island (2,0,1) L- Lund (0,1,0) M- Harrison Mills and X- Dewdney (0.1,2) N- North Vancouver (1,3,1) 90 TABLE I Letter Code Community Number o f Informants (L) 0 - West Vancouver (0,1,0) P- Powell River (1,1,2) Q- Squamish (2,1,0) R- Richmond (0,3,0) V- Vancouver (3,4,4) W- New Westminster (0,1,1) Y- Yale (0,1,0) Z- Surrey (1,1,0) Map III: Western Cariboo A- Anahim Lake (1,2,2) C- Cache Creek (0,3,3) F- Ashcroft (0,1,0) G- Lac La Hache (1,2,0) H- Hanceville (0,1,0) 1- Clinton (1,1,1) L- Lillooet (3,2,1) S- Spences Bridge (1,1,1) T- Tatlayoko Lake (0,1,1) W- Williams Lake (0,0,1) U- Quesnel (2,2,1) X- Alexis Creek (1.3,1) Y- Lytton (0,2,1) Map IV: Eastern Cariboo (St! B- Barriere-Chu-Chua (1,0,2) E- Chase (0,1,0) K- Kamloops (3,1,1) M- Merritt-Nicola and Q- Quilchena (1,4,1) 0- Sicamous (0,2,2) R- Salmon Arm (3,1,2) V- Savona (0,2,1) Z- McLure (1,0,0) 91 TABLE I Letter Code Community Number of. Informants » ( o f m , y ) Map V; Okanagan A- Armstrong (3»3»3) C- Cawston (0,0,1) D- Peachland (0,2,0) E- Enderby and R- Grindrod (0,5.1) F- Okanagan Falls (0,1,0) G- Grand Forks (1,2,2) K- Kelowna (1,1.2) L- Lumby (1,1,2) M- Okanagan Mission (0,1,0) N- Princeton (1,5,1) 0 - Oliver (1,2,1) P- Penticton (0,0,2) S- Okanagan Center (1,0,0) V- Vernon (1,2,1) W- Westwold (2,1,2) Map VIt Kootenay A- Argenta (0*1,0) B- Briscoe (0,1,0) C- Cranbrook (1,3,2) D- New Denver (1,0,0) E- Fernie (0,1,1) F- Canal Flats (0,2,1) G- Golden (1,1,1) 1- Invermere (0,3,1) K- Kaslo (1,1,1) L- Riondel (0,0,1) M- Marysville and Y- Kimberley (1,1,0) N- Nelson (1,0,0) 0- Slocan (1,2,3) P- Spillimacheen (0,0,l) R- Rossland and T- Trail (0,2,2) S- Salmo (1,1,1) V- Revelstoke (1,1,1) X- Castlegar-Kinnaird (1,1,4) Z- Creston (1,2,1) 92 TABLE I Letter Code Community Number of Informants *(o,m.y) Map VII; Upper Mainland-West — <sr — B- Bella Coola (0,2,1) H- Hagensborg (0,2,1) L- Burns Lake (1.0,1) 'ff- Ocean Falls (0,1,1) (1,4,2) R- Prince Rupert S- Smithers (0,2,2) T- Terrace (1,3,1) W- Stewart (1.1,0) (0.2,3) Z- Hazelton Map Villai Upper Mainland-North (In} D- Dawson City (Yukon) (0,2,0) F- Telegraph Creek (0,1,0) Map VHIbt Upper Mainland-East G- Prince George (0,1,1) J- Fort St. James (0,4,2) M- McBride (see Map IX) (0,1,0) V- Vanderhoof (0,4,0) Map IXt Peace River ( F T C- Chetwynd (0,0,2) F- Fort St. John (0,3,2) H- Hudson's Hope (0,3.1) N- North Pine (0,1,1) P- Pouce Coupe (0,0,1) 93 TABLE Ha Background -of Parents of Informants^  for B.C. and for the Age Groups Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer. Parents are considered to be from B.C. i f they^meet the requirements for informants. Figures in brackets in the total line refer to place of birth of parents. ** = less than 1%. To B.C. To B. From- B.C. Alta.-Man. Ontario Quebec Maritimes o-group 11 1 21 3 6 m-group 33 10 9 ** 3 y-group 62 22 3 *# (30) (13) (ii) (2) (3) B.C. 38 1.12! 9 1 3 , C . From- U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other o-group 12 31 10 2 2 m-group 9 21 7 2 6 y-group 1 k 2 #« k (10) (20) ( 9 ) — - (4) B.C. 7 18. 6 2 5 TABLE l i b Background of Parents of Informants- for Areas and for Area/Age Groups To I To L To C From I B.C. Alta-Man Ontario Quebec Maritimes q- 8 ## ** 11 0 4 m- . . 