UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Prestige and standard in Canadian English : Prestige and standard in Canadian English : Richards, Donna Jean 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A1 R53.pdf [ 23.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098220.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098220-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098220-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098220-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098220-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098220-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098220-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098220-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098220.ris

Full Text

PRESTIGE AND STANDARD IN CANADIAN ENGLISH: EVIDENCE FROM THE SURVEY OF VANCOUVER ENGLISH By DONNA JEAN RICHARDS B.A., The University of Briiish Columbia, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of English)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1988 © Donna Jean Richards, 1988  In  presenting  degree  this  thesis  in partial  fulfilment  of the requirements  at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  for an advanced  agree that permission for extensive  of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted  department  or  by  his or  her  representatives.  It  is  by the head of my  understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department  of  F.ngl i sh  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  October 14. 1988  ii ABSTRACT A survey of the use of standard and prestige in English,  and  confusion  of  caused  differences  Canadian by  the  among the  English  similarity  in of  national dialects  general  particular, the  two  descriptions  reveals  concepts  being discussed.  of  terminological  and by cultural This  work argues,  however, that these concepts can and should be distinguished.  Once working  definitions for both terms are formulated, they are tested against data from the Survey  of  evidence  Vancouver English.  of prestige,  defined  Vancouver English reveals  as  "that variety  highest socio-economic  group and emulated  highest  group  for  socio-economic  others  to  homogeneity  emulate  as  "that variety  to be refined.  is  consideration  by others."  well  since,  used by the  The absence of a  established  result,  no  to  provide  forms  in Vancouver, social  the geographical homogeneity  that  typifies  used  by the  majority of  speakers  and typified by  also suggests that the notion of standard may need  The effect of various social factors on correctness is analyzed in  provide  education  (or those forms)  or  While Vancouver English does reveal evidence of standard,  correctness," the evidence  order to  explain this  seems to complement  Canadian English. defined  may  sufficiently  little  a more precise  found to of  the  contribute  notion of  what  significantly  four processes of  to  "correctness"  reflects,  correctness.  Furthermore,  standardization—selection,  elaboration  of  function  and  acceptance—in  Canadian  importance  of  education  to  standardization  and  and  codification,  English confirms  suggests  not  only  that  the a  standard exists in Canadian English but also that Canadian English is a standard variety distinct from other varieties of English. reflect  more directly the  role of correctness  processes to standardization.  Standard is thus redefined to and the  centrality  of the four  The study concludes with a brief reconsideration  iii of standard and prestige in light of these Canadian findings and suggests directions for further research.  iv Table of Contents Abstract List of Tables.... List of Figures Chapter 1. Introduction: Prestige and Standard 1.1 Study of Standard and Prestige 1.1.1 Purpose of the Study 1.1.2 Scope and Method of the Study 1.2 Nature of the Problem 1.2.1 Terminological Confusion 1.2.2 Existence of Prestige and Standard 1.2.3 Social and Regional Dialects and the Development of Prestige and Standard 1.2.4 Linguistic Levels as Delineators of Prestige and Standard 1.3 Background of the Problem 1.3.1 Semantic Similarity 1.3.2 Cultural Considerations 1.3.2.1 Linguistic Level 1.3.2.2 Terminological Inconsistency 1.3.2.3 Existence of Standard and Prestige 1.3.2.4 Development of Prestige and Standard  ii vi vii 1 1 3 3 4 4 9  Chapter 2. Prestige and Standard in Discussions of Canadian English 2.1 Use of the Terms in Descriptions of Canadian English 2.1.1 Terminological Confusion 2.1.2 Existence of Standard and Prestige in Canadian English 2.1.3 Social and Regional Dialects and the Development of Prestige and Standard in Canadian English 2.1.4 Linguistic Levels as Delineators of Prestige and Standard in Canadian English 2.2 Definitions of the Terms 2.2.1 Essential Distinctions between Terms 2.2.2 Working Definitions  29 29 30 33  Chapter 3. Prestige in the Survey of Vancouver English 3.1 The Survey of Vancouver English 3.1.1 Description of the Survey 3.1.2 Reliability of Self-Reporting 3.2 Prestige in the Survey of Vancouver English 3.2.1 Forms used by the Highest Socio-economic Group 3.2.1.1 General 3.2.1.2 Lexical Variables 3.2.1.3 Grammatical Variables 3.2.1.4 Phonological Variables '. 3.2.1.5 Special Profile Items 3.2.2 Forms used by the Highest Socio-economic Group and Emulated by Others 3.2.2.1 Phonological Items 3.2.2.2 Special Profile Items 3.3 Development of Prestige in Vancouver English  58 58 58 65 69 71 72 77 78 81 84  10 14 16 16 17 20 21 24 25  40 43 45 45 56  86 88 93 101  V  3.4 Conclusion 3.4.1 The Definition 3.4.2 Prestige in Vancouver English  104 104 105  Chapter 4. Standard in the Survey of Vancouver English 4.1 Variety Spoken by the Majority of Speakers 4.2 Variety Typified by Correctness 4.2.1 Notion of Correctness 4.2.2 Conventional Correctness 4.2.3 Social Factors and Correctness 4.2.3.1 Gender 4.2.3.2 Age 4.2.3.3 Socio-economic Status 4.2.3.4 Level of Education 4.2.3.5 Teachers 4.3 Processes of Standardization in Canadian English 4.3.1 Selection 4.3.2 Codification 4.3.2.1 Dictionaries 4.3.2.2 Grammar Books 4.3.3 Elaboration of Function 4.3.4 Acceptance 4.3.4.1 Development of Canadian English 4.3.4.2 Influences on Canadian English 4.3.4.3 Acceptance of Canadian English 4.4 Conclusion 4.4.1 The Definition 4.4.2 Canadian English  108 108 Ill 113 118 131 132 133 136 138 139 142 143 146 147 150 154 156 159 162 166 169 169 172  Chapter 5. Conclusion: Reconsideration of Standard and Prestige 5.1 The Terms 5.2 Prestige 5.3 Standard 5.4 Canadian English 5.5 Future Studies 5.5.1 Canadian Studies 5.5.2 General Studies 5.6 General Conclusion  174 174 175 177 179 179 181 186 187  Bibliography  188  Appendices A: Outline of Contents of SVEN Questionnaire B: Reading Passage C: Visual-Aural Prompts D: Forms Used by Most Speakers in All Socio-economic Groups E: Forms Used by Majority Versus Those Used by Each Socio-economic Group F: "Correct" Grammatical Forms G: Dictionaries and Handbooks Consulted  209 210 213 229 251 273 274  vi List of Tables Table 3.1 Distribution of Reliable and Unreliable Reporting Across Socio-economic Groups Table 3.2 Pattern of Emulation of Prestige Table 3.3 Phonological Variation Across Speech Styles: Socioeconomic Group IV and One other Group Uniform Table 3.4 Phonological Variation Across Speech Styles: Socioeconomic Group IV least Consistent Across Styles Table 3.5 Special Profile Variation Across Speech Styles: Socioeconomic Group IV Uniform Table 3.6 Special Profile Variation Across Speech Styles: Socioeconomic Group IV Not the Only Uniform Group Table 3.7 Special Profile Variation Across Speech Styles: Socioeconomic Group IV the Group to Differ Table 3.8 Special Profile Variation Across Speech Styles: Socioeconomic Group IV and One Other Group Differ  68 87 89 91 94 97 98 99  vii List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7  Figure 3.8  Uniformity 68 Variant Different from Majority-Overall Pattern 87 Variant Different from Majority-Lexicon 89 Variant Different from Majority-Grammatical Variables ....91 Variant Different from Majority-Phonological Items 94 Variant Different from Majority-Special Profile Items 97 Phonological Variation by Socio-economic Groups Across Speech Styles 98 Special Profile Variation by Socio-economic Groups Across Speech Styles 99  To the One through whom all things are possible. And to those who tried to make it impossible. Also to my family and friends, who, at different times, did both.  1 CHAPTER 1 PRESTIGE AND STANDARD  The concepts of prestige and standard are central to sociolinguistic explanations  of language variation and change.  the "Social Stratification of English in New correlation between social stratification and  Labov's exemplary work on  York City" (1966) demonstrates the linguistic variation and identifies  the importance of sociolinguistic prestige in language variation and change. Subsequent works, such as those done by Trudgill in Norwich (1974), Pringle, Dale and Padolsky in Ottawa (1985), Clarke in Newfoundland (1981) and Gregg in Vancouver (1984), corroborate Labov's findings and establish prestige as an integral part of socio-dialect studies.  Standard is also an essential  consideration or subject of investigation in socio-dialect studies.  Wells'  definition of standard as an accent that "enjoys overt prestige" (1982:104) and Trudgill's recognition that RP, the prestige accent in Britain, "only occurs together with Standard English" (1974:18) are just two indications of the extent to which prestige and standard are bound.  However, in general discussions of  language structure, variation or history, the terms prestige and standard are often neither clearly defined nor consistently used.  1.1 Study of Standard and Prestige The  theoretical confusion of definition between standard and prestige has  serious, practical consequences.  Theories of language variation and change  depend on clarification of these essential terms;  similarly, descriptions of  language variation that are based on those underlying theories depend on clarification of these essential terms.  However, definitions of these terms  should be motivated by empirical analyses of object language data.  As Labov  2 points out, it is important to quantify sociolinguistic variation, especially in order to test and better understand theories: If this term [sociolinguistics] refers to the use of data from the speech community to solve problems of linguistic theory, then I would agree that it applies to the research described here. But sociolinguistics is more frequently used to suggest a new inter-disciplinary field--the comprehensive description of the relations of language and society. This seems to me an unfortunate notion, foreshadowing a long series of purely descriptive studies with little bearing on the central theoretical problems of linguistics or of sociology. (Labov 1966:v) Clearly, both descriptive studies and interpretation of the data gathered in the studies are needed to "solve problems of linguistic theory."  Both are also  needed to solve problems in sociolinguistic theory, not in the sense of "the comprehensive  description of the relations of language  and society," but  rather in the sense of that part of linguistic theory that accounts for variation that is socially determined.  The results of the studies done must be used not  only to add to the body of sociolinguistic description but also to reassess the theory on which the studies were based, including the definitions of essential terms.  It is also important to consider data gathered in different areas of the  English speaking world.  As Baugh, writing about standard, points out, "We  must recognize that in the last two hundred years English has become a cosmopolitan tongue and cultivate a cosmopolitan attitude toward its various standard forms" (Baugh 1957:381).  Not only has the attitude become much  more cosmopolitan since the late 1950's, but also, following the pioneer work of Labov in the late 1960's, most dialect studies have been what are more accurately called socio-dialect studies and the body of available data has increased immensely.  It is possible to use these studies, especially those from  different countries, to broaden the scope of reassessment of  sociolinguistic  3  theory.  Although the number of Canadian studies lags behind those done in  Britain and the U.S., the available Canadian data, especially as they differ from American and British data, are necessary both to extend the cosmopolitan attitude toward the standard forms of English as Baugh suggests and to reassess sociolinguistic theory as Labov suggests.  1.1.1 Purpose of the Study  The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to expand the description of Canadian English by analyzing and reporting different aspects of the data that were gathered in the Survey of Vancouver English (SVEN) and, second, to show that the terms standard and prestige can and should be distinct.  1.1.2 Scope and Method of the Study  The study will begin with a survey of the terms standard and prestige in the general literature;  this survey will reveal the background and the nature of  the terminological inconsistency and confusion (Chapter 1).  The study will  then survey the terms in descriptions and discussions of Canadian English; this consideration will provide a means of better understanding the contextual aspects of the disagreement about standard and prestige and will lead to the construction of working definitions of the terms standard and prestige (Chapter 2). These working definitions of the terms (or aspects of the definitions) will be provisional ones and will then be tested empirically against data from the Survey of Vancouver English.  Claims for both the  existence and the development of prestige in Canadian English will be tested (Chapter 3). Claims for the existence of Standard Canadian English and the  4 role of grammatical correctness as an aspect of Standard English will be analyzed; the definitions will be refined in light of the findings (Chapter 4). The work will then conclude with a reconsideration of prestige and standard in the Canadian context and recommendations for future studies in light of the findings (Chapter 5).  1.2 Nature of the Problem Wyld, writing in 1914, claims that "the facts [about Standard English] are so patent that they have merely to be stated to command assent by all who consider questions of this kind" (Wyld 1963 [1914]:150). However, the facts are far from clear; a survey of histories, grammars and dialectal and sociolinguistic descriptions of English reveals that there is some terminological confusion, especially between uses of standard and prestige, and little agreement about the actual existence of either standard or prestige, about the development of standard and prestige forms and about linguistic levels as delineators of standard and prestige.  1.2.1  Terminological Confusion  Prestige has been defined by Gregg as "those [forms] used by the top socioeconomic group who have the highest level of education" (Gregg 1984:A3). Labov's finding that "in general, a variant that is used by most New Yorkers in formal styles is also the variant that is used most often in all styles by speakers who are ranked higher on an objective socio-economic scale" (Labov 1966:405) provides the further qualification in the generally accepted definition of a prestige form or variety as those forms used by the highest socio-  5  economic groups and emulated by others. empirical  evidence, identify  concrete referents  Such definitions, based on for  the  term  prestige.  However, there is a somewhat more general sense of prestige evident in the literature as well.  A prestige variety may be described simply as a dialect that  is admired by many speakers;  for example, McDavid describes prestige as "the  speech of some people or groups of people [which] is considered better than that of others, and hence more worth imitating"  (McDavid  1969:80).  Prestige,  then, may refer specifically to the dialect of a particular group of speakers or it may refer more generally to a positively evaluated dialect; it  does have clear  in most of its uses  referents.  On the other hand, standard is used to refer to concepts or objects that are difficult  to delineate  prestige.  because they  are much broader than the referents  When delimiting a variety  of a particular language such as English,  linguists use standard in its general sense of example, Trudgill in  the  writing  1983:186).  of  defines Standard  of  an approved model.  For  English as "the dialect that is normally used  English throughout  the  English-speaking world  MacLeish omits reference to writing  and identifies  (Trudgill  Standard  E n g l i s h as "a term applied to an item of usage or a dialect of English that is acceptable to educated, cultivated speakers of the language.  Standard English  is the English used to carry on the daily business of the nation" (MacLeish 1972:115).  Although both these referents for Standard  principle, identifiable, determine  the  they  parameters  are nonetheless difficult of  a dialect  "normally  English are, in  to isolate; used in  how does one  writing...throughout  the English-speaking world" or "used to carry on the daily business of the nation"?  The referents are, to say the least, vague or diffuse.  Thus, though  6 standard can, in some sense, be defined, the referents of the term are less specific than those of prestige. Despite the possibility of distinct senses, however, there is considerable terminological confusion in descriptions of English.  Some writers use  standard to refer to prestige while others use it to refer to a composite of standard and prestige and still others keep the two separate.  De Saussure, in  his lectures given between 1906 and 1911, introduces the notion of language having only dialects and describes the emergence of one of the dialects, the "privileged" dialect and its promotion "to the rank of official and standard language;" he says that this dialect "seldom remains the same as it was before. It acquires dialectal elements from other regions and becomes more and more composite" (de Saussure 1966:195). Like others that follow him, de Saussure uses standard to refer to the imposed or selected dialect that is then common in that it "serves the whole community" (deSaussure 1966:195).  However, his  recognition of such a dialect as being "privileged" and "promoted" suggests prestige as well as standard. Subsequent scholars also identify the standard as both common and a prestige dialect. Francis defines a prestige dialect as "a dialect admired and emulated by the speakers of other dialects" and goes on to say that "a dialect generally admitted by the majority of speakers to be superior to all other dialects in its language is the standard dialect of that language, or simply the standard language" (Francis 1954:48). merges the two;  Thus, Francis  for both de Saussure and Francis standard and prestige are  not clearly distinguishable but rather are elements of the same variety. Others simply use standard to refer to prestige. Wells uses standard to refer to an accent that "enjoys overt prestige" (Wells 1982:104) thereby using standard  7 to refer to what others call prestige.  Similarly, Bloomfield writes,  "Children  who are born into homes of privilege, in the way of wealth, tradition, or education, become native English; the English"  speakers of what is popularly known as 'good'  linguist prefers to give it the non-committal  (Bloomfield  1933:4s).  1  name of standard  Standard, then, has been used to refer to  prestige as well as to standard and to a composite consisting of both standard and  prestige.  On the other hand, Wyld seems to distinguish standard and prestige.  He  defines Received Standard as "that form which all would probably agree considering the best, that form with practically no variation country,"  and Modified  differentiated uniformity,  by  "Modified  currency and is heard  among speakers of the better class all over the  Standard as "Standard English, modified,  various  influences, regional  and  social...[with]  altered, no  and no single form of it heard outside a particular class or a  particular area" (Wyld 1963:150). standard  which has the widest  in  Wyld's terminology  to describe both prestige (his Standard").  is unfortunate;  "Received Standard")  Confusion is inevitable  he uses  and standard (his  when the same term,  whether  modified or not, may refer to both the "best" English and to "the vehicle of everything that affects the nation as a whole" (de Saussure 1966:195), but Wyld  Note that though linguists intend standard in a strictly descriptive sense, having no evaluative dimension and replacing such value laden terms as prestige, p r o p e r and correct, the attempt has been largely unsuccessful; just as the complementary term, nonstandard, is value laden, so is standard. The attempt has led to some confusion in terminology but has not successfully provided a term which is purely descriptive in import. 1  8 makes  a distinction, probably  between  standard  and prestige.  argued that Wyld is not making a real distinction between  2  It could be  standard and  prestige, but that he is referring to degrees of the same thing;  however, his  identifying Received Standard as the best and as that used by those of the better class allows or leads to distinction between the two. discussion of motivation distinction; same.  of language  variation  Samuels, in his  and change, makes  the  he recognizes that standard and prestige are similar but not  the  He writes: Where a standard language exists, this too may provide a model to speakers of lower-class dialects, especially through the medium of broadcasting. But the dialect of national broadcasters may not necessarily coincide with the regional prestige dialect of a particular city; both are likely to influence . other dialects in the same general direction, but they cannot be entirely equated. (Samuels 1972:103)  Some writers,  then, use standard  both standard and prestige;  to refer to something having the features  others use it to refer to something having the  features of prestige rather than standard. refer  to  distinct  referents  of  Still others use the term standard to  including those which  would  more  precisely be  Wyld's notion of Modified Standard includes regional and social varieties of Standard English, presumably as opposed to nonstandard English. The distinction between standard and nonstandard varieties remains unclear, though classification of varieties as either standard or nonstandard flourished with the movement from prescription to description, especially after the early American structuralists and transformationalists' and generativists* insistence on neutral (i.e. not normative or judgemental) terminology; because the term correct had to be eliminated from grammatical descriptions, sentences became either grammatical or ungrammatical, and these, in turn, were either acceptable or unacceptable in a context of use. Moreover, dialects became either "standard" or "nonstandard" and more terminological confusion arose. Not only is there confusion between standard and prestige, then, but also between standard as a variety of English and standard as a kind of English, as determined by judgement of grammaticality. 2  9  called prestige and correct as well as to the standard itself. in  so many  different  senses, confusion is  With standard used  inevitable.  1.2.2 Existence of Prestige and Standard  There is also little agreement  among scholars about the empirical status of a  standard or a prestige in English. is a reality"  (Wyld  Wyld asserts that "the existence of Standard  1963:150), and Labov argues for the existence of prestige:  The notion of "prestige" must be defined in terms of the people using it and the situation in which it is used; that is, brought out of the area of speculation and made the focus of empirical investigation. (Labov 1972:308)  His work in New York City (1966) reveals that a prestige, when defined as forms used by  speakers of a particular  Labov identifies overt prestige (i.e. consciousness  and  is  generally  that which is above the level of  associated with  and speculates that covert prestige (i.e. consciousness  and  is generally  socio-economic group, does exist.  socio-economic groups)  that which is below the level of  associated with lower  also exerts pressure on language variation. prestige  higher  are confirmed by Trudgill, who  socio-economic groups)  His speculations about  finds empirical  covert  evidence for  covert  prestige and concludes that he has "established that covert prestige does in fact exist" (Trudgill  1983:179).  On the other hand, Jones writes simply that "it  cannot be said that any standard exists" (Jones 1950:3). argues that "there  is no such thing as a single standard form of American  English especially in pronunciation" (Francis disagreement  Similarly, Francis  1963:247).  It  seems that the  about the existence of standard and prestige is a matter, in  of how the particular terms are used by the writers  in question;  part,  therefore,  10  this point of disagreement will be considered in detail later in this work when definitions of the terms are being constructed.  However, it is clear from the  survey of the literature that there is little agreement about the existence of standard and prestige in English. 1.2.3 Social and Regional Dialects and the Development of Prestige and Standard  There is also little agreement among linguists about the development of prestige and standard, particularly as related to social and regional varieties. Linguists generally agree that there are two kinds of dialects—regional dialects and class, or social, dialects.  Regional dialects are those whose  particular features are peculiar to a limited geographical region. geography may be approached in one of two ways:  Dialect  either an area is selected  and the dialect spoken within that area studied for distinctive linguistic characteristics, or linguistic variants are studied and the area in which those variants are found is determined.  Using either method, a dialect geographer  may describe and contrast dialects from areas of varying size, such as specifying Canadian English as opposed to British or American English, British Columbian English as opposed to Newfoundland English, Vancouver English as it differs from Ottawa English or from a rural British Columbian variety, and even, some claim, Kitsilano English as it differs from Shaughnessy English within Vancouver English.  However, because areas within cities are  determined more by social than geographical criteria, distinctions between varieties within an urban area are more likely to be determined by class than geographical location and, hence, indicate sociolects rather than dialects. Like regional dialects, class dialects may be studied either by determining the socio-economic class (usually grossly categorized as Upper, Middle and  11  Working  Classes) of  common to  the  speakers within the class or by  features  and identifying  the two  kinds of varieties  be explicit  or merely  down by class; region.  speakers and identifying  the  linguistic  variants  studying and recording linguistic  the class of the speakers using the features. intersect  extensively.  Clearly,  Although class structure  tacit, each designated geographical area may  may  be broken  some social hierarchy, however informal, develops in each  Thus each speaker of a language may speak both a regional and a class  variety.  Furthermore, as was the case in the early development of English, a  regional dialect may develop into a class dialect by a process Kurath calls "spreading,"  which  involves  interaction  of  social and  regional  elements:  spreading [of various phonetic features] takes place on social levels, cultured speakers being first to adopt features of a neighbouring prestige dialect. The middle class probably adopts these innovations from the cultured in their own communities. (Kurath 1964:142) Hence a regional dialect may become a prestige or social dialect in a dialect area different from that of its origins.  The  considerable overlap between  possibility  of  agreement  among  one becoming another linguists  about  dialects and standard and prestige. dialects  social and regional  and identifies  contributes  the  to  relationship  Wyld  dialects  and the  there being among  little  social and  regional  distinguishes regional and social  Standard English as "chief among the latter," defining  it  as "the best and most refined type of English, that which in one form or another has long been usurping the place of the old Regional dialects" (Wyld 1963  [1914]: 14).  