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

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1977_A8 S76.pdf [ 12.12MB ]
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

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  presenting  an  advanced  the I  Library  this  degree shall  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by h i s of  at make  that  written  thesis  it  freely  may  is  financial  of  University  of  British  ^fJcst  -*?A^  of  Columbia,  British  by  for  gain  Columbia  shall  the  that  not  requirements I  agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying  t h e Head o f  understood  Linguistics  2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  of  for extensive  be g r a n t e d  It  fulfilment  available  permission.  Department  Date  partial  permission  purposes  for  in  the U n i v e r s i t y  representatives.  this  The  thesis  of  or  that  study.  this  thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t  my  ABSTRACT The primary object of this thesis i s 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 i n 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 i s 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 i s d i f f i c u l t  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. II. III.  A BRIEF HISTORY OF B.C METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS  17  ANALYSIS OF PQ3_ RESULTS  30  IV.  COMPARISON OF FQ3 RESULTS WITH THOSE OF OTHER SURVEYS V. B.C. DIALECTOLOGY:"SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Appendix I. II.  5  54 74  THE QUESTIONNAIRE.  84  TABLES AND MAPS......................................  89  ABBREVIATIONS.............................................. 151 BIBLIOGRAPHY 152  iii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Bivariate Table of Responses to Items 12 and 1 3 . . 2 . Bivariate Table of Responses to Items 18 and 1 9 . . 3. Bivariate Table of Responses to Items 20 and 21.. 4. Graph Illustrating the Method of Assigning Values to POJI. Sub-areas..................., 5 , Assigned. Values for PQ3 Areas: Overall Distribution 6. Significant Age Group Changes in Areas...... 7 . Assigned Values for PQ3 Areas: the o-Group.. 8. Assigned Values for PQ3 Areas J the m-Group.. 9. Assigned Values for PQ3 Areas: the y-Group.. 1 0 . Sample Sizes i n Lower Mainland Groups....... Table I. Communities Represented. in PQ3_............... I l a , 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 Mainl a n d 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  iv  Map  I-IX. Location of Communities Represented I. Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands (I) I I . Fraser Val ley-Lower Mainland (L) I I I . Western Cariboo (Cw)........................ IV. Eastern Cariboo (Ce)........................ V. Okanagan ( 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  VI. Kootenay (K)." VII. Upper Mainland-West (Yw) V i l l a . Upper Mainland-North TYn) VHIb. Upper Mainland-East (YeJ IX. Peace River (P) X. B.C. and the Sub-areas XI- ' XIII. Area Variations XI. Tomato, Route , XII. Vase .XIII. Apricot..................................... XIV. Summary of Area Variations.. XV. Area S.G. XVIXVIII. Age Group Variations XVI. The o-Group XVII. The m-Group XVIII. The y-Group XIXXXI. Age Group S.G. XIX. The o-Group XX. The m-Group XXI. The y-Group XXII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Variants of Apricot i n 0 and Ce T XXIII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Variants of Route i n 0 and Ce....... XXIV. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Variants of Leisure i n 0 and Ce. XXV. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Variants of Apricot i n K............ XXVI. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Variants of Route i n K XXVII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Variants of Leisure i n K  123 124 125 126 127  128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 14Q 141 142 143 144 145  146  147  148 149 150  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 L i l i t a Rodman, who provided inspiration, advice and encouragement—with a large measure of patience and forbearance.  1  INTRODUCTION The f i r s t articles describing speech i n 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 i n 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 conducte d among some two hundred students' i n three Vancouver high schools.  The survey questionnaire was designed to e l i c i t variet-  -ies of pronunciation of approximately f i 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 naire  1 9 6 9 »  ( P Q 3 ) .  the Linguistic Survey of B.C.; Postal Question-  designed to gather not only phonological but also  syntactic and lexical information had assumed i t s f i n a l form. (3) The assembly of questionnaires, the search for possible informants, mailing of questionnaires and preliminary screening of returns was carried on u n t i l 1 9 7 3 when i t became apparent that few addit-  2  - i o n a l informants could be reached by mail. While the above was i n 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 n a t i o n a l rather  than a p r o v i n c i a l project, no attempt was made to sub-categorize B.Ci data on a regional b a s i s j however, such a sub-categorization can be found i n Rodman, 1975* at least with regard to Greater Vancouver and the rest of the B.C. mainland. The search f o r PQ3 Informants was abandoned i n the spring of 1 9 7 3 .  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 B r i t i s h Columbia.  In the  summer of 1973» I undertook the analysis of the data of the phon- o l o g i c a l section.  I f I cannot claim recognition f o r the develop-  -ment of the questionnaire, f o r the location of so many suitable informants or f o r the computer programming of data, I must assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the f i n a l screening of informants, f o r the decision as to t h e i r grouping by area and age group and f o r the interpretation of the data  compiled.  In analysing PQ3 data, I was primarily concerned with the d i s t r i b u t i o n of word variants i n the province as a whole, on the s h i f t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n of variants from older to younger generation speakers and on the discovery of regional d i a l e c t areas-- i f such existed--within the province.  I was also interested i n the c o r r e l -  -ation of PQ3 data with that obtained from the previous d i a l e c t  3  surveys outlined above. In analysing PQ3 and comparable data, I became increasi n g l y aware of the d i f f i c u l t i e s 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 w i l l contribute in some meaningful way to our knowledge of B.C. dialect.  4  NOTES  1)  Poison, 1 9 6 5 .  2)  Poison,  3)  Poison 1 9 6 9 .  4)  Scargill and Warkentyne, 1972 j Scargill, 1 9 7 4 .  19691  Gregg,  1973#  5  CHAPTER I Neither studied  dialect  g e o g r a p h y n o r s o c i a l d i a l e c t o l o g y c a n be  e f f e c t i v e l y without  cultural milieu.  Students  reference  o f l a n g u a g e change must r e f e r  h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t s and o r group o f communities is  to a h i s t o r i c a l or a  s o c i o l o g i c a l changes  to  i n the  i n which the language under  community  observation  spoken. Since  are  the survey,  essentially pilot  history  or surveys,  considered  studies, a detailed  i n this  discussion of  i s n o t e s s e n t i a l ? however, b r i e f r e f e r e n c e  thesis B.C.  should  be made  to: 1) d a t e s  of settlement  2) o r i g i n s  o f the f i r s t  3) d e v e l o p m e n t the  borders  of the  links  B.C.  Information  other  hand,  o f communications  on d a t e s  and  c a n e a s i l y be  found  immigrants  and  beyond  difficult  p r i o r t o the date  concept  o f e t h n i c group i n h e r e n t  of  There are  c e n s u s and due  few  to the  i n the r e c o r d i n g o f census  census f i g u r e s a r e o f l i t t l e use.  of  r e s i d e n t s , on t h e  to o b t a i n .  o f the f i r s t  be c l a s s i f i e d  and d e v e l o p m e n t  i n a general history  on t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f B.C.  i s extremely  r e s i d e n t would  later  l i n k s w i t h i n and  of settlement  records  existing  settlers  province,  province.  Information communications  o f v a r i o u s p a r t s o f the  F o r example,  as E n g l i s h w h e t h e r  his f i r s t  a  data, B.C.  ancestor  6 emigrating to the North American continent reached B.C. i n 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 t i p 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 the s o c i a l and 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 b e c o u n t e d o n t o d e s p i s e the c r a s s e r values of the ' 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) During colonial higher sent  -tired the  policy  class  to  English the  officers of  i n the  of  With  new  of e d  the  and  new  into  gold-fields of  public  the  the  miners  the  miners  came  who  found t h e i r  By  1886,  a  the  and  (among  1852,  the  miners  railway  Lumbering  of  British  Americans',  lower  re-  bought Coraox  proprietors. class  graduates into  Navy  absorbed  latter  landed  and  of  the  V i c t o r i a was  could en  from San  possibility  Bay  begun  servantsi English  Univ-  political  life  rapidly  transmut-  barred  forever.  become  a  be  route  to  the  Francisco. profits  tradesmen  in Victoria  Cariboo As  boomed, and  a  primary  with  stream with  investors  company  mining operations  Nanaimo  the  society.  Company w i t h  coal  linked  not  of  American  places  Hudson's had  of  miners  Fort  others)  firmly had  of  the  respective  the  Cowichan and  entered  element  shipload at  of  these  the  men,  Fort  influence  (4)  non-British  arrived  in  class  who  short,  England'.  first  Staffordshire  and  pro-British  Company g r a d u a l l y  middle  schools,  the  officers  Many o f  a  arrived  In  increased  In  Bay  society'.  of  this  'land-grabbing  Hudson's  areas  that  Under  of  young p r o f e s s i o n a l  'Little  1859t  seemed  and  from  founders  colony.  But In  colony  settlers  arrived  e r s i t i e s  settlers  the  it  maintained.  surrounding  becoming  later,  decade  be  'polite  valleys, the  next  might  protect  graces  farms  the  in  of Nanaimo.  Victoria.  industry  in  the  Cowichan  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 f i r s t pulp and paper mill was built in Port Alberni i n 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 u n t i l 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. Boston Bar.  In the spring of 1859» the men moved north to  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 Atlant i c seaboard and Canada. A road providing easy transport of goods and gold was clearly necessary i n 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 i n 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 d i f f i c u l t y 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 -loops.  Kam-  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 i n -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  still  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 prov i d e d an alternate route to the old Brigade t r a i l from New Caledonia 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 i a 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 u n t i l the C.P.R. established i t s western terminus in the new city of Vancouver (and shortly after, the f i r s t ship from the orient arrived i n the harbor) that the balance of commercial ent e r p r i s e 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 i s 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 i n 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 way  of the r a i l -  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 u n t i l Vancouver acquired i t s 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, o f f i c i a l s 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 f i r s t white settlement i n the Okanagan was establish-ed at Okanagan Mission i n 1859*  Here, the Oblate Fathers grew  fruit trees and grape vines, thus initiating what was to become the  major industry i n 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 1899,  1892,  the f i r s t  commercial orchards were p l a n t e d , i n  an a d v e r t i s i n g campaign was  w i t h c a p i t a l to the a r e a .  