44 8 17 0 0 0 y- 60 19 12 0 0 0 I- 41 11 11 4 0 0 ---52 U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 0 - 19 27 23 4 0 m- _ 0 19 3 • - 0 9 y- 0 0 5 0 5 I- 5 13 9 1 From L B.C. Alta-Man Ontario Quebec Maritimes 0 - 5 1 1 18 10 8 m- 27 10 8 13 2 2 . y- 50 13 29 3 0 0 L- 2? ft 9 12 12 4 3 — 38- U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other o- 8 34 3 3 0 m- 8 16 10 0 5 y- 0 3 0 0 3 L- 6 17 5 2 From C B.C. Alta-Man Ontario Quebec Maritimes 0 - 5 8 0 26 0 5 m- 28 20 3 2 2 0 y- 36 30 16 0 2 0 C- 2 * , 20 6 8 1 1 — 4 5 - ... U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 0 - 11 18 16 5 5 m- 11 14 9 6 5 y- 5 7 2 0 2 C- 9 1? 9 4 4 95 To 0 To K To Y To P TABLE li b From 0 B.C. Alta-Man Ontario Quebec Maritimes 0 - 13 0 0 4 4 8 m- 13 9 9 13 0 2 y- 46 11 22 3 0 0 0- 24 8 11 8 ## 3 — 3 2 U.S.A. . England Scotland Ireland Other 0 - 12 w42 4 0 12 m- 4 28 4 4 14 y- 0 5 3 3 8 0- 4 24 3 3 11 From K B.Gi ; Alta-Man Ontario Quebec Maritimes 0 - 5 0 5 32 0 0 m- 17 9 13 20 0 4 y- 40 .. 14 21 10 0 0 K- 24 9 15 18 0 2 —33- U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other o- 9 45 5 0 0 m- 7 26 2 2 0 v- .4 7 2 -0 2 K- 5 23 3 *# From Y B.C. Alta-Man Ontario Quebec Maritimes o- 0 0 0 37 0 12 m- 7 14 7 7 2 8 y- 50 14 14 0 0 4 Y- 19 12 9 7 1 7 — 3 1 - . U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 0 - 12 25 0 0 12 m- 12 25 12 0 9 y- .0 .4 0 0 11 Y- 8 19 7 - 0 9 From P B.C. . Alta-Man Ontario Quebec Maritimes m- 14 0 36 . 0 0 0 y- 21 7 65 7 0 . 0 P- 17 4 50 3 0 0 —2 1 - • U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other . m- 36 14 0 0 0 y- 0 0 0 0 0 P- 18 7 0 0 0 96 TABLE III Distribution of Informants by Age and Area *I= Vancouver Island L= Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland C= Cariboo Q= Okanagan K= Kootenay Y= Upper Ma in land-Yellow -head Route P= Peace River *Area I L C 0 K Y P . B.C. Age Decades 11-20. 7 9 13 8 12 5 2 . 56 21-30. 14 10 9 10 9 9 5 . 66 31-40. 5 9 5 4 3 8 4 . 38 41-50. 8 10 13 12 9 8 3 . 63 51-60. 5 12 14 11 11 14 0 . 67 61-70. 2 8 14 7 7 4 0 . 42 71-80. 6 9 4 4 4 0 0 . 27 81-90. 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 ... 9 Area Totals 69 57 55 48 14 . 368 Age Groups y-gp. 15-30. 21 19 22 18 21 14 7 . 122 m-gp. 31-60. 18 31 32 27 23 30 7 . 168 o-gp. 61-90. 13 19 19 12 11 4 0 . 78 Area Totals 52 6? 7J 55 48 14 . 368 97 TABLE IV t l Tomato f e i j . /kj fa\a.%oJ N -BC -60 . 91 7 3 168 -90 ?_4 l£: 10 ?8 D i s t r i b --ution^BC 8? 8 5 371 _ _ _ 22" I - 6 0 89 5 5 18 ~ -90 42 3J 25. 12 D i s t r i b - - ... ...... ~~ -ution-I 81. - . . 12 8 52 _ _ _ _ L - 6 0 100 . 0 - 0 31 ~ -90 80 10 10 20 D i s t r i b --ution-L 91 3 6 70 — ^ - ^ — C - 6 0 91 9 0 33 ~ - 9 0 79. 21 0 19 D i s t r i b -u t i o n ^ §2 12 1 7_5_ _ 90 5 ^TJTI 1 9 " 0 - 6 0 70 15 4 t l l 27 "* -90 ?J> 0 17t 8 12 D i s t r i b --ution - 0 78 9 6t 9 5_8_ ^30 100 1 0 6 21~ K -60 96 5 0 22 " - 9 0 81 2 9_ 11 D i s t r i b - .. . . . ! ! -ution-K . 95 4 2 54 _ gTj 7 7 T4~" Y =.60... 93 7 0 30 - 9 0 7J 25 0 4_ D i s t r i b --ution-Y 90 9 2 48 .. .-.30 100 .. 0 0. .7 .. P - 6 0 100 0 0 7 D i s t r i b - . -ution-P 100 0 0 14 98 TABLE IVt2 Vase / e i s / feizj fa? . M N , -30 9 30 59 1 2 128 BC -60 .. 8. . 26 .6.3. 1 3 168 -90 12 18 68 1 1 78 Dist rib.. . BC ... : 9 26 ". '. 63 1 2 374 -30 3 52 >3 0 0 21 I. .-60 ....... 0. 22 78 0 0 18 -90 • 31 54 0 0 13 D i s t r i b . . I 6 . ' . ' 37 58 : 0 0 52 -30 5 15 75 0 5 20 L -60 ., 0 20 77 0 3 31 " -?0 16 16 68 0 0 19 D i s t r i b . L . . ". . 6 ' " 19 73 0 "•- 3 70 -30 20 36 40 4 0 25 c: -60 13 31 56 0 0 . 32 ~ -90 11 16 74 0 0 19 D i s t r i b . C 15 29 57 . . * . * . . 