Wyld's statement that "everyone who does not speak a  Regional dialect, speaks a Class dialect" (Wyld 1963:148) suggests that the two could be mutually  exclusive.  Such a division is as complex and controversial as  12 de Saussure's insistence on dichotomizing synchronic and diachronic was and is best recognized as extreme and perhaps more ideal and theoretical than real and practical. Halliday, who describes "'RP,' standing for 'received' (that is, generally accepted) pronunciation," as a "regionally neutral variety of English," recognizes the interaction of social and regional factors in language and dialect development; simply regional:  he writes, "Our dialects and accents are no longer  they are regional and social, or 'socioregional'" (Halliday  1973:18). The practice of including both social and geographical factors in modern studies of language variation (i.e. socio-dialectal studies) indicates the extent to which theorists have come to recognize the interrelation between social and regional elements in variation.  It seems, then, more important to  recognize the vitality of interaction between regional and social elements in variation than it is to maintain or assert a distinction between the two. There is also little agreement about the pattern of development of standard varieties in relation to regional dialects.  Sturtevant claims that the standard is  a dialect "that imposes itself upon the speakers of other dialects" (Sturtevant 1917:157).  Similarly, Trudgill calls Standard English a superposed variety of  English because there is a general consensus among educated people, and in particular amongst those who hold powerful and influential positions as to what is standard English and what is not — standard English is, as it were, imposed from above over the range of regional dialects. (Trudgill 1974:18) Thus he views standard, a class dialect, as being superposed on regional varieties.  Similarly, Labov discusses Standard in relation to both social and  regional dialects.  He defines dialect in what he calls a neutral sense as a  subvariety of a language and recognizes standard as a dialect by that  13 definition.  However, he goes on to give Standard English a different status  from other dialects for three reasons: first, because the standard is clearly superordinate in a hierarchy of prestige or appropriateness for formal speech; second, because the standard has a technical vocabulary and a literary syntax which are largely missing with other dialects; and third, because it has widespread distribution through the mass media, with less geographic differentiation than we find at the colloquial or vernacular level. (Labov 1972b: 191) Again, Standard, defined more by class than by regional criteria, is considered superordinate to or superposed on regional dialects.  On the other hand, Sapir,  discussing the future of regional dialects, writes that "the modern mind insists on having the process of standardization take the form of a democratic rather than an aristocratic process" (Sapir 1931:126), thereby suggesting that there is no impositon of a standard. Similarly, Jones writes that "if the public wants a standard...some appropriate standard will evolve itself" (Jones 1950:3), suggesting that there be no imposition but rather a development.  They seem  to think, then, that, if there is a standard variety, it will emerge or develop within a speech community but cannot or ought not be imposed on speakers.  To some extent, Labov and Trudgill are classifying or describing kinds of varieties of English rather than accounting for the way in which a standard variety might develop in a speech community as Sapir and Jones do. The assumptions underlying the classification and the account of development differ;  hence, what seems like a disagreement about the relationship between  social and regional varieties and standard or prestige arises from the different assumptions made respecting the heirarchic/democratic variable.  On the one  hand, classification of standard in relation to regional and social dialects  14 assumes that the relationship between standard and regional varieties is hierarchically motivated, Standard being highly rated;  on the other hand,  explanations of the development of standard assume democratic (and not hierarchic) motivation.  These, then, are incompatible assumptions rather  than disagreement about the relationship between social and regional varieties and standard or prestige.  Thus, disagreement about the development of standard and prestige reflects the complexity of processes of development.  If the relationship between social  or regional varieties and standard or prestige is important to development, it is likely that the essential consideration is whether standard and prestige are derived from social or regional varieties rather than whether standard and prestige are standard or regional varieties.  However, the means of  development of standard and prestige remains unclear.  1.2.4  Linguistic Levels as Delineators of Prestige and Standard  There also seems to be little agreement about the relationship between linguistic level and prestige and standard, especially as such a relationship may be used as a means of distinguishing the standard from prestige; some linguists use accent as a means of distinguishing prestige from standard, while others do not.  Strang, using the general definition of standard as "that variety  of English...used for all public occasions" claims that "by and large, with rather trivial exceptions, [Standard English] is the same wherever English is used, except in one area of its organization—the accent, or mode of pronunciation" (Strang 1970:18, emphasis mine).  By identifying one  linguistic level, phonetic, as varying and the other two, lexical and  15  grammatical, delineated Standard  as being more  by  linguistic  English by  grammatical Standard.  level.  citing  or lexical; He writes,  uniform,  Strang  allows  Trudgill notes pronunciation  for  regional  differences  standard being variances rather  than  thus he, too, uses linguistic criteria to "There is no universally  within  delineate  acknowledged standard accent  for English, and it is, at least in theory, possible to speak standard English with any regional or social accent."  He notes, however, that some localized accents  do not usually occur with Standard English and that "there is also one accent which only occurs together  with Standard English.  This is the British English  accent... known to linguists as RP," thus distinguishing standard, which has a "widely  accepted and codified grammar  and vocabulary"  from prestige which refers to the pronunciation of RP. Francis claims that  (Trudgill  1974:18)  On the other hand,  all  social levels of English ... educated or standard English... uneducated English, and between them ... the vernacular... have in common the larger part of their grammar, pronunciation and basic vocabulary but are marked by significant differences in all three areas. (Francis 1963:246) Labov  and linguists who  follow  variation on all linguistic levels. about  the  using the  It  relation levels  between as criteria  him  confirm  Thus, there  social variation for  delineating  seems from the survey of the literature,  be little prestige.  agreement  seems to be little  and linguistic prestige  level  finding agreement  and about  and standard.  then, that the facts about standard  and prestige are not, in Wyld's terms, "patent" standard and prestige  Francis' statement,  (Wyld  1963:150).  The terms  are used loosely, even inconsistently, and there  among linguists about  what constitutes  standard  seems to and  16  1.3 Background of the Problem 1.3.1 Semantic Similarity To  some extent, the confusion about standard and prestige results from the  similarity that  between  the two concepts;  are essential  change.  the two terms share semantic  in sociolinguistic explanations  of language  features  variation and  Prestige, in the general sense of something that has been positively  evaluated, is motivational  in language variation  and change.  A s Arlotto  writes,  The importance of social prestige in accounting for the acceptance and spread of new linguistic forms cannot be overestimated. In the last analysis, people will tend to adopt linguistic.habits different from their own only when they feel that in some way these other habits are "better." As with most human institutions, what constitutes a better item is defined by the higher social prestige of the individuals who use that item. Thus, the prestige factor might be looked upon primarily as a cause or reason for linguistic borrowing, whether across language or across dialect boundaries. (Arlotto 1972:204) Similarly,  McDavid  writes,  In any locality the speech of some people or groups of people is considered better than that of others, and hence more worth imitating. The last force—prestige or lack of it—is the essential cause of the development of social dialects. (McDavid 1969:80) Both writers, then, use prestige in the sense of forms or varieties that are positively evaluated.  Both Standard English and prestige forms, or varieties  such as R P , are evaluated positively and may act as models for speakers of other varieties;  therefore  standard and prestige share the feature  [+POSITIVELY  17  EVALUATED] .  In this sense, then, both may be motivational in language  3  variation and change. terminological  This shared feature facilitates most, if not all, of the  inconsistency and confusion;  are used interchangeably when the feature  sense.  Thus,  understandable;  in the I  a general  sense of  terminological  terms  [+POSITIVE  be central and the main point of reference. interchangeably  the  standard  and prestige  E V A L U A T I O N ] is taken to  That is, the terms seem to be used  prestige  rather  than  in  inconsistency is explainable,  any  technical  even  will argue, however, that the terms can and should be  distinguished in spite of this important  area of overlap.  1.3.2 Cultural Considerations  Another  partial  explanation  standard and prestige the terms are used.  for  is the different  terminological  confusion  between  contexts, or extended contexts, in which  A n understanding of any term can be fixed only when the  word is considered in its context. co-text, i.e.  the  Although usually that context refers to the  the sentence, clause, paragraph or passage in which the  word  occurs, in the case of prestige and standard it is necessary to consider an extended context, i.e. the situation and culture in which the term is being used. Linguistically, the  British and North  American contexts differ  in  two  3 [+PRESTIGE] would also express the important overlap; however, I use [+POSITIVELY E V A L U A T E D ] to avoid confusion between prestige in its technical, sociolinguistic sense and in its general sense. I would prefer to use the feature [-STIGMATIZED] here to be certain to avoid confusion. However, the features [-STIGMATIZED] and [+PRESTIGE] are not complementaries; rather they are antonyms—poles of a set of graded terms; assertion of one implies denial of the other but denial of one does not imply assertion of the other. Thus, though [ - S T I G M A T I Z E D ] is essential to the concepts of standard and prestige, the feature does not exactly express what is needed here. (See 2.3 of this work for a more thorough discussion of these problems.)  18  important ways:  first, the settlement periods and patterns are different and,  therefore, the dialect patterns in the two locations are different; can be different because of the dialect differences.  second, usage  English has been used and  developing in Britain since as early as the fifth century;  British dialects,  then, developed at a time when there was no widespread or rapid travel or general public education of the masses and in a culture in which there was an explicit aristocratic social hierarchy.  In North America, on the other hand,  English has been used and developing since it arrived with British colonists in the seventeenth century;  much of the development of the language has taken  place during a time of widespread public education, of widespread travel and in nations in which social hierarchy is implicit, democratic and developing rather than explicit and aristocratic.  4  As a result, in Britain there are more  identifiable distinct regional varieties of English in relation to the size of the  Bloomfield's early identification of the social differences, though somewhat extreme, is not without grounding; he writes "In England there are similar regional types, but they are not granted equal value...In England, but scarcely in the United States, provincial colorings of standard English are tied up with differences of social level" (Bloomfield 1933:49). More recent sociolinguistic work such as that done by Labov (1966) reveals that there is also a correlation between social status and language in the U.S.; however, I think the explicitness of the British aristocracy as opposed to the implicitness of an emerging elite (or a more democratically developed elite) in America does affect the extent to which and the rate at which nations are sociolinguistically stratified. I believe, therefore, that the differences between the two cultures ought not be ignored.  4  19  land mass than there are in North America,^ and in Britain, a clear prestige is established whereas in North America the emergence of a prestige is less clear or only still in progress.  I  believe  these cultural  differences  account for much of the  confusion and inconsistency and for  much of the  terminological  disagreement  about  the  importance of linguistic level as a delineator of standard and prestige, partially  account for the  disagreement  prestige and give some insight into standard. varieties  For example, those writers of World English rather  are more likely  about existence of  the disagreement  about the  development  than varieties  of North  American English  to distinguish standard from prestige because they  describing varieties  of  North  of  who are describing British English or  include in their descriptions the prestige accent, RP. writers  standard and  must  On the other hand, those  American English for  which there  has  not yet been identified a prestige accent comparable to RP, may use the terms more loosely without seeming confusion.  Considering each of the points of  disagreement in light of the extended contexts in which the terms are used will reveal that much of the confusion and disagreement can be explained;  5 It can be argued that there are as many regional varieties in the U.S. as there are in Britain, but I think to do so is to reveal a particular focus rather than a fact. Focusing on distinctions, one finds many varieties whereas focusing on similarities, one finds a national variety. The point I am making here is the very general one, which is evident to even the most untrained people: variety is wider and greater per square mile in Britain than it is in North America. If 10 people were gathered from across Britain and brought together in a room, one would hear many differences in speech; if 10 people from across the U.S. were gathered together, one would hear differences, though not as many; if 10 people from across Canada were gathered, one would hear even fewer differences—one might even argue that most of the speakers sounded the same. It is in this general sense that I make reference here.  20  furthermore, that the two  I  believe  that the  same consideration will  support my  argument  terms be distinguished.  1.3.2.1 Linguistic Level  Much of the disagreement  about the importance of linguistic level to the  delineation of prestige arises because of the differences in the contexts. prototypical prestige variety (Received  Pronunciation),  economic  groups in Britain  similar positions.  that  accent used by  and emulated  the  well-educated  socio-  by those aspiring to approach  other  British and nonBritish accents.  identifiable  referent for prestige.  is reasonable for those scholars who  is  in  is, however,  no comparable  from  prestige  Britain,  then,  are describing British English  of English including British English, to distinguishing prestige  In  Because the referent is an  or varieties  There  upper  6  there is a clearly  essential  as RP  RP can be, and has been, described in detail and is clearly  distinguished from  accent, it  of English is the British accent known  The  argue that linguistic  level  standard.  accent  among the  North  American  varieties of English;  as Francis writes of the U.S., for example, "the nearest  thing to  is...network  [a standard]  English...Because of its nationwide use,  network English is an acceptable standard form everywhere. prestige  dialect"  (Francis  1963:247).  7  But it is not a  Though there have been many  See, for example, Wells (1982) and note that such scholars as Sweet (1890), Jones (1950[1909]) and Wyld (1963[1914]) have chosen to describe RP because it has been, for example, the most "widely understood pronunciation" (Jones 1950:3). 6  Once again there is disagreement among scholars about the status and even existence of network English or General American. Some, such as Bailey  7  21  descriptions  of  American varieties,  including Standard  single accent or dialect that can be identified that RP is in Britain.  American, there  as a distinct prestige in the sense  Labov's work (1966, 1972)  identifies some prestige forms,  but there is not as yet any identification of a prestige accent or variety whole.  as a  Similarly, in Canada, works such as those done by Gregg (1984),  Pringle (1985) and Clarke (1981) identify not been any variety  or accent identified  accent comparable to RP in Britain.  In  some prestige forms, but there has that would be a prestige Canadian the North American context, then,  there are no clear grounds for considering linguistic level determiner  of  1.3.2.2  The  is no  as a viable  prestige.  Terminological Inconsistency  same cultural differences that account for what appears to be  disagreement between  about  standard  the and  importance prestige,  of  linguistic  contributes  to  inconsistency in uses of standard and prestige. identifiable  prestige  accent in Britain  standard and prestige  by those who  English or English in general; then, must maintain  level  the  to  distinguishing  terminological  The fact that there is an  encourages distinct  use of the  terms  are describing or discussing either  British  linguists describing English including R P ,  a distinction between  prestige, which refers to RP, and  (1982) disagree with Francis, claiming that no such variety exists or is used. I think, however, that this, too, is a question of focus; one can look either at the similarities of the speech of many Americans from across the nation or at the differences. In the former case, one would be able to identify something that could be called General American (or Network English); in the latter, one would have to argue that there is no such variety but rather many smaller regional varieties (or even idiolects).  22 standard, which might  refer to the generally used variety  of English,  particularly the grammar and lexicon of that variety, that may or may not be accompanied by the prestige accent.  However, the absence of a clear prestige  in North American contexts leads to less precision in the use the two terms. Because there is no clear referent for prestige in North America and it is not yet clear to what extent standard is comparable in North America to prestige in Britain, there has been a tendency to use standard, the more general term, frequently  and loosely in the North American context;  clear referent for prestige  there has been less demand for  consistency outside of Britain. toward  explaining the  in the absence of a terminological  The differences in contexts thus go a long way  origins of the terminological inconsistency.  To  a very  great extent, these arise from dialectal pressures exerted not only by the language under investigation but spoken  The  by  the  the  development  two  British and North  of language varieties  use of the pertinent terms. the  intrusive effect  of the  dialect  investigator.  same differences between  affected  also by the  American cultures that have  and prestige, have  Even the term dialect**  nations, a difference  which may  reflect  affected  the  has been used differently  a distinction between  in  what  has become technical linguistic usage and the common or lay definition of "an inferior  speech variety;"  McDavid defines dialect in the American sense as  "simply  any habitual variety  of a language, regional or social"  (McDavid  1969:80) but he clarifies that "in other parts of the world, scholars would not  8 There is little agreement about the ways in which dialect and l a n g u a g e might be best defined; for helpful discussions and redefinition of the terms, see Hudson (1980) and Chambers and Trudgill (1980).  23 use dialect for the speech of educated men and women...In short, for them dialect means a mode of speech quaint and uneducated, found in isolated communities"  (McDavid  1969:79).  9  These dialect differences reflect the effect  of cultural differences on dialect development and study.  McDavid identifies  the effect of the cultural differences on the assessment of language varieties: Until recently, there were two typical relationships between standard and nonstandard dialects. In England there was one standard variety, many local nonstandard ones. In the United States, there have been several regional standard varieties, each with corresponding nonstandard ones. (McDavid 1969:87) The tendency now is for linguists to allow that there may be variation within standard (there may be varieties of standard) and to attempt to adopt neutral terminology and a neutral approach to language description; cultural differences differences  clearly affected  however,  early language description.  The  also indicate the extent to which variation can affect  communication;  not only can the nuances of terms be lost in different  cultures, but also the referent can change with the context.  In Britain, the  specific referent for prestige (RP) acts to filter out some of the features which  Linguists are now careful to distinguish senses of dialect; as Chambers and Trudgill write: "What exactly is a dialect? In common usage, of course, a dialect is a substandard, low status, often rustic form of language, generally associated with the peasantry, the working class, or other groups lacking in prestige. DIALECT is also a term which is often applied to forms of language, particularly those spoken in more isolated parts of the world, which have no written form. And dialects are also often regarded as some kind of (often erroneous) deviation from a norm—as aberrations of a correct of standard form of language...we shall not adopt any of these points of view. We will, on the contrary, accept the notion that all speakers are speakers of at least one dialect—that standard English, for example, is just as much a dialect as any other form of English—and that it does not make any kind of sense to suppose that any one dialect is in any way linguistically superior to any other" (Chambers & Trudgill 1980:3). Thus they are careful to address dialectal differences in use of terms. 9  24  would otherwise standard. therefore,  be assigned to standard  thereby  limiting  the referent  for  In America, there is no comparable referent for prestige: standard may be used to refer to something that is comparable to the  standard in Britain but has the added features of prestige.  One must,  therefore,  be clear about the context in which the terms are used in order to fully understand  both  1.3.2.3  the  nuances and referents  of  terms.  Existence of Standard and Prestige  To some extent, the cultural differences could also contribute to lack of agreement  about the existence of prestige;  accent and can identify  if one identifies RP as the prestige  speakers of RP, then one is not likely  the existence of such an accent.  However,  to argue against  if one cannot identify  a prestige  accent in a community, then one may well question the existence of such a thing.  It  would seem likely, then, that those writing  of British English would  be more likely to argue for the existence of prestige than those writing North American English. nonexistence, however, disagreement American  of agreement  Most of the comments on existence and have  been on standard rather  cannot be explained  cultures.  10  of  by  a difference  than  between  prestige.  This  British and  North  Because standard is common to both cultures, the lack  about its existence is not affected  and North American contexts.  It  is more likely  by differences between that the lack of  British  agreement  about the existence of standard arises because of the broad scope of the referent  for standard  than because of cultural  differences.  Thus,  cultural  Recall that Jones (1950) writing of English (mostly British) argues against the existence of a standard. On the other hand, Baker (1986) and Kinloch (1986) writing of Canadian English, argue for the existence of a standard. 1  0  25  differences  could contribute  but are much less likely standard.  standard.  cultural  1.3.2.4  partially  about  the  to contribute to disagreement  existence  of  prestige  about the existence of  differences  may  mask  agreement  about the  existence  of  Thus, it is important to keep the differences in mind when  1 1  considering any  means of  disagreement  However, the variant uses of the terms standard and prestige that  arise from  Similarly,  to  discussion of the  Development of  the  effect  of  existence  of standard  and prestige.  Prestige and Standard  cultural  differences  on the  disagreement  development of standard and prestige is relatively explanatory.  The  hierarchical class  structure  about  the  small and only  and the  extended  time  English has been the language of the land may account, in part, for the clearly identifiable factors in North  prestige accent, RP, in Britain;  the lack of the same two  American countries may have contributed to the absence of a  similarly identifiable prestige accent in Canada or the U.S.  It may even be the  case that a prestige accent will not develop in North American countries as it has in Britain, in part, because of the  differences between  established  It is important to note, for example, that the lack of existence of something (a prestige accent, for example) in one culture does not indicate a lack of the existence of that thing in general or in other cultures; rather, the absence of something in a particular culture raises questions about the culture and perhaps about the appropriateness or the applicability of the concept in that culture rather than about the existence of the thing. Pringle's dismissal of the existence of standard but consideration of a concept of standard, for example, could suggest either the philosophical difference between existence of things and of concepts or that the concept of standard may be valid because it has been identified in some communities but that such a thing does not exist in the community which he is describing (see 2.1.2 and Pringle 1986). It is, however, reasonable to accept a concept of, say, standard, as valid, though not appropriate in a particular context, only if there is evidence of the existence of standard in some other community; there must be some evidence to validate the concept before it can be accepted either valid or existing. 1 1  26  aristocracies and the New World democracies. established, distinct and identifiable  upper class, there  prestige accent such as R P is in Britain. have less effect on standard;  Until there is a clearly  However,  will not be a distinct the cultural  differences  as standard is common to both North American  and British cultures and, in a general sense, is less dependent on socioeconomic classes than prestige is, the development affected  by the differences  between  aristocracy  and democracy  than the development of prestige is likely to be. more  closely linked  to written l a n g u a g e  status, though there Samuels  explains  12  of standard is less clearly and by time  In many ways, standard is  than it is to simple socio-economic  is, of course, standard speech as well as standard  the relationship  between  standard  and written  writing.  