commenced to a t t r a c t farmers  The a d v e r t i s i n g campaign  induced many  r e t i r e d business men and farmers as w e l l as younger sons o f noble E n g l i s h f a m i l i e s to purchase ranches near Kelowna and  Vernon.  Throughout the f o l l o w i n g y e a r s , immigration and expansion i n c r e a s ed.  A l a r g e number o f immigrants came from England but many  p r a i r i e farmers were a t t r a c t e d to the area around Peachland, Summerland and Naramata. the  As a f i n a l s t e p i n the development  of  Okanagan V a l l e y , a massive i r r i g a t i o n p r o j e c t i n i t i a t e d i n the  e a r l y n i n e t e e n - t w e n t i e s , converted the semi-desert country around Oosoyoos and O l i v e r i n t o a r a b l e  land.  A g o l d s t r i k e near F o r t S t e e l e ( i n the East  Kootenay)  drew miners from Washington and Montana, prompting c o l o n i a l - i a l s to p r o t e c t B.C.  i n t e r e s t s by p o s t i n g g o l d commissioners at  F o r t Shepherd and S t . Joseph's P r a i r i e ing  offic-  the Dewdney T r a i l  (Cranbrook) and by extend-  from :the Similkameen to the new  The f i r s t R.C.M.P., barracks west o f the Rockies was F o r t S t e e l e and from t h e r e , steamer t r a f f i c -ay R i v e r i n t o Montana. i n the e i g h t e e n - n i n e t i e s j  C o a l was  strike  area.  situated at  f o l l o w e d the Kooten-  d i s c o v e r e d i n the East  Kootenay  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 e a s t e r n  B.C.  Among the f i r s t permanent s e t t l e m e n t s i n the n o r t h e r n p a r t o f the Kootenay, were Golden and F a r w e l l (Revelstoke) which were e s t a b l i s h e d as c o n s t r u c t i o n camps d u r i n g the b u i l d i n g o f the C.P.R.  13 The raining boom i n the West Kootenay began i n 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 f i 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 establ i s h e d at Rivers Inlet and on Princess Royal Island i n 1909. When in 1908 the announcement was made that the Grand Trunk Railway intended to extend i t s 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 i n 1915 with i t s 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-  t r y } 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 i t s 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 f i n a l l y 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 continuous 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 represe n t a t i o n (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 i n the last century have not been included. Hope, for example, was founded in 1849, but i t s population dwindled after Yale became the terminus of the Cariboo Road, and i n effect, i t has been resettled i n 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 i n the selected communities was as follows* A letter of request for names of informants was sent to the secretary-treasurers of school districts i n which the selecte 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 i s not used i n the same way everywhere. People who l i v e i n d i f f e r e n t areas often use d i f f e r e n t words f o r the same object, or i f they use the same words t h e i r pronunciation-may be d i f f e r e n t . We want to investigate the speech patterns of the people born i n B.C. We know that people here don't t a l k i n just the same way that people from the United Spates, the Mar-itimes, or even the P r a i r i e s do. We know, i n fact, that there are some differences between people from d i f f e r e n t parts of the province. What we intend to do i s send out questionnaires to people from a l l over the province and then analyse the r e s u l t s . The r e s u l t s should t e l l us a l o t about our Canadian language--as we speak i t i n B.C., at any rate--and about the differences between regions... .... To make t h i s project work the people who answer the questionnaire must be chosen very c a r e f u l l y We need people who were born i n a p a r t i c u l a r area and have lived there most of t h e i r l i v e s . For every community we are t r y i n g to find three people ©f d i f f e r e n t age groups. We need a) an o l d - t i m e r — the older the-better as long as the person i s s t i l l mentally a l e r t and w i l l have no trouble with reading and w r i t i n g . b) a young person, preferably between 19 and 25.  c) someone mid-way between old and young, preferably between 35 and 5 5 * Each one of these people must meet the following conditions* 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 l i v e d i n the area most of t h e i r l i v e s 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 i n t e l l i g e n t 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 i s not e s s e n t i a l . 8. They must be w i l l i n g . ...What we would l i k e YOU to do i s write names and addresses of people who w i l l meet the above conditions and send them to us. A form i s provided f o r t h i s . . . . . ........We'11 contact the people you name, explain the project to them and ask f o r t h e i r help.......  19 Questionnaires were then sent to the individuals whose names were suggested.  I f ne reply was received to the f i r s t  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 i n the community.  This process was repeated u n t i l the required inform-  -ants had been located or u n t i l a l l possible sources of names had been exhausted. > In addition to the secretary-treasurers of school dist r i c t s , the appeal for names of informants was made to the presi d e n t s of d i s t r i c t 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 i n small northern  communities) to private individuals. (The, names of lawyers,  business-men etc. were chosen at random from local telephone d i -rectories.) No response was received from a number of communities i n 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 questionn a i r e s were returned to the University of B.C.  Of these, thirty  --most from informants over s i x t y — were eliminated because the. informants did not meet even the more liberal birth and residence requirements adopted i n the f i n a l screening of informants.  20  A f u r t h e r one hundred and t h i r t e e n were e l i m i n a t e d because the informants had moved too f r e q u e n t l y from one p a r t o f B.C. t o another, spent too many years o u t s i d e the p r o v i n c e o r d i d not meet e d u c a t i o n o r language requirements.  S i x q u e s t i o n n a i r e s had t o toe  d i s c a r d e d because t h e informant data sheet was incomplete.  Thus,  o f the f i v e hundred and e i g h t e e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e respondents,  three  hundred and s i x t y e i g h t were  chosen.  Table I l i s t s the communities from which responses were r e c e i v e d and p r o v i d e s a key t o t h e l e t t e r coding o f communities on Maps I - IX. F i g u r e s i n b r a c k e t s r e f e r t o the number o f i n -formants  i n each o f the age groups d e f i n e d below.  As may be expected, i n s p i t e o f an i n t e n s i v e s e a r c h , i n -formants  meeting a l l the requirements  f i n d by m a i l .  o f PQ3 were d i f f i c u l t t o  Thus, d u r i n g the f i n a l s c r e e n i n g o f informants,  m o d i f i c a t i o n s were m a d e - - p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h regard t o r e s i d e n c e r e quirements.  The amount o f d e v i a t i o n from PQ3 standards can be  seen i f one compares t h e requirements  l i s t e d i n the l e t t e r on page  18 w i t h r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s o f the f o l l o w i n g b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f the informants  chosen.  They range i n age from f i f t e e n t o n i n e t y i the men outnumber the women approximately f i v e t o f o u r .  They a r e fishermen,  l o g g i n g c o n t r a c t o r s , r a i l w a y employees, m i l l w r i g h t s , postmasters, housewives, business women, h a i r d r e s s e r s , s e c r e t a r i e s ,  clerks—  i n f a c t , a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f n e a r l y every o c c u p a t i o n , although d o c t o r s , lawyers and o t h e r members o f the p r o f e s s i o n s a r e e x c l u d ed  by the e d u c a t i o n  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 i n 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 i n 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 i n 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 f i f t y - s i x percent of the total.  Approximately thirty-three per-  c e n t 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 i n 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 I l a 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 f i r s t section of PQ3 (along  22  with the instructions f o r f i l l i n g i n the questionnaire) are reproduced  i n Appendix I.  A l l informant data was  coded with the  exception of question number s i x (4) and, of course, those questi o n s included as an aid i n eliminating informants who meet the requirements.  did not  Printouts were obtained f o r responses by  age groups ( i n decades) f o r B.C. and f o r each sub-area and by parental background and educational l e v e l of the informant.  Bi-  -variate tables were also prepared f o r a number of pairs of items. (5) Table I I I shows the number of informants c l a s s i f i e d by age-- i n decades and i n the age groups used-- f o r sub-areas for the province as a whole.  and  Map X i s a simplified outline of  B.C. and the sub-areas. Age group boundaries were set i n order to give as even as possible a d i s t r i b u t i o n of informants between age groups. As a r e s u l t , informants have been divided into three groupst the o-group (age 6 1 - 9 0 ) , the m-group (age 31-60) and the y-group (age  15-30).  The d i v i s i o n also has the advantage of representing the various stages of B.C. settlement.  The o-group (b. 1885-1915)  are the pioneers or t h e i r immediate descendentsj the m-group were born and raised between two World Wars, during a period of decreasing immigration from the B r i t i s h Isles and of increasing Canadianizationj the y-group i s 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 a r e a M i v i s i o n s were made  on the basis of several assumptions: 1. Some degree of d i a l e c t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n exists i n B.C. 2. PQ3 areas are to a great extent i s o l a b l e units i n the p r o v i n c e — h i s t o r i c a l l y , geographically and i n d u s t r i a l l y and therefore, 3» comparison of PQ3 area results i s the f i r s t step i n the search for speech d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .  Items of pronunciation which  vary considerably between areas are probably the ones i t would be most p r o f i t a b l e to study i n greater depth. There i s 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 h i s t o r i c a l as w e l l as geographical grounds. So, also, can the Peace River area.  The Island, or at least the south-  e r n portion, was settled early i n the history of B.C. and by a f a i r l y homogeneous group of s e t t l e r s : Peace River settlement was relatively late.  The Island i s separated from the mainland by  what I have been t o l d i s a perilous stretch of water that Islande r s are loath to cross; the Peace River i s separated from the rest of the province by the Rocky Mountains and possibly has more i n common with Alberta than with B.C. The Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland i s also f a i r l y well-defined, separated geographically  24 and industrially from the Okanagan and industrially, i f not geographically, 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 MainlandYellowhead Route is extremely tentative.  