0 76 -30 0 21 74 0 5 19 0 -60 7 22 56 4 11 27 ~ -90 8 17 67 0 8 12 D i s t r i b . 0 5 21 64 2 9 58 -30 14 18 68 0 0 21 K -60 0 17 78 0 4 23 " -90 8 19 64 9 0 11 D i s t r i b . K 7 16 73 2 2 55 -30 0 40 60 0 0 15 Y -60 13 37 50 0 0 30 -90 0 25 75 0 0 4 D i s t r i b . Y . "" 8 . . . . . . ^ .'." :5a "'' . 0 . . 0 . . 49 -30 29 29 43 0 . 0 7 P -60 43 29 29 0 0 7 D i s t r i b . P 36 29 36 0 0 14 99 TABLE. mt3,k Apricot A/ M 7 N Shone /bu7 N . -30 40 60 121 2 98 123 BC -60 42 58 164 1.. . 99 168 . -90 43 57 77 8 92 77 Distrib. BC 41 59 362 . . 2 98 368 -30 48 52 21 0 100 21 I -60 . 18 . 82 . 17 0 100 1.8 -90 39 62 13 15 85 13 Distrib. . .1 35 65 51 ". 4 '. 96 52 -30 41 59 17 0 100 19 L -60 60 40 30 0 .. . 100 . 31 -90 68 32 19 10 90 18 Distrib. .. L :; 58::. 42 66 3 • 97 68 -30 39 61 22 5 95 22 C -60 36 65 31 3 97 32 -90 4? 53 19 0 100 19 Distrib. C 39 61 72 1 99 73 -30 16 84 19 5 95 19 0-60 33 67 27 0 100 27 -90 17 83 12 17 83 12 Distrib. 0 24 76 58 5 95 58 -30 43 57 21 0 100 21 K -60 41 59 22 0 100 23 ~ -90 30 70 10 0 100 11 Distrib. K 40 '. 60 ". 53 0 100 55 -30 57 43 14 0 100 14 Y -60 40 60 30 0 100 30 -90 50 50 4 0 100 4 Distrib. Y 46 .54 48 0 100 . 48 .-30 57 43 7 . Q 100 7 P -60 71 29 7 0 100 7 Distrib.. P 64 36 14 0 100 14 Lever f£/ f i / 100 TABLE IV«5,6 N Root: M / V N -.30 BC -60 18 21 _2I 82 79 _6£. 122 168 _J8_ 4 5 1(5" 95 Sk. 123 168 _ 2 L D i s t r i b . BC 28 -30 I -60 -90 19 10 12. 368 ^1 90 i l 21 18 12. 5 0 J8_ ?5 ?69 95 100 62 21 18 1 2 D i s t r i b . I 21 -30 L -60 -90 21 36 26 _7_9_ IL 79 65 _7jL 19 31 12. 12 0 7 0 88 100 9k 100 19 31 12. D i s t r i b . L 22. -30 C -60 -90 27 13 J2_ -2L 69. 73 88 68 22 32 12. 9 12 •2Z. 91 88 -21 i9_ 22 33 12. D i s t r i b . . C 22 _7_8_ 12. 2L 7k_ -30 16 84 19 5 95 19 0 -60 19 82 27 0 100 26 -90 25 75 12 8 92 12 D i s t r i b . 0 19 81 58 4 96 57 -30 5 95 21 0 100 21 K -60 13 87 23 4 96 23 ~ -90 6k 36 11 0 100 11 D i s t r i b . K 25 75 55 2 98 54 -30 7 93 14 7 93 14 Y -60 20 80 30 0 100 30 " -90 25 75 4 0 100 4 D i s t r i b . Y 17 83 48 2 98 . 48 -30 29 71 7 • • 0 100 7 P -60 57 43 7 14 86 7 D i s t r i b . P 57 14 7 93 14 101 TABLE IVs? Soot faj fx] /A/ N . -30 92. 5 2 12~T~ BC -60 : 82 14 4 165 . -90 5J 22 8 78 Distrib. .  BC 80 1 5 5 366 _ _ . — - 0 2T~ I -60 89 6 6 18 -90 46 3J l i 13 Distrib. . . - -I 81 14 6 52 -30 95 5 0 19 L -60 90 3 7 30 =7^0 5J _J2 16 l i Distrib. ... L 81 12 7 68 -30 91 9 0 22 C -60 74 23 3 30 =29. 5J 22 11 i£ Distrib. C 75 21 4 71 _ _ _ _ _ 0 -60 89 7 4 27 l9_0 62 2J 8 12 Distrib. 0 86 : 9__ : $ 58 _ — _ - _ K -60 83 13 4 23 " -90 64 3_0 0 11_ Distrib. K 82 15 . it ; H — 0 lk~ Y -60 73 23 3 30 -90 ZS ?J 0 4 Distrib. Y 78 21 2 .48 -00 86 0 ~~~ 14 7. P -60 86 14 0 7_ Distrib. _P 86 2 J 14 102 TABLE IV«8,9 Route A / A T I / N Schedule M 7 ••£>• N -30 93 8 120 78 67 55 22 122 BC -60 -90 77 63 23 37 163 76 33 45 172 75 Distrib. BC 79 '• 21 359 70 - -.30 - 369 -30 I -60 -90 100 94 83 0 ..: 6..; 17 20 18 . 12 81 63 42 19 37 58 21 19 12 Distrib.. I 94 - 6 . 50 65 35 52 -30 L -60 -90 100 80 53 0 . 20. 47 18 30 19 95 70 41 5 30 59 19 22 17 Distrib. . L ;: 78:. 22 67 69 31 68 -30 C -60 -90 81 63 58 19 37 42 21 30 19 76 70 47 24 30 53 21 33 19 Distrib. C 67 33 70 66 34 73 -30 0 -60 -9© 100 96 67 0 4 33 19 25 12 70 62 67 30 38 33 20 29 12 Distrib. 0 91 9 .' . 56 65 35 61 -30 K -60 * -99 91 74 60 10 26 40 21 23 10 75 78 70 25 22 30 20 23 10 Distrib. K 78 22 54 74 26 53 -30 Y -60 -90 86 67 75 14 33 25 14 30 4 79 55 75 21 45 25 14 29 4 Distrib.. . Y 73 27 . 