language:  Once a standard has come into being, from whatever diverse origins, the most potent force in its acceptance, propagation and preservation is the written language. Written Standard English has not changed radically since it first emerged as the vehicle of official business and administration around 1430...In its pronunciation, change and dialectal variation continued on a large scale till 1750, and on a smaller scale to the present day. But the basis of standard throughout has been its written form, which provides a codification for what otherwise would be far more fluid. (Samuels 1972:109)  Although  historically  in Britain  on one's exposure to literary  socio-economic status had a profound  language, the same is not true today and has not  been true to the same extent in North American countries. longer  necessarily  to literary  effect  a connection between  socio-economic status  language through education as there  standard as being closely related to literary  Thus, there is no and exposure  once was in Britain;  taking  language, one can see that it is no  Note that de Saussure uses the terms standard English and literary English interchangeably in Course in General Linguistics ; see, for example, his discussion of "Literary Language and Local Idiom" (de Saussure 1966: 195). 1  2  27  longer bound to socio-economic status as prestige is.  Hence, the differences  between British and American cultures do not have the same effect on either the development of standard or an understanding of the use of the term standard as they do on the development of prestige and an understanding of the use of the term prestige. The inconsistent use of standard and prestige, then, arises from the considerable overlap in referents of the two terms and from differences between the cultures whose language varieties are being described.  Cultural  differences also account for disagreement about the validity of distinguishing standard from prestige on the basis of linguistic level and partially account for disagreement about the existence and development of prestige and standard.  It is important, therefore, to consider both context and usage in  order to clarify the distinction between standard and prestige.  As national context seems to be a factor in the confusion between standard and prestige, it is particularly important to extend the contexts in which the terms are studied and used in order to clarify the problem. The important differences seem to be those between Britain and North America; clearly, Canada and the U.S. have many more cultural similarities than do Canada and Britain or Canada and the U.S.  13  However, there may be some difference  either between the sociolinguistic environments of Canada and the U.S. or  Of course, Canada and the U.S. also have much in common with Britain, and politically, Canada is more like Britain than it is like the U.S. However, in those cultural matters that affect language variation and development, there are more similarities between Canada and the U.S. than between either of them and Britain. 1 3  28 between the study of socio-dialects in the two nations that provide insight into standard and prestige;  at any rate, considering the work that has been done in  Canada as well as that done in the U.S. may help clarify the problems.  I will,  therefore, use data from the Canadian context in order to examine the differences between standard and prestige.  The study, then, will consider both  the terms and the concepts in the Canadian context in order to determine the distinctions between standard and prestige and to refine definitions of the terms.  29 CHAPTER 2 PRESTIGE AND STANDARD IN DISCUSSIONS OF CANADIAN ENGLISH  Before constructing working definitions of standard and prestige and testing them against the Canadian data, it is important to consider the use of the two terms in descriptions and discussions of Canadian English.  Only if the  problems identified in the general context are also evident in the Canadian context, will it be useful to test the adequacy of definitions against Canadian data;  therefore, a survey of Canadian descriptions is essential before  undertaking a test and generalizing from the findings. Furthermore, examining the Canadian context specifically may confirm the hypothesis that much of the disagreement about prestige and standard arises because of cultural differences.  It will then be possible to more clearly identify the  essential features of each term and to construct working definitions. Therefore, use of standard and prestige in descriptions of Canadian English will be considered in order to expand an understanding of the background and nature of the problem and to construct provisional definitions of the terms in light of that understanding.  2.1 Use of the terms in Descriptions of Canadian English Generally speaking, standard is used more frequently than prestige is when Canadian English is being discussed; however, the senses of the two terms are often unclear.  These terminological confusions are similar to but do not  parallel exactly those discoverd in Chapter 1, where the general linguistic uses are surveyed. They coincide in one respect and diverge in another. Both in general discussions and in Canadian discussion, there is little agreement about  30  the existence and development of prestige and standard. However, unlike in general discussions, one finds little disagreement within Canadian studies about the importance of linguistic levels as delineators of prestige and standard.  2.1.1  Terminological Confusion  Although in the Canadian literature it is usual to discuss standard more frequently and extensively than prestige, both terms are used.  Both seem to be  used to refer to a concept that shares features of standard and prestige, especially in the general senses of that variety or those forms which are used by most speakers and that variety or those forms which are highly evaluated. Avis seems not to distinguish between standard and prestige in Canadian English;  he writes: "General Canadian...that variety of English heard  generally from Ontario westward...with roots in...Toronto area of influence,...is the prestige dialect throughout most of Canada" (Avis 1975:118n). His recognition of General Canadian (or Standard Canadian) as the prestige variety in Canada suggests that he is using prestige in its most general sense of positively evaluated and that Standard Canadian functions as a prestige variety does in, say, Britain (i.e.  it is used by speakers of the highest socio-  economic groups and its forms are emulated by speakers of other varieties).  1  He allows, then, for the concepts of both standard and prestige, but implies that they exist in Canada in the same variety of English. What is unusual about Avis' usage in the Canadian context is that he uses prestige: it is more common The possibility that Standard Canadian English is considered the prestige in Canada and, hence that referents for standard and prestige are identical will be discussed later in this work (See 2.2.2). 1  31 among descriptions of Canadian English to use standard to refer to prestige or to a composite of standard and prestige.  Southerland also suggests a concept  that combines the senses of prestige and standard but use standard where Avis used prestige:  he writes, "In most speech communitites, there is a single  speech variety called the  standard,  which is perceived by members of the  community to be higher in status than the others" (Southerland 1987:346). Similarly, McConnell claims that  "a standard dialect of any language...carries  the prestige of its speakers" (McConnell 1979:97), thus implying that elements of standard and prestige are combined. Like Avis, Southerland and McConnell indicate that the concepts of standard and prestige overlap;  they, however,  use standard to refer to something with features of both whereas Avis uses prestige for the same purpose. Woods uses standard in the sense more of prestige than of standard; he defines standard "in sociolinguistic terms, i.e., the standard is a description and, by implication, a prescription, of how the upper classes and upper middle class of a nation or region use the language" (Woods 1986:139). Thus, it is evident that standard is used to refer to prestige and to a concept that combines the characteristics of standard and prestige.  Others distinguish between prestige and standard but use the term standard to refer to both.  Chambers bases his discussion on Strevens' (1985) three  definitions of standard—language standards or "the norms or canons of 2  Strevens distinction between standard and standards is an important one which makes explicit the difference between a variety and guidelines or recommendations for usage that is, usually, common to that variety. Such a distinction allows for comparison of the adviseability of providing such standards (guidelines) with the adviseability of describing a standard variety; it also allows for considering overlap between the two. Unfortunately, although I am sure most linguists make the distinction between standard and standards mentally, they do not always reflect the distinction in their use of terms; hence, standard is sometimes used to refer to standard and sometimes 2  1  32  generally-accepted subdivides into  language  standard  usage,"  standard  average  or  conventional  further  and core vocabulary of  of people whose speech is not highly  On this basis, he uses standard in two senses;  in an evaluative  on people by some authority  which  accent, or "the pronunciation, [that is] the  and intonation  localized" (Chambers 1986:2). distinguishes  language,  dialect, or "the grammar  educated usage," and standard sounds, stress, rhythm  standard  he  sense in which something is imposed  (a sense of prestige) and in a neutral sense of "an  property"  (Chambers  1986:3).  Although  Chambers  rejects the former sense of standard and urges study of the latter only, he does use the same term for both standard and prestige.  Similarly, Kinloch uses  standard in both senses, defining it as "that which [is] popular" and as "that which  [is]  preferable"  two senses.  (Kinloch  1986:40).  Pringle uses standard in more than  He defines one "sociolinguistically oriented concept of standard."  which he says is "structured covariation of linguistic forms sociological markers" of standard.  (Pringle  1986:21).  This first  with  other  concept is the general sense  Pringle's second concept of standard is "an overarching  norm...an overarching awareness on the part of societal norm different,  all  to some extent, from their  groups that there is some common practice, a norm  which, in specifiable circumstances, it is appropriate to use (or at least try use) in preference to one's usual practice" (Pringle concept would be more aptly  1986:24).  referred to as prestige.  to  This second  Pringle identifies  concept of standard as "the purist's sense...purely a matter of belief;  a third  it is  used to refer to standards. Thus standard can refer to a variety of English, a kind of English (as in standard versus nonstandard English—see note page 5) or norms of usage.  therefore impervious to empirical investigation...it cannot tolerate variability; part of its essence is that, whenever two forms seem to be fulfilling the same roles, one is to be proscribed" (Pringle 1986:25), a sense of standard for which Pringle would "prefer another term, namely correct" (Pringle 1986:35). Pringle, then, uses standard to refer to standard, prestige and correct. For Chambers, Kinloch and Pringle, then, the concepts of standard and prestige are distinct; however, they use the term standard to refer to each concept.  As is the case in the general literature, standard and prestige are used imprecisely and inconsistently;  either term may refer to a concept that  combines features of both standard and prestige and standard may be used to refer to individual concepts of standard, prestige and correct. However, in the Canadian literature, it is more clearly evident that the terms may be used to refer to something that is both standard and prestigious or, perhaps, the prestige; it is also the case that standard is more likely to be used than prestige.  2.1.2  Existence of Prestige and Standard in Canadian English  Just as there is disagreement about the existence of prestige and standard in the general context, there is disagreement among Canadian scholars as well. Kinloch argues that "this standard [a Canadian standard] [does] in fact exist and all educated users of the language [strive], consciously or unconsciously and with greater or lesser success, to achieve it" (Kinloch 1986:40). Baker also has no doubt that Standard English exists in Canada, having, "amongst other things, observed an absence of solecisms among the speakers at the  34 conference, 'In Search of the Standard in Canadian English,' in spite of the diversity of origins, backgrounds, and professions" (Baker 1986:153).  On the other hand, Pringle argues against the existence of standard: the notion that an invariable standard of 'correct' Canadian English exists seems...deeply at odds with the nature of Canadian society. Moreover, it takes no account of the extremely complex, patterned covariation which always seems to exist in society's use of language between linguistic parameters and such other parameters as socioeconomic status, sex, race, age, situation and content. (Pringle 1986:35) Note, however, that here Pringle is using standard in the sense of correctness; he is objecting more to prescription of correct (or standard) Canadian English than he is arguing that standard does not exist at all. He goes on, however, to make a point which reveals that, to some extent, the disagreement about existence of a standard is a philosophical one.  In a paper given at the  Conference entitled "In Search of the Standard in Canadian English," Pringle points out that the title "implies that Canadian English has a standard, which can therefore be found." He argues that the real question is "whether or not there is a concept of a standard which is relevant to Canadian English" (Pringle 1986:21).  Pringle rejects the existence of a standard in Canadian  English but accepts the existence of a concept of standard. It may be that Pringle's notion of the search for a  concept  of a prestige or standard is more  appropriate than a search for a linguistic realization of that concept.3 It is not 3 Speakers may have a notion of standard or prestige whether or not such a thing has been or can be quantified and delineated; in such a case, it may be more appropriate to consider the existence of a concept of standard rather than the existence of quantification of a variety that is standard. The possibility that language variation is motivated as much by notions or concepts as by actual prestige or standard forms or varieties will be considered further in Chapters 4 and 5 of this work.  35  clear, however, that discussion of existence of a thing as opposed to existence of a concept would move beyond the Platonic shadow on the wall of the cave and be of significance to sociolinguistic analysis or theory;  the philosophical  aspects of the discussion about existence and nonexistence of prestige and standard need not  However,  other  inhibit  studies which  aspects of the  describe standard varieties  disagreement  and prestige must be considered.  important  norms or rules).  distinction:  standards or norms.  existence of  English.  standard  It is clear that standard is being used loosely  and in both the sense of a standard (i.e. standards (i.e.  about the  of  standard language) and the sense of  This terminological  that between  looseness obscures an  standard language  Jones argues that "it  and the  source of  the  is thought by many that there ought  to exist a standard, and one can see from several points of view that a standard speech would have its uses...But though attempts have been made to devise and recommend standards, it 1950:3).  cannot be said that any standard exists" (Jones  Here, he distinguishes between  standards (i.e.  rules or norms).  standard (i.e.  standard language)  and  Chambers makes a similar distinction when  arguing that a standard can be found in a variety  such as Canadian English.  He writes, "it will not do to interpret whatever standards we may find as conferring  any  special prestige  on those  who  maintain  them"  (Chambers  1986:4).  The argument that no standard exists but that standards (i.e. the rules  which, if applied, would produce such a standard) do exist suggests that standards are concrete and identifable  but that the end result of the  application of those standards, the standard, is an abstraction not a reality. that case, standards precede but  In  do not necessarily produce standard English.  What, then, is the source of the standards?  If  the standards exist, seemingly  36 independently from the standard, then it is possible that the standards may be constructed artificially. This possibility points to the crux of a problem for linguists, a problem that may act as a constraint. Chambers' warning against assigning any prestige to those speakers who maintain standards provides a clue to the constraint;  to delineate standards,  especially if one assigns prestige to those who maintain them, is to seem to prescribe rather than to describe, yet modern linguistics is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive study.  In general, linguists no longer concern themselves  with the distinction between prescription and description;  few would see the  development of descriptive linguistics as a problem. However, in some areas of study, avoidance of prescription may constrain the description.  Linguists are in  the difficult position of having to be neutrally descriptive, avoiding all prescription, even when describing something that is not socially neutral. As Sankoff puts it, Perhaps the major task of sociolinguistics is to reconcile the essentially neutral, or arbitrary, nature of linguistic difference and of linguistic change, with the social stratification of languages and levels of speech unmistakeable in any complex speech community. (Sankoff 1976, cited in Hudson 1980:199) While scientific methodology and developing technology are doing much to facilitate such reconciliation, paradoxically, the emphasis in modern linguistics on scientific objectivity makes this task of the linguist difficult through obscuring some problems;  in those areas which are the least neutral,  such as the identification of standard and prestige, it is still unclear, in some instances, whether linguists are finding that something which could be called standard or prestige does not exist or whether they are simply constrained by the unacceptability of prescription in recognizing or identifying these.  37  The  association between  Warkentyne  language  standards  and prescriptivism  is clear, as  explains:  promulgation of language standards is inevitably associated with some form of prescriptivism. Linguists, especially in North America, are understandably chary of dealing with prescriptive norms largely because of the stigma they attach to non-standard speech. Imposing linguistic norms may also be seen as an attempt to interfere with the natural evolution of language, hence slogans like 'leave your language alone. Furthermore, linguists have tended to believe that prescriptive norms have no significant impact upon language usage in the community. However recent sociolinguistic studies, on hypercorrection for example, show that language norms have a strong influence on general usage and should therefore not be lightly dismissed. (Warkentyne 1986a: 170) 1  Here, then, is further language  standards  difficulty  with  for the sociolinguist;  prescriptivism  description of standard English. example)  rigourously  the consideration and  Although some linguists (Pringle  refuse to identify  of democracy and neutrality,  constrains  the association of  others  describe and delineate the standard.  language  [1986], for  standards out of some sense  attempt to discover acceptable ways to Gregg goes so far as to suggest that:  we cannot advise a speaker to leave his/her language alone. Our advice might result in putting barriers in the way of his/her advancement. The lesson of Pygmalion (or My Fair Lady ) is surely that, in order to be accepted as an educated person or to move freely at a higher social level, Eliza Doolittle had to modify her dialect very considerably. (Gregg 1986a: 167)  However,  he makes the suggestion based on his argument  acceptable means of determining meet "the task of elaborating  the standards.  that there is now an  He claims that linguists must  a method for deciding which variable  should be  chosen as the standard or, if we wish to recommend more than one, we must  38 determine how the chosen variants should be arranged in the priority list" (Gregg 1986a: 163) and recommends "precise statistical breakdowns" as the only means or basis of "speak[ing] with authority on the prevalence of a given construction in different segments of the Canadian population.  Gut reaction  and other intuitions are not a good enough base on which to build an acceptable Standard" (Gregg 1986a: 168).  Gregg recommends "a series of urban  surveys along socio-linguistic lines—linguistic  probes  we might call them—  whose aim is to elicit the specific information required for making judgments about usage in various parts of the country" and argues that: only on the basis of precise information from such 'probing' surveys...will it ultimately be possible to reach valid conclusions about...preferred forms (based on the consensus of overall..majority), as well as prestige forms (used by most of the top status group), over against stigmatized forms (to be eliminated from their speech by those concerned with upward social mobility). (Gregg 1986a: 167) What Gregg is suggesting, then, is that the specification (and, by extension, prescription) of the norms be made scientific and, by implication, neutrally descriptive.  He recommends that linguists analyze and describe language use,  including standard usage, to produce the guidelines which delineate the bounds of acceptability for a given situation.  Gregg's recommendation does much to diffuse some of the reaction against earlier prescriptivism, that which simply imposed rules on speakers;  it is less  offensive to describe language as people use it and produce a set of guidelines on that basis than it is to produce a set of guidelines based on some preconceived notion of standard language.  However, the recommendation  does not eliminate the problem of there being no necessary connection between the standard and standards; there is a kind of circularity in the  39  recommendation to identify the standard delineating the norms that produce such a standard without considering just how the standard might be identified. In the case of prestige (in the sense of that variety used by the highest socioeconomic groups and emulated by others), a careful sociolinguistic description would produce objective guidelines; source of that prestige.  the referent of prestige identifies the  However, in the case of standard, which does not have  such a clearly defined referent that can be analyzed, a careful analysis of language in use in order to produce guidelines is circular because the source of the norms would remain unclear.  Gregg's suggestion, then, is valid for  prestige and certainly does much to reduce the reaction against prescriptivism;  however, unless standard can be equated with a particular  socio-economic group or some equally identifiable variable, the suggestion is inadequate for delineating standards.  A good beginning has been made, but  the gap between standards (which can be specified) and standard (which may only be a concept) has not actually been closed because the source of the standards remains unspecified or vague.  It seems, then, that the difficulty of being neutral and avoiding prescription when attempting to describe standard and prestige affects both the description and the discussion of these matters. One must be careful to consider, for example, whether or not a statement argues against the existence of a prestige or standard or is an attempt to be neutral, or avoid prescription. The constraint of prescriptivism, then, can obscure the investigation and identification of standard and prestige;  arguments about the existence of  standard and prestige may also be constrained.  Not all of the disagreement  40  among linguists about the existence of standard and prestige, then, is necessarily as clear cut as it may seem to be on first consideration. 2.1.3  Social and Regional Dialects and the Development of Standard and Prestige in Canadian English  There is less discussion by Canadian scholars about the relationship between standard and regional varieties and about the development of standard than there is by scholars in general, perhaps because of the unusual homogeneity in Canadian English . 4  However, there is some comment but little agreement.  Chambers identifies "the standard accent [as] the one that is regionless rather than regional" (Chambers 1986:11), thus implying that the standard accent is social rather than regional.  Other linguists recognize the similarities and  convergence of the two, though the relationship between regional and social dialects is disputed.  Gregg (1986) regards standard as being nonregional (or  perhaps trans-regional), distinguishing the shared elements, the standard, but allowing for different regional manifestations of that generally shared base. Thus, for Gregg, there are regional varieties of standard; he uses prestige to refer to a class dialect (i.e. that used by upper class speakers) thus keeping the senses of standard and prestige more or less explicitly distinct but allowing for interaction of social and regional elements.  As in the general context, the  adoption of a socio-dialectal model in Canadian dialect studies indicates the extent to which Canadian scholars recognize the interrelation between social and regional elements in variation.  Canadian English is characterized by a degree of homogeneity across much of the nation unsurpassed in other nations. See note 7, this chapter.  4  41 The Canadian discussion of (or assumptions about) the development of standard or prestige  also differs slightly from the general discussion;  comment and disagreement about this development.  there is less  It is the norm among  Canadians to reflect Sapir's observation that "the process of standardization take the form of a democratic rather than an aristocratic process" (Sapir 1931:126).  Chambers, working in the Canadian context, argues that standard in  its marked sense in which something is imposed on people by some authority, is "alien to—perhaps even repugnant to—our national character" (Chambers 1986:3) and Pringle agrees, claiming that even the existence of a standard is "deeply at odds with the nature of Canadian society" (Pringle 1986:35). However, once again, there is a sense in which the discussion is more theoretical or definitional than an actual consideration of how standard or prestige develops.  Chambers and Pringle are objecting to prescription or  imposition of a standard; they are not necessarily arguing that standard is not imposed but rather that it ought not be imposed. On the other hand, definitions such as that given by Southerland suggest that some kind of hierarchic order or even imposition of a standard is possible;  he writes:  In modern, developed societies there is one language variety that stands above the others. This superposed variety is usually called the standard language; it is the variety that is employed by the government and communications media, is used and taught in educational institutions, and is the main or only written language...It is to the written standard that prescriptivists, those who seek to regulate how others use language, usually appeal when they condemn some usage as incorrect, improper, or even barbarous. (Southerland 1987:355) It is not clear, then, whether the disagreement is about how a standard actually develops (or has developed) or about the means such development ought to take. It seems that some Canadian scholars are reacting more to  42 prescriptivism  than  establishment  of the  prompted  their  counterparts  in other  nations.  