A major problem here i s  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 V a l l e y —  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 areas, there are only two alternatives; the percentage difference is  25  either significant or i t i s 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 i s to illustrate. The Data The percentages of variant X for questionnaire item Z i n 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 i s applied to the areas with highest and lowest percent of the variant, here, I and K. Let us assume that the variation i s 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 i s again more than two standard errors, 0 is marked H (=High)— i n contrast to K, Low— and C is marked L (= Low)-- i n contrast to I, High.  The formula i s applied again, this time to  0 and C$ this time the variation i s 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 calc u l a t i o n 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 i n K is only f i f t y - f i v e . The problem of mapping of variants i s an interesting one. A line can easily be drawn between two areas that vary signifi 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 s t a t i s t i c a l measure-ment, this line can hardly be called a heterogloss.  I have  therefore coined the term s t a t i s t i c a l 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 XIXIII). The advantage of the f i r s t two methods lies in the fact that a number of items can be accommodated on the same map.  How-  e v e r , 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 f i n a l 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 s t a t i s t i c a l 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. -raunities chosen on pages 24-26.  Poison also l i s t s the com-  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 i n 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 i n this respect, the tables provide d a t a — d i f f i c u l t 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 f e l t that sampling w i t h i n the requirements of PQ3 would not result i n the representation of a l l sociological groups to the extent nec-cessary for any valid statement to be made. 5« L i t t l e use has been made of these tables to date, though several references to them appear i n Chapter I I I . 6. In brief: The r e l i a b i l i t y 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 : ( i n 3 percent)) of ..the variants. Standard error, the percent error that is likely t© occur in any given sample, i s calculated by the for-mula» Standard error = . . (p) (q) N where p and q are the percentages of two variants and N, the f i e l d t o t a l . To compare two sample groups i t i s necessary to determine the calculated standard error of differences that i s , the amount of deviation that could be expected to occur due to fluctuation i n the individual samples.  J  V  29  This is calculated by the formula: Std. Error of Diff. = / ( S t d . E ^ ) * (Std. E . ) 2  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 sign 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 dec i d e whether the difference i s , in fact, interesting or signifi c a n t . This point w i l l be illustrated and discussed in more detail in Chapter IV.  30  CHAPTER I I I In t h i s chapter I w i l l present what I consider to be the most important  facts of B.C.  - s i s of responses  to PQ3»  pronunciation revealed by the analy-  The chapter i s divided into four  sectionss a general discussion of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of variants of each item on the questionnaire! a summary of variant d i s t r i b u t i o n and trends i n pronunciation at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l ! a summary ©f regional v a r i a t i o n s and, f i n a l l y , a summary of s i g n i f i c a n t var- i a t i o n s between age groups within areas and between comparable age groups i n the several areas, (1)  A breakdown, item by item,  of numbers of informants and d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses  f o r the  province, areas and age groups can be found i n Table I V t 1 - 2 1 , Percentages ed  i n t h i s as well as i n following tables have been round-  to the nearest integer. (2)  At the beginning of the general  discussion, references are given to the variable number used i n the computer programming of PQ3 and, where applicable, to the cor-responding item number i n 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, i s the pro-  n u n c i a t i o n most prevalent i n 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. i n -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$ respectt  i v e l y , of the Vancouver Island o-group; a combination of these plus variants with / a / o r 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$ i n 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 i s Low in contrast to a l l other areas but the Island. (Maps XVI, XVII) S t a t i s t i c a l 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. i n -formants, /veiz/ for 26% and of  fv&zj  and  {vazj  /veis/  for only 9f°* The occurrence  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  the  drops from  78%  in  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.) not  s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant,  /VTJZ/  Although the change is  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/) cont r a s t s with those of the Lower Mainland, Okanagan and Kootenay. (Map XVIII)  S t a t i s t i c a l 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 I s l a n d i s a g a i n the o n l y 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 g r o u p s — a n d between m- and y-groups. /".eiprlktrt/,  only 5 % 2  a g a i n , i t occurs  While 82% o f the m-group chose  o f the y-group d i d so.  C o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i s found between areas and between comparable age groups from a r e a t o a r e a ,  e i p r l k i f c / was  the  p r o n u n c i a t i o n o f c h o i c e o f 6 0 - 7 6 $ o f the informants i n the Kootenay and the Cariboo, on the I s l a n d and i n the Okanaganj but of o n l y k2% on the Lower Mainland.  (5)  Maximal d i f f e r e n c e i s  seen between the Okanagan and Lower Mainland.  The I s l a n d , Okan-  a g a n and Cariboo have been marked High f o r £ e i p r l k B f t / , the Lower Low.  Mainland, Upper Mainland (Map X I I I , XIV)  Age  (and, a r b i t r a r i l y ,  the Peace R i v e r ) ,  group v a r i a t i o n s are as f o l l o w s *  o-group- Okanagan, Hight Lower Mainland,  Low.  m-group- Vancouver I s l a n d , Hight Lower Mainland, y-group-  Low.  Okanagan* Hight Vancouver I s l a n d and Upper Main-  - l a n d , Low.(Maps XVI-XVIII) are found on Maps XV and  The r e s u l t a n t s t a t i s t i c a l g l o s s e s  XIX-XXI.  4. Shone  PQ3-  #19  Only n i n e informants gave ^ o u n /  as a response. S i x were  i n the o-groupi s i x had a t l e a s t 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 o f 72$ o f B.C. informants, t h i s o b j e c t i s a f l i v r / and t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n percent from i 65$  i n the o-group to 79-82$ i n the m- and yrgroups, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The Kootenay i s the o n l y area i n which a d i f f e r e n c e 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 o f 87% o r more o f m- and y-group informants but o f o n l y 36$ o f those i n the o-group. when compared the  36%  i s a l s o an u n u s u a l l y low f i g u r e  to the percentages i n a l l o t h e r area age groups i n (7)  province.  With the e x c e p t i o n o f the Peace R i v e r , a l l areas a r e 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 d i s t r i b u t i o n b e i n g 95$«  /TAXJ  provincial  does not occur i n t h i s  sample.  / r v t / i s the v a r i a n t o f c h o i c e f o r 39$ o f Vancouver I s -land 6-group informants and t h i s age group v a r i e s  significantly  w i t h o-groups i n a l l other areas o f the p r o v i n c e . (Maps XVI, XIX) / r u t / i s a l s o found i n a l l age groups i n t h e ; C a r i b o o . 7. Soot PQ3-  #23  SCE-  #103  /hut/ -formants.  i s the p r o n u n c i a t i o n i n d i c a t e d by 80$ o f B.C. i n -  Of the remainder, 15$ chose / s u t / and 5$ / s A t / .  35 /su*/ 92$  i n c r e a s e s from  58$  i n t h e o - g r o u p t o 82$  6$).  The  distribution  of / s u t / i s f a i r l y  o-groups i n a l l a r e a s , a c c o u n t i n g sponses found on t h e  i n these  groups.  between t h e  Cariboo  I s l a n d and  o c c u r b e t w e e n o-  The  8.  m-  and  has  PQ3-  #24  SCE-  #93  and  o f t h e m-group and  The  provincial  variations  m-groups and  (and d e c r e a s e s  g r o u p s on t h e  I s l a n d and  re-  are those  (8) of  Lower  /sut/)  Mainland  Cariboo.  b e e n marked H i g h  f o r / s u t / , the  groups demonstrate from  93$  Okanagan,  distribution  high percent  o f the this  o-group,  response.  JL  o f I s l a n d o-group i n f o r m a n t s  next  h i g h e s t o-group p e r c e n t a g e  with  this  e x c e p t i o n , c o m p a r a b l e age  variations  i n t h e K o o t e n a y between o-  and  chose / r u t /  i s 6 7 $ i n the Okanagan), g r o u p s i n a r e a s and  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 age  63$  almost  i s 79$/21$.  (the  Significant  moderate t o  o f the y-group checked  .  and  o f the  i n t h e Okanagan.  f o r the p r o n u n c i a t i o n / r u t / .  77$  route.  39$  XV)  t h r e e age  t o t a l preference  province  to  the  Route  The  A  25$  Upper M a i n l a n d  y-groups i n the  Cariboo  (Maps XIV  and  i n c r e a s e s o f /sut/  and  b e t w e e n o- and  f o r from  even throughout  Close to s i g n i f i c a n t  Lower M a i n l a n d  Significant  Low.  and  i n t h e y - g r o u p , w i t h / 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$, 14$,  and  i n t h e m-group  are  found  but  i n the  of variants of on t h e  m-groups a n d ,  Lower  i n the  Mainland  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) S t a t i s t i c a l glosses are found on Map XV (areas)and Maps XX-XXI (age groups). 9. Schedule PQ3-  #25  SCE- #20 •  This word i s 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 i n which sign i f i c a n t 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 i n 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 i s between the m-group i n 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 /"zebrg/ i s 59$/ 41$.  £ z i b r a j  and  Both o- and m-groups are f a i r l y 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 i n 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/ i n 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$/ i n contrast with the y-group in the Cariboo. (Maps XVIII and XXI) 12. Father/bother PQ3- #26 SCE- #51  13. Caught/cot ,  , PQ2-  #30  SCE-  #78  72$ of the total B.C. sample group reported that the f i r s t  38 pair rhymed.  Group percentages ranged from 6 0 $ of the o-group t©  72$ and 78$ of the m- and y-groups ( i n that order)  90$ chose the  rhyming a l t e r n a t i v e f o r the second p a i r j differences i n percenta g e s between age groups spanned a smaller range (8l$-95$)« Figure 1 shows the percentages of responses (province-wide) f o r the four possible combinations. Father/bother R Caught/ cot  R  67  .  NO 23  NO  Figure 1. Bivariate table of responses to items 12 and 13. S i g n i f i c a n t Increase'of rhyme of father and bother occurs between o- and y-groups i n the Lower Mainland, between o- and regroups i n the Cariboo and between m- and y-groups i n the Upper Mainland.  S i g n i f i c a n t increase i n rhyme of caught and cot i s  found on the Island and i n the Okanagan between o- and y-groups. The Lower Mainland and Upper Mainland y-groups have been marked High f o r rhyme of father and bother i n contrast to the ygroups XXI)  i n the Cariboo, Qkanagan and Kootenay. (Maps XVIII and The Cariboo as a whole i s High f o r rhyme of caught and cot  i n contrast with the Okanagan. (Maps XIV and 14, Marry/merry PQ3-  #28  XV)  39  Questionnaire respondents are f a i r l y 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$ o f t h e 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 i n 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 i n the Kootenay and close to significant decreases between o- and m-groups on the Island and m- and ygroups i n the Okanagan, but these are the only areas i n which fliycj  may be gaining ground. Age group variations between areas arei o-group- the Kootenay i s 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 i s not  a factor according to PQ3 results.  