48 64 36 47 -30 -P -60 86 - . 71 14 29 7 7 57 86 3^ -14 7 7 Distrib. P 7? 22 14 71 29 14 103 TABLE IV:1 0 ,11 Rather fa? /vt0? N • ' Zebra , fe? A? N . . . - 3 0 92 ~8 123 23 77" i l 7 BC - 6 0 83 17 165 51 49 162 . - 9 0 74 26 73 4j? 51 74 D i s t r i b , -BC 85 15 361 m 41 59 353 . - 3 0 95 ~ ~ 5 2 1 " 14" 86" 21 I - 6 0 72 28 18 41 59 17 ~90 62 22 13 5J 45 11 Distrib.. I 79 21 52 33 6? 49. • - 3 0 95 5 19 6" 95 I F " " L - 6 0 83 17 30 43 57 30 - 9 0 • 72 28 18 5J 47 17 D i s t r i b . L §4 16 67 35 65 65 .. - 3 0 100 0 21 38 52 21 C. - 6 0 77 23 34 - 55 45 31 - 9 0 79 21 19. 42 58 , 19 D i s t r i b . . . . . . . C ...... 84 . 16. 74 . 45 55 71 T^Tj 90 10 19 28 72 r s 0 - 6 0 85 15 26 46 54 26 - 9 0 69 3JL 13. 5J) 50 12 D i s t r i b . 0. 85 l i 5J 41 . 59 56 130 974 5 18 21 79" 19 K - 6 0 100 0 22 68 32 22 - 9 0 60 40 10 ho 60 10 D i s t r i b . K 20 IQ 50__ 45 55 51 — — - — — Y - 6 0 . 86 14 28 59 41 29 - 9 0 75 2 J 4_ 8 0 20 5 D i s t r i b . Y 87 13 . 45 51 49 . 4? .. ^.30 100 0 7 29 71 7 P - 6 0 100 0 7 29. 21 7 D i s t r i b . _P 100' 0 14 29 71 14 104 TABLE IYi.12,13 Fath e r / b o t h e r . R NO N Caught/cot R NO N -30 78 22 iT8 ~ ~ 95 5 1T9" BC -60 72 28 166 89 11 166 -90 60 41 ?4 81 19 75 D i s t r i b . BC 72 29 358 . 90 10 360. "O 80 20 20 100 0 20" I -60 61 39 18 78 22 18 *90 -• 54 46 13 69 31 13 D i s t r i b . I • 67 . 33 51 . : .8 5 15 51 , -30 95 5 19 90 10 19" . L -60 . 83 27 30 93 7 30 -90 61 39 18 83 17 18 Distrib... L 81 19 67 90 10 67 _____ _ — 21 95 5 21~ C -60 75 25 32 94 6 32 -90 • 44 56 18 94 6 18 D i s t r i b . . C . 66 34 . 71 94 6 71 ~30 68 32 19 95 5 19~ 0 -60 63 37 27 82 18 27 -90 67 33 12 67 33 12 D i s t r i b . . ._. . 0 65 35 58 - 83 17 58 ^JO 6~8 32 19 100 0 19~ K -60 87 13 23 96 5 22 -90 68 23 9. 73 27 11 D i s t r i b . K 77 24 51 _________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ ^ _g ___ Y..--60. 69 31 29 93 7 29 -90 100 0 4 100 0 4_ D i s t r i b . Y 80 20 46 .91 ... 9 46 -30 : . .57. 43 .7- ~Tb~0 0 7~ P -60 43 57 Z 86 14 7_ D i s t r i b . _P 50 50 14 93 7 14 105 TABLE IVsl4,15 •k - -Marr-y/merry R . , • NO . N Aunt/ant R NO N -30 72 28 120 . 9.7 . 3 119 BC -60 46 54 166 .1.. ' 92 8 165 -90 29 71 75 85 15 74 D i s t r i b . . -BC 52 48 361 93 ? 358. -30 : 07 : 33 ' 21 Too 0 21 I -60 33 67 18 89 11 18 -90 -- 15 8 5 13 67 33 12 D i s t r i b . .  -. . . 1 42 58 52 88 1.2 ... 51-_ _ _ _ _ __ L -60 40 60 30 90 10 30 ~ -90 39 61 18 <_4 6 18 D i s t r i b . L 46 54 67 93 -8 671 -30 65 35 22 95 5 2 1 C -60 50 50 32 94 6 32 -90 33 67 18 8J 17 18 D i s t r i b . _ . . C 51 49 7_2 9_2 8 71 -,30 ' 74" 2? 19 100 0 19 0 -60 48 52 27 85 15 27 ~ -90 25 75 12 8_2 17 12 D i s t r i b . 0 52 48 58 9_Q 10 58 -30 90 10 19 100 0 19 K -60 44 57 23 100 0 23 -90 30 70 10 9J) 10 10 D i s t r i b . K 58 42 52 98 2 52 _____ _^ _ _ ^ _ Y .-60 57 43 28 100 0 ... 28 ~ -90 25 75 4_ 100 C) 4 D i s t r i b . '. • • /.Y 62 38 45 . 96 4„ 45 -30 71 29 7 100 0 7 P -60 43 57 Z §6 14 7 D i s t r i b . ^ _P 57 43 14 22 Z lit 106 TABLE IV : l6 , 17 Le isure/p leasure., R NO N Bury/furry. R NO N -30 ~50 50 117 34 66 119 BC -60 67 33 163 26 74 166 -90 61 40 76 31 69 75 Distrib-.