Strathy Language Unit at Queen's  a reaction against  Perhaps  the  recent  University^ has  prescriptivism and is colouring discussion of  dialect development in Canada;  Strathy's request that the unit publish a guide  to written and spoken communication seems to have been taken by some scholars as an attempt to impose standards or to interfere development;  there is, therefore,  prescriptivism  among  some  a small resurgence  Canadian  with  language  of opposition to  scholars.  This unusual situation in Canada brings to light an effect of the difficulty of reconciling  the  essentially  neutral  nature of society and language prescriptivism can affect  use.  nature  discussions of the  and is a delicate topic for linguists;  with  the  Recognition that reactions  that the consideration of whether standard  necessary,  of language  development  hierarchic against  of standard  is imposed or emergent  reveals  is complex  it seems that more consideration is  particularly of the nature and the source of standard  as they may  address the question of how a standard evolves, is imposed or both.  It is clear  that the question of how a standard develops is far from settled and that prescriptivism (or reactions differently  than it once  against  it) is something to be reckoned with albeit  was.6  5 "The Strathy Language Unit was founded in 1981 by a bequest from John Richard Strathy. M r . Strathy left to Queen's University the annual income from a trust; he specified in his will that the income was to be used to establish in the English Department of Queen's University a unit for the continuing study of English usage within Canada. That Unit was to stimulate interest in Canadian English usage and to publish successive editions of a guide to written and spoken communication" (Lougheed 1986:190). 6 Whereas early discussions of and reactions against prescriptivism focussed on the need for descriptivism, current discussions must consider the possibility that reactions against prescriptivism may masquerade as  43  2.1.4 Linguistic Levels as Delineators of Prestige and Standard in Canadian English  Canadian dialectologists  recognize that there is variation on all linguistic  levels and tend not to use linguistic level as a delineator of prestige and standard;  however, some Canadians do suggest that there is some relationship  among linguistic level and standard and prestige.  Chambers (1986) identifies  accent as being more varied than what he calls dialect (i.e. grammar and lexicon) and Kinloch (1986) argues that although there is little likelihood of there being a standard pronunciation, there is more agreement than disagreement among educated speakers about other aspects of language (morphology, syntax and vocabulary).  Chambers and Kinloch, however, are  focussing on differences in pronunciation within Canadian English;  when  the focus is changed to describing the ways in which Canadian English can be seen to be distinct from other varieties such as British and American English, then it becomes clear that Canadian English is characterized by a degree of homogeneity not found in other national varieties of English. Such 7  arguments about the development and existence of standard and prestige. Hence, the effects of reactions against prescriptivism cannot be ignored in any consideration of standard and prestige, especially as they may form assumptions underlying any argument. Two examples of comments on and descriptions of the homogeneity of Canadian English are the following: Wells says that "Canadian pronunciation is extremely homogeneous, considering the vastness of the territory over which it extends and the varied history of settlement. From Ottawa to Vancouver is more than 3000 kilometres; their accents are virtually the same. Not only is there very little geographical variation, but what social variation there is in accent seems to be confined to trivial details of lexical incidence"(Wells 1982:491) and Avis identifies General Canadian as being the dialect spoken from Toronto west (Avis 1975).  7  44  homogeneity accounts for the tendency of Canadians not to use linguistic level as a distinguisher of standard and prestige when other linguists do.  It is evident, then, that the context in which something is described determines, to some extent, how terms are used and how distinctions are made. In general, the discussions of prestige and standard in the Canadian context reveal the same areas of confusion and disagreement as those identified in the general discussion;  it is, therefore, a significant beginning to use Canadian  data for testing definitions of these terms.  Generalization from the findings is  possible only to the extent of proposing hypotheses for further studies on other varieties.  Information gleaned from Canadian discussions of standard  and prestige expands understanding of the nature of the problems in prestige and standard. In particular, the Canadian context reveals that there are two considerations that cannot be overlooked while studying standard and prestige or while reconsidering those areas of disagreement that have not been fully explained;  first, that attitudes toward prescriptivism are factors in  descriptions and discussions of standard and prestige, and, second, that, to some extent, the difference between searching for a concept of something and searching for the linguistic realization of that concept may be important in the study of standard and prestige. These two points, then, must be considered along with cultural differences as possibly contributing to confusion about standard and prestige.  While identifying these issues, the consideration of  standard and prestige in the Canadian context, for the most part, confirms that cultural differences account for variant uses of the terms standard and prestige, account for disagreement about the validity of distinguishing standard from prestige on the basis of linguistic level and partially account  for disagreement about the existence and development of prestige and standard.  Although the cultural differences  cannot fully explain the latter  two areas of disagreement, those areas are not as central to defining standard and prestige as the former two are.  It is, of course, important that possible  cultural differences be kept in mind while defining the terms and that those areas of disagreement that have not been fully explained be reconsidered after analysis of available data;  however, it is possible, on the basis of both the  survey of the use of terms and the understanding provided by the consideration of cultural differences as they affect use of the terms, to construct working definitions of the terms and thus proceed with a consideration of prestige  and standard.  2.2 Definitions of the Terms Further consideration of standard and prestige requires some analysis of available data in order that a practical understanding can be added to the discussion.  However, before an analysis of standard and prestige in a  particular context is possible, it is necessary to formulate working definitions of the terms.  This, in turn, requires determining the essential distinctions  among several terms.  2.2.1 Essential  Distinctions  between Terms  The consideration of the use of the terms standard and prestige in the literature reveals that they interrelate with several senses of other terms. These must be dinstinguished to clarify central issues in sociolinguistic research.  Standard must be distinguished from prestige, and standard from  46  standards: prestige norms.  must be distinguished from prestigious, and n o r m  Moreover, attention must be paid to some of the differences  British and North American contexts in order to make  from between  these various  distinctions.  Clearly,  standard and prestige  approved models, neither  share some important  is stigmatized.  features;  These shared features  much of the use of standard in the place of prestige: prestige variety  account for  if there is no clear  or accent such as RP is in Britain, then it is possible that the  standard functions in some ways as RP does in Britain.  Furthermore, because  both standard and prestige are approved models, both carry prestige in its most general sense. and change.  both are  some kind of  Prestige is essential in language  variation  As McDavid writes; "The last force—prestige or lack of it—is the  essential cause of the development of social dialects" (McDavid  1969:80).  Labov's  a phoneme can  work, which  illustrates  Sturtevant's  claim that  "before  spread from word to word...it is necessary that one of the two rivals shall acquire some sort of prestige" (Sturtevant 1947:74, cited Labov 1972:3), demonstrates motivator  clearly  that prestige  (either overt  or covert)  is an essential  in language variation and change (see Labov 1966,  1972  passim ).  The claim, however, is not that a prestige accent such as RP must exist and be the motivator  of variation  and change, but  particular forms such that variation  rather, that prestige be assigned to  and change is motivated.  It  may well be  the case that the standard forms have been assigned the necessary prestige motivate  variation  and change in some (or even many) instances.  cases, then, standard would be functioning as the prestige (RP)  does.  standard  and  and prestige  share  a function  in  language  variation  In  these Thus,  to  47 development.  Both are also widely used by speakers of the highest socio-  economic group;  however,  standard is widely  used by many other socio-  economic groups as well.  However, it soon becomes clear that standard and prestige, especially if defined carefully, are not the same; features  than non-shared features.  it seems that they have fewer shared One cannot ignore the  as the model for prestige varieties or accents;  identification  of  RP  taking RP as the prototypical  prestige accent, one must define prestige as it is distinct from standard, determining  the  semantic  features  which  delineate  prestige.  Prestige can be  correlated with the upper socio-economic group and can be said to be by speakers of lower between  prestige  socio-economic groups.  and the  highest  Because of the  correlation  socio-economic groups, prestige  to be used to distinguish membership in the highest thus, it indicates an elite group membership.  emulated  can be said  socio-economic group;  Descriptions of prestige as the  indicator of an elite group membership focus on the ways in which it is distinctive from the speech of other groups.  Its  association with the highest  socio-economic  group also restricts the number of native  considerably.  Because RP is an accent, it can also be said that prestige is  associated more with accent than with grammar or lexicon; that it is a feature of speech more than of writing. members of lower  socio-economic groups emulate  speakers of RP  it can also be said  Furthermore, because  the prestige  speech of  upper socio-economic groups, prestige can be said to be a motivator language  variation  and  change.  of  the  48 On the other hand, standard is used by educated speakers of most socioeconomic classes. English;  Perhaps the clearest model of standard is Standard Written  its spoken counterpart is learned and used by people from across the  socio-economic  spectrum.  The use of standard distinguishes  general rather  than elite group membership and descriptions of the standard focus on the common or shared aspects of the language rather than on the ways in which that variety may be distinct from others.  As Gregg writes,  all regional varieties of English must share a great deal in common. It is these shared elements which contribute to what might be called the Standard for World English. Likewise shared elements within the sub-regional varieties can contribute to separate standards for each of the regional varieties. This regional manifestation of a generally shared base within English-speaking Canada is the goal of our endeavours in the search for the Standard in Canadian English. (Gregg 1986a: 161) Because of the commonality of standard English, both in terms of its features and its use across the socio-economic close association  stratum, it has many native speakers.  Its  with Standard Written English, indeed its development from  what has been called literary English, makes it more a matter of grammar and lexicon than of pronunciation. speech.  It is, however, common to both writing and  Standard Written English is learned rather than acquired or emulated;  its spoken counterpart, when not acquired, may be learned along with the written standard.  The close association with an established, relatively fixed  literary language makes standard English a control of change rather than a motivator of change; varieties standard.  as people learn the standard, their other (native)  are controlled from developing  further and further away from the  Thus, whereas prestige serves to motivate change by distinguishing  a group of people whom others emulate, standard serves to control change by  embodying those aspects of varieties that are shared;  8  learning Standard  Written English unites speakers in a common ground rather than distinguishes some from the others.  The semantic features, then, that are essential to distinguishing standard and prestige are as follows: Standard  Prestige  +APPROVED MODEL +APPROVED MODEL -STIGMATIZED -STIGMATIZED +SHARED FEATURES +DISTINCT FEATURES +GRAMMAR AND LEXICON +ACCENT +WRITING AND SPEECH +SPEECH +SPEAKERS OF MOST CLASSES +SPEAKERS OF ONLY THE TOP CLASS +FOR GENERAL USE +FOR SPECIAL USE +INDICATES GENERAL GROUP MEMBERSHIP +INDICATES ELITE GROUP MEMBERSHIP +FEW NATIVE SPEAKERS +MANY NATIVE SPEAKERS +MOTIVATES CHANGE +CONTROLS CHANGE +EMULATED +LEARNED  It is important to keep in mind that, rather than being a complete list of the semantic features of standard and prestige, the above includes only those features that the preceding discussion has determined to be necessary in accounting for the inconsistencies and disagreement found in the literature. The features are based on accepting RP as the model for prestige and Standard Written English as the model for standard and are identified in order to clarify the distinctions between standard and prestige.  Therefore, such things as the  possibility of standard being emulated in similar ways to prestige are not included in this list of features;  rather, the most distinct instances of standard  and prestige are delineated here.  See Kroch (1978) for a good discussion of the role of standard in inhibiting language change. 8  50 The consideration of the similarities and differences between standard and prestige  reveals the importance of distinguishing prestige from prestigious.  There are two main reasons for distinguishing prestige from prestigious. First, as the above discussion suggests, the prestige variety or forms (as in those used by the highest socio-economic group) are not the only ones that are approved or positively evaluated by speakers (i.e. are prestigious).  For  example, standard English, specially as it is distinct from nonstandard English, is positively evaluated by many speakers; general sense, or is prestigious. emulated per se  therefore, it carries prestige in the  It is not clear, however, that standard is  because standard is taught;  learning a variety or form is not  quite the same thing as emulating someone else's speech or variety.  Thus  standard, though prestigious, is not necessarily emulated in the way that the prestige (as in RP) is thought to be.  Other varieties of English may also be  prestigious in particular communities or situations. sense is more relative than absolute; within any speech community.  Prestige in its general  there may be degrees of prestigiousness  The extent to which a prestigious form or  variety is evaluated positively may determine, in part, form will be emulated.  9  whether or not that  It could even be the case that a prestigious form would  not necessarily be emulated at all, though it is clear that a form must be prestigious before it will be emulated.  Thus, it is clear that prestige in its  general sense of positively evaluated is not the same as prestige in its specific  Other factors such as the appropriateness of the prestigious form to a particular situation, the speaker's role in the situation and the speaker's own intention also affect emulation. See, for example, Labov's identification of overt and covert prestige (1966, 1972), Brown and Fraser's identification of the importance of situation to variation (in Scherer and Giles 1979) and Ryan and Giles' identification of the relative importance of marking individuality or group membership in different situations (Ryan and Giles 1982), all of which reveal the complexity of motivation for language variation and change. 9  51  sense of that variety  used by speakers of the highest  and emulated by others.  socio-economic group  The former, which I would prefer to call prestigious,  is a relative sense of prestige, is determined by the evaluation of forms by speakers and does not necessarily prompt sense, determined  function  the latter is an absolute  by the socio-economic status of the speaker 0 1  prompt emulation. prestigious  emulation;  and does  Keeping the two senses distinct (or using prestige and  more precisely) may lead to a more complete understanding of the  of prestige  in language  variation.  Second, it may be the case that the most highly evaluated variety community  does not correspond to the variety  used by the highest  economic group, as seems to be the case in the Canadian context. Pringle highly  (1985) and Warkentyne evaluated  in a speech socioGregg (1984)  (1986) have all found that British English is  by Canadian speakers;  English is more prestigious than either  their  works  reveal  that British  Canadian or American English.  On the  basis of these findings, British English is even referred to as the prestige dialect in Canada.  However, British English is not the variety used by the  highest socio-economic group in Canada, nor is its use limited by socioeconomic status.  Furthermore,  as Warkentyne  notes,  "the prestige dialect [BE]  Note that there can be some discrepancy between the linguists' use of socio-economic status as a delineator of prestige speech and speakers' evaluation of forms as being prestigious; it generally follows that the speech of the highest socio-economic group provides the model for the speech of others (i.e. is the prestige variety) but that is not necessarily the case. Thus, in contexts in which the speech of the highest socio-economic group is not necessarily distinct from that of other groups or is not necessarily the most highly evaluated, it might seem that linguists' use of socio-economic status as a determiner of prestige variety is at odds with the speakers' evaluation of the language. However, the linguists' method does hold for most speech communities and in most situations; hence it is generally suitable for sociolinguistic evaluation. 1  0  52 is so distant and vaguely understood that it is not a force for linguistic change in Canada" (Warkentyne 1986a:172).  He correctly recognizes that Canadians do  not generally emulate British English, however prestigious that variety may be.  Thus, on two counts the positively evaluated variety, British English, does  not serve as the prestige in Canada:  first, its use does not correlate with the  highest socio-economic group in Canada, and second, it is not emulated by Canadian  speakers.  It is necessary, then, to distinguish prestige from prestigious to adequately account for language variation and change.  Such a distinction allows for the  absolute case of the prototypical prestige variety (and, consequently, the use of socio-economic status and emulation as delimiters of prestige) and the relative sense of prestigiousness, both of which are evident in the complexity of language variation and change.  Prestige, then, is the specific and practical  term, essential in describing and analyzing one aspect of sociolinguistic variation;  prestigious is the more general term, essential in accounting for  the complexity of language variation and of various speech communities.  Another distinction that is essential to a clear understanding and explanation of language variation and change is that between standard and standards. As mentioned earlier, standard generally refers to a variety of language that is used in the writing of English and in conducting the business of the nation; is more common than uncommon and, as Baker points out,  it is characterized  by being "a form of English that does not distract from the message...does not draw attention to misspelling, faulty diction, regionalisms, slang, etc., rather than to the message... does not...create noise" (Baker 1986:153).  Clearly, the  it  53 notion of standard is quite imprecise.  However, as Hudson points out, it is the  case that standard will have passed through the processes of selection, codification, elaboration of function and acceptance (Hudson 1980:32). Selection refers to a process by which a variety emerges to be developed into the generally agreed upon model.  Codification refers to the production of  grammar books and dictionaries as references for the identification of the correct "standard" forms.  Elaboration of function refers to the development of  the standard for use in conducting the business of the nation;  for example,  legal and technical vocabularies must be developed so that the standard may function as the vehicle of legislation.  Acceptance refers to the recognition of  the variety as being the agreed-upon standard for the relevant speech community.  Although there are several points of disagreement  the development of standard,  11  surrounding  the four processes Hudson identifies do provide  a means of delineating standard language in a more precise way than other definitions have done.  What becomes evident is that establishment and  development of a standard variety involves deliberate intervention (some would suggest interference) by speakers of the language (usually educators) in such a way that forms are fixed, that variation and change within the standard is minimized.  Bounds of acceptability are specified, usually in terms  For example, not all linguists agree that standard should extend beyond grammar and lexicon to include phonology and there is little agreement about the value and adviseability of standardization. As has been illustrated in this chapter, there is also little agreement about how a standard might develop and about whether or not prestige should be attached to the standard. 1 1  54  of correctness.  12  language;  What emerges is a set of rules that acount for standard  these rules are often called language standards or norms.  Standards, then, refers to the set of rules that, if applied, will produce those forms that typify a standard variety.  Standardization, that process by which forms or varieties are selected, codified and accepted as the standard, is a strong force in language variation and change. It is likely the case that only a select few (such as educators, publishers, writers and, perhaps, legislators, for example) concern themselves with standardization and with both identifying the standard of a particular community and specifying the standards that produce that standard;  13  nonetheless, the process of standardization, particularly in nations in which there is widespread public education, exerts a strong controlling force on language variation and change.  One cannot, therefore, disregard either  standard or standards in language variation and change.  However, one ought  to maintain a distinction between the two, recognizing that, as interdependent as the two are, they are not the same. There have, of course, been developments in this area, particularly in the last few decades, as linguists have come to recognize that correctness is, to some extent, culture and situation specific. As a result more than correctness is taken into account when acceptability is specified and it is recognized that there is some variation within standard. However, correctness, or some notion of correctness, continues to be considered an attribute of standard language. 1 2  Note that the conference "In Search of the Standard in Canadian English" gathered together teachers, linguists and editors, all of whom are concerned about delineating the standard for Canadian English; it is not clear, however, whether they are determined to describe or quantify Standard Canadian English or they are determined to provide standards for use in Canada (See Lougheed 1986). I suspect that there were elements of both being considered, with the emphasis on standard or standards being determined by the particular interests of the individual. 1 3  55  Another term for the rules governing speech is n o r m s :  according to Hudson:  Skill in speaking depends on a variety of factors, including a knowledge of the relevant rules governing speech...We shall call such rules N O R M S because they define normal behaviour for the society concerned, without being associated with any specific sanctions against those who do not follow them. (Hudson 1980:116) His choice of terms is clear and indicates that standard speech has a normative function, that it change.  does exert a controlling force in language variation  However, his use of norms  distinguishing  norms from n o r m .  and  also points to the importance of As he points out, the term norms is used  because standard is seen as "normal" usage, presumably in a community as a whole.  However,  distinct  from  there  standard;  are  subcommunities with their  in these  subcommunities, something other  standard is "normal" or forms the norm.  1984:A3). variety  forms  1 4  quite  than  N o r m , then, refers to that which is  typical of, or most common in, a speech community; preferred  own varieties  or "those used by the majority  Gregg calls these of speakers" (Gregg  Only in a community in which standard is the most widely used  of the language will the norm be that standard.  Norms  (standards),  then, only produce the norm in communities which use standard English; other communities the norm may be quite  different  from  standard.  in  Norms,  then, must not be confused with the norm or be expected to produce that which is commonly used (or normal) terms  suggestive of  normal  in all speech communities.  is unfortunate  when  The use of  describing something as  Note that care must also be taken with this term as others may use it in the sense of prestige or those forms thought to be better than others. 1  4  56 diverse as language variation;  it is clear, therefore, that care must be taken  with the terms.  Thus, it is important to distinguish between norms and norm as well as between standards and standard.  It is also helpful to distinguish prestige  prestigious and is essential to distinguish standard from prestige. identifying  from  Without  and maintaining such distinctions, one cannot clearly assess such  things as the existence and development of prestige and standard in speech communities  2.2.2 Working Definitions The  survey of the literature and consideration of various terminiological  distinctions provide important criteria which can now be included in working definitions The  for an investigation of prestige  discussion reveals that the essential  and standard in language variety.  distinctions between prestige and  standard pertain to socio-economic status of the speakers of each, emulation of prestige forms as opposed to learning standard forms, and codification, which imparts a notion of correctness to standard. centrality of these features  To test the applicability and  of standard and prestige, the following definitions  will be adopted and tested against the data collected in the Survey of Vancouver  English:  prestige - that variety (or those forms) used by the highest socio-economic group and emulated by others. standard - that variety (or those forms) used by the majority of speakers and embodying notions of correctness. In the discussion of the findings in the Survey of Vancouver English, prestigious will be used to refer to forms or varieties that are positively  57 evaluated by speakers but which are not necessarily used by the highest socioeconomic group or necessarily emulated.  Standards will be used to refer to the  set of rules (or norms) which produce standard English;  no distinction will be  made between standards which have been explicitly specified in grammar books or other reference works and those which are implicitly derived from the standard but have not necessarily been set down. standards, will be avoided;  Norms, as a synonym of  norm, as those forms which typify a particular  speech community, will also be avoided where possible.  