Distribution i n the Peace  River favors f b3ri_/ 57$/ 43$. 18. Mourning/morning PQ3- #33  20. Fairy/ferry PQ3- #34  19. Hoarse/horse  mi" #35 21. Mary/merry 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 f i r s t 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/ ^ /€/ i n stressed p o s i t i o n before r plus a following vowel occur only marginally i n B.C.  A more d e f i n i t e statement must await further f i e l d work. Mourning/morning R  NO  89  Hoarse/ horse  ,.  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 D i s t r i b u t i o n and Trends i n Pronunciation at the P r o v i n c i a l Level  /§vri/ informants  and / r u t / = root^ are favored by over 90  i n a l l age groups.  % of  the  Increasing preference f o r younger  speakers i s clear f o r f tameito/, / ' l i v r / , /hrt/, f sktdajl/, /ra&r/, / " z i b r a / , /msri/ = marry, of the pairs father/bother and caught/cot.  fint/  / r u t / = route. and the rhyme  The fate of  fn>z  ,  42 veiz, veis/, /eiprlkut/, / b s r i / and / l f i j r / i s undecided. A Summary of Regional Variations If, as I have assumed, measurable dialect differentiation exists i n B.C. and i s most likely to be found within PQ3 areas, the examination of s t a t i s t i c a l glosses and the comparison of High and Low marking should yield some positive results i n the direct-ion of isolating dialect areas.  I f dialect areas exist i n 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 i n the analysis of PQ3 data i s the fact that relatively few items show significant variations crossregionallly.  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 i s more acute when we try to compare age groups crossregionally but i s 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 w i l l 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 i n assigning values.  For example, for apricot, M represents 59$ or  43 41$j f o r lever, 72$ or 28$i arid f o r route, 79$ or 21$, depending on which variant percent i s used.  (As w i l l become evident, i t  does not matter which percentage i s used as long as i t i s the same one f o r each item throughout the procedure.)  I f age groups  were being compared, M would represent the p r o v i n c i a l  distribut-  -ions of items i n the age group under consideration.  Br i t i s <->  3 )$  2< \%  M  [  h  1 )$  apricot  1(1$ «  I  lever_  m  •  I  1  3 )$ • L  IC  L  X  21 )$  C  •  ,  in 1Unericj (+)  C  i  1  L  +1  .  1  1  +2>  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/ i s characterized as  American, a l l other variants of t o m a t o . B r i t i s h j /Sbprlkzrt/, / r a u t / /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 / , B r i t i s h . (13) Each area i s then graphed f o r the nine items according t o :  44 1. the percentage variance between the area d i s t r i b u t i o n and the p r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of each item and 2. the d i r e c t i o n of variances that i s , whether the area d i s t r i b u t i o n of an item favors the American or the B r i t i s h variant.  Areas f o r which the d i s t r i b u t i o n of an item favors the  American variant are graphed to the right or plus side of the axis, those areas f o r which the d i s t r i b u t i o n favors the B r i t i s h variant to the l e f t or minus side.  In Figure 4, the Island,  Lower Mainland and Cariboo have been graphed f o r apricot, lever and route. For each item which varies from 0 to 9 $ from the provinc i a l distribution,  -an: area i s given a numerical value of plus  or minus one (plus, i f the d i r e c t i o n of variance i s toward the American side of the a x i s , minus, i f toward the B r i t i s h s i d e ) . For each item which varies from 1 0 $ to 1 9 $ from the p r o v i n c i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , the area i s given a value of plus or minus two, etc. Values f o r each area for the nine items are then totaled, the results being the assigned values f o r the areas. The assigned value f o r the Island i n Figure 4 would bet /  (-1x1) +  (-3x1)/ + /  =(-4)4.(~i)±  (+1x1)/  -3.  The assigned value f o r the Lower Mainland would bet /  (-1x1)/ +  /  (+2x1) +  (=3x1)/  =(-i)+(+5)= +4.  The advantage of t h i s method i s that i t allows f o r degrees of contrast between areas—which (14) The disadvantage  High and Low marking does not.  (ignoring p a r t i c u l a r arguments against the  use of the American/British dichotomy) i s that  variants of some  45 items cannot e a s i l y be f i t t e d  i n t o such a dichotomy.  Returning t o the d i s c u s s i o n o f r e g i o n a l v a r i a t i o n i n B.C., on the b a s i s o f the data a v a i l a b l e from a n a l y s i s o f PQ3 responses, Vancouver I s l a n d appears t o have most i n common w i t h t h e Okanagan w i t h which i t shares t h r e e f e a t u r e s t h a t 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 /rut/  = route and / e i p r l l c z r t / .  The Kootenay and Lower Mainland,  s h a r i n g o r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by +A (American) features--Low / r u t / = r o u t e i n both, Low / e i p r l k T j t / i n the Lower Mainland and High /tamelto./ i n the K o o t e n a y - - d i f f e r t o the g r e a t e s t extent from the  Island.  The Lower Mainland and Kootenay d i f f e r t o a l e s s e r  degree from the Okanagan s i n c e a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower percent o f /veiz_/ i n these two areas d i s t i n g u i s h e s them from t h e I s l a n d but not  from t h i s t h i r d mainland a r e a . The Cariboo and the Okanagan share one +B f e a t u r e — H i g h  f  \  / e i p r l k u t / — b u t a r e 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 / = r o u t e i  s  are  High f o r t h e Okanagan, Low f o r t h e C a r i b o o .  These two areas  a l s o d i v i d e d by two S G . — 7 (/sut/) and 13 (caught = c o t ) —  p e c u l i a r t o the Okanagan and Cariboo a l o n e . 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 b a s i s o f the l i m i t e d amount o f data i n PQ3. comparison o f High and Low f e a t u r e markings  establishes  grounds f o r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e I s l a n d and t h e Okanagan t o be d i a l e S t areas w i t h i n B.C.  A s s i g n e d v a l u e s f o r the a r e a s shown i n F i g u r e 5  emphasize the r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n o f the I s l a n d 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 i s 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 i s 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'.  4? 0/M  0/Y  M/Y  /tameitq/  /rllr/  /suty  /zibra/ /suty  c  caught=cot  /atprlkot/  father=bother /s k ^ l / /rut/=route  father=bother ./skecfcl/  0  /rut/=route  K  /meri/  /rut/»route  i  Y  /m£ri/ caught=cot  fath^ersbother  Figure 6. S i g n i f i c a n t age group changes i n areas, Age Group Variations Cross-Regionally The o-Group (Maps XVI,  XIX)  SG 6 sets the Island apart from a l l other areas i n 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, 5 t "the Kootenay from the Okanagan and Lower Mainland.  The Kootenay and Lower Mainland are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by  item 1 6 . On the basis ;of t h i s limited data, i t can only be said that the Island i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s l i g h t l y 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 i s o l a t i o n of the  48 Island  more c l e a r l y .  differs  from o t h e r mainland  t h a n does t h e  +A  and  (+A)  +B v a r i a n t s .  at  and  and  also  ^ e d j l /  Figure  on  Map  degree  because  o f , H i g h and  differ  little  Low  contrast  f o r /it^rj  Kootenay i s High  has  a h i g h i n c i d e n c e o f /§tprIkT>t/ and The  Lower M a i n l a n d ,  of the s c a l e  marking,  i n assigned  The  (+B)  of  and /zebra/  on t h e o t h e r hand, i s  f o r each o f t h e s e  7« A s s i g n e d v a l u e s f o r PQ3 the ©-group  items.  areass  m-Group  Changes i n SG. i n g  Okanagan  a r e a s t h e r e i s an i n t e r e s t i n g  (+B).  t h e o p p o s i t e end  The  the  b u t t o a much l e s s e r  t h e Lower M a i n l a n d  I n t h e s e two  / l £ v r / (+A)  areas  o f , o r perhaps  t h e K o o t e n a y and values.  indicate that  Island.  In s p i t e  •  They a l s o  c a n be s e e n oh  Map  XX,  H i g h and  Low  mark-  XVII.  Although f o r /lz,ycj--both  the I s l a n d this  i s now  a r e a and  a r e a s . / r u t / = r o u t e and  marked f o r one  +A  feature—Low  t h e Okanagan a r e b a s i c a l l y  /r^v/cofrohrj  a r e common t o  both,  +B  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, /tameitq/.  High  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 orienta 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 characterized by +B features—High / e i p r l k T r t / and / r u t / = route. However, the Lower Mainland i s 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 i n 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 prev i o u s l y : that i s , the Cariboo i s marked by two—Low /rut7 = route and /zinr$/, and the Kootenay and Upper Mainland f o r one each—Low /mxri/ and Low / r u t / = route, respectively.  Figure 9» Assigned values for PQ3 areas: the y-group Comparison of assigned values i n Figures 8 and 9 as w e l l as the changes i n marked features noted above suggest that whate v e r degree of dialect d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n existed cross-regionally i n the m-group i s disappearing.  However^ High and Low marking  of areas f o r /v*?z/, / v e i z / and father=bother (variants or items not taken into account i n assigning values) complicates the picture.  While marking f o r one or both variants of vase d i f f e r -  -entiate the Lower Mainland, Okanagan and Kootenay from the Island and Cariboo, marking f o r 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 i s supported by very l i t t l e conc r e t e 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 evidence of speech differentiation between age groups (particularly between the m-groups, in which sample sizes are larger than i n the other groups) i n the several regions of B.C. to warrant further investigation on a larger scale.•  52  NOTES 1. Since there are only four informants i n the b-group in the Upper Mainland, this group has been ignored. Peace River mand 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 w i l l reveal that the number of informants in areas or i n 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 response s were computer programmed, each variant was counted as a sepa r a t e response, thus increasing the number of informants by one. -a number of questionnaires were missing the second page. -a number of informants had d i f f i c u l t i e s 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 i n 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$). variant.  5. Only 36$ of the Peace River informants chose this  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. ception.  The m-group in the Peace River area could be an ex-  8. /sAt/ i s used mainly by m- and o-group informants scattered over most areas of the province. 9. One informant noted an ambiguity i n 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 n o t .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$3) and a further sixty or more grammatical and lexical items. 13* The designation of certain variants as American or British i n an absolute sense could be disputed. For example, while /aprlk-wt/ and /meri/ are American, or to be more exact, not British, /l£vry, /raut/ and /zebra/ which are usually considered as^being American ar,e also use^ i n Britain and 'British.' variants A f i d j l / , /rcisJr/, / l e j r / and / l i v r / (as well as /eiprlkot/ and /maeri/) are a i s o usea in the United States. This classification i s , however, the most useful (and, perhaps, the only) one avail-able at the moment not only for assigning values, but also for characterizing High and Low marking for areas (see p.45). 