- • • . • BC 62 38 356 30 70 360 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - . . - - • ^ 5 21 I -60 53 47 17 33 ~ 67 18 *90 85 15 13 31 69 13 Distrib. . I 64 36 50 31 69 52 _____ __ _ _ __ — L. --60 57 43 30 30 70 30 -90 • 50 50 18 39 61 18 D i s t r i b . L 54 46 67 33 67 67 -30 57 53 21 41 55 21 C -60 66 34 32 28 72 32 ~ -90 63 37 19 28 72 18 Distrib. C 63 38 72 34 66 71 _____ __ _ __ _ __ __. — 0 - 6 0 88- 12 25 26 74 27 " -90 67 33 12 17 83 12 Distrib. . 0 68 32 56 24 76 . 58 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — K -60 74 26 23 9 91 23 -90 90 10 10 50 50 10 Distrib. K 64 37 52 . 21 79 52 ______ __ _^ — ; ^ ___ _ Y -60 69 31 29 25 75 28 -90 100 0 4_ . 0 100 4 Distrib. . .... Y 63 37 45 28 72 45 -30 : 57 ... 43 , 7 57 43 7 P -60 43 57 7 57 43 7 Distrib. _P_ 50 50 14 57 43 14 107 T A B L E , I V : 18-19 M o u r n i n g / m o r n i n g . R.. . NO N H o a r s e / h o r s e .. , R NO N . . -30 $2 8 1T9 97 3 118" BC -.66. 94 6 165 92 8 165 - 9 0 90 10 76' 88 12 76 D i s t r i b . . . . _. .. . BC 92 8 360 92 8 359 - 3 0 1 0 0 0 20 9o 4 2 2 I -.60 89 11 18 88 12 17 - 9 0 ; 8 J _5 1_ 95 15 13 D i s t r i b . -I 90 10 51 90 10 52 -30 90 10 19 90 10 19 L .^60 90 10 30 93 7 30 ~ - 9 0 83 17 18 94 6 18 D i s t r i b . . L 88 12 67 93 7 67 -30 90 10 21 100 0 21 C -60 91 9 32 94 6 32 -90 95 $ 19 90 10 19 D i s t r i b . . C 92 8 72 - 94 .6. 72 -30 90 10 19 90 10 20 0 -.60 100 0 27 - . • . . . . . 100 0 26 - 9 0 92 8 12 92 8 12 D i s t r i b . 0 : 95 5 58 . : 95 5 58 -30 95 5 19 100 0 19 K - 6 0 100 0 23 96 4 23 - 9 0 90 10 10 80 20 10 D i s t r i b . K 96 4 52 94 6 52 -30 : 85 15 13 85 15 13 Y -60 97 3 28 86 14 28 "" - 9 0 100 0 4 100 0 4 D i s t r i b . Y - ; 93 7 45 87 13 4 5 -30 ~~~ "Too ' 0 ' 7 ' ~ .. 1.0.0 0 .7 P -60 86 14 7_ 100 0 6 D i s t r i b . _ P 93 7 14 100 0 13 108 TABLE IV:20,21 F a i r y / f e r r y ,R , NO. N^ " Mary/merry R NO N .. -30 3- 8 119 88 12 l T F BC -60 89 11 166 8? 13 1.65 -90 81 19 75 72 _2 ZZ D i s t r i b . . . BC- 88 12 360 85 15 358 ________ __ 5 21 ' 86* 14" 22* I -60 94 6 18 82 18 17 -90 77 23 13 ZZ 2J 13_ D i s t r i b . I- 90 10 52 83 17 52 , -30 ~ 90 10 19 ' 74" 26* 19 L -60 90 10 30 87 13 30 -90 83 17 18 8_? 11 18 D i s t r i b . L ...... 88 1.2 67 84, 16 . 67 -30 90 10 21 80 20 20 C -.60 87 13 32 88 12 32 -90 78 22 18 67 33 18 D i s t r i b . C 86 14 71 - •  - 80 20 70 -30 95 5 19 95 5 19 0 -60 85 15 27 89 11 27 -90 92. 8 12 7_5 2_2 12 D i s t r i b . 0 90 10 58 .. 88 12 58 -30 95 5 19 Too 0 19 K -60 91 9 23 87 13 23 7 -90 7_0 30 10 60 40 10 D i s t r i b . _ K 88 12 52 86 14 52 I30 85 "15 13 ' ; 53 i l 13 Y -.60 90 10 29 ... 89 11 28 -90 100 g 4 100 g 4 Distrib... .. - Y .87 13 46 89 11 45 . -30 Too . 0 .7 10.0 0 .,.7. P -60 86 14 Z_ 86 14 Z. D i s t r i b . . . _P 9J 7 14 9J 7 14 109 TABLE V . Number of Informants t Provincial and Mainland Sample Groups Students Adults (y-group) (m-group) PQ3 122 168 SCE 697 563 PQ3-(I+GV), 95 137 Rodman 114 128 110 TABLE. VI Distribution of Variants; Provincial and Mainland Surveys A = PQ3 C = PQ.3-CI+GV) B = SCE D = Rodman Students (y-group) A B C D A 1 C D 1. Tomato / e i 7 92 93 93 97 91 89 90 84 M 4 3 4 3 7 7 11 10 4 4 3 1 3 4 3 6 2. Vase /eis/ 9 8 10 8 8 11 9 7 f-eizj 30 28 24 30 26 26 33 24 fz>J 59 46 63 51 63 49 54 53 fx? 1 2 1 l 1 1 1 1 2 15 1 10 3 12 1 14 3. Apricot M 7 60 51 63 57 58 52 56 62 M 40 49 48 43 42 49 44 37 5. Lever 18 26 19 18 21 10 21 11 A / 82 74 81 82 79 88 79 89 Adults (m-group) A = PQ3 G = PQ3-(I+GV.) Students (y-group) 7. 