These definitions  are neither exhaustive  in all situations and for all purposes;  nor necessarily  the most appropriate  however, they (and the distinctions  implicit in them) have been motivated from discussions of previous work and are appropriate for this Canadian context.  They will facilitate both assessment  of the definitions of standard and prestige and expansion of the description of Canadian English. this work.  They will, therefore, be used throughout the remainder of  58 CHAPTER 3 PRESTIGE IN THE SURVEY OF VANCOUVER ENGLISH  Analyzing the database of the Survey of Vancouver English for the existence of prestige as it has been defined here allows both testing of the definition and further quantification of the linguistic behaviour of Vancouver speakers. two  aspects of the definition must be considered separately;  The  first, the forms  used by the highest socio-economic group will be compared with those used by the majority of speakers to test for the existence of prestige in the sense of "those forms used by speakers of the highest socio-economic group;"  second,  changes in forms across speech styles will be examined for evidence of emulation by others of the forms used by speakers of the highest socioeconomic group.  To determine whether or not prestige forms may be  developing or emerging in Vancouver English, the relevant data will also be tested using an analysis of change in apparent time.  The results of the tests  can then be used to reassess both the definition of prestige as "that variety or those forms used by speakers of the highest socio-economic group and emulated by others" and the existence of prestige in Vancouver English.  3.1 The Survey of Vancouver English  3.1.1  Description of the Survey  Before testing for prestige, it is essential to consider what the available database comprises and how it can be used for the purpose of analyzing prestige.  The Survey of Vancouver English (SVEN) was conducted by R.J.  59 Gregg from 1976 to 1984 using a questionnaire comprising a battery of over 1  one thousand questions aimed at determining phonological, lexical and syntactic variables that characterize Vancouver English.  The questionnaire  was designed to evoke a full range of speech styles and was administered to three hundred informants from the Greater Vancouver area including North and West Vancouver as well as Vancouver itself, and extending east to Lynn Valley and Coquitlam, south to White Rock, and north west to Lion's Bay. The informants were all native English speakers and comprised equal numbers of male and female speakers, equal numbers in each of three age brackets—old, middle, and young-and equal numbers in each of four socio-economic classesupper and lower working class and upper and lower middle class as calculated on the Blishen scale. informants  Because the overall goal was to assess Canadian English,  had to be Canadian; 43% of the informants were third generation  Canadian or more, 26% were second generation, 24% were first and only 7.1% were born outside of Canada.  2  Gregg used a standard sociolinguistic model,  fashioned after that used by Labov in New York City in 1966 and refined by Trudgill in Norwich in 1974;  however, unlike Labov, whose survey was  conducted in the Inner City and included ethnic variables, and unlike Trudgill, whose survey included only a small group of informants,  Gregg included 300  Canadian informants from a large urban area in his survey.  1  See Appendix A for an outline of the contents of the SVEN questionnaire.  There are two methods of identifying first generation Canadians: either the generation to immigrate is considered to be first generation Canadian or the offspring of the generation to immigrate are considered to be the first generation Canadians. The Vancouver Survey uses the latter method of calculating; thus, the first generation born in Canada rather than the first to arrive in Canada is considered to be first generation Canadian. 2  60  After Gregg and his team designed the questionnaire, his fieldworker interviewed sixty of the informants—the Pilot group—from 1976 to 1978. During that time, Howard Woods, a graduate student of Gregg's, was working on a similar study in Ottawa. Gregg and Woods attempted to make their surveys easily comparable so as to contribute more fully to Canadian dialect information, especially so as to establish the degree of uniformity that exists within a wide region such as Canada and to discover smaller (provincial) regional preferences as well as urban preferences.  To quantify language  attitudes and awareness and to complement Woods' study, Gregg added a section, "Subjective Attitudes and Language Awareness," proceeding.  to his pilot study before  After designing the new section and slightly modifying the  original questionnaire, Gregg's fieldworker interviewed the other 240 informants.  Gregg's team then transcribed the recordings of the interviews,  coded the information for the computer, using the SPSSX programme, and stored the entire database in the computer at The University of British Columbia. Because SVEN was designed to test variation on all linguistic levels, the data can be divided into lexical, grammatical and phonological groups with further subdivision of the phonological group into three categories:  those "involving  a systematic change of a given sound in a particular position in words generally" as in the voicing of intervocalic dental stops such as /t/ -> /d/ in butter, "potential rhyme words" or "what was potentially the same sound in two neighbouring words" such as the diphthongs in without a doubt and the consonant clusters in dental centre, and "special profile words" or "words in  61 which specific sounds may vary freely, and independently, creating a number of patterns" such as garage, which was found to have eighteen possible versions (Gregg 1984:Dl-3).  For the purposes of checking the prestige forms,  the first two categories of phonological variants (i.e. the systematic sound changes and the potential rhyme words) need not be separated because there are no significant differences in the patterns of the two;  I will refer to those  two subcategories combined as "phonological variants."  The third  subcategory, the special profile words, must be considered separately;  hence,  there are two phonological categories, the phonological variants and the special profile words.  Both the phonological items and the special profile  items appear in the data in five possible speech styles—minimal contrast, word list, series, visual-aural prompting and reading passage—the minimal contrast being the most formal or careful style and the reading passage being the least formal or most casual style.  Although there was a more casual style elicited,  that of spontaneous speech, I do not have access to that data in a form in which it can be analyzed and cannot, therefore, consider the patterns that appear in that style;  however, because of the subject matter of the reading passage,^ the  style elicited was considerably less formal than both what is usually expected in reading style and what was elicited by the other four methods, thus providing an adequate range of speech styles.  Of the 53 phonological items  3 See Appendix B. The reading passage included very casual dialogue between characters in very ordinary situations and did not, therefore, prompt the careful style elicited by more formal passages. There has been some examination of the ways in which the method used in eliciting speech styles influences the results; for example, Woods 1979 and Milroy 1980 point to the problem of using reading tasks to elicit various stylistic levels. However, it is beyond the scope of this study to assess the effect of the methodology used to elicit speach styles. Here I can only acknowledge that the SVEN reading passage produced a less formal style than usual. For a consideration of Reading Style in SVEN see Rodman 1986.  62  considered, 5 had to be rejected  because of computer programming  errors  leaving 48 items that could occur in each of the five styles, making a possible 240  occurrences.  speech style;  However, each phonological item did not occur in each  the 48 items actually occurred in some of the five speech styles a  total of 170 times.  . The largest phonological group, the special profile words,  included 84 items, 5 of which had to be rejected because there was so little agreement Since  about  "other"  the  possible forms  does not reveal  that the  category  "other"  anything beyond the lack of agreement,  little point in considering it further.  The remaining 79  The lexical items were gathered by two sections  questionnaire, visual-aural  prompting,  pictures  4  prompting  and local words.  were shown to each informant,  name an item or items in the picture. eliciting  326.  items were elicited most often by direct question,  independently of speech style. the  In  Although in general this method of  For example, one picture (No. 282)  picture may  that the respondents reacted to the informality rather  bias  is of a drawing  similar to those that appear in school readers and children's books;  picture would be appropriate  visual-aural  who was then asked to  responses is good, occasionally something about the  the responses slightly.  item  hence the total number of  occurrences of phonological items that can be considered is  The lexical and grammatical  is  In an attempt to  all possibilities, occurrences of each phonological and special profile  in each style can be considered separately;  of  there  items occurred in  some of the five different speech styles a total of 156 times. test  predominated.  of the context  than to the item itself,  it seems  in which  a reaction  the which  See Appendix C for copies of some samples of the visual-aural prompts.  63 indicates the  need for  consideration of  appropriateness and congruity  assessments of language use and language attitudes.  in  Just as the content of the  Reading Passage affected the style used for reading the passage, the  context  and particular medium depicted in the picture seems to have affected responses  elicited  by  the  photographs.^  all  the  However, for the most part, the  pictures or visual prompts used elicited a direct, spontaneous response.  The  local words section of the questionnaire, on the other hand, is less spontaneous and elicits information  about words rather than documents the use of words.  Here the informants were given words and asked what each term meant, whether  they  had ever heard anyone say the  themselves used it.  word  and whether  they  The responses to the latter two questions are self-reporting  only and may not be reliable. Unfortunately, can be used to check the reliability  there is nothing in the data that  of the self-reporting of familiarity  and use of the "local terms" examined.  with  However, for the purposes of amassing  a description of the English spoken by residents of the Lower Mainland of B . C . , the method of eliciting data is adequate. is to test a relationship between  Although my particular purpose here  socio-economic status and actual use rather  than reported use, the patterns of responses to the local words section of the questionnaire will be considered as there would be any connection between reporting;  6  is no reason to think  that there  socio-economic status and reliability  of self-  all 51 lexical items will be considered with the proviso that the 12  5 The evidence revealing the importance of content to Reading Style and of media congruity in visual prompting aids is a significant, though inadvertant, contribution of S V E N . The consequent indication of the importance of appropriateness and congruity are important bonuses for advancement in sociolinguistic methodology. See test of reliability of self-reporting of grammatical items below; significance of socio-economic status is found.  6  no  which are assessed by self-reporting be considered primarily for general patterns. Similarly, many of the responses to the grammatical items in the questionnaire must be regarded with caution.  Of the 108 grammatical  questions, 84 were elicited by questions asked in pairs, the first asking what the informant thought the "correct" form was, the other asking whether or not the informant used any form or forms other than the one judged "correct." Not only did all socio-economic groups tend to respond negatively to the second question in each pair, but also, the rate of denial of using any but forms they identified as being correct was exceptionally high, ranging from 72.4% to 100% (average - 90.7%). Such a high rate of agreement calls into question the reliability of self-reporting and indicates the need for further testing (see below).  A further 18 variables were elicited through questions  that required self-assessment;  9 sentences containing the word gotten and 9  sentences containing the utterance eh? were read and the informants were asked in which sentences they would use the utterances.  For those sentences  containing gotten to which the respondents answered "no," they were asked to specify whether they would say "got" or some other word instead of gotten. Informants were also asked to make comments about &h. Although it is very difficult to test the reliability of self-reporting, some test is necessary because it is unlikely that, for example, though most informants identify lay as the correct form in "Yesterday, he lay in the sun for 3 hours.", they "never" use laid in the same environment, or though most informants identify fewer as the correct form in the sentence "There are fewer people here today than yesterday.", they "never" use less in the same environment. Yet the relative  65  frequency of responding "never" to the question of whether people use forms other than fewer is 88.9% and the rate for Iay_ is 95.4%.  3.1.2  Reliability of Self-Reporting  One would think that reliability of self-reporting would vary not only from speaker to speaker but also within a single speakers' own reported usage. To test reliability, I randomly selected 24 informants, being sure to have equal representation among socio-economic, age and gender groups.  I then  reviewed the grammatical items that were elicited by self-reporting to determine which were likely to occur in spontaneous conversation or speech within the interviews.  Because many of the grammatical forms tested were  past participial forms (has drunk, has got, for example) or simple past forms (dived, sneaked, for example) and the question used to elicit spontaneous speech (usually "If you won a lottery, what would you do with the money?") required either narrative present or future tense, many of the variables did not occur and could not be tested. It seemed most likely that the forms "there are eight..." "She's a real nice..." "I don't have any money," "to Tom and me" and eh., which was also considered in the study as a grammatical item, would occur.  I then listened to the spontaneous narrative, the comments about  Vancouver and the personal information sections of the tapes of each of the twenty-four informants I had selected, listening for occurrences of the five grammatical variables.  One difficulty of testing reliability is that for cases in which people report not using a particular form, negative evidence (i.e. the absence of those forms) is inconclusive.  Hence, only unreliable reporting of non-usage can be proven.  66 One might think, however, that there would be plenty of evidence of use of e_h by Canadians (if it is the marker it is supposed to be) and that, since most people  reported  occurrences  never  would  using eh. or not using it in certain structures,  indicate  unreliable  reporting.  However,  eh. very  occurred in the interviews, probably because its most frequent in  eliciting  information  or responding.  encouraging a  Hence, though the  informants rarely did. reliability  or  response rather  interviewer  used eh  rarely  use seems to be  than  quite  in  reporting  frequently,  the  However, there were 3 occurrences of eh. that showed  of self-reporting.  One speaker who claimed to use eh. in all of the  structures considered did use £h. in a structure like "Nice day, eh?"  Another  who claimed to use eh in four of the structures, also used it in a structure like "Nice day, eh?"  A third who claimed to use eh. in the structure "It  here, eh?" did not use eh. in the interview which interrupted  the interview  goes over  proper, but in a phone conversation  said "You'll be home tonight  I  guess, eh?"  Thus, there were three examples of reliable reporting of the use of eh..  There  was, however, one example (or 25 examples, depending on how one counts) of unreliable reporting of the use of e_h.  One informant who claims that he would  not use eh. in any of the structures given and that he avoids it used eji 25 times. His most frequent use was in the function of a rhetorical check for approval of the statement made (as in "Nice day, eh?"), but he also used it between sentences as a kind of link or filler.  Thus the reliability  of self-reporting of  the use of eh. is difficult to test and varies from speaker to speaker, though here  there  is more  evidence of  reliable  reporters  than  unreliable.  There were 45 occurrences of the other grammatical forms used to test reliability;  for those 45  occurrences, 7 speakers reported reliably,  3  reported  67 unreliably and 6 reported reliably in some instances and unreliably in others.  7  Of the 6 who were sometimes reliable and sometimes not, 4 had an  equal number of examples of unreliable and reliable reporting, but 2 had more reliable than unreliable;  thus, there is indication that there is slightly more  reliable than unreliable reporting.  Though initial expectations that  reliability varies both by speaker and by variable are confirmed, there is evidence of more reliability than unreliability in self-reporting.  The  advantages of using a questionnaire and self-reporting for eliciting particular forms in a database are also evident; many of the forms thought to be significant to a particular variety do not occur frequently in general conversation.  Not only did only 45 instances of the four grammatical items  occur among the 24 speakers tested, but also they occurred sporadically or not at all in individual speakers; 8 speakers did not use any of the forms, 7 used only 1 and none of the speakers used all 4 forms. Thus, not only is the questionnaire the only practical means of eliciting the particular items being investigated but also the self-reporting that questionnaires necessitate seems to be reasonably reliable.  Furthermore, although there may be a connection between socio-economic status and the reliability of self-reporting, the Vancouver database does not seem to reveal such a connection.  Table 3.1 shows the distribution by socio-  economic status of the incidents of reliable and unreliable self-reporting.  There were 8 informants for whom there weren't any occurrences of the other variables tested, thus the total number of informants tested is 24.  7  68 SES I reliable unreliable mixed no data  SES II  SES III  3 2 2 2 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 2 Table 3.1 - Distribution of Reliable and Unreliable Reporting across Socio-economic Groups  Although for the results to be conclusive more than 24 tested, the early  indication is that reliability  socio-economic status;  of  spontaneous narrative will allow evidence  detailed of  should be  affected  there is no evidence of tendencies of reliability  self-reporting  is indicated  section of the  Further testing of  and should be undertaken  data becomes available  analysis and cross-tabulations.  self-reporting  being  reasonably  reliable  and  this  not  by  to  the when  in a form  However,  8  2 0 3 1  informants  is not significantly  increase or decrease with socio-economic status. reliability  SES I V  the  which  early  significantly  affected by socio-economic status indicates that the data elicited by  self-  reporting can be included in the test of the existence of prestige forms in Vancouver  English.  Therefore, the 42 grammatical  forms  questions that ask whether other  or not an informant uses  than those that he perceives as being  "correct"  and  the 19 items that involve self-reporting of the use of gotten and eh. will be included in the  analysis to determine  prestige.  Four other grammatical  items  will be retained, though the method of eliciting the responses is unusual; these four items ( a n y w a y l s l . out of. to/for, into') were included in the Reading Passage. normally  8  SES I  It  was thought that speakers might  substitute the forms they  use for the printed forms, especially since the tone of the passage  is the lowest socio-economic group tested;  SES IV, the highest.  69 was very casual. One other item can be retained as it is likely to be an accurate response to a Visual-Aural item (265, a picture of a cat "lying/laying" on a bed).  Hence, the 42 questions about which form the informants think is  "correct" and the Visual-Aural item make 43 items which are likely to be accurate responses, and a further 65 items that are of questionable accuracy but that can be retained because the unreliability of the responses affects all socio-economic groups equally make a total of 108 grammatical items. All together, then, 485 items (108 grammatical, 51 lexical and 326 phonological) can be used to assess the existence of prestige forms in the speech of Vancouverites.  3.2 Prestige  in the  Survey of  Vancouver English  To test the appropriateness of the definition of prestige as "the forms used by the highest socio-economic group and emulated by others" and to compare the findings in Vancouver with those in other studies, two aspects of prestige must be tested. First, the usage of the highest socio-economic group must be compared with usage of the other groups or with the usage of the majority of the speakers.  Gregg, in his report to the Social Sciences and Humanities  Research Council, suggests that the "prestige" forms, which he defines as "those [forms] used by the top socio-economic group who have the highest level of education" and the overall  "preferred" forms, which he defines as 9  To prevent terminological confusion, I will avoid the term preferred. I will use majority rather than preferred to refer to the forms chosen by the majority of speakers, leaving preferred to refer, when necessary, to the forms that are chosen by each socio-economic group. For example, if more of the Class IV speakers choose dived rather than dove, then I will call dived the form preferred by Class IV speakers. The term preferred is ambiguous, not only if it is used in the sense that Gregg gives it but also because others use it to refer to 9  70 "those [forms] used by the majority of the SVEN population," be compared (Gregg 1984:A3). If there is a clear prestige in Vancouver and it is that spoken by the top socio-economic group as has been seen to be the case in Britain and, slightly differently, in the U.S., then comparing the forms used by Class IV speakers with those used by the majority of the speakers should reveal more differences than similarities between the two groups.  Second, the linguistic  behaviour of lower socio-economic groups in different speech styles must be compared with the behaviour of the highest socio-economic group in order to determine whether or not lower groups are emulating the highest group. Labov, in his investigation of the "social stratification of English in New York City," based his evaluation of the variables on his finding that "in general, a variant that is used by most New Yorkers in formal styles is also the variant that is used most often in all styles by speakers who are ranked higher on an objective socio-economic scale" (Labov 1966:405). Because he found that the highest socio-economic group usually used one form in all speech styles and that the other socio-economic groups tended to use different forms in different styles, he could conclude that the highest socio-economic group was using and perhaps setting the prestige forms.  Labov found further that there  was some tendency for the second highest socio-economic group (the lower middle class) to hypercorrect in their attempt to emulate the style of the higher, prestige group, a tendency which he attributes to  "profound  linguistic insecurity...[which] is perhaps an inevitable accompaniment of  a prestige or correct form. Here, where necessary, I aim to use it in a neutral and general sense, i.e. the form that most speakers of any given group choose, rather than in its marked sense of prestige or a specific sense of one group (i.e. the majority) of speakers.  71  social mobility  and the development of upward  the socio-economic hierarchy"  (Labov  social aspirations in terms  1966:475).  of  Clearly, then, from his  findings it was logical for Labov to conclude that the prestige form is generally  that used by  unsuccessfully groups,  the  especially  and to  in  highest  socio-economic group  casual speech, by  develop explanations  the basis of identifying a comparable prestige  in  To determine  "hypercorrection" on  whether  Vancouver English and to  or not emulation is a central feature of prestige  or not there is  examine  whether  the terms used by the highest  socio-economic group must be compared with those used by the majority variation  must be compared in different  often  lower socio-economic  of what he termed  such a prestige. evident  the  and emulated,  and  styles of speech.  3.2.1 Forms Used by the Highest Socio-economic Group To  compare the  by the majority  responses of the highest socio-economic group with those used of speakers, I  first  calculated simple frequencies to  which of the variants is that used by the majority frequencies speakers items  for  who  reflect  grammatical use  and lexical  a particular  form,  items  whereas  of speakers.  simply  reflect  frequencies  determine  The the  percentage  of  for phonological  the percentage of possible occurrences of the form.  Because  there were several variants possible for most of the items tested, it may be the case that the highest rate of usage of any one of the possible variants of an item is low. term s l o u g h :  For example, people identified eight possible meanings for the with so many possibilities, the figures are thinly  rate at which the majority is only 22.0%.  thinks s l o u g h  However, as 22.0%  spread and the  refers to a man-made, run-off  ditch  is a higher rate of agreement than that for  any of the other given meanings of the term s l o u g h .  "a man-made,  run-off  72 ditch" is taken to be the sense of slough that is understood by the majority of speakers.  Majority  is, then, used in a relative rather than an absolute sense.  What is being compared here are the forms preferred by the majority of the speakers and those used by each socio-economic group; of a term is less important responses by IV  than which term is used.  socio-economic groups, with group I  hence the rate of use  I then sorted the being the  lowest  being the highest on the Blishen scale, and calculated the  each group. with those  Thus, the forms preferred preferred  by  each  and group  frequency  for  by the majority could be compared  socio-economic group.  3.2.1.1 General  The comparison of forms used by the highest socio-economic group and those used by the majority of speakers suggests that there is no clear prestige  among  Vancouver speakers.  The results of comparing the forms selected by each  socio-economic  group  show that there is much more  socio-economic  groups,  particularly  for  lexical,  uniformity  grammatical  across the  and  phonological  variants, than there would be if there were prestige forms or a prestige variety  in the Canadian context  (see Figure  3.1).  73  90 80 70 60  Rate of Uniformity  o  u  4  0  30 20 10 0  Lexicon  Grammar Phonology  Special Profile  Figure 3.1 - Uniformity For 82.4% of the lexical items, 84.3% of the grammatical items and 89.4% of the phonological items, respondents agreement  all four socio-economic groups and the majority  selected the  A  50%  partial  profile A  10  For the special profile words, the  among socio-economic groups about the forms used drops to  which, though lower than  same f o r m s .  