14. For example^ thesis land, Okanagan and Cariboo have been marked High for /eiprlkot/ in contrast to the Lower and Upper Mainland areas. There is a difference between the Okanagan and Lower Mainland of 34$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 i n 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 i n 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-  t i n g u i s h 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 4:1,  approximately  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 f a i r l y 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. A l 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 i s 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 i n the f i e l d .  As f i e l d  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  (1965-1969).  Adults interviewed i n 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) i s much lower in SCE than i t i s i n  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 i e . that ahs i s frequently pronounced with a slightly rounded vowel (and many people answer multiple choice questions from the bottom up).  I f 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 i s no significant variation between questionnaires for this item. (The only possible significant variation would be between the PQ3i (I+GV) and Rodman sample groups.) 4. Apricot- no significant variation. (4) 5. Lever According to PQ3 figures, the trend i n B.C. is toward /livr/.  Admittedly, this trend i s 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 i n the equivalent PQ3 group and also in the Rodman subsample as compared to PQ3-(I+GV).  / l i v r y is significantly lower  58  in the SCE student group as compared to the PQ3 y-groupi student/ y-group percentages i n the two mainland sub-samples are about equal. (5) ?. Soot The SCE student group percentage for /sut/ i s 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 percentages in a l l four sample groups. While PQ3 results point to a trend i n 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  /raut/,  9. Schedule Mainland student/y-group figures vary significantly with fewer informants in the Rodman group choosing / ^ e d j l / . 1 2 . Father/bother  1 3 . Caught/cot  Fewer SCE students rhyme these pairs than do PQ3 y-group informants• 1 5 . Aunt More SCE students chose the non-rhyming pronunciation. 1 6 . Leisure More SCE and Rodman adults and students chose / l i j r / than did their PQ3 and PQ3-(I+GV) counterparts. Percentage differences 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$, for / l i j r / , the difference between mainland adult groups is 27$» between 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/  i n soot, /acq/ i n route, /Of in aunt  and / i / in leisure i s higher in SCE than in PQ3. The frequency of /!/ i n lever and of rhyme of father/ bother and caught/cot i s lower in SCE. Adult/m-group The frequency of /!/ in lever and i n leisure is higher i n SCE. Summary of Significant Variations- Rodman/PQ3-(I+GV) Student/y-group The frequency of fvj in soot, f&Xt/ i n route, fx/ in leisure and /sk/ in schedule is higher in Rodmani the frequency of fctj i n aunt is lower in Rodman AduIt/m-group The frequency of fi/  in lever and i n leisure i s higher i n  Rodman. Trends In SCE and the Rodman sub-group the trends are in the d i r -  60  -ection of /sut/ and / l e y r / 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. on variations where they occur.  As such i t focuses attention  Are they due to disparities of  sample sizes or informant distribution, or to age differences between student and y-groups, or are they indicative of a greater prevalence of certain forms within certain sections of the gene 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 distribu t i o n 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 surveys.  Only in the Kootenay i s 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 ^ r y c \ 3 / n ^ r j / l i v r / , /m*ri/ and /zibrs/ were chosen by a larger ( i f not significantly so) number of G-P students.  Differences i n 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 ygroup.  Considering that the difference between  /u/ and  fisj  is  d i f f i c u l t 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 keepi n g with percentages i n the PQ3 m-group. The opposite i s true for /eiprlkflt/.  A Lower ( i f 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 a r i s e when we try to compare survey results on the Lower Mainland. The f i r s t is the proliferation of surveys and of sample groups within them. G-P surveys include one in Vancouver (GV) and one i n 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 i n the following exerpt from Table VII. G-P  SCE  5  246  135  14  14  17  PQ3  Students  GV  (=y-group) nGV  19  Adults  GV  (*m-group) nGV  260  152  13"  -  ' ITJ  18  -  28  31  141  Figure 1 0 . Sample sizes in Lower Mainland sample groups. The PQ3 y-group sample (19 informants) i s 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, i n 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 i s only slightly less than that between the sample sizes of students in those surveys. However, adult nGV sub-samples i n 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 i n 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 i n 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 representa t i v e 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 i s 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 / l E ^ r / and significantly fewer chose /l£vr/. Although these variations cannot be considered significant, fewer G-P students chose  /veis/  and, possibly, fewer chose  / w z /  although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to make a definite statement concerning the latter due to already mentioned ambiguities i n the SCE questionnaire. As on the Island, the figures for soot in Lower Mainland surveys merit further consideration.  The incidence of /sAt/ i n  the G-P survey i s recorded as 23$ (equivalent to the Island f i g -ure of 29$). However, i n the Lower Mainland /sut/ accounts for 30$ of the responses i n SCE but only 6$ i n the G-P survey. A reason for the higher incidence of /sAt/ i n a field survey has already been discussed but this does not explain the high percentage of /sut/ i n the SCE student group. Tomato ( a l l variants), schedule and bury showed no sign i f i c a n t 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 sign i f i c a n t 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 i s  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 i s 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 i s located in an area where, according to the distribution of variants shown on Maps XXII and XXIV, these variants occur more frequently than i n the rest of the Cariboo. The Upper Mainland-SCE/PQ3 Numbers of informants are small i n both surveys, especial-  66  -ly in the student groups.  The school d i s t r i c t from which SCE  questionnaires were returned is labeled Skeena, no longer in exi s t e n c e 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$l  The incidence of / b s r i / is about 28$ 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 f i r s t survey. SCE i n -formants are from Penticton and Kelownaj that i s , 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 f i e l d 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, informants chose /le^r/.  22$ fewer SCE  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€$rj.  Variations close to  significant occur between SCE and PQ3 groups for lever and schedule, for which fewer SCE informants indicated /lfivr/ and /^C°5^7 "to  D e  "their pronunciation. There is l i t t l e variation  between groups for the remaining items. G-P and PQ3_.  figures for tomato differ radically from those of SCE  7/l8 G-P informants (38$) used the pronunciation  /tanraetq/ while only 10/l8 (56$) used /tgmeito/.  SCE and P Q ^ f i g -  -ures for these variants are 80$ and 20$, 70$ and 1 5 $ t respectively.  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$).  The percentage for /ratrt/ in G-P differs l i t t l e from that  in SCE and the frequency of /rairt/ in both groups is significant-ly higher than i t is in the PQ3 m-group. (However, the incidence of /raut/ ih G-P i s equivalent to that in the o-group of PQ3).  The percentage of /l£vr/ in G-P is about mid-way between  SCE and PQ3 figures. The Kootenay-  SCE/PQ3/G:-P  This area i s the best in which to compare results of a l l three surveys.  Thirty-three of the PQ3 informants are from the  West Kootenay, the majority of these, from the southern portion. SCE informants live in Nelson, T r a i l and Kaslo which are also located in the south-western region of the Kootenay.  The G-P  survey was particularly concerned with the border area.  Sample  sizes in a l l three surveys are adequate and in addition, we have  68 comparable data for eighteen items G-P/PQ3 and ten items SCE/PQ3 Students Only two significant variations are found between SCE and PQ3.  More SCE students chose /levr/ and fewer,  -Cidence of  is higher and of  /veiz/  /§£d^l/.  The i n -  lower in SCE butthese  /voz/,  differences are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant.  Variation between  survey groups is less than 12$ 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 / l e v r / in both these surveys is significantly lower than i n SCE and incidence of  fvvzj  and  significantly lower.  As  in the Lower Mainland, significantly fewer G-P students chose /sut/. The percentage of / b a r i / 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. PQ3.  The incidence of /zebrd/ is higher in  . .  . ,  . . . .  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 i n the SCE adult group. Distribution of variants of other items i s similar i n 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 i s 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 i n SCE.  For other items there i s 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 i n 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 i n adult groups varied significantly for only two items and i n the student group for roughly half of the items common to both surveys. This was taken to be a f a i r l y 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 rej e c t e d ) , 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) i n each of four areas and for one set of informants i n one area.  Thus, a total of ninety sig-  n i f i c a n t variations could occur at the area level.  Although few  of these--twenty i n a l l — d o , i n fact, occurv because sample sizes are small and/or disparate i n -some areas and the distribution of SCE informants i s restricted i n others, no strong claims can be made on this basis. Where data i s available from a l l three surveys and signify -icant variations are found between f i e l d 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 i s open to question. Of more interest, perhaps, are the instances i n which G-P figures differ from those of both SCE and PQ3_, c f r . father/ bother and bury in the Kootenay student/y-group. As stated previously, a more intensive investigation of  71 B.C. speech i s necessary before any definite conclusions can reached.  72  NOTES Rodman ( 1 9 7 5 ) subcategorizes SCE questionnaires as " 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 i n this study are taken from the above mentioned a r t i c l e , for the remainder and for those used i n area comparisons, I am indebted to Miss Rodman. followst  1.  2.  Scargill,  1 9 7 ^ , pp.11-12.  3. Both Scargill and Rodman give individual percentages for male and female informants i n each age group. For the pur-pose of survey comparison, these percentages have been adjusted! that i s , the figures i n the columns headed SCE and Rodman (Tables VI and VII) are percentages for a l l informants i n 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 vari a n t s by one informant was coded as two separate informant responses (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 i n 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 i n Tables V; and VII i s the actual number.,: not the inflated one pro-duced by adjusting for either one choices. 4. Althoughnthere i s no significant variation SCE/PQ3 or Rodman/PQ3-(I+GV), SCE/Rodman/groups do vary. Fewer adults i n 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 i s not found PQ3/PQ3-(I+GV). 