9. A B C Soot 92 78 91 / V 6 20 6 2 2 3 Route 8 19 10 / V 93 81 90 Schedule /sk/ 78 84 75 22 16 25 Father/bother R 78 68 76 NO 22 32 26 Caught/cot R 9^ 86 94 NO 5 13 7 111 TABLE VI B-= SCE . D = Rodman Adults (m-group) D A B c D 78 82 87 80 84 22 14 12 16 13 1 4 1 5 2 21 23 25 27 27 79 77 75 73 73 86 67 72 70 73 14 33 26 31 26 71 ; 72 69 66 72 29 28 30 34 28 90 89 89 9P 85 10 11 10 10 15 A = PQ3 0 = PQ3-(I+0V) A 15» Aunt/ant R 97 NO 3 Students (y-group) B C 83 15 16. Leisure/pleasure R 50 36 NO 50 61 1?. Bury/furry R 34 34 NO 66 65 96 4 4? 53 33 67 112 TABLE VI B: D 89 11 37 63 33 67 D = SCE Rodman A 92 8 67 33 27 74 Adults (m-group) B C 87 13 39 59 25 76 93 7 69 31 27 63 D 83 16 42 59 26 68 113 TABLE: v n Number of I n f o r m a n t s { R e g i o n a l Sample Groups Students  PQ3 G-P Vancouver I s l a n d (I) 21 42 Lower . Mainland GV- 5 nGV-14 (Van.) 2 4 6 _ l Z* 19 (Hope) Cariboo (C) 22 Okanagan ( O f Kootenay (K) , Y Upper  Mainland (Y) 18 21 83 14 SCE 135 152 12 48 28 A d u l t s PQ3 (o-gp) m-gp (19) (12) (11) 31 13 18 31 32 27 23 30 G-P 8-9 a p r i c o t  route 16? tomato vase 18? tomato  vase 11-12. a p r i c o t route 24 SCE 113 28 T4T 18 25 42 14 114 TABLE VIII Distribution of Variants; Regional Surveys . . Students Adults PQ3 . . .G-P SCE PQ_ (o-gpTT G-P SCE 1. Tomato MJ 95 98 - (42) 89 24 -I fe? 5 2 - (33) 5 47 -Sia.,0? 5 0 _ (2 5) 5 30 _ MS 90 96/ 93 100 - 83 L fa/ 0 3 2 0 - 9 10 1 5 0 _ 8 MS 87 - 90 91 - 83 C fa? 9 _ - 10 9 - 0 /z>;a,a/ 4 — 0 0 _ 17 MS 90 - 94 (75) 70 56 80 0 faS 5 - (0) 15 38 6 /bia.a/ 5 _ 2 (25) 15 6 0 MS 100 100 100 (81) 96 92 83 I ft 0 0 0 (9) 5 0 10 /bi^.a/ 0 0 0 (9) 0 8 7 MS 100 - 100 100 - 85 Y fa? 0 - 0 0 - 7 fax*, A? 0 - 0 0 - 8 115 TABLE VIII • Students  PQ3 G-P SCE 2. Vase Adults PQ3 G-P (o-gpTT"m-gp) •*/a/ includes fa/ and /Q/ /-eis./ / e i z / fa] / a / 3 52 43 0 0 41 52 _2_ (15) 0 6 '.(3D 22 6 • (54) 78 89 (0) 0 0 GV nGV GV nGV GV nGV GV nGV /"-eis/ /"-eiz/ 15 75 50 35 13 32 39 15 0 20 77 /"-eis/ /-eiz/ ^ / V a / 20 36 40 4 8 13 -33 31 -42 56 -17 0 8 (8) 7 6 23 , (19) 22 6 52 (64) 56 75 17 , (8) 15 12 0 / e i s / / e i z / 0 21 74 _ _ 116 TABLE VIII PQ3 Students G-P . SCE PQ3 (o-gpT!-m Adults G-P -gP. SCE 14 5 6 " (8) 0 0 5 K /"-eiz/ 18 12 40 (19) 17 25 25 68 83 54 (64) 78 71 55 V a / 0 0 0 (8) 4 4 15 f-eisj 0 - 0 13 - 7 Y /"-eiz/ 40 - 22 37 - 21 A / 60 67 50 - 57 V a / 0 _ 11 0 14 3o Apricot' & only I 48 - - (39) 18 17 . .-GV L ~ nGV 41 - 40 60 -40 29 C 39 - 60 47 .42 0 16 -. - ...... .. 4? (17) 33 25 36 K . 43 31 30 (30) .41 . 34 . .40 Y 5-7 - .. .. 60 '. 40. - . .60 117 TABLE VIII Students PQ3 G-P SCE Adults PQ3 G-P (o-gp7Jm-gp. SCE 5• Lever /£/ only I . 19 7 . .. - . . . . . GV L *~ nGV 21 ..••).. 5 24 •t 36 15 10 .. C 27 5 13 i l 0 16 - . 22 19 - 4 K 5 4 20 (64) 13 8 18 Y 7 - 10 20 7 6. Root1 faj only K 0 0 (0) 4 17 7. Soot I A 7 GV nGV GV nGV GV nGV 0 K /V _ V A7 _____ A / _____ 95 5 o 95 o 91 9 0 95 0 _ I 91 5 ___ 86 14 0 118 TABLE VIII Students  PQ3 . Gj-P . 67 2 ___. 71 23 99 1 0 SCE 68 30 83 17 0 75 25 0 82 15 _2_ 90 10 0 Adults PQ3 G-P (o-gpT)m-gp. (64) (30) _ _ _ i 90 73 23 _ 1 89 7 4 83 13 4 73 23 0 92 0 8 SCE 83 18 6 1 _2_ 89 80 16 4 86 14 0 93 7 0 119 TABLE VIII PQ_ Students G-P SCE 7. Route I . /atr/ only . 0 Adults  PQ3 . G_P SCE (o-gp7) m-gp. (17) 25 0 11 20 17 19 25 38 38 0 a 18 (33) 4 . 37 23 K 10 12 20 (40) 26 21 30 14 22 29 9. Schedule I K /$/ o n l y 19 23 16 24 30 25 21 11 23 18 16 (30) 20 30 30 38 26 26 45 27 21 20 25 43 120 TABLE VIII . Students SCE 10. Rather /it/ o n l v I 5 32 A d u l t s PQ3 . G-P SCE (o-gpT/m-gp. £ 5 11 - . K 6 4 - 0 17 11. Zebra /&/ I - 23 10 _ 5 10 - - -K 21 6 68 35 -12. Father/bother /R/ K 68 99 64 (68) 87 88 74 13. Caught/cot /R/ K 100 100 96 (73) 96 96 79 121 TABLE V I I I Students PQ3 G-P , . SCE 15. Aunt faJ o n l y I . . 