of the  uniformity  61.5%,  than for the other three kinds of variables, is still more among  socio-economic groups.  cause of the difference  in rates of uniformity  between  the special  words and the other three groups is the nature of what is being tested.  socio-dialectal survey generally  which typify  sets out to identify  a given dialect or sociolect;  or quantify  those items  hence, the survey focuses on those  items for which there is thought to be general or a high rate of agreement. the case of S V E N , the items for which there is a high rate of agreement are  See Appendix D for lists of the forms chosen by most of the speakers in all socio-economic groups. 1 0  In  74 those in the lexical, grammatical and phonological categories;  the special  profile words are those which are noted for their high rate of variation in the geographical would  expect  area being surveyed less  general  and  are,  agreement.  therefore,  those for which one  Furthermore,  whereas phonological  variables are isolated by one particular sound, such as intervocalic voicing in butter or the pronunciation of a low back vowel in father, words include several variables; variations increase  the special profile  hence, the possible combinations of  and the general  agreement decreases.  However, with  uniformity across classes ranging from 61.5% to 89.4%, both the existence of a prestige  in Canadian English  and the  appropriateness  of defining prestige  "those [forms] used by the top socio-economic group who have the level of education" in the Canadian context  are  as  highest  questionable.  However, to examine the possibility of some evidence for prestige  forms  existing or developing in Canada or, alternatively, for stigmatization of some forms being the trend in Canada, the patterns of deviance for those variables for which the socio-economic groups be considered.  do not respond with any uniformity must  To test for patterns, I isolated the items for which the  variants were not uniform across classes.  preferred  I then identified which socio-  economic group or groups deviated from the majority for each of the items and calculated the frequency majority.  1 1  that each group or groups  deviated from  the  A s Figure 3.2 reveals, overall, of the responses that show  Note that all grouping here is done on the basis of each variant tested; i.e. for some variables, a single socio-economic group used a form different from that used by the majority; for others two socio-economic groups used a form different from that used by the majority. Thus, calculations include the frequency that each single group deviated and the frequency that some pairs of socio-economic groups deviated. 1 1  75  differentiation by socio-economic group, the highest group (IV) is different more often than the other groups, deviating in 24.0% of the cases;  the lowest  socio-economic group follows, deviating in 19.2% of the cases and the lowest two socio-economic groups (I & II) are third, deviating together in 18.3% of the cases.  12  Rate of Deviation  Socio-economic Group Figure 3.2 - Variant Different from Majority-Overall Pattern  To determine all possible trends, it is important to consider totals of and divisions among socio-economic groups as well as the individual patterns; hence, combinations must also be calculated. For example, to determine whether or not the highest two socio-economic groups behave differently  Figure 3.2 may be read, for example, "group IV chose a different form from that used by the majority and other groups in 24% of the cases for which there was no uniformity...groups II & I together chose a different form from that used by the majority and other groups in 18.3% of the cases." Figures 3.3-3.6 may be read in an analogous way. (The category "other" on these figures includes odd combinations of scoio-economic groups, such as I & IV or II & IV, for example, as well as several items for which there was no discernable pattern.) 1 2  from the lower two groups, the rates at which group I V , group III and the two together chose a different form from the majority must be added and compared with the total of the rates at which group II, group I and the two together chose a different form from the majority.  For 37.5% of the cases, either group  IV, groups I V and III or group III (i.e. the highest two socio-economic groups) deviate, but for 45.2% of the non-uniform cases, either group I, groups I and II or group II (i.e. the lowest two socio-economic groups) deviate. (For 2.9% of the cases, there were no similarities in the responses of any of the socio-economic groups—usually because  responses  were more or less evenly divided  between  two favoured forms—and for 14.4% of the cases, groups I V and II or I and III or II and III or I and I V or II, III and I V behaved similarly; the category "other" in Figure 3.2.)  these are reflected in  Hence, it appears not only that there is  some division between the highest and the lowest two socio-economic groups but from  also that, although the the others  and from  highest  socio-economic group responds  differently  the "majority" slightly more frequently than any  other single group, the lower two groups are more often likely to respond differently  from  the  "majority" than the higher two groups  are.  Thus, it seems, initially, that, although there is some evidence for a prestige form used by the highest socio-economic group in a small percentage of the responses, there is more evidence for different forms used by the lower two socio-economic groups, forms which may, therefore, be stigmatized. patterns, linguistic  however, can be examined more carefully levels  separately.  The  by considering each of the  77 3.2.1.2 Lexical Variables For lexical items there were only 9 forms (17.7%) for which the four socioeconomic groups were not in agreement;  13  speakers did not consistently  agree about skookum (has used). 10:30. slough, drapes/curtains, squamish. skookum (meaning), verandah, train tracks, or dinner. Of the 9, both the highest and the lowest two socio-economic groups deviated from the "majority" in 44.4% of the cases. As Figure 3.3 indicates, group IV had the highest rate of deviation for a single group, deviating in 33.3% of the items for which there is no uniformity across styles. 4 0 1  Rate of Deviation  IV  Ml  II I IV & III III & II II & I Socio-Economic Group  Other  Figure 3.3 - Variant Different from Majority-Lexicon  However, it is clear from the figure that although the highest socio-economic group deviates from the other groups more often than any of the other groups deviates, it accounts for deviation in only one third of the items. Between  See Appendix E for a list of the forms preferred by the majority and those preferred by each socio-economic group. 1 3  78 them, the top two socio-economic groups use a form different groups and the majority in their use of four lexical items. bottom two groups use a form different in their use of four lexical items. groups I and III is odd. between  from the  other  Similarly, the  from the other groups and the majority  The other grouping of socio-economic  Thus, for the lexical items, the clearest division is  the top and bottom two socio-economic groups.  3.2.1.3  Grammatical Variables  For only 17 (15.7%) of the grammatical items was there variation among the four socio-economic groups in their choice of forms; about the forms has (object'), to  speakers did not agree  drunk, s n e a k e d / s n u c k . r e a l l T y l . between  whofml. gotltenl to try. Still here, eh?, gotltenl  l e n d / l o a n . gotTtenl apples, between  braced, if...was/were  warmer. It's  you and me/I. m e an  answer.  me/I. these kindlsl of  John and me/I. Have you got?, or gotTtenl  killed.  1 4  The groups  that differed from the majority most often in their choice of grammatical forms were the lowest two;  as Figure 3.4 shows, groups I and II both differed  52.9% of the time, II differed 5.9% of the time and I differed 11.8% of the time, making a total of 70.6%, leaving only 29.3% of the cases for which the highest socio-economic group could conceivably other groups.  be distinct from the majority or the  On its own, the highest group differed in only 11.8% of the  cases.  See Appendix E for a list of the forms chosen for each of these grammatical variables. 1 4  79  60 50 40 Rate of 30 Deviation 20  II  I IV & III II & II Socio-economic Group  II & I  Other  Figure 3.4 - Variant Different from Majority-Grammatical Variables Clearly, the highest socio-economic group is not more likely than the groups to be significantly  different from  choice of grammatical forms.  the majority of speakers  other  in their  Group I V selected a form different from the  majority of speakers for only 11.8% of the items and, together with group III for another 5.8%;  oddly, it also differed with group II for 11.8% of the forms,  making the total number of forms for which group I V , with or without another group, selected a different form just 29.3%.  With groups I and II,  together  from  and individually,  selecting forms different  the majority of  speakers for 70.6% of the items, the trend here is clearly toward a division between the upper and lower two groups, with the lower groups more frequently than the upper.  differing  Thus, rather than prestige being indicated,  stigma may be developing here.  The fact that the lower two groups are most often different here may reflect the importance of education to grammatical usage.  If nothing else, education  80  makes people more aware of "correct" grammatical forms.  Martin  Meissner, a  sociologist at U . B . C . , was using the S V E N data to investigate the effect of education  on  grammatical  usage, hypothesizing that  any  connection  between  usage and some social factor is most likely to be through an education factor. His  initial  impressions upon beginning the  was no clearly  significant pattern  analysis, however,  by education l e v e l .  economic grouping of the informants  1 5  were  that  there  Because the socio-  includes an education factor, it  may be  the case that there is little difference between the results of analysis by socioeconomic factor and by educational level.  Meissner's observation was not that  there was no pattern, but that the significance factor was so low as to render the  analysis  questionable.  education factor  rather  1986a),  In light of the logic of explaining the pattern by  than other  education is significant to Warkentyne  16  social factors and of others' findings that  grammatical  variation  Meissner's dismissal of  the  (see, for  example  relationship  between  Personal communication.  There is disagreement between sociologists and linguists about the necessity and value of tests of statistical significance. Labov, Trudgill and others do not rely on significance tests in their work; Labov writes: "It is immediately obvious to the sophisticated statistician that tests of significance are irrelevant...even if a particular case were below the level of significance, the convergence of so many independent events carries us to a level of confidence which is unknown in most social or psychological research" (1970). In keeping with the sociolinguistic tradition, I am putting less emphasis on tests of statistical significance than Meissner and other sociologists do; therefore, I use s i g n i f i c a n t in the general sense unless specifically noted. (For those who are interested, the statistical significance of all analyses in this section of the work is minimal or even below the level of significance; this could be taken to support my observation that, in general, there is no clearly established prestige form in Vancouver English. However, it cannot, as Meissner claims, be taken to indicate that there is no relation between language and social status or education; there is too much evidence of correlation between language and social status in sociolinguistic studies and in general to deny the connection.) 1 6  81 education and grammatical variation is questionable and further analysis of the effect of education on grammatical variation is indicated and will be taken up in Chapter 4 of this work. At any rate, it cannot be concluded from either the grammatical or the lexical variables that the highest socio-economic group behaves significantly differently from the majority of speakers or from the other socio-economic groups.  Rather, there is evidence that the lower two  socio-economic groups are more likely to use grammatical forms that are different from those used by the majority of speakers.  17  3.2.1.4 Phonological Variables All socio-economic groups did not choose the same phonological items for the following variants: /VtV/ (in butter, tomato...') /aerV/ (in married, vary...') fo / (in tomato, vase), /nju/, /tju/, /dju/ (in newspaper, student, duke...). <alm> (in palm, almond...). tot (in garage, album...). /V9r/ (intrusive 3 in near, mere. our...), /ns/ (in once, sense...) and /eri/ ( in raspberry, library...).  18  Because  each speech style is being considered separately here, deviance of variants in each style is considered as a single item. As speakers did not agree about several of the above phonological items in each of several different speech styles, the total number of phonological items for which all socio-economic groups did not choose the same form is 18 (10.6%). Of the 18, the highest socio-  The difference in grammatical choices of the upper and lower two classes may also reflect the general sociolinguistic observation that grammatical variables tend to display a sharper socio-economic profile than do other types of variables, particularly phonological; however, the relationship between linguistic level and sharpness of the socio-economic profile neither explains the pattern nor provides evidence that the upper socio-economic group behaves differently than the other groups. See Appendix E for a complete list of the variants chosen. 1 7  1 8  economic group differs more frequently than the other groups, as Figure 3.5 reveals.  Rate of Deviation  IV  III  II I IV & III III & II II & I Socio-economic Group  Other  Figure 3.5 - Variant Different from Majority-Phonological Items For 33.3% of the cases, group I V chose differently from the majority and the other socio-economic groups;  for a further  11.1% of the cases groups I V and  III differed from the majority and for 5.6% group III differed from majority.  the  Thus, the highest two socio-economic groups deviated from  the  majority in 50% of the items for which there is socio-economic variation. However, the lowest two groups did not differ from the majority for the other half of the cases;  for 5.6% of the cases, group I deviated and for a further  22.2%, groups I and II deviated.  For the remaining 22.2% of the cases of  phonological variation in which the four socio-economic groups did not there were unusual combinations of socio-economic groups.  agree,  For example,  groups IV & I both preferred a different form from that preferred by the majority for 11.1% of the items, and groups I V and II both preferred a different form for 5.6% of the items.  For another 5.6% of the items, group II  was the only group to prefer the same form as that preferred by the majority.  83  It is evident, then, that although the highest socio-economic  group differs  from the majority in more of the cases than any other group and that the highest two groups differ for 50% of the cases, the upper two and lower two groups do not divide more or less evenly as they do for the lexical items.  Nor  do the lower two groups differ more often than the upper groups as they do for the grammatical items.  Hence, it seems that linguistic level is a significant  factor in variation by socio-economic the same for each linguistic level. socio-economic  status;  the variation patterns are not  Furthermore, there are combinations of  groups that indicate that the socio-economic  behave as if there is a hierarchy intact.  groups do not  If the social hierarchy were clearly  established in Canada, groups IV and I or IV and II would not be likely to demonstrate  linguistic behaviour different  from the majority.  The evidence  that the social hierarchy is somewhat unsettled in Canada could indicate that the role of socio-economic Canadian English;  status may be over-rated as an influential factor in  however, evidence of the highest socio-economic  group (or  two groups) establishing some forms that could be considered to be prestige forms indicates that both a social hierarchy and some kind of prestige forms of English may be developing in Canada.  Thus, in spite of the fact that the rate of  uniformity indicates that there is no clear prestige form in Canada, there is some evidence here that prestige may be developing, that is, that the lack of prestige in Canadian English is not necessarily  indicative of a permanent  peculiarity of the variety but rather that Canadian English is in an early developmental  stage.  84  3.2.1.5  However,  Special Profile Items  the patterns  is no general lack of  of variation  agreement  establishment  in the  among the  in the  special profile  there  socio-economic groups also indicate some  social hierarchy;  unusual conjoining of socio-economic groups. items, there  items for which  again there But for the  is considerable special profile  is less evidence that the highest socio-economic group could be  establishing a prestige form, as Figure 3.6 shows.  Rate of Deviation  Socio-economic Group Figure 3.6 - Variant Different from Majority-Special Profile Items Group IV I  differs from the majority  differs for 25.0%;  for 23.3%  of the 60 (38.5%) items, but group  the higher two groups, either singly or in combination,  differ for a total of 38.3% of the cases, whereas the lower two groups differ for 43.3%.  Hence, once again there is more of a division between the upper two  and the lower slightly  two  more often  significantly  socio-economic groups (with the lower than the upper two)  differently  from the majority.  two  groups  differing  than of a high group behaving It  seems, then, that people's use of  special profile items is more similar to their use of grammatical items and, to  85 some extent, to lexical items than to their use of other phonological items. may be the case that consciousness of variation is a factor in usage; grammatical items are brought to speakers'  It  just as  attention, particularly by  teachers, special profile items are brought to speakers' attention, perhaps by teachers, by the media and by other speakers.  Increased awareness of the  possible prestige or stigma of particular forms may affect usage of those forms.  Thus, the analysis of the special profile items indicates that, though  socio-economic status may be significant to variation, other factors such as awareness  of variants and their stigma or prestigiousness  may also influence  variation.  Thus, the simple comparison of forms used by the majority of speakers and those used by each of the socio-economic groups reveals several interesting things about prestige in Vancouver English.  "The forms used by the top socio-  economic group who have the highest level of education" are not generally different from the forms used by other groups; socio-economic groups for an average of 79.4%  there is uniformity among of the items in the survey.  Hence, there seems to be no clear prestige in Vancouver English.  However,  where there is no uniformity, there is some evidence that a prestige could be developing;  socio-economic group IV differs from the majority more often  than the other groups do.  Furthermore, because the two extreme socio-  economic groups differ more frequently than the others, there is some indication that both prestige and stigmatized forms are developing.  The  division found between the highest and the lowest two groups indicates that education may be a factor, especially in grammatical variation, and inconsistency  across linguistic levels of analysis indicates that linguistic level  86  is a significant factor in variation by socio-economic status. reconsidering the definition socio-economic prestige  in  of prestige  as those forms used by the  group and examining the issues raised by the  Vancouver English,  including testing  is developing in Vancouver English, it  However,  the  is important  before  highest  analysis of  possibility that to consider the  a prestige other  aspect of the definition of prestige, that the forms used by the highest socioeconomic  groups are  emulated  by  others.  3.2.2 Forms used by the Highest Socio-economic Group and Emulated by Others The other element  of prestige to be considered is the emulation of the speech  of speakers of the highest class by those of the lower classes. absence of a clear prestige there  is nothing distinctive for speakers of the  lower socio-economic groups to emulate, typical of emulation area.  Although in the  it may be the case that patterns  of prestige forms may be emerging in the Vancouver  Labov found that speakers of the upper class were more uniform across  speech styles than those of the lower classes, and that those of the lower classes used the same forms as upper class speakers in their careful speech but used different lower  variants  in their more casual speech.  His observation was that  class speakers emulated the prestige forms of the upper class but were  inconsistent  or unsuccessful when  speaking casually.  To  examine  whether  or  not "a variant that is used by most [Vancouver speakers] in formal styles is also the variant  that is used most often in all styles by speakers who are ranked  higher on an objective  socio-economic scale" (Labov  1966:405), I  eliminated  those variables that occur in only one style to consider the stylistic consistency  of  the  highest  socio-economic group, particularly  as it  contrasts  with inconsistency of the lower variables  three  groups.  The grammatical  and some of each of the phonological and special profile  are thus eliminated;  what remains are 45  frequencies to  looking  calculate  which variant  group in each speech style for  both uniformity  is that preferred and then  across styles for  the  167  I used simple by  each  compared the  socio-  preferred  forms  highest socio-economic  group and variation across styles for the lower groups. pattern  variables  phonological items occurring  times and 49 special profile items occurring 124 times.  economic  and lexical  Table 3.2 shows a  that might be expected if there were emulation of the sort described by  Labov in his 1966  IV III II I  work.  Minimal  Word  Contrast  List  X X X X  Series  X X X Y  X X Y Y  Visual  Reading  Aural  Passage  X Y Y Y  X Y Y Y  Table 3.2 - Pattern of Emulation of Prestige  On the above table, X  and Y  denote hypothetical variants and minimal contrast  is the most careful speech style;  the styles decrease in formality  from left to  right on this table, with the reading passage thought to be most casual. Although it is unlikely that a pattern  as regular as that shown on the table  would emerge, the basic pattern of uniformity  across the styles for class IV  speakers and across classes for the most formal speech (i.e.  across the top row  and down the first column of the table) should hold, with some variations the other classes and styles.  in  88  3.2.2.1  For 46.8%  Phonological Items  of the phonological items that occurred in more than one style, A L L  socio-economic groups use the same forms in each speech style;  hence there  is no contrast between  other  the highest  socio-economic group  groups for almost half of the cases. items,  A L L socio-economic groups shift  using a different style.  For a further 31.1% forms uniformly  and the  three  of the phonological across styles, usually  form in either the most formal or the most casual speech  Again, there  is no contrast between  and the other three groups;  hence for 77.9%  the highest socio-economic group of the cases, what Labov found to  be a fundamental distinction in New York seems not to be a distinction in Vancouver.  Furthermore,  for the phonological items  economic groups do not behave uniformly, group IV uniform than any other class.  For 6.6%  uses the same phonological variant group to do s o ; economic  1 9  groups use / a /  socio-  is no more or less  of the cases, socio-economic group  group III,  which uses fx/  in the reading passage and  for item 35 (mid vowel in the  such as l i b r a r y . F e b r u a r y and raspberry'), all  in the word list, the reading passage and visual-aural  prompting, except III  and I,  which use /9/ in visual-aural prompting;  14 (/ju/ following n, t or d in words such as n e w s , student and duke ) 1  economic groups IV  and III  use /j u /  for item socio-  in all five styles while group I uses / u / in  A l l transcriptions were done by the Gregg team; I have taken them directly from the code books that identify each item stored in the computer. i  9  IV  in the word list, the visual-aural prompting and the  syllable of words  groups use It /  four  in each style, but it is never the only  which uses /ae/ in the word list;  penultimate  which the  for item 17C (low back vowel in khaki and garagel all socio-  reading passage, except group I,  for  89 all five styles and group II uses / u / in all but the reading passage where they use / j u / , as Table 3.3 shows.20 Minimal Contrast 17C.  35.  v/a  -eri  Series  Visual Aural  Reading Passage  (in khaki and garage")  IV  la /  la /  /a /  III  la/  la/  /*/  II  la /  la /  /a /  I  1^1  la/  la/&/xl  Cin l i b r a r v . F e b r u a r y , raspberry.. IV  It /  It /  /c /  III  It/  /a/  It/  It /  It  It/  /9/  It/  II I 14.  Word List  /  It  /  n/t/d:ju fin n e w s , student, duke...) IV  /ju/  /ju/  /ju/  /ju/  l\ u /  III  /j u /  /ju/  /ju/  /ju/  /j u /  /u/  /u/  /u/  /u/  /ju/  II I  /u/  /u/  /u/  /u/  /u/  Table 3.3 - Phonological Variation Across Speech Styles: Socio-economic Group I V and One other Group Uniform For a further 6.6%, socio-economic group IV is the one to be the least consistent across speech styles and for 2.2% of the cases, socio-economic group I V together with group III is not consistent across speech styles;  for item 17B  (low back vowel in words such as vase, and tomato), all groups use la/  in  minimal contrast, all use / e i / in the reading passage but whereas the majority and  groups I, II and III use / e i / in the word list and visual-aural prompting,  In Table 3.3, the uniformity across styles is indicated by boldface characters. 2 0  90  group IV uses la/;  for item 1 (intervocalic voicing) all socio-economic groups  use /th/ in the minimal contrast items and [d] in the reading passage, but whereas group IV uses /th/ in the word list, series and visual-aural prompting, the other groups use [d] in those styles;  for item 16 (low front vowel followed  by r and a vowel in words such as marry, carry and Harold'), all groups use  It/  in the minimal contrast, word list, visual-aural and reading passage, except group IV, which uses lm / in the minimal contrast and the word list items;  for  25 (the low vowel in <alm>), all socio-economic groups use la/ in the minimal contrast style and /o / in the word list and reading passage, but in the visualaural prompting whereas the majority and groups II and I use la/,  groups IV  and III use /o/, as Table 3.4 shows.  21  Minimal Contrast  Word List  Series  Visual Aural  Reading Passage  17B. a/t>/ei (in vase, tomato) IV  la/  /a /  la /  /ei/  III  la/  /ei/  /ei/  /ei/  II  la/  /ei/  /ei/  /ei/  I  la/  /ei/  /ei/  /ei/  /th/ /th/ /th/ /th/  /th/  /th/  /th/  /d/ /d/ /d/  /d/ /d/ /d/  /d/ /d/ /d/  /d/ /<JV /d/ /d/  1. VtV IV III II I  In Table 3.4, those forms which show variation rather than uniformity are indicated by boldface characters. 2 1  91 Minimal Contrast  Word List  Series  Visual Aural  Reading Passage  16. srV (in m^rxz,c^nxH^rjald....) IV III II I 25. <alm> IV III II I  /© /  lm i  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  It/  la/  lo/  lo i  lo/  la/  10/  lo /  10/  la/  lo/  la/  lo/  la/  lo/  la/  lo/  Table 3.4 - Phonological Variation Across Speech Styles: Socio-economic Group IV least Consistent Across Styles For the remaining 4.4% of the phonological variables, there is no clear pattern by socio-economic group.  