1  73  6. In Chapter III (p.29), I noted that when the calculati o n of standard errors was used to determine significant variati 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 i s not due to chance and further, that i t i s the linguist who must decide whether the percentage difference i s , 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: i e . , 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$, only five of the seven student vari a t i o n s would be significant (the percentage variation for lever i s 8$, for caught=cot, 9$), If X were to: equal 12$ only one adult and three student variations would remain (the percentage 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 i n volves only two regions but also by the fact that not a l l Greater  Vancouver or mainland questionnaires were available for  analysis, (see p.72) The results of G-P surveys suggested that dialect variation  did exist i n B.C. (1) The results of PQ3 support this con-  c l u s i o n 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. ect  (see p.53)  variation i n B.C.,  Second, PQ3 data indicate that dial-  although existent, is not of great order  and is determinable only on a s t a t i s t i c a l basis, and since there are relatively few informants in the total PQ3 sample, i t is d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, to establish precise boundaries of dialect areas.  Third, by the same token i t is even more d i f f i c u l t  75 to one  determine  the extent of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  a r e a o r age  groups  between age  groups  in  cross-regionally.  C o m p a r i s o n o f PQ3  and  SCE  figures  f o r the  items  common t o  b o t h s u r v e y s adds somewhat t o o u r knowledge o f B.C.  speech.  -ever,  or  lexical)  are  mutually  few  items are  p h o n o l o g i c a l (not to mention common t o b o t h s u r v e y s 7 a n d  supportive  f o r most o f t h e s e  (e.g. l e i s u r e ) validity  while results  items, the f a c t  that  b o t h PQ3  Analysis  i n b o t h PQ3  f o r o t h e r items and  SCE  - a t i o n s o f which are w e l l  to r e l a t e  dialect  f a c t o r s ) as w e l l as b y t h e a b s e n c e The  The should based  be a v a i l a b l e on SCE  i n the near  data s h o u l d soon  B.C. ( w i t h t h e  stricted Victoria be  made.  the  limitations  and  appear  l e x i c a l sections of  indicate  (4) be  PQ3  (5)»  further  publications  (6), and  pilot  socio-dialectVictoria.  much t o o u r knowledge o f  b i a s e s o f PQ3  and  SCE  that a t h i r d  full-scale  But B.C.  (and t h e r e -  s c o p e — i n a r e g i o n a l sense--of the Vancouver surveys)  con-  speech.  future  contribute  lack  as t o what must o r c a n  - o l o g i c a l s u r v e y s have b e e n begun i n V a n c o u v e r and  dialect,  In  limit-  i s hampered by t h e  o f t h e s y n t a c t i c and  a l t h o u g h the above w i l l  (3)  of s o c i o l o g i c a l correlates.  o u r knowledge o f B.C.  results  SCE.  the  s i t u a t i o n to causative  question, therefore, arises  done t o b r o a d e n  one  known.  o f data f r o m a l l s u r v e y s  inability  and  are w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the  o f i n f o r m a t i o n on, t h e s e t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n s * i n -commitant  f o r even  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 t o  of results  addition,  grammatical  How-  and  survey should  76  If this survey is to he f u l l y effective, i t should be a f i e l d 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 d i f f i c u l t y of locati 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 s t a t i s t i c a l 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 f a i r l y evenly throughout the province. (7) And i f , in addition PQ3 requirements for i n -formants are to be met, the investigator would be forced into the f i e l d i f only to find the required sample. The question then becomes! how large a sample i s 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 approximately 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 i s 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 f i e l d -  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 i n mind, I w i l l 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 minori 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 f i r s t 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 i n m- and y-groups. 2. Informant Sele ct ion The shortening of interview time is a factor which benefits both interviewer and informant but i s 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 i n 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 i n a l l .  The third age category, the m-group, could then  be set up by selecting from the f i r s t two groups approximately seventy-five informants between age thirty-one and sixty. A l though this method (which I c a l l 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 f i r s t 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, ( l i ) III Interrim Suggestions 1. Socio-dialectological Studies in Vancouver and Victoria Pilot studies have already been begun in these areas and w i l l , without doubt,.increase our knowledge of socio-dialectolog- i c a l variations in B.C.  They w i l l 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 i n 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.  (12)  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 i s that of recording the speech of early residents.  On Vancouver Island, at  least, these people are rapidly vanishing from the scene. A l 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 w i l l 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 w i l l , in the f i n a l 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 i n 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 i t s entirety, contains one hundred and ten items, SCE, the same number. 4. I should, at this point, add that i n this chapter and throughout this study I have virtually ignored work done at the University of Victoria. The reason i s simple. L i t t l e or nothing has been published up to this time and I have had l i t t l e opportuni 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 S i r 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 concentration 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 i n 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 i s , we would have at least nine areas in place of the original seven. It w i l l be argued that in a province-wide investigation 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 investi g a t i o n , the boundaries of the remaining PQ3 areas should coincide f a i r l y closely with those of federal electoral ridings. 8. Throughout the following discussion, I w i l l maintain the PQ3 division into seven areas and three age groups s t r i c t l y 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 a r e a s — i e . 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 i s a major problem. 11. Two further aspects of dialect study have been omitted in this chapter. a. Computer Programming A computer program i s essential even for the least compre-hensive survey plan. Details of the program should be establ i s h e d before f i e l d work is begun since this enables the f i e l d worker to record data on code sheets as work progresses, thus speeding analysis at a later date. Provision for computerized mapping i s also essential except, perhaps, in the case of (following) interrim suggestions. b. Historical Data As previously mentioned, this type of data i s d i f f i c u l t to find in provincial or federal s t a t i s t i c a l material or in volumes of provincial history. Local histories could provide much information! however, the most profitable method of investi g a t i o n (also profitable for dialect study) would be conversation with the informants themselves. 12. Poison (1969) outlines two arguments against a piecemeal 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 i s 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 t e l l i n g who the other per-son i s 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 questi o n s . 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 questi 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 i g 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 i s not enough space under the question, use the back of the previous page. As well as correcting us, giving explanations, or adding information, conside r adding comments along these lines* it's a now.  I used to c a l l i t such and such when I was a boy, but now This word was used in the old days but you never hear i t Teenagers say My father used to say I've heard people say.  85  The ranchers (loggers, fishermen, etc.) say, This word i s old-fashioned. This word i s only used i n 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 i n 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 f i l l e d 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 • ••••••  When you've velope and a bit short n a i r e back  his father or his mother?"  finished the questionnaire put i t i n the stamped enmail i t back to us. We don't want to rush you we are of time, so the sooner we get the completed questionthe 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? and how long?  If so, where  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 l i f e and background?  87  Linguistic Survey of B.C.t (Postal Questionnaire)  1)  16  1.  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 3» Do you pronounce the"first part of apricot to rhyme with 'cap* or 'cape' ? a) cap ( ) b) cape ( )  18  In the word tomato do you pronounce the middle part of the word as eight, at, or ought? I f none of these words f i t , give a word containing the 'a' sound you use. a) eight ( ) c) ought ( ) b) at ( ) d) other  19  (Do you normally use any other term for this fruit?)  20  4a) Does 'shone' as i n 'the sun shone brightly' rhyme with 'John' ( ) or 'Joan' ( )?  21  b) Does 'lever' as i n 'pull the lever' rhyme with 'clever* ( ) or 'cleaver* ( )  22  c) Does 'root' as i n 'root of a tree' rhyme with 'foot' ( ), "boot* ( ) or 'but* ( )?  23  d) Does *soot' as i n '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) 25  2)  5.  Does 'schedule' begin with a 'sk' as in 'ski' ( ) or a 'sh* as in 'she' ( ).  6.  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  R)  cough-rough  26  27  father-bother  leisure-pleasure  28  29  marry-merry  merry-Mary  30  31  caught-cot  bury-furry  32  33  aunt-ant  mourning-morning  34  35  fairy-ferry  hoarse-horse  (NO)  Which of the following words would you choose as a rhyme of 'rather' ?  36  'mother' or 'father' 8.  ( ), 'lather' ( )?  (  ),  'bother'  ( )  Does the f i r s t 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 r »(o,m.y) n  M n  mv It Vancouver Ts land and the Gulf Islands ACDEG-  ILN-  0-  PRSTUVW-  Alert Bay Courtenay Duncan Pender Island Galliano Island Port Albe m i Ladysmith Nanaimo Saturna Island Parksville Campbell River Saltspring Island Tofino Uclulet Victoria Cowichan Lake  (0,2,2) (0,3.2) (2,0,1) (2,1,1) (0,0,1) (1,1,2) (1,1.2) (1,1,1) (1,0,0) (1,0,0) (2,1,2) (0,1,1) (0,3,0) (1,2,2) (0,1,1) (1.1.3)  Map H i Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland AIBCSDEKFG-  HTJLMXN-  Abbotsford and Matsqui Pemberton Chilliwack and Sardis Delta (Ladner) Sechelt and Roberts Creek Fort Langley Cloverdale Haney and Pitt Meadows Bow en Island Lund Harrison Mills and Dewdney North Vancouver  (2,2,1) (1.2,0) (1,2,2) (1.0,0) (0,1,2) (1,0,0) (1,1,0) (2,2,3) (2,0,1) (0,1,0) (0.1,2) (1,3,1)  t.  90  TABLE I Letter Code  Number o f Informants  Community (L)  0P-  West Vancouver Powell River  Q-  Squamish  Y-  Yale  RVWZ-  Richmond Vancouver New Westminster  Surrey  (0,1,0) (1,1,2)  (2,1,0) (0,3,0) (3,4,4)  (0,1,1) (0,1,0)  (1,1,0)  Map III: Western Cariboo AC-  Anahim Lake Cache Creek  (1,2,2)  Clinton  (1,1,1)  FGH-  Ashcroft Lac La Hache Hanceville  L-  Lillooet  1-  STWU-  XY-  (0,3,3) (0,1,0) (1,2,0) (0,1,0) (3,2,1)  Spences Bridge Tatlayoko Lake Williams Lake  (1,1,1) (0,1,1) (0,0,1)  Alexis Creek  (1.3,1)  Quesnel Lytton  (2,2,1)  (0,2,1)  Map IV: Eastern Cariboo BE-  KMQ0-  RVZ-  (St!  