0 - ...... . . A d u l t s PQ3 G-P SCE (o-gp7T"m-gp. 11 - . . -GV L 5 19 nGV 28 10 18 C 5 - 8 6 - 6 0 0 - 17 15 - 13 K 0 0 3 (10) 0 4 21 Y 0 - . 10 14 . 14 16. L e i s u r e /_/ o n l y I 60 51 * . GV 40 L 53 33 nGV 53 45 57 43 57 C 57 - 33 66 - 35 0 42 . - . 2 0 88 - 58 K 37 22 30 (90) 74. 46 33 Y 42 - 45 69 - 35 „ 122 TABLE VIII 17. Bury Students SCE (o-gpT*f Adults 1 G-P m.gp. , SCE I 24 . 20 . - -GV L . nGV . 32 35 34 30 -48 32 C ._ 46 .. ..... - 31 . 28. . ' - ... 26 0 26 - .. . 26 26 - _. 24 K ..... 21 1 . 32 (50) 9 8 32 I 46 - 18 25 - . 20 18. Mourning" _w K 5 0 - (10) 0. 0 -19. Hoarse _ W K 0 0 - (20) 5 0 -21. Fairy M7 K 5 0 . . . . - (30) 9 . 4 -Mary / e l / K 0 0 - (40) 13 17 -123 VANCOUVER ISLAND AND THE GULF ISLANDS (I) Major Roads Ferry Routes — — — 1. to the Fraser Valley 2 . to the U.S.A. 3. to the Upper Mainland and Alaska The key to the letter code for communities for this and following maps can be found in Table I (p.89). - 1 124 MAP H i FRASER VALLEY-LOWER MAINLAND (L) Boundary- L/C, 0 Major Roads . Ferry Routes • Railways , 1. PGE 2. CPR & CNR Rivers and Waterways 3. Fraser River 4. Harrison Lake 5. Lillooet River and Lake 126 Rivers and Waterways 4. Thompson River 5. Shuswap Lakes 127 MAP Yt OKANAGAN (0) K Boundaries- 0/L, Major Roads a v + e r d M i d w E E R -y* u y BlJ.S.A {WS shingti Rivers and Waterways 1. Similkameen River 2. Okanagan River and Lake 3. Shuswap Lakes 4. Kettle River Rai lways ____________ 5 • CPR 6! Kettle Valley 128 MAP VI i KOOTENAY (K) n g u Boundary- K/O, C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Major Roads • Railways _______ 4. CPR 5. Kettle Valley Rivers and Waterways 1. Columbia River 2. Arrow Lakes 3. Kootenay River and Lake Passes 6. Kicking Horse 7. Crow's Nest MT U ALBERTA e Boundary- Y/C _____ Major Roads Railway (CNR) Rivers and Waterways 1. Burke Channel 2. Dean Channel 3. Skeena River k. Bulkley River 5. Nass River 6. Babine Lake 131 MAP VHIbi UPPER MAINLAND-EAST (Ye) Boundaries Y/ C, P Major Roads Railways ____________ 1. PGE Yukon , V s i (see Map Villa) 133 ^P_Xi B.C.. AND POJ SUB-AREAS N.W.T. \ \ \ I = Vancouver Island L = Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland C = Cariboo 0 = Okanagan K = Kootenay Y = Upper Mainland-Yellow'head Route / Alberta Washington ana tomato / e i / H apricot f e i j H V/AL lever fi/ H 139 MAP XVI» AGE GROUP VARIATIONS The o-Group *}T=~High L =_Low 6. root / ^ j / H u n - J marted 16. leisure /*£/ H 140 1 ' tomato / e i / H III ||L 3. apricot / i i 7 H KX/lL 8» route /u/ H |J^JL MAR.XVII^  AGE GROUP VARIATIONS The m-Group *H = High L = Low 10. rather m m 16. leisure f£,J H frj H[>£ L | marfked 141 2» " vase:: £p/ H III ML 2b. vase /eiz/ H |9IL 3. apricot / e i / H IVXIL 8» route [v] H <j^L y ^ j MAP XVIIIi AGE GROUP VARIATIONS. The y-Group *H = High L = Low 11. zebra fij H | \ | L [\J 12. father = bother L 14, marry / merry "IHJ HEBL__ 142 MAP XIX; AGE GROUP S.G. The o-Group_ !