For the phonological variables in the  Vancouver survey, then, the pattern found by Labov in New York is not revealed. As Figure 3.7 shows, not only is there a high rate of uniformity among socio-economic groups but also what variation there is is not what would be expected if people of the lower socio-economic groups were emulating the speech of those in the highest group, especially in careful speech;  not only is the highest socio-economic group neither consistent  across speech styles nor consistently different from the other socio-economic groups but also it is inconsistent more often than the other groups are.  22  Note that, in spite of the possible methodological complication, particularly in eliciting speech styles through reading as noted on page 61, footnote 3, these data indicate that the inconsistency of the highest socio-economic group across speech styles is evident even if the Reading Style is omitted. 2 2  92  % of Cases  Uniform  IV & OtherIV Least IV & III No Pattern Same Consistent Inconsistent Socio-economic Group Behaviour  Figure 3.7 - Phonological Variation by Socio-economic Groups Across Speech Styles  Furthermore, for at least two of the phonological variables, the highest socioeconomic group seems to hypercorrect, a phenomenon that other surveys have shown to be typical of lower middle class speakers;  because in Canadian  English /t/ is generally aspirated only in syllable initial position, an aspirated [th] between vowels is the hypercorrect form and although all socio-economic groups use the aspirated [th] in the most careful speech style and use [d] in the most casual, the highest socio-economic group maintains the aspirated [th] in the intermediate styles, dropping it only in the reading passage, which indicates hypercorrection on their part;  similarly the low front vowels used  before /r/ + V show hypercorrection by the highest group.  Whereas all  groups use the higher of the two vowels (ItI) in words such as marry, carry and Harold in the visual-aural prompting and the reading passage and groups I, II and III use the same vowel in the word list and the minimal contrast items,  93 group I V uses the /ae/ in both the two most careful styles, which suggests hypercorrection by the highest phonological  variants  of the  group.  Thus socio-economic analysis of the  Vancouver survey  indicates  both that there  are  few similarities between the findings in Vancouver and those in New York and that there is no prestige  3.2.2.2  form evident in the Vancouver survey.  Special Profile Items  The analysis of the special profile w o r d s phonological data.  confirms the findings of the  For 20.4% of the special profile items, A L L socio-economic  groups use the same variant in all styles; classes shift uniformly in some styles. items, there is no contrast other three groups.  23  between  for a further 12.3% of the items, all  Thus for 32.7% of the special profile the highest  socio-economic group and  the  In only one case (94. Saturday) is the highest socio-  economic group the only one to use the same form across styles.  As Table 3 . 5  2 4  indicates, however, the pattern is not one that would be expected for emulation of a prestige form in careful  speech.  As noted on page 54, special profile items are those "in which specific sounds may vary freely, and independently, creating a number of patterns" (Gregg 1984:Dl-3); the possibility of there being several different combinatorial variants of the item makes these different from simple phonological items. For example, whereas for phonological items, there are several variants of a single phoneme in any of a number of words, for special profile items there are several combinations of phonological variants of more than one phoneme in a single item. Thus, variants of T u e s d a y include all the possible combinations of /ju/, / u / or their variants in the initial syllable with /I/, / e l / or their variants in the final syllable. Thus, although one could consider the first syllable of T u e s d a y as an environment for the variants of /u/, the S V E N database isolates those items, "special profile items," in which more than one phonological variable appear in several combinations. 2 3  2  4  In Table 3.5, the uniformity is indicated by boldface  characters.  94  94. Saturday IV III II I  Word List  Minimal Contrast  Series  Visual Aural  /seethardei/ /sethardei/ /sethardei/ /sedardei/ /sedardei/ /sedardei/ /sethardei/ /sedardei/  Reading Passage /sethardei/ /sethardei/ /sethardei/ /sethardei/  Table 3.5 - Special Profile Variation Across Speech Styles: Socio-economic Group IV Uniform Note that socio-economic group II does not use the same form as the other groups in careful speech and that all socio-economic groups use the "prestige" form in the most casual speech.  25  This, however, is the closest the distribution  of any variants comes to that of a pattern typical of the kind of emulation of prestige Labov found in his work.  Although for an additional 22.5% of the special profile items the highest socioeconomic group uses the same form in all styles while some other socioeconomic group or groups use a different form in at least one of the styles, the highest socio-economic group is never the only one to be consistent across styles, as Table 3.6  26  indicates.  Use of the prestige form in the reading passage could indicate that the style was not as casual as the Gregg team has generally found; it seems to me that the passage being a casual dialogue would prompt role playing, including adopting particular speech forms and style, rather than consistent casual speech. The elicitation of Saturday includes collocation with your father rather than dad or some informal term; hence, the readers may have processed this string in a more formal manner than in other parts of the dialogue. The reliability of assuming the reading style is consistently informal, then, is questionable. Further testing using the spontaneous narrative data when it becomes available is indicated. 1 5  In Tables 3.6 - 3.8, those forms which show variation rather than uniformity are indicated by boldface characters. 2 6  95  42.  58.  62.  Word  Contrast  List  Series  Visual  Reading  Aural  Passage  /garag/  Garage IV  /garag/  /garag/  III  /garag/  /garag/  II  /garag/  /garag/  /goreedg/  /garag/  IV III  /grosriz/ /grosriz/  /grosriz/ /grosriz/  II  /grosriz/  I  /grosriz/  /gro Jriz/ /gro Jriz/  I 43.  Minimal  other  27  /garag/ other  Groceries  Often IV  /ofan/  /afan/  /ofan/  III  /ofan/  /ofan/  /ofan/  II  /afan/  /ofan/  /ofan/  I  /ofan/  /afthan/  /afan/  Leisure IV  /teg.../  /teg.../  III  /teg.../  /teg.../  II  /teg.../  /teg.../  /tig.../  /*ig.../  I  The category, "other," groups together pronunciations that are different from those found to be most common; for example, seven of the possible pronunciations of garage were found to be common to many speakers, whereas the other eleven pronunciations occurred only in isolated incidents. Thus, the eleven uncommon pronunciations form the group "other." It is, however, unusual for there to be as many as eleven variations grouped under "other." 2 7  96 Visual Aural  Reading Passage  /VlSAUt/  /Vl8AUt/  III  /Vl8AUt/  /VlSAUt/  II  /m8AUt/  ZWIQAUX/  Minimal Contrast 71.  Without IV  I  Word List /Vl8AUt/  I  96.  98.  /WIBAXIX/  /tjuzdei/ /tjuzdei/ /tjuzdei/& /t j u zd i / /tjuzdi/& /tuzdi/  /tjuzdei/ /tjuzdei/ /tjuzdei/ /tj u z d i /  Wednesday IV  /venzdei/  /wtnzdei/  /venzdei/  III  /venzdei/  /venzdei/  /wenzdei/  II  /wenzdei/  /venzdi/  /venzdei/  I  /venzdei/  /venzdi/  /venzdei/  Khaki IV  /karki/  /karki/  III  /karki/  /karki/  II  /karki/  /karki/  I  /k©ki/  other  Newspapers IV  /njus.../  /njus.../  /njus.../  /njus.../ /njus.../  III II I 105.  /m8Aut/  /VlSAUt/  90. Tuesday IV III II  91.  Series  /nus.../ /nus.../  word  /nus.../  Recognize IV  /rekagnaiz/  /rsksgnatz/  III  /rekagnaiz/  /reksgnaLz/  II  /reksgnaiz/  /rekagnaiz/  /rekagnaLz/  /rekgnaiz/  97  120.  Minimal  Word  Contrast  List  Series  Visual  Reading  Aural  Passage  Library IV  /iaibreri/  /taibreri/ /taibreri/  III  /taibreri/  /taibreri/ /taibreri/  II  /taibreri/  /iaibreri/ /taibreri/  I  /taibreri/  /taibrsri/ /Jraibreri/  Table 3.6 - Special Profile Variation Across Speech Styles: Socio-economic Group IV Not the Only Uniform Group  Hence for 55.2% of the special profile items, socio-economic group IV use  forms  differently  Furthermore,  not only  from  the other  is the highest  three  does not  socio-economic groups.  socio-economic group the only  one to be  consistent across styles for only 2% of the items, but also for 18.4% of the items, it is the group that differs from the others, as Table 3.7 indicates.  45.  List  Series  Visual  Reading  Aural  Passage  /skedg©*/ /skedgo*/ /skedgo*/  /skedz/a*/ /skedgo*/ /skedz©*/ /skcdg©*/  IV  /fife/  m e /  /fife/  III  /fife/  /fife/  /fife/  II  /fife/  /ftfe/  /fife/  I  /fife/  /fife/  /fife/  III II I  57.  Word  Contrast Schedule IV  46.  Minimal  other  /skedzuaiy /skedgua*/ /skedguat/ /skedzua*/  Fifth  Beautiful IV  /bjuthaf©*/  III  /bjudafoi/ /bjudafo*/ /bjudafo*/  II I  /bjudafo*/ /bjudafot/ /bjudafo*/ /bjudgfo*/  /bjudafo*/ /bjudafo*/ /bjudafot/ /bjudaf©*/  98 Minimal Contrast 74.  82.  Reading Passage  /icfer/  III  /i5ar/  /ifer/  II  /icfar/  /icfar/  I  /i3ar/  /icfar/  /aicFar/  Kitsilano /kitsaiatnou/  II I  /kitsa*ai.nou/  /kitsa*©no/  /kUsa*ai.nou/ /kLtsa*ai.nou/  /kitsa*ainou/  /kitsaiainou/  /kLtsa*ainou/  /kitsa*ainou/  /kitsa*ainou/ /kLtsa*ainou/  /kitsa*ai.nou/  Caramel IV  122.  Visual Aural  IV  III  102.  Series  Either  IV  97.  Word List  other  /karma*/  III  /karma*/  /karma*/  II  /karma*/  /karma*/  I  /karma*/  /karma*/  Tomato IV  other  /tameidou/  /tameidou/  III  /tameidou/  /tameidou/  /tameidou/  II  /tameidou/  /tameidou/  /tameidou/  I  /tameidou/  /tameidou/  /tameidou/  Mountain IV  /maonthn/  III  /maont'n/ i  II  /maont'n/  I  /maont'n/  /maonthn//mao?n/ /maont'n/ i  /maont'n/  • Table 3.7  economic  i /maont'n/  •  i /mao?n/  i  i  the Group to Differ  of the analyses of the special profile items by socio-  status, the highest  group in combination with either the  third highest group is the one to differ 3.8 shows.  i  /mao?n/  - Special Profile Variation Across Speech Styles:  Socio-economic Group IV In a further 8.2%  /mao?n/  second or  rather than remain constant, as Table  99 Minimal Contrast 108.  IV  /patheithou/  III  /patheidou/ /patheidou/ /patheidou/  I  IV  /scndvidgaz/  III  /ssmvidgaz/  /scnwidgsz/ /ssmvidgaz/  I  /patheidou/ /patheidou/ /patheidou/ /patheidou/  /pateidou/ /pateido/ /pateidou/ /pateido/  /sefevidgaz/ /scmvidgaz/ /s&mdgaz/ /stemvidgaz/ /sevidgaz/ /ssemvidgaz/ /ssevidgaz/  /sendvtdgaz/  /ei.../ /©.../ /ei.../ /©.../  /©.../ /©.../ /ei.../ /«.../  IV  /arktluk/  /arthik/  III  /arktluk/  /arthik/  II  /arthik/  /arthik/  I  /arthik/  /arthik/  III II I  117.  Reading Passage  Apricots IV  48.  Visual Aural  Sandwiches  II  104.  Series  Potato  II  40.  Word List  both both  28  /ei.../  Arctic  Dual IV  /djua*/  /djus*/  III  /djus*/  /djuat/  /dua*/ /dua*/  /dua*/ /dua*/  II I  Table 3.8 - Special Profile Variation Across Speech Styles: Socio-economic Group IV and One Other Group Differ  Socio-economic groups IV and III used both / © . . . / a n d /ei.../. There is little agreement about the pronunciation of apricot: not only are groups IV and III evenly divided between the two pronunciations in reading style, but also all figures cluster around the 50% mark. 2  8  100 Thus it is evident that for 26.6% economic group, either different  from  of the special profile items, the highest socio-  singly or with one other group, chooses a form  that chosen by  the  other  socio-economic groups, making  the  total rate for which the highest socio-economic group does not behave as Labov found the same group in New York to behave 81.8%. cases is anything similar to the patern of emulation 16.3%  In only 2% of the  found.  For the  remaining  of the special profile items there is little pattern in the analysis by  socio-economic status. clearly  evident  for  As Figure 3.8  special profile  Prestige Pattern  reveals, emulation of a prestige is not  items  in the  OtherSame  Vancouver survey.  Consistent Other Not Consistent  Socio-economic Group Behaviour Figure 3 . 8 - Special Profile Variation by Socio-economic Groups Across Speech Styles Clearly, then, Labov's findings are not  duplicated in the  not only do all socio-economic groups behave uniformly the phonological variants and over 32% the  prestige  forms by  for more than 77%  of the special profile items but also  highest socio-economic group does not use the  across speech styles.  Vancouver survey;  same forms consistently  There does not, therefore, seem to be emulation of  speakers of  lower  socio-economic groups.  of  101 3.3 The Development of Prestige in Vancouver English Both the comparison of the forms used by the highest socio-economic group with those used by the majority of speakers and the analysis of differences in the forms used in different speech styles by each of the socio-economic groups indicate that there is no prestige form, no form used by the highest socioeconomic group and emulated by others, in Vancouver English. Before considering whether the definition needs to be reformulated or there is something unusual about prestige in Vancouver English, the possibility that prestige forms are developing in Vancouver English must be tested.  Given the  recent date of SVEN, it is too early to do another survey and compare the findings of SVEN with those of a new survey to determine whether or not there has been change in real time; hence, a test of change in apparent time must be used. To do so, the forms for which the highest socio-economic group does differ from the majority of speakers must be identified and crosstabulated by age.  Those forms that might be considered here include 3 lexical  items, 2 grammatical items, 3 phonological items and 12 special profile items; they are: skookum (has used), 10:30 (second choice), slough (meaning), It's me/I. these kind(s) of apples, intervocalic /t/, low front vowel before /r/ plus a vowel, low back vowel in tomato and vase, fifth, beautiful, either. Kitsilano/Capilano. caramel, tomatoes, potatoes, mountain, sandwiches. schedule. Saturday, and lieutenant. ^ 2  If there is a prestige form developing,  29 See Appendix E for the forms chosen by Socio-economic Group IV and those chosen by the majority and the other groups.  102  the oldest age group of the highest socio-economic status will use forms different  from  the  majority  Cross-tabulating these 20  with  less  frequency  than  the  youngest  group.  3  0  items by socio-economic status and age indicates that  there is no prestige developing in Vancouver English;  there  is no evidence of  the youngest group of the highest socio-economic status using a form that is different  from that used by the majority  oldest age groups do.  than the middle or  For 12 of these items, cross-tabulation by age and socio-  economic status shows nothing significant; (meaning),  more frequently  these kind(s)  10:30  (second choice), s l o u g h  of apples, fifth, b e a u t i f u l . K i t s i l a n o / C a p i l a n o .  c a r a m e l , tomatoes, potatoes, m o u n t a i n , s a n d w i c h e s , and schedule show patterning  nor significance by age.  age reveals not the development for  s k o o k u m (has used), It's  For the other  of prestige but  me/I.  neither  8 items, cross-tabulation by  a general change in progress;  intervocalic /t/,  low  front  vowel  before  /r/  plus a vowel, low back vowel in tomato and vase. Saturday, either and lieutenant forms. group IV  the oldest age group in all socio-economic status is retaining older  For example, in the minimal differed  most noticeably  contrast style where socio-economic  from the majority  of speakers in  their  Note that in tests for simple change in progress using apparent time, the oldest group would have the highest rate of usage of the older form while the youngest group would have the lowest rate of that form (or, the youngest group would have the highest rate of usage of the newer form, while the oldest group would have the lowest rate of that form). However, what is being checked here is the development of a form that is used by the highest socioeconomic group but not by the majority of speakers; the indication of such development is a higher rate of usage by the youngest group of the top socioeconomic status than by the oldest group of the same status. The rate of difference between socio-economic group IV and the majority is the key factor here; the rate should increase as age decreases if a prestige form is developing. 3  0  103 treatment of /t/ intervocalically, [d] was used by the youngest age group of the lowest socio-economic status in 64% of the occurrences compared with [d] being used by the oldest age group of the highest socio-economic status in only 5% of the occurrences. The figures for occurrence of [d] are stratified by age and socio-economic status decreasing in frequency with increased age and socio-economic status.  Inversely, an aspirated [t] is found most frequently  among the oldest age group and the highest socio-economic status;  the oldest  group of the highest socio-economic status realized intervocalic ft/ as an aspirated [t] in 93% of the occurrences whereas the youngest group of the lowest socio-economic group realized aspirated [t] in only 33% of the occurrences.  Once again the figures are stratified by age and socio-economic  status. Not only is the predicted pattern of a lower rate of use of a different form (in this case a form other than [d]) by the oldest group not evident here but also all socio-economic groups change in apparent time; thus a change in progress is evident rather than a developing prestige.  Although the figures  are not as striking or as clearly stratified for the other 7 variables, it is clear that there is a change in progress evident rather than a developing prestige in skookum (has used), It's me/I. low front vowel before /r/ plus a vowel, low back vowel in tomato and vase. Saturday, either and lieutenant as well as in intervocalic /t/.  3 1  It could, of course, be the case that the change in progress itself suggests that a new prestige model is exerting its linguistic influence on younger speakers, in which case one would assume that the older speakers of the highest socio-economic group maintain an older prestige variant (aspirated t) while younger speakers are establishing a new prestige variant (the voiced variant). However, the SVEN data are inconclusive in this matter; at best, such a suggestion is highly speculative. 3 1  104  Because there is no evidence of the development of a prestige in Vancouver English in these forms that show some evidence that Socio-economic Group IV differs from the majority of speakers in some instances, there is also no evidence of developing emulation of prestige forms.  Saturday, the only item  for which Socio-economic Group IV was the only group to use the same form in all speech styles, shows a pattern typical of a change in progress rather than a developing prestige or developing emulation;  there is, therefore,  nothing to test for developing of emulation of the speech of the highest socioeconomic group by speakers of lower groups. It seems, therefore, that there is no evidence of either a distinct prestige (in the sense of those forms used by the speakers of the highest socio-economic group) developing or a tendency for speakers of lower socio-economic groups to emulate speech of the highest group.  The evidence indicates that Vancouver English neither has nor is  developing a prestige as it is defined here.  3.4 Conclusion The absence of a prestige form in Vancouver English indicates either that the definition of prestige as those forms used by the highest socio-economic group and emulated by others is inadequate or that the Vancouver speech community is unusual. Both possibilities must be considered.  3.4.1 The Definition  Given that the definition of prestige used here adequately delineates prestige as it is found in Britain and the U.S., two of the major English speaking nations in the world, it is unlikely that the definition is misguided or somehow  105 inadequate.  What typifies the Vancouver speech community is widespread  homogeneity across socio-economic groups; on the basis of this finding, should one redefine prestige as, for example, those forms used by the majority of speakers? To do so would be to disallow a prestige accent such as RP is in Britain and the emulation found in both Britain and the U.S. Or the term would then have distinct referents in Canada and in Britain and the U.S. From the point of view of a coherent overall theory of dialect variation, neither of these possibilities is desirable. There is nothing in the Vancouver data that suggests that the definition is incorrect or inadequate; none of the evidence reveals some aspect of prestige that may be excluded by that definition or may be inappropriate in the Canadian context.  Rather, the data reveal only negative  evidence, i.e. a lack of prestige by the definition given, and negative evidence is inconclusive.  It is, therefore, much more reasonable and practical to  conclude that defining prestige as that variety or those forms used by the highest socio-economic group and emulated by others is adequate but that prestige does not exist in Vancouver English.  3.4.2 Prestige in Vancouver English  It is necessary, therefore, to consider the absence of prestige in Vancouver English.  The absence of a prestige form in Vancouver does not support the  argument that prestige does not exist;  rather, it suggests that the cultural  differences between Canada, Britain and the U.S. are significant.  It is likely  that Vancouver, which celebrated its centenary in 1986, is too young to have developed either a socio-economic group that is securely in a position above the others or a prestige form of a dialect. Several things in the SVEN data indicate the absence of a socio-economic group sufficiently secure to set  106  targets  for or impose rules on the groups beneath;  an absence of a clear upper  the clearest indication of  socio-economic group is the hypercorrection by  the highest group indicated in the preceding analysis and the lack of a crossover pattern (i.e. the tendency  of a middle  socio-economic group, in their  striving to be correct or to get ahead, to have a higher rate of use of some forms than the group above them on the socio-economic scale) such as the one between the highest two classes found by Labov in New York (Labov 1966:  passim ) and that between the working classes found by Trudgill in Norwich (Trudgill  passim ).  1972:90-132  The S V E N database shows no cross-over pattern  in either the attitudes section of the data or in the quantification language used by Vancouver speakers. spontaneous patterns  narrative  rather  than  data  the  spontaneous  Although Hasebe-Ludt is using the  for the purposes  of analyzing  prestige, her impression from  there is no evidence  32  phonological  what she has done is that  of a cross-over pattern between  narrative;  of the  socio-economic groups in  hence no such pattern is found in any of the  data collected in the Vancouver Survey.  The lack of such a pattern,  especially  when coupled with the evidence that the highest group itself tends to hypercorrect,  indicates  that  all four  socio-economic groups  area are, or consider themselves to be, upwardly  mobile;  in the Vancouver  there is no clearly  established group that behaves as upper classes, those identifiable more established countries such as Britain  and the U.S. behave.  in older, Since there  seems not to be a clear upper class toward which to aspire in the area of the Vancouver Survey, it follows that there is also not a clear prestige form within that dialect,  as the survey  Personal  indicates.  communication  Thus, it is important to view the Vancouver sociolinguistic community, if not the Canadian one, as a developing community and to consider what, in the absence of a clear prestige, functions as prestige is thought to function in language variation and change; absence of a prestige?  what do Vancouver speakers aspire to in the  Given the striking homogeneity among Vancouver  speakers, it is possible that different aspects of the standard in Vancouver English may function in language variation and change as prestige does in other communities. Vancouver English.  It is important, therefore, to go on to consider standard in  108  CHAPTER 4 STANDARD IN THE SURVEY OF VANCOUVER ENGLISH  Standard  the  has been defined here as  majority  that variety (or those forms) used by  of speakers and embodying notions  of correctness.  The first part of the definition is taken from the generally held view that standard serves as a medium for the general communication of a community nation;  or  the second part is taken from the popular view that there are correct  forms and that correctness is a criterion of standardization.  Both parts of the  definition will be tested here using the S V E N database.  4.1 Variety Spoken by the Majority of Speakers In the examination of prestige in Vancouver English (see Chapter 3), sufficient whether  to consider relative or not  the  highest  majority,  since what was being considered was  socio-economic group differed  of speakers and from other socio-economic groups. consideration of standard, it  is absolute majority  consider the possibility that a standard might  to determine  from  which is relevant, used.  be that variety  majority  since what  Therefore, to or those forms  of speakers, simple usage frequencies must be  for what percentage of the items more than 50%  agree on a single variant. used by the majority  the  However, for a  is being considered is which forms are most frequently  used by the majority  it was  If standard  tabulated  of the speakers  can be defined in part as those forms  of speakers, then there  should be agreement  by  more  than 50% of the speakers for more than 50% of the items tested in the survey.  109  Overall, for the items tested in S V E N there is more than 50% agreement among speakers about a particular variant; 78.6% of the items tested. for example, 50.7%  usage for  The rate of agreement ranges from 50.7% to  100%;  of the informants thought that "between you and me" is the  correct form and 100% "I didn't see any  in fact, there is clear majority  of the informants claim not to use any form other than  money in the box."  There are, however, very few responses  for which the rate of agreement is near either 50% or 100%;  the bulk of the  responses range from the high 50's to the low 90's, with, as one might expect, the average in the mid 70's.  There is also a considerable range across  linguistic levels in the percentage of items for which there  is a clear  majority.  There is majority usage for 93.3% of the grammatical items, 85.1% of the phonological items, 78.4% items.  1  expected.  of the lexical items and 57.4%  of the special profile  A low rate of agreement about special profile items is typically Since these are items for which most variation is possible, one 2  would expect lack of agreement on any one form. borne out however.  There is clear majority  of even these items.  This expectation is not  of agreement for more than  50%  This high rate of agreement on special profile items  markedly  supports the  stronger findings for the  important  to note, further,  more settled items.  3  It is  that dialect studies test the unsettled not the  settled  See Appendices D and E for lists of the forms chosen by the majority of speakers (both relative and absolute majority). For example, there is variation in the pronunciation of the initial syllable, the medial consonant and the final vowel of s c h e d u l e : thus, rather than one variable being tested, three different variables are considered in this single item. There are, therefore, many possible variant pronunciations of s c h e d u l e : all special profile items contain at least two variables within the item; therefore, there is little agreement about any one pronunciation of these items. For example, S V E N records 18 different pronuciations of garage. 1  2  Note that the overall trend to majority usage for the grammatical, phonological and lexical items holds in 85.6% of the cases. 3  110  forms;  one does not test, for example, use of basic function words or common,  settled terms such as item, note, test or example.  The figures here, then,  represent majority use of the least agreed upon items in the variety tested. Thus, the figures for items used by the majority over all of Canadian English would be much higher than the 78.6% found for the variable items.  