Barriere-Chu-Chua Chase  Kamloops Merritt-Nicola and Quilchena Sicamous  Salmon Arm Savona McLure  (1,0,2) (0,1,0)  (3,1,1) (1,4,1)  (0,2,2) (3,1,2) (0,2,1) (1,0,0)  91  TABLE I Letter Code  Community  Number of. Informants »(o m,y) f  Map V; Okanagan A-  Armstrong  DERFG-  Peachland Enderby and Grindrod Okanagan Falls Grand Forks  LMN-  Lumby Okanagan Mission Princeton Oliver Penticton Okanagan Center Vernon Westwold  C-  K-  0-  PSVW-  Cawston  Kelowna  (3»3»3)  (0,0,1)  (0,2,0) (0,5.1) (0,1,0) (1,2,2)  (1,1.2)  (1,1,2) (0,1,0) (1,5,1) (1,2,1) (0,0,2) (1,0,0) (1,2,1) (2,1,2)  Map VIt Kootenay AB-  CDEFG1-  K-  L-  MYN-  0-  PRTSVX-  Z-  Argenta Briscoe  Cranbrook New Denver Fernie Canal Flats Golden Invermere Kaslo  Riondel  Marysville and Kimberley Nelson Slocan Spillimacheen Rossland and Trail Salmo Revelstoke Castlegar-Kinnaird Creston  (0*1,0) (0,1,0)  (1,3,2) (1,0,0) (0,1,1) (0,2,1) (1,1,1) (0,3,1) (1,1,1)  (0,0,1) (1,1,0) (1,0,0) (1,2,3)  (0,0,l)  (0,2,2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,4)  (1,2,1)  92  TABLE I Letter Code  Community  Number of Informants *(o,m.y)  — <sr  —  Map VII; Upper Mainland-West BHL-  'ffR-  STWZ-  Bella Coola Hagensborg Burns Lake Ocean Falls Prince Rupert Smithers Terrace Stewart Hazelton  (0,2,1) (0,2,1) (1.0,1) (0,1,1) (1,4,2) (0,2,2) (1,3,1) (1.1,0) (0.2,3)  Map Villai Upper Mainland-North (In}  DF-  Dawson City (Yukon) Telegraph Creek  (0,2,0) (0,1,0)  Map VHIbt Upper Mainland-East GJ-  Prince George Fort St. James  V-  Vanderhoof  M-  McBride (see Map IX)  (0,1,1) (0,4,2)  (0,1,0)  (0,4,0)  Map IXt Peace River (FT  CFHNP-  Chetwynd Fort St. John Hudson's Hope North Pine Pouce Coupe  (0,0,2) (0,3,2) (0,3.1) (0,1,1) (0,0,1)  93  TABLE H a 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 i n brackets in the total line refer to place of birth of parents. ** = less than 1%.  To B.C. From-  B.C.  o-group  11  1  21  m-group  33  10  9  **  y-group  62  22  3  *#  (30)  (13)  38  1.12!  U.S.A.  England  B.C.  Alta.-Man.  Ontario  (ii) 9  Quebec 3  Maritimes 6 3  (2)  (3)  1  3  To B., C . From-  Scotland  Ireland  Other  o-group  12  31  10  2  2  m-group  9  21  7  2  6  y-group  1  k  2  (10) B.C.  7  (20) 18.  #«  (9)—6  2  k  (4) 5  TABLE l i b Background of Parents of Informantsfor Areas and for Area/Age Groups To I  From qm- . . yI-  I  B.C. ##  8 44 60  8  ---52  **  17 12 11  19  41  Alta-Man  11  Ontario 11 0 0 4  Quebec 0 0 0 0  Maritimes 4 0 0 0  U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 19 27 4 0 23 m- _ 0 19 0 3 • 9 y5 0 0 0 5 I1 13 5 9 0 -  To L  From 0 -  myL-  L  B.C.  5 27  1 10  50  2  ?  —  13 38ft  omyLTo C  From  C  5  0 -  myC-  28 36  * , —45-  2  0 -  myC-  9  Alta-Man 1 8 29 12  Ontario 18 13 3  12  Quebec 10 2 0 4  Maritimes 8 2 0 3  .  U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 8 8  34 16 3  0 6  17  B.C. 8 20 30 20  Alta-Man 0 3 16 6  3 10 0  5  Ontario 26 2 0 8  3 0 0  Quebec 0 2 2 1  0 5 3  2  Maritimes 5 0 0 1  ...  U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 11 11 5 9  18  14 7 1?  16 9 2 9  5 6 0 4  5 5 2 4  95  TABLE l i b To 0  From 0-  my0-  0  B.C. 0 9 11 8  13 13  46 24  —32  U.S.A.. 12 4 0 4  0-  my0To K  From  0-  myK-  K 5  17  40 24 —33-  From omy-  Y-  Y 0 7  B.C. 0 14 14 12  50 19 —31-  32  20 10 18  Alta-Man 0 7 14 9  Ontario 37 7 0 7  B.C. .Alta-Man Ontario 0 36 . 0 65 7 7 4 50 3  17  . myP-  Ontario  Quebec 0 0 0 0  Maritimes 0 4 0 2  Quebec 0 2 0 1  Maritimes 12 8 4 7  U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 12 0 0 12 25 12 12 0 25 9 .0 .4 0 0 11 8 19 0 79  P 14 21 —21-  ##  Maritimes 8 2 0 3  .  myYFrom myP-  13 3 8  Quebec 4 0 0  U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 9 45 0 0 5 7 26 2 2 0 .4 7 2 -0 2 *# 23 3 5  0-  To P  Ontario 4  England Scotland Ireland Other w42 4 0 12 28 4 4 14 8 3 3 5 24 11 3 3  B.Gi ; Alta-Man 0 5 9 13 .. 14 21 15 9  omvKTo Y  Alta-Man 0 9 22 11  Quebec 0 0 . 0  Maritimes 0 0 0  •  U.S.A. England Scotland Ireland Other 14 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 7 0  96  TABLE III Distribution of Informants by Age and Area *I= L= C= Q=  Vancouver Island Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland Cariboo Okanagan  *Area  I  L  C  Age  K= Kootenay Y= Upper Ma in land-Yellow -head Route P= Peace River  0  K  Y  P . B.C.  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  57  55  48  14 . 368  Area Totals  69  Age Groups y-gp.  15-30.  21  19  22  18  21  14  7 . 122  31-60.  18  31  32  27  23  30  7 . 168  13  19  19  12  11  4  52  6?  7J  55  48  m-gp.  o-gp. 61-90. Area Totals  0 .  78  14 . 368  97 TABLE IV t l  Tomato BC -60 -90  Distrib-  -ution^BC _ I -60  ~ -90  Distrib-ution-I  /kj  feij . .  ?_4  7 l£:  8?  8  91  81. -  ... . . 12  L -60  100  Distrib-ution-L  80  0 10  91  3  C -60  _  .  168 ?8  5  371  _  -  70  ^  -  ^  91  9  33 19 7_5_  21  §2  12  1  _ 0 -60 "* -90  90 70 ?J>  5 15  78  _ Y =.60... -90 Distrib-ution-Y .. .-.30  P -60  Distrib-ution-P  12 ~~ 52  6  79.  K -60 " -90 Distrib-ution-K .  18  31 20  ~ -90 Distribution^  ^30  22"  0 10  0 0  Distrib-ution-0  N -  3 10  _ 5 25. ...... 8  3J  _  —  %  _ 5  89 42  _  ~ -90  fa\a. oJ  —  19" 27  0  ^TJTI 4tll 17t 8  9  6t 9  5_8_  0 5  6 0  9_  21~ 22 11  4  2  54  93  7 0 0  T4~"  7J  7 7 25  90  9  2  48  100  0 0  0. 0  .7 ..  100  0  0  14  100 96  81  .. . . . 95  gTj  100 ..  1  !  2  !  .  12  30  4_  7  98 TABLE  /eis/  Vase -30 -60  BC  -90  BC  9 8. 12  ..  Dist rib.. .  ... :  -30  -90 • Distrib. . I  -30 -60 -?0  ..,  L  . .  C  -30  -60 -90  Distrib. 0  -30 K  "  -60 -90  Distrib. K -30  Y -60  -30 P -60 Distrib. P  5 0 16 ". . 6  '"  N  M  59  18  1 1 1  2 3 1  128 168 78  26".'.  63  1  2  374  52  >3 78  0 0 0  0 0 0  21 18 13  0  0  52 20 31  54  37  58  15 20 16  75 77 68  0 0 0  5 3 0  19  73  0  "•- 3  36  40  4 0 0  0 0 0  11  16  56  15  29  57  0 7 8  21 22 17  74  56  5 14 0 8  :  74  19 70  .  25 32  19  0  76  67  0 4 0  5 11 8  19 27  12  21  64  2  9  58  17 19  18  68 78 64  0 0  21  9  0 4 0  7  16  73  2  2  55  0  40 37 25  60 50  0 0 0  0 0 0  15 30  0  . . 49  0  .  .  .6.3. 68  31  13  -90  Distrib. Y  .'.'  fa?  26  22 31  20 13  -30 -60 -90  Distrib.  0 ~  9  6  Distrib.  c: ~  30  .  3 ....... 0.  I. .-60  L "  feizj  IVt2  "" 8  ......  .  75 ^  .'." :5a  "''  .  .*.*..  0  ..  23 11  4  29  29 29  29  43  0 0  . 0 0  7 7  36  29  36  0  0  14  43  ,  99 TABLE. mt3,k  Apricot . -30 BC -60  -90 Distrib. BC  -30  I -60 -90 Distrib. . .1  -30 L -60  -90 Distrib. L  -30 C -60  -90 Distrib. C  -30  0-60  -90 Distrib. 0 -30 K -60  ~ -90 Distrib. K  A/ 40  M 7  60  42  N  /bu7  Shone  2 1.. . 8  121 164  N 99  123 168 .  98  43  58 57  41  59  362  .. 2  98  368  52  21  100 100  21  48  . 18 . 39  35 41  82 . 62  17 13  0 0 15  65  51  ". 4  59  17  40  60 68  77  92  85  '. 96  77  1.8 13  52  100 0 0 .. . 100 .  19 31  32  30 19  :; 58::.  42  66  3 • 97  68  39  36 4?  61 65 53  22 31  5  3 0  22  19  95 97 100  32 19  39  61  72  1  99  73  16  84 67 83  19 27 12  0 17  5  95 100 83  19 27 12  24  76  58  5  95  58  43  21  30  57 59  70  22 10  0 0 0  100 100 100  21 23  40  '.. 60 ".  53  0  100  55  57  10  90  18  ..  33 17  41  11  Y -60 -90 Distrib. Y  40  14 30  4  0 0 0  100 100 100  14  50  43 60 50  46  .54  48  0  100 .  48  .-30 P -60  57  71  43 29  7 7  Q 0  100 100  7 7  64  36  14  0  100  14  -30  Distrib.. P  .  30  4  100 TABLE IV«5,6 Lever BC  -.30  -60  Distrib. BC I  -30 -60  -90 Distrib. I L  -30 -60 -90  Distrib. L  -30  C -60  -90  Distrib.. C  f£/  f i /  18 21  82  _2I  79 _6£.  12.  21  21  ^1  122 168 _J8_  12.  _7_9_  IL  79  26  22.  -2L  27 13 J2_  73 88 68  22  _7_8_  16  25  -30  21 18  12  88  0 7 0  100 9k 100  •2Z.  1 2  19 31 12.  i9_  2L  87 36  P -60 Distrib. P  95 100 62  12.  95  " -90  ?69  12.  5 13 6k  Distrib. Y  ?5  -21  81  -30  _2L  12.  19  Y -60  123 168  22 33  0  ~ -90  95  N  91  25  Distrib. K  J8_  22 32  19 27  -30  5 0  69.  84 82 75  K -60  1(5" Sk.  12.  19  Distrib.  5  19 31  0 -60 -90  -30  /V  M 4  21 18  90 i l  65 _7jL  36  Root:  368  28  19 10  N  9 12  5  88  95  7k_ 19  12  0 8  100 92  26 12  58  4  96  57  23  21  11  0 4 0  100 96 100  23  75  55  2  98  54  7 20 25  93  80 75  14 30 4  7 0 0  93 100 100  14 30  17  83  48  2  98  . 48  29  71 43  7 7  0 14  100 86  7 7  57  14  7  93  14  57  • •  21 11  4  101  TABLE IVs? Soot  faj  . -30 BC -60  -90 Distrib. BC _  92.  :  _  I -60 -90 Distrib. . . I -30 L -60  =7^0 Distrib. L -30  C -60  82 5J  5 14  2 4 8  12~T~  6 3J 14 5  -  90  3  5J  _J2  81 91  12 9  ..  5  5 -  89  81 95  N  1  —  46  /A/  22  80 .  fx]  366  0  2T~  6  18  l i  13  6  52 19  0 7  ...  165 . 78  30  16  li  7 0  68 22  74 5J  23 22  _  _75  21  _4  71  0 -60 l9_0 Distrib. 0  89  7 2J  4 8  27 12  =29.  Distrib. C  _  K -60 " -90 Distrib. K — Y -60 -90 Distrib. Y -00  P -60 Distrib. _P  _  62 86 —  3 11  :  _  9__  83  13  64  3_0  82  15  73  23  ZS  ?J  78  21  86 86  14  86  2  0  :  30  i£  _ _  $  58 -  4  23  11_  0 .  ~~~  it  ;  H  0 3 0  lk~  2 14  .48  J  14  0  30  4  7.  7_  102 TABLE IV«8,9 Route -30  -30  -30  -30  *  -99  -30  Y -60 -90 Distrib.. . Y -30 P -60  Distrib. P  -  58  21 19 12  6.  50  65  35  52  0  18  95  5  17  20  18 .  81  19  70  41  30  19 22  22  67  69  31  68  19 37  76 70 47  24 30  21  53  19  . 20. 47  30  59  17  42  21 30 19  67  33  70  66  34  73  100  67  0 4 33  19 25 12  70 62 67  30 38  33  20 29 12  91  9  .' . 56  65  35  61  91  10 26  75  25  40  21 23 10  70  22 30  20 23 10  78  22  54  74  26  53  86 67 75  14 33 25  14 4  79 55 75  21 45 25  14 29 4  73  27  . 48  64  36  47  86 - . 14 71 29  7 7  86  57  ^3 14  22  14  71  29  74 60  Distrib. K  42  19 37  0 ..: 6..;  55  63 58  96  K -60  12  63  70 -  81  0 -60 -9© Distrib. 0  - 369  359  :  -30  -.30  21  100  C -60 -90 Distrib. C  45  79 '•  L -60 80 -90 53 Distrib. . L ;: 78 .  N 122 172 75  63  94 -  ••£>• 22 33  78 67  100 94 83  -30  M 7  120 163 76  77  I -60 -90 Distrib.. I  8  Schedule  23 37  93  BC -60 -90 Distrib. BC  N  ATI/  A /  7?  30  78  33  7 7 14  103 TABLE Rather .. . - 3 0 BC - 6 0  fa?  /v 0?  N  t  ~8 17 26  123 165 73  15 ~5 28  22  361 21" 18 13  79  21  • -30 L -60 -90 • Distrib.  95 83 72  L .. - 3 0 C. - 6 0 -90 Distrib.  §4 100 77 79  C ...... T^Tj 0 -60 -90 Distrib. 0.  84 90 85 69  -90  Distrib, BC . -30 I -60 ~90 Distrib.. I  130 -60 -90 Distrib. K K  —  Y -60. -90 Distrib. Y .. ^.30 P -60 Distrib. _P  92 83 74  IV:10,11 • ' Zebra  fe?  ,  A?  N  23 51 4j?  77" 49 51  il7 162 74  41 14" 41 5J  59 86" 59 45  353 21 17 11  52  33  6?  49.  5 17 28  19 30 18  6" 43 5J  95 57 47  IF""  16  67 21 34 19.  35 38 55 42  65 52 45 58  45 28 46 5J)  55 72 r 54 50  71  59  56  .  85 95 72 62  ~  0  23 21  m  ......  30 17  65 21 31 , 19  16. 10 15 3JL  74 19 26 13.  85  l i  5J  41  974 100 60  5 0 40  18 22 10  21 68 ho  79" 32 60  19  20  IQ  50__  45  55  51 29 5  —  .  -  86 75  14 2J  87  13  100 100  0 0  100'  0  —  .  .  .  s  26 12  22 10  —  28 4_  80  59  41 20  45  51  49  7 7  29 29.  71 21  7 7  14  29  71  14  .  4?  104 TABLE IYi.12,13 Father/bother .  R  NO  N  Caught/cot  78 72 60  22 28 41  iT8 166 ?4  ~ ~  72  29  358  "O -60 *90 -• Distrib. I •  80 61 54  20 39 46  20 18 13  67 . 33  51  , -30 . L -60 . -90 Distrib...  95 83 61  5 27 39  19 30 18  81  19  _ 75 44  -30 BC -60 -90 Distrib. BC I  .  NO  95 89 81  5 11 19  1T9" 166 75  90  10  360.  100 78 69  0 22 31  20" 18 13 51  90 93 83  10 7 17  19" 30 18  67  90  10  67  — 25 56  21 32 18  95 94 94  5 6 6  21~ 32 18  66  34  . 71  94  6  71  68 63 67 . 65  32 37 33  19 27 12  95 82 67  5 18 33  19~ 27 12  35  58  83  17  58  6~8 87 68  32 13 23  19 23 9.  100 96 73  0 5 27  19~ 22 11  77  24  51  _____ Y..--60. -90 Distrib. Y  _ _ 69 100  _ 31 0  — 29 4  80  20  46  -30 P -60 Distrib. _P  : . .57. 43  _____ C -60 -90 • Distrib. C  .  .  ~30 0 -60 -90 Distrib. 0 ^JO K -60 -90 Distrib. K  . ._.  50  43 57 50  .7Z 14  :  -  .8 5  N  15  L  .  R  _________________ _^ 93 100 .91 ...  _g 7 0 9  ~Tb~0 86  0 14  93  7  ___ 29 4_ 46 7~ 7_ 14  105 TABLE  IVsl4,15 •k -  Marr-y/merry  R .,  -30  BC -60  -90  • NO  .N  -  Aunt/ant  72 46 29  28 54 71  120 166 75  52  48  361  .1.. '  D i s t r i b . .  BC  -30 I -60 -90 --  07 33 15  :  Distrib.  .1  :  ..  33 ' 67 85  R  NO  N  . 9.7 . 92 85  3 8 15  119 165 74 -  93  Too  21 18 13  89  67  ?  358.  0 11 33  21  18 12  -. .  42  58  _  52  _  88  _  1.2  ... 51-  L -60 ~ -90  40 39  60 61  30 18  90 <_4  10 6  30 18  Distrib. L  46  54  67  93  -8  671  65 50 33  35 50 67  22 32 18  95 94  51  49  7_2  9_2  74" 48 25  2? 52 75  19 27 12  100 85  8_2  0 15 17  19 27 12  52  48  58  9_Q  10  58  90 44 30  10 57 70  19 23 10  100 100 9J)  0 0 10  19 23 10  58  42  52  98  2  52  ^_  _  _  57 25  43 75  28 4_  0  ... 