• / e i / i n tomato 3. / e i / in apricot 5. / i / in lever 6. in root 145 MAP XXIIi D i s t r i b u t i o n of Variants of Apricot i n 0 and Ce PQ3 area boundaries -_. — The key to the l e t t e r code for communities can be found i n Table I ( 151 ABBREVIATIONS (+)A- American (+)B- British C- Cariboo Ce- Eastern Cariboo H- (Map XIV) High I- Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands K- Kootenay L- Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland L- (Map XIV) Low mrgroup- informants aged 31 to 60 0- Okanagan o-group- informants aged 6l to 90 P- Peace River Y- Upper Mainland-Yellowhead Route y-group- informants aged 15 to 30 For the key to the letter coding of communities see Table I (p.89). 152 BIBLIOGRAPHY Avis, W.S., "Speech Differences along the Ontario-United States Border: III, Pronunciation," JCLA II (1956), pp.41-50. ."The English Language in Canada," in Sebeok, T. ed., Current Trends in Linguistics, v.10, (1973), pp.40-74. * ."The Phonemic Segments of an Edmonton Idiolect," in Davis, L.M. ed., Studies in Honor of Raven McDavid. University of Alabama Press, 1972, pp.239-50. Goetsch, Paul, "Das kanadasche Englisch," Anglia. v.81, (1966) pp.56-81. Gregg, R.J., "Notes on the Pronunciation of Canadian English as * Spoken in Vancouver, B.C.," JCLA III (1957), pp.20-6 * . "Neutralization and Fusion of Vocalic Phonemes in Canadian English as Spoken in the Vancouver Area," JCLA III (1957), pp.90-8. . . . "The Linguistic Survey of British Columbia: the Koot-enay Region," in Darnell, R. ed., Canadian Languages in  their Social Context, Linguistic Research, Inc., Edmonton, 1973. Hamilton, Donald E., "Notes on Montreal English," JCLA IV (1958), pp.70-9. . "The English Spoken in Montreal: a Pilot Study," Master's Thesis, the University of Montreal, 1958. Kurath, Hans, Studies in Area Linguistics, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and London, 1972. Labov, W., Socioiinguistic Patterns, University of Philadelphia Press, 1972. Ormsby, Margaret, British Columbia: a History, Evergreen Press Vancouver, 1958. Poison, James, "Extracts from a Survey of the Speech of Vancouver High School Students," paper presented at the Annual Meet-i n g of the C.L.A., June, 1965. . "A Linguistic Questionnaire for British Columbia: a Plan for a Postal Survey of Dialect Variation in B.C., with an Account of Recent Research," Master's Thesis, the Univ-e r s i t y of B.C., 1969. 153 Reed, Carroll E., "The Pronunciation of English in the American North-West,M Language. XXXVII, (l?6l), pp.559-64. . Dialects of American English, University of Massachus-e t t s Press, 1973. Reed, David W., "A Statistical Approach to Quantitative Linguist--ic Analysis," Word, v.5, (1949), pp.235-47. Rodman, Li l i t a , "Characteristics of B.C. English," The English  Quarterly, v.vii, Number 4, (Winter 1974/75), pp.49-82. Scargill, M.H., Modern Canadian English Usage: a Historical  Perspective, McClelland and Stewart. Toronto. 1974. . and Warkentyne, H., "The Survey of Canadian English: a Report," The English Quarterly, v.v, Number 3, 1972. Warkentyne, H., "Dialect Survey Questionnaire: British Columbia," unpub. . "Contemporary Canadian English," American Speech, v.46, "f3~4, (1971), pp.193-99. Wolfram, W. and Fasold, R.W., The Study of Social Dialects in American English, Prentice Hall, N.J., 1974. Wood, Gordon R., Vocabulary Change: a Study of Variation in Regional Words in Eight of the Southern States, Southern Illinois University Press, 1971. * reprinted in: Chambers, J.K., Canadian English: Origins and Structures. Methuen, 1975. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094132/manifest

Comment

Related Items