28 4  62  38  45  71 43  29 57  7  _  -30  C -60  -90  Distrib. C  -,30 0 -60 ~ -90  Distrib.  0  -30  K -60  -90  Distrib. K  _____ Y .-60  ~ -90  Distrib. /.Y  -30 P -60  '  8J  6 17  5 2 1 32 18  8  71  _ .  .  _  ^  Z  '.  •  100 100  C)  . 96 100 §6  Distrib.  _P  __  _  4„ 0 14  •  45  7 7  ^  57  43  14  22  Z  lit  106  TABLE I V : l 6 , 1 7 Le isure/p leasure., R -30  ~50  BC -60  67 61  -90  Distrib-.-  NO  N  50 33  117 163 76  40  356  Bury/furry.  •  ••  . ••  R  NO  N  34 26  31  66 74 69  119 166 75  30  70  360  62  38  _ _ _ _ _ _  __  __-  - _ -  I -60 *90 Distrib. .I  53  85  47 15  17 13  33  31  ~ 67  69  18 13  64  36  50  31  69  52  BC  .  .  --•  ^5  21  __  _  _  __  50  57  43 50  18  30  30 39  61  70  30  54  46  67  33  67  67  -30 C -60 ~ -90 Distrib. C  57  53  21 32  41  55  72 72  21  19  28 28  63  38  72  34  66  71  _____  __  _  __  __  __.  —  8867  12 33  25  26  74 83  27  68  32  58  _____  L. --60 -90  •  Distrib.  L  66 63  0-60  " -90 Distrib. .0  _ _ _  _  K -60 -90  Y -60 -90  Distrib. Y -30  12  17  56  32  18  12  24  76 .  _  __  —  9 50  91  23 10  21  79  ___  52 _  25 0  75 100  28 4  —  26 10  23 10  64 __  37  _^  52 —  69 100  31 0  29 4_  63  37  45  28  72  45  57 ... 43  43 57  , 7 7  57 57  43 43  7 7  50  50  14  57  43  14  . .... :  _  18  74  90  Distrib. K ______  P -60 Distrib. _P_  34 37  —  . ;  .  ^  50  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..  . . -30 -.66.  $2 94  BC  -90 Distrib... BC  -  I  3  -.60 -90 Distrib. -I  0  1  0  ;  -30  L ^.60 ~ -90 Distrib. L  -30  C -60  -90  -30 -.60  -90 Distrib. 0  :  -30  K -60 -90 Distrib. K  -30 Y -60  :  Y -  ;  -30  P -60 Distrib. _P  90  10  92  8  0  ~~~  1T9 165 76'  Hoarse/horse  ..  97  .  20  NO  88  92  8  9o  N 118"  3  8 12  92  360  0  ,R  165 76  _. .. . 359  4  2  2 17  89 8J  11 _5  18 1_  88 95  12 15  90  10  51  90  10  52  90 90 83  10 10 17  19 30  90  10  18  93 94  7  19 30  88  12  67  93  7  67  90  10  100  0  21 32  .  95  $  21 32 19  92  8  72  90 100 92  10 0 8  9  95  19 27  12  94 90  -  94 - .  •  .  58  5  . ..  .  5  58  0 4 20  19 23 10  6  52  96  4  52  94  85  15  13  93  93  7  '  0  14  7  '  28 4  85 86  15  100  14 0  45  87  13  7  7_  14  '  ~  72  95  10  3 0  .6.  19  26  100 96 80  23  6 10  18  10 0 8  5 0 10  "Too 86  19  :  6  13  90 . 100 92  95 100 90  97 100  "" - 9 0 Distrib.  N  8 6  91  Distrib.. C 0  . NO  .. 1.0.0 100  100  20 12  13  28 4  45  0 0  .7 6  0  13  108 TABLE IV:20,21 Fairy/ferry  ,R  .. -30 BC -60 -90  R  NO  N  119 166 75  88 8?  1.65  72  12 13 _2  12  360  85  15  358  __ 94 77  5 6 23  21 18 13  86* 82  ZZ  14" 18 2J  22* 17 13_  90  10  52  83  17  52  90 90 83  10 10 17  19 30 18  74" 87 8_?  26* 13 11  19 30 18  1.2  67  84,  16  90 87 78  10 13 22  21 32 18  80 88 67  20 12 33  20 32 18  C  86  14  71  - •• - 80  20  70  -30 0 -60 -90  95 85  92.  5 15 8  19 27 12  95 89  7_5  5 11  2_2  19 27 12  0  90  10  58  88  12  58  -30 K -60 -90  7  95 91 7_0  5 9 30  19 23 10  Too 87 60  0 13 40  19 23 10  K  88  12  52  86  14  85 90 100  "15 10 g  13 29 4  53 89 100  i l 11 g  13 28 4  .87  13  46  89  11  45  0 14  .7  10.0 86  0 14  .,.7.  7  14  9J  7  Distrib.. .  BC-  ________ I -60 -90 Distrib.  I-  , -30 L -60 -90  ~  ,  NO.  N^  389 81  8 11 19  88  Distrib. L ...... 88  -30 C -.60 -90 Distrib.  Distrib.  Distrib.  I30 Y -.60 -90  " Mary/merry  '  '  ...  ...  '  ;  lTF  ZZ  .  _  67  52  D i s t r i b . . . ..  -Y . -30 P -60 Distrib..  _P  Too 86 .  9J  .  Z_  Z.  14  109  TABLE V . Number of Informants t Provincial and Mainland Sample Groups Students (y-group)  Adults (m-group)  PQ3  122  168  SCE  697  563  PQ3-(I+GV), Rodman  95  137  114  128  110 TABLE. VI Distribution of Variants; Provincial and Mainland Surveys A = PQ3  B = SCE  C = PQ.3-CI+GV)  D = Rodman  Students (y-group)  Adults (m-group)  A  B  C  D  A  1  C  D  92  93  93  97  91  89  90  84  4  3  4  3  7  7  11  10  4  4  3  1  3  4  3  6  9  8  10  8  8  11  9  7  30  28  24  30  26  26  33  24  59  46  63  51  63  49  54  53  1  2  1  l  1  1  1  1  2  15  1  10  3  12  1  14  M 7  60  51  63  57  58  52  56  62  M  40  49  48  43  42  49  44  37  18  26  19  18  21  10  21  11  82  74  81  82  79  88  79  89  1. Tomato /ei7  M  2. Vase /eis/ f-eizj fz>J fx?  3. Apricot  5. Lever  A /  111  TABLE VI A =  B-= SCE .  PQ3  G = PQ3-(I+GV.)  D = Rodman  Students (y-group)  Adults (m-group)  A  B  C  D  A  B  c  D  92  78  91  78  82  87  80  84  6  20  6  22  14  12  16  13  2  2  3  1  4  1  5  2  8  19  10  21  23  25  27  27  93  81  90  79  77  75  73  73  78  84  75  86  67  72  70  73  22  16  25  14  33  26  31  26  7. Soot  /V Route  /V  9. Schedule /sk/  Father/bother R  78  68  76  71 ;  72  69  66  72  NO  22  32  26  29  28  30  34  28  Caught/cot R  9^  86  94  90  89  89  9P  85  NO  5  13  7  10  11  10  10  15  112  TABLE VI A = PQ3  B:  = PQ3-(I+0V)  0  D  SCE =  Rodman  Students (y-group) A  Adults (m-group)  B  C  D  A  B  C  D  15» Aunt/ant R  97  83  96  89  92  87  93  83  NO  3  15  4  11  8  13  7  16  16. Leisure/pleasure R  50  36  4?  37  67  39  69  42  NO  50  61  53  63  33  59  31  59  1?. Bury/furry R  34  34  33  33  27  25  27  26  NO  66  65  67  67  74  76  63  68  113 TABLE: v n Number o f I n f o r m a n t s { R e g i o n a l Sample Students  PQ3  G-P  Groups  Adults SCE  PQ3 (o-gp)  G-P  SCE  m-gp  8-9 Vancouver Island (I)  21  42  (19)  31  apricot route  16? tomato vase  Lower . Mainland  C a r i b o o (C)  GV- 5 nGV-14 _ 19  2 4 6 lZ  *  (Hope)  22  Okanagan (Of  18  Kootenay (K)  21  ,Y  Upper Mainland (Y)  (Van.)  14  135 152  12  83  13  113  31  T4T  32  18  18  48  (12)  27  28  (11)  23  30  28  18? tomato vase 11-12. apricot route 24  25  42  14  114  TABLE VIII Distribution of Variants; Regional Surveys . . Students Adults SCE PQ_ G-P PQ3 . . .G-P  SCE  (o-gpTT 1. Tomato  MJ I  0  (33)  5  47  (2 5)  5  30  -  2  Sia.,0?  5  0  90  96/  93  100  0  3  2  0  10  1  5  0  90  91  -  83  10  9  -  0  0  0  fa/  87  -  fa?  9  _  /z>;a,a/  4  —  MS  90  faS  5  /bia.a/  5  -  -  _  94  _  -  _  83 9 8  _  _  17  (75)  70  56  80  (0)  15  38  6  2  (25)  15  6  0  100  100  100  (81)  96  92  83  ft  0  0  0  (9)  5  0  10  /bi^.a/  0  0  0  (9)  0  8  7  fa?  0  -  fax*, A?  0  -  MS Y  24  5  MS I  89  fe?  MS C  (42)  98  MS L  -  95  100  100  100  0  0  0  0  -  85 7 8  115  TABLE VIII • Students PQ3 G-P 2. Vase  GV nGV GV nGV  PQ3  Adults G-P  (o-gpTT"m-gp)  •*/a/ includes fa/ and /Q/  /-eis./  3  0  /eiz/  52  41  fa]  43  52  /a/  0  0  6  '.(3D  22  6  • (54)  78  89  0  0  (15)  _2_  /"-eis/  /"-eiz/  SCE  (0)  13  0  15  50  32  20  75  35  39  77  GV nGV GV 15  nGV  0  /"-eis/  20  8  13  /-eiz/  36  33  31  ^/  40  42  56  Va/  4  17  0  /eis/  0  /eiz/  8  -  (8)  7  6  21  23 , (19)  22  6  74  52  (64)  56  75  __  17  (8)  15  12  ,  116  TABLE VIII PQ3  Students G-P .  SCE  PQ3  Adults  (o-gpT! m -gP. -  K  /"-eiz/  14  5  6  18  12  68 0  Va/  Y  0  0  5  40  (19)  17  25  25  83  54  (64)  78  71  55  0  0  (8)  4  4  15  37  21  67  50  -  57  _  11  0  0  /"-eiz/  40  -  22  A /  60  Va/  0  & 48  -  -  GV L ~ nGV  41  -  40  C  39  -  0  16  -. -  Y  .  1  3  7  14  only  I  K  "  -  -  3o Apricot'  SCE  (8)  0  f-eisj  G-P  (39)  18  17  60  -  . .-  40 29  ...... ..  4?  (17)  33  25  (30)  .41 .  34  40.  -  43  31  30  5-7  -  60 '.  .. ..  .42  47  60  36 .  .40  . .60  117  TABLE VIII PQ3  5• Lever  SCE  7  19  GV L *~ nGV  21  C  27  0  16  K  5  Y  7  1  Adults G-P  (o-gp7Jm-gp.  . .. -  SCE  faj  ....  .  •t  ..••)..  6. Root  PQ3  /£/ only  I.  K  Students G-P  24  36  5  13  - .  22  19  4  20  5  -  (64)  10  13  15 10 ..  il 4  8  20  7  only 0  0  (0)  4  18  17  118 TABLE VIII PQ3  Students . Gj-P .  SCE  PQ3  Adults G-P  (o-gpT)m-gp.  SCE  7. Soot  I  A 7  95  67  5  2  o  ___.  GV 95  nGV  71  GV  GV /V  A7 _____  K  83  18  o  6 1  23 _2_  _V  0  90  30  nGV  nGV  68  A /  _____  91  83  73  9  17  23  0  0  _1  95  75  89  80  0  25  7  16  _ I  0  4  4  89  91  99  82  (64)  83  92  86  5  1  15  (30)  13  0  14  ___  0  _2_  _ _ _ i  4  8  0  86  90  73  93  14  10  23  7  0  0  0  0  119  TABLE VIII PQ_ 7. Route I .  Students G-P  SCE  PQ3  (o-gp7)  Adults . G_P  m-gp.  SCE  /atr/ only . 0  (17)  25  0  11  20  17  19  25  38  38  0  a  18  (33)  K  10  20  (40)  12  . 37  23  26  21  30  22  29  11  30  27  24  23  30  21  30  18  38  20  14  9. Schedule  /$/  I  19  o n l  y 23 16  K  4  25 21  16  (30) 20  26 45  26  25 43  120  TABLE V I I I .  Students SCE  10.  Rather  /it/ 5  32  £  5  11  K  6  4  23  10  _  5  10  K  21  6  I  12.  Zebra  K  -  0  .  17  /&/ -  Father/bother  K  13.  SCE  onlv  I  11.  Adults PQ3 . G-P (o-gpT/m-gp.  -  -  68  35  -  /R/  68  Caught/cot  -  99  64  (68)  87  88  74  100  96  (73)  96  96  79  /R/ 100  121  TABLE PQ3 15.  Aunt  I  faJ  Students G-P , .  VIII Adults PQ3 G-P (o-gp7T"m-gp.  SCE  SCE  only  .. 0  -  ......  . .  11  - .  . -  GV L  28 5  19  10 18  nGV C  5  -  8  6  -  6  0  0  -  17  15  -  13  K  0  Y  0  0 -  16. L e i s u r e  /_/ only  I  60  3 .  (10)  10  0  4  14  21 .  14  51 *  . GV L  40 53  45  33  nGV  57  53  43 57  C  57  -  33  66  -  35  0  42  . -  .20  88  -  58  K  37  22  30  74.  46  33  Y  42  -  45  69  -  35  (90)  „  122  TABLE VIII Students  SCE  1  Adults  (o-gpT*f m.gp.  G-P  , SCE  17. Bury I  24 .  20  GV L . nGV .  32  35  ._ 46  .. ..... -  0  26  -  K .....  21  I  46  18. Mourning"  _w  K  5 _  K 21. Fairy K Mary K  -  34  30  48  -  32  C  19. Hoarse  . -  ..  .  1 . -  . 28. .  31 26 32  (50)  18  0  -  ' - ...  26  26  - _.  24  9  8  32  25  -  .  20  (10)  0.  0  -  W 0  0  -  (20)  5  0  -  5  0  . .. . -  (30)  9  . 4  -  0  0  (40)  13  17  -  M7  /el/ -  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 +  y*  E  a v e r d  u  E  M i d w  R  -  y  BlJ.S.A {WSshingti Boundaries- 0/L, Major Roads 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) 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  M  T  U  ALBERTA  u  n g 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 M a j o r Roads Railways  1. PGE  ____________  Yukon V (see Map Villa) ,  s  i  133  ^P_Xi B.C.. AND POJ SUB-AREAS N.W.T.  \  \  \  I L C 0 K Y  = = = = = =  Vancouver Island Fraser Valley-Lower Mainland Cariboo Okanagan Kootenay Upper Mainland-Yellow'head Route  /  Alberta  Washington ana  139  MAP XVI» AGE GROUP VARIATIONS The o-Group  *}T=~High tomato  /ei/ H  6. root  L =_Low  /^j/ H  un-J marted  apricot  feij  H V/AL  lever  fi/  H  16. leisure /*£/ H  140 MAR.XVII^ AGE GROUP VARIATIONS The m-Group *H = High 1  ' tomato  / e i / H III ||L  m  m  3. apricot / i i 7 H KX/lL 8  » route  /u/  H  |J^JL  10. rather  frj  16. leisure f£,J  L = Low  H[>£  H  L | marfked  141 MAP XVIIIi AGE GROUP VARIATIONS. The y-Group *H = High 2  » " vase:: £p/  2b. vase  H III ML  /eiz/ H  |9I  L  3. apricot / e i / H IVXIL 8  » route  [v]  H <j^L y ^ j  11. zebra  fij  L = Low H |\|L  [\J  12. father = bother  "IHJ EB __ L  14, marry / merry  H  L  142 MAP XIX; AGE GROUP S.G. The o-Group_ !• / e i / i  n  tomato  3. / e i / i n apricot 5. / i /  i n lever  6.  in root  145 MAP XXIIi D i s t r i b u t i o n o f V a r i a n t s o f A p r i c o t i n 0 and Ce  PQ3 area boundaries -_.  The key t o the l e t t e r code f o r 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 Kootenay 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 Meeti 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 Unive r s i t y of B.C., 1969.  153  Reed, Carroll E., "The Pronunciation of English in the American North-West, Language. XXXVII, (l?6l), pp.559-64. M  . Dialects of American English, University of Massachuse t t s Press, 1973. Reed, David W., "A S t a t i s t i c a l Approach to Quantitative Linguist- i c Analysis," Word, v.5, (1949), pp.235-47. Rodman, L i l i t a , "Characteristics of B.C. English," The English Quarterly, v . v i i , 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 i n American English, Prentice Hall, N.J., 1974. Wood, Gordon R., Vocabulary Change: a Study of Variation i n Regional Words i n Eight of the Southern States, Southern I l l i n o i s University Press, 1971.  * reprinted i n : Chambers, J.K., Canadian English: Origins and Structures. Methuen, 1975.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items