It is clear, then, that for most items in SVEN, there is one variant which is used i  by the majority of speakers;  furthermore, even for more than 50% of those  items for which there is thought to be little agreement, there is one variant which is used by the majority of speakers.  Taking these findings in light of  the fact that only variable items are tested in dialect surveys, it can be concluded that "those forms used by the majority of speakers" is an essential feature of Vancouver English.  The high rate of clear majority usage for items in SVEN is consistent with the argument that Canadian English is typified by a degree of homogeneity not found elsewhere.  Generally, the homogeneity described is geographical;  the  fact that Vancouver English is so similar to the English of, say, Ottawa or Toronto, is the general focus of statements about homogeneity.  However, the  findings in Chapter 3 of this work indicate that there is also an unusual level of sociolinguistic homogeneity in the SVEN database.  Recall that for 79.4% of  all items in SVEN there is no difference in forms chosen by different socioeconomic groups;  there is, therefore, not only majority agreement about  78.6% of the items in SVEN but also no differentiation by socio-economic group for 79.4% of the items.  The most significant variation in the Vancouver  Survey, then, is that across speech style;  only 33.6% of the items do NOT  Ill  i  change forms across speech style.  However, that variation is also atypical;  one would expect differences between casual speech and the most formal speech, especially among the lower socio-economic groups.  Here, however, as  well as those items which do not change forms across speech styles in any socio-economic group, there are items for which all socio-economic groups rather than just the lowest change forms;  for a further 21.7% of the variables,  ALL socio-economic groups shift across styles.  Thus, even for variation across  speech style, there is some kind of uniformity for 55.3% of the items.  It seems,  then, that the language used by Vancouver speakers is typified by sociolinguistic as well as stylistic homogeneity.  This homogeneity is in  keeping with the high rate of items for which one variant is used by the majority of speakers.  It seems clear, therefore, that majority usage is a central feature to Vancouver English and constitutes a standard. On the basis of the SVEN findings, then, it can be concluded that standard is viably defined by the majority usage; what remains to be tested is whether or not standard  also embodies notions of  correctness.  4.2 Variety Typified by Correctness There is less general agreement that correctness is central to standard than that standard consists of forms used by the majority of speakers; however, both speakers and scholars seem to attach some notion of correctness to standard.  As Wells observes:  Certain accents have a special position in that they are regarded, whether tacitly or explicitly, as standard. In  112 England it is RP which enjoys this status, in the United States the range of accents known collectively as GenAm. A standard accent is the one which, at a given time and place, is generally considered correct: it is held up as a model of how one ought to speak, it is encouraged in the classroom, it is widely regarded as the most desirable accent for a person in a high-status profession to have. (Wells 1982:34, second emphasis mine) Wells is, of course, quick to add: a standard accent is regarded as a standard (or 'norm') not because of any intrinsic qualities it may possess, but because of an arbitrary attitude adopted towards it by society, and reflecting the attitude the community implicitly holds towards its speakers. (Wells 1982:34) While there is some disagreement about the extent to which correctness is a feature of standard, there is general agreement among scholars that the adoption of forms as standard is arbitrary and results from attitudes toward the variety or form rather than from intrinsic value.  Standards of correctness are  established on arbitrary grounds of either a practical or an attitudinal sort. Moreover the two types are quite distinct.  On practical grounds, standard  forms may be established because grammarians have singled them out and considered them to be correct; speakers then follow this advice for practical reasons. In this case, correctness is an attribute of the form itself. Sometimes, however, speakers themselves attribute correctness to a form as reflective of their positive attitude toward it.  This attitudinal attribution is made quite  irrespective of whether grammarians have identified this form as being a standard (and hence correct) form.  In this latter case, it is the attitude itself  that leads to the adoption of or acceptance as standard. The question, then, is not simply whether or not standard forms are traditionally correct (i.e. in the practical sense), but rather, whether or not there is a notion of correctness associated with standard (i.e. in the attitudinal sense). Either or both of these  113 are possible;  hence, both correctness and notions of correctness will be tested  here using the grammatical section of the Survey of Vancouver English. 4  4.2.1  Notion of Correctness  It is clear from the data that there is a notion of correctness among Vancouver speakers;  not only do they rarely respond "I don't know" to the question  "Which do you think is the correct form?" but also there is some evidence that they expect there to be some correct form of Canadian English. Vancouver speakers unhesitantly identify "correct" grammatical forms.  SVEN informants  were asked to identify the correct variant of 42 grammatical items; of these 5  42, only 12 elicited any "Not sure or don't know" responses. For only 28.6% of the items, then, was there any indication of uncertainty;  furthermore, the  rate of uncertain response for those 12 items ranged from .4% to 2.7%, with the average being 1.6%.  Thus the rate of uncertain response is very low;  Vancouverites seem to have a strong notion of correctness.  It has been suggested that there may be evidence in SVEN that Canadian speakers may be unusually insecure about grammatical correctness for speakers in a standard speech community;  6  if that were the case, there would  There are two reasons for limiting this test to the grammatical section of SVEN: first, and most important, is that the grammatical section is the only one in which respondents were asked specifically about correctness; second, it is generally agreed that correctness is associated more directly with grammar than with phonology or lexicon or, perhaps, that correct, when modifying grammatical items, is thought to be quite literal but, when modifying phonological and lexical items, is thought to be metaphoric. It is, then, most useful to limit this analysis to the grammatical section of SVEN.  4  5 6  See Appendix F for the forms deemed correct. Bernard Saint-Jacques, personal communication.  114 be a high rate of "Not sure or don't know" responses and Canadians would be uncertain about grammatical forms for which there is no disagreement or uncertainty among other speakers such as Americans. Not only do the above figures indicate that such is not the case but also there is no indication that the uncertainty that was recorded is peculiar to Canadian speakers.  Most of  the items for which there is little agreement among Canadians are given special attention in American Handbooks and are discussed in such works as Fowler's  Modern English  Usage;  7  such attention indicates that these forms are  unsettled for speakers of varieties other than Canadian as well as for Canadians.  The following few grammatical items elicited the little amount of  uncertainty that SVEN informants expressed:  8  drank/drunk .7% proven/proved 2.1% lend/loan (verb) .4% If I was/were you .4% If it was/were warmer 1.3% between you and me/I 2.7% me/I (as object) 1.3% it is me/I 1.3% anyway(s) .8% lie/lay down .4% laid/lain (It has laid/lain/lied there all night.) 1.7% forgot/forgotten .7% Of these, only drank/drunk in the simple past is surprising; what discussion there is of drank/drunk in most handbooks is of the past participial form, for which there is uncertainty among speakers other than Canadians. For proved/proven, lend/loan. anvwavCs). lie/lay, laid/lain and forgot/forgotten there is also uncertainty in all standard speech communities, as is evidenced See Appendix G for the Dictionaries and Handbooks used for and cited in this chapter of the work. The percentages given are the rate of "Don't know or Not sure" responses for each item.  7  8  115 by their inclusion in the "Glossary of Usage" sections in most handbooks.  9  Many of these are also included in Fowler's  Modern English Usage,  still  thought by many to be the authority on modern usage. Several of the other 5 items also appear in the "Glossary of Usage" sections or get special mention in the appropriate sections of handbooks;  confusion about I and me as the object,  especially in the sentence "It's I/me!", is found in all varieties of English. The use of the subjunctive is so uncertain in modern usage that some think it to be passing out of English. ^  Thus, there is no indication in the SVEN database  that Canadians are more insecure about grammatical correctness than Americans or Britons are; rather, there is evidence that they have a strong notion of correctness. Unusual responses to two of the questions in SVEN indicate in a less direct way that Canadians have a notion of correct and standard English.  Question 64 asks  "Would you consider the CBC announcers' language an example of good 1  Canadian English?"; question 1050 requires informants to agree or disagree with the following:  "The language of CBC announcers should be the standard  for spoken Canadian English."  I believe that respondents had some notion of  correctness and of standards, in mind when they responded to those questions and that what is indicated is that there is a notion of correctness and of some desire for guidelines for "correct" Canadian English.  My conclusion follows  See for, example, Baker (1972) and Crews (1977), both American handbooks, H.R. Fowler (1980), a British work, Millward & Flick (1984), the Canadian edition of an American handbook, and Messenger & de Bruyn (1980), a Canadian handbook. 10 Fowler suggests the subjunctive is "dying" and limits the use to a few clear cases (Fowler 1965:595). I have even seen University professors mark standard use of the subjunctive in those clear cases as an error.  9  116 from the fact that speakers responded to these questions despite considerable lack of familiarity with CBC English.  In the personal information section of  the questionnaire, the informants were asked how much TV they watch and radio they listen to and which stations and channels they tune in to.  Only 17%  listen to CBC radio, though 22% listen to CBC radio news, and only 3.3% watch CBC TV, though 33% watch CBC TV news. I don't know how to account for the fact that more people listen to the CBC news than listen to the CBC radio or for the similar pattern in the responses to TV viewing other than to suggest that some people treat hearing or seeing the news as entirely separate from general radio listening or TV viewing; nor can I account for the fact that 3% of the people who claim to watch or listen to CBC news also claim to have no exposure to the language used by CBC announcers. I suspect that many of the informants are so much less familar with the CBC than the researchers assumed that the questions themselves were somehow unclear. While it is true that many, or even most, academics listen to CBC, the same is not true for other communities. The breakdown by social status indicates that 49% of the people who listen to the CBC are in the highest socio-economic group and a further 24% are in the third group. Of those who listen to the CBC radio news, 52% are in the highest socio-economic group and a further 23% are in the third group. Similarly, of those who watch the CBC TV news, 37% are in the highest group and 33% are in the third group. Only 19% of the people in the lowest two socioeconomic groups listen to the CBC.  It is a mistake, therefore, for researchers to  assume general familiarity with the CBC. Even if the 22% who listen to CBC radio news are taken to be different informants from the 33% who watch CBC TV news, the total percentage of informants who may be familiar with CBC English is 52% (a figure which is high: because 40% of those who listen to the  117 CBC radio news also watch the CBC TV news, the figure is likely to be closer to 45%, at most). Despite this confusion and the low rate of familiarity with CBC English, most informants answered the questions about CBC language; only 19% admitted to having no exposure to the CBC when asked, "Would you consider the CBC announcers' language an example of good Canadian English?". 48% of the informants responded positively;  because this figure is higher than the  exposure to CBC language seems to be, it seems as if people are responding to what they think ought to be rather than what they have observed to be the case. People think CBC English s h o u l d be good; they have a notion that there is correct English and that it is likely to be that spoken by CBC announcers.  This notion is further reflected in the attitudes question, "The language of CBC announcers should be the standard for spoken Canadian English," a statement which was ambiguous for many informants.  Some informants took it to mean  that Canadians should adopt the language of the CBC announcers as standard Canadian, and others took it to mean that the CBC should consciously and intentionally provide a standard for, if not impose a standard on, Canadians. The ambiguity is reflected in the high rate of neutral (or don't know) responses;  25% of the informants indicated neutrality or uncertainty. The  other responses are questionable because of the ambiguity and the unusual reporting of familiarity with the CBC; however, the fact that 42% of •I  informants agreed that "The language of CBC announcers should be the standard for spoken Canadian English" and 33% disagreed despite the ambiguity and the lack of familiarity with the CBC seems to indicate a notion  118 that there is something that must be standard Canadian English.  It may also  indicate a desire for guidelines for that standard. Although this evidence is indirect, it confirms the strong notion of correctness and of standard that the grammatical responses reveal. There seems to be no doubt that people have some notion of correctness. That is not to say, however, that the notion of correctness necessarily corresponds to what is identified by grammarians as conventionally and traditionally correct. It is important, therefore, to consider how well the Vancouver respondents' identification of correctness corresponds to what has traditionally been regarded as standard.  4.2.2  Conventional  Correctness  To assess conventional grammatical correctness, it is necessary to consider both the conventions for Standard English in general and for the Canadian variety of Standard in particular; therefore, the forms identified as correct by the Vancouver speakers must be compared with "correct" forms given in both general and Canadian handbooks.  Generally, Vancouver speakers have  identified correct grammatical forms quite conventionally, and with an absolute rather than a relative majority;  11  for only 9.5% of the grammatical  items was the highest rate of agreement less than 50%. For a further 19% the majority agreement was between 50 and 55%; for the remaining 71.5% the majority agreement was over 55%, with the average being 80.7%. Once again,  See Appendix F for the "correct" grammatical forms, with rate of selection. See also 4.1 of this work for absolute majority usage over all linguistic levels. 1 1  119  this is strong evidence that the majority of Vancouver speakers have at least a notion of correctness and do not appear grammatically insecure.  Those items  for which there is not a clear absolute majority selection are either unsettled items or items for which there are so many variants that the responses are spread quite thinly among them.  For example, there were 8 options given for  the conditionals, "If we had seen you, we would have spoken," and "If I had gone home, I would have found it." low.  Rate of agreement on these two is very  The others for which there is a low rate of agreement are those which  are unsettled in general  12  or those for which there is a strictly correct form  in formal usage and a different form frequently heard in informal Agreement about grammatical correctness, then, is generally high;  speech.  13  what  remains to be seen is the extent to which the Canadian informants identify standard forms as correct.  Dialectologists generally test the unusual rather than the usual; of the forms tested are unsettled.  hence, most  The Survey of Vancouver English was  designed to test variables that are unsettled and that may be either changing or typical of Canadian English;  hence, there is likely to be little agreement  about some items and there may be some for which there are differences between what Canadians think is correct and what others think is correct. However, the variables being considered for correctness are grammatical and part of a variety of standard English;  they are, therefore, less subject to  See discussion below. It is likely that these responses are for casual speech; they were elicited through speech and the tone of the interviews was very informal. Where there are differences between speech and writing, then, it may be that the "correct" form given here is that deemed acceptable in speech. 1 2  1 3  120  variation than the other linguistic levels are.  There are some differences but  there are also many similarities between what Canadians report in SVEN and what seems to be the case in other speech communities.  I cannot here draw  direct comparisons between what SVEN speakers deem correct and what, say New York speakers or London speakers deem correct; studies would be needed for that.  complete contrastive  I can, however, determine the extent to  which SVEN informants agree with standard usage as recorded (or prescribed) by grammarians. To assess the extent to which the forms identified as being "correct" by Vancouver speakers are those traditionally considered correct in Standard English, I have used the  Oxford English Dictionary,  Fowler's  Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Random House Dictionary of the English Language,  the Gage  Canadian Dictionary  and the handbooks listed in  Appendix G of this work. Given the findings, I have divided the variables into four groups: those that are the least controversial and for which there is a high degree of agreement, those for which there is little agreement among speakers, those for which there is little agreement among or comment by scholars and those for which there seems to be a Canadian form. I will also discuss those forms that SVEN informants have deemed correct that may be considered traditionally incorrect.  14  Generally, Canadians have identified general standard English forms as being correct; for 83.3% of the grammatical items, the forms deemed "correct" by  These forms remain in the four categories as well, where they are noted with an asterisk, as it is not clear that Canadians would be the only ones to get these wrong. 1 4  121  Vancouver speakers are traditionally forms are in the  first  considered standard forms.  47.6%  of  the  category:  I LEAST CONTROVERSIAL: MOST AGREEMENT 669 677 685 713 737 773 789 805 681 733 749 697 725 753 661 665 761 705 813 769  drank Yesterday he d r a n k / d r u n k 3 glasses... B o u g h t f e n ) bread isn't as tastv as... bought I've often brought(en) them home... brought fewer There are l e s s / f e w e r people here than... any I didn't see a n v / n o money in the box. You should have/of/shoulda seen him... should have I saw/seen him vesterday. saw After we ate/had eaten dinner, we plaved...had eaten There is/are 8 eggs in the fridge. there are Where are mv gloves? where are If I was/were vou. I'd vote against it. were Helen and I are going shopping. Helen and I He doesn't/don't bother me. doesn't He doesn't like a n v t h i n g . anything He was standing behind me. behind The car is b e h i n d the garage. behind Well, anvwav(s). that's over. anyway Yesterdav he l a v / l a i d in the sun. lay L i e / l a v down right awav! lie He must have forgot(ten) mv name. forgotten  Here there is little disagreement; informants  recognize  as being correct. forms;  the  and use of these, many  were (749)  is generally  though traditional  grammar  and the past tense lay  (705)  considerable confusion about these  books are clear about the correct forms  speakers confuse them. ^  speakers indicate that they know  96.0% 71.3% 99.7% 83.3% 96.3% 65.7% 69.2% 80.4% 93.8% 97.9% 96.0% 99.2% 91.3% 74.6% 86.3% 68.3% 78.7% 94.0%  it is, perhaps, surprising that so many  subjunctive  There  98.3% 87.4%  1  However,  here Vancouver  what the correct forms are (which  is, of  course, not to say that they use them!).  15 Note that lie/lav appear in virtually all Glossaries of Usage and are identified as troublesome; Fowler writes that "confusion even between the words lav and He themselves is common in talk" (Fowler 1965:327). The subjunctive, as mentioned in 4.2.1, is also a difficulty; Fowler says the subjunctive "is dying" (Fowler 1965:595).  122  28.6%  of the grammatical terms fall into the second group:  TT LITTLE AGREEMENT AMONG SPEAKERS 673 729 793 689 693 717 785 809 709 817 745  Today he has alreadv d r a n k / d r u n k . . . She's a reality") nice lady. If it was/were warmer, we could go for.. . Marv is sitting between John and I/me. Just between vou and me/I. I think... He gave it to Tom and me/I. T o whofm) did you give the book? It's m e / I ! Mv house is verv different f r o m vours. It has l a i d / l a i n there all night. If we had seen vou. we would have...  777  If I had  drunk really were I* me me to whom me * from lain* had seen  gone home. I would have found it. would  Not only are there  several forms here for which the  attribute correctness to  a form traditionally  47.7% 61.7% 54.2% 53.7% 50.7% 52.3% 43.9% 66.7% 60.5% 54.8% 50.4%  have gone*  S V E N informants  deemed incorrect, but also there  a low rate of agreement about just what the correct forms may be. these  forms, the  disagreement  among speakers reflects  among scholars;  drank/drunk, real/really  unsettled forms.  Although drunk  North  writes,  "Although drunk  Americans use drank  except perhaps when writing have  drank  archaism"  as "formerly  (Fowler  from many  forms  which  in speech...In writing drunk dialogue" (Gage  1983:360).  Similarly, real  [a]  be  are  Gage, for  should be used, Fowler  identifies  blunder or conspicuous  as an adverb receives attention  for example, Fowler identifies  may  disagreement  is the usual past participle, many educated  as an Americanism and suggests speakers avoid it.  * Indicates  For three of  from/than/to  as an alternative form:  not unusual, but now  1965:140).  grammarians;  and different  some  is  is generally given as the past participle of  drink, most resource books give drank example,  45.9%  real  meaning  Gage is less quick to  considered incorrect.  "very"  123 condemn: "In formal and most written English, real is used only as an adjective...In non-standard and some informal use, it is also used as an adverb meaning "really" or "very" (Gage 1983:936). Baker writes, "Do not use Ireall for very" (Baker 1972:369) and Millward and Flick concur.  16  Americans,  Britons and Canadians, then, all condemn use of real as an adverb in formal and written English at least.  There is also general agreement among scholars  from all three countries about the preposition following different: from is recommended most strongly with than and to following.  The comment in Gage  In formal English, the standard idiom is different from. Informal usage is divided; using from, occasionally to (which is a common British idiom), and more often than. Different than is becoming more common when the object is a clause: The house was a good deal different than he remembered it. (Gage 1983:329) Fowler accepts from and to but suggests avoiding than, which he says should be left for the comparative (Fowler 1965:535). Baker is stronger: Never use rthanl. Things differ from each other. Only in comparing differences could than be used: 'All three of his copies differ from the original, but his last one is more different than the others.' But here than is controlled by more, not by different. (Baker 1972:360) Thus, though the strength of the recommendations vary, there is agreement, and Vancouver speakers have identified the form generally thought to be "correct."  Recall that Gage is Canadian, Fowler is British, Baker is American and "Millward and Flick" refers to the Canadian edition of an American work. 1 6  124  The other forms for which speakers have a low rate of agreement about which scholars agree; the verbs He. and lay clauses.  Here  these include the  (see note  speakers either  above) know  and the  the  objective  are forms  pronouns, forms  subjunctive in conditional  rules and disregard them, especially  for speech, or they haven't learned the rules;  there also may be some slow  change in progress, a point which will be considered briefly in 4.2.3.2 these  12 items, then, speakers are dealing with variables  there  is agreement  speakers are not  For a further  among scholars about what the  which  For  are unsettled;  "correct" forms  are,  but  necessarily sure about those forms.  16.7%  scholars or there  of  of the grammatical  is little agreement  items, there is either little comment by  among them:  TTT LITTLE AGREEMENT AMONG OR COMMENT BY SCHOLARS 757 701 765 657 781 721 821 801  Let's not/Don't let's take the bus. I'm always aren't I/am I not? We used not/didn't use to go there. Have you got/Do vou have enough...? Do you like these kind(s) of apples? They s n e a k e d / s n u c k into the fridge. You'll find it out back/in the back. Can you lend/loan me $5  That 97.1%  of speakers think  Let's not aren't I? never used Do you have these k i n d * sneaked in the back lend  97.1% 67.9% 75.8% 38.1% 56.9% 52.1% 52.9% 57.7%  let's not is correct is not surprising in light of  the fact that there is no comment about such a phrase in dictionaries or handbooks;  perhaps there is no need for comment.  about aren't  I  ain't).  as a tag question (though there  There is little comment about never  that never  There is also no comment  are comments about avoiding  used other than Fowler's  is acceptable as an emphatic negative (Fowler  1965:388);  however, say that used not is "the proper negative form" (Fowler  comment he does,  1965:670), but  125  this is as compared with a present tense form rather than with never. explains  what he considers a difference  (perhaps, His  North  American?)  explanation  ways  between  British  of asking whether  Fowler  and American  a person has something.  is worth quoting at length:  in the U.S. Do you have a match? 1 don't have a match  are  idiomatic where our own idiom requires Have you (got) a match? I haven't (got) a match. In British idiom do have is permissible only subject to two limitations: that h a v e is used in a sense different from that of physical possession, and that habit or repetition or general practice is implied. Do you have coffee? means for us is it your habit to drink it; have you coffee? means is there any to make the drink with....The American idiom is...encroaching on ours. (Fowler 1965:136) Quoting C . S . L e w i s , is regrettable. he  1 7  Fowler claims the loss of the distinction between the two  Fowler also comments on inclusion of got in have you got...?:  acknowledges  the condemnation  of including  got in the phrase but, along  with Ballard, argues that "it is not a real error but a counterfeit invented by schoolmasters" (Fowler  1965:227).  That  North Americans don't comment may  indicate that the distinction is not acknowledged at all; agreement  among  indicated;  consideration of whether  many  would  speakers,  18  with such little  it seems that some discussion or teaching is the early  British distinction is known by  also be interesting.  "The language which can with the greatest ease make the finest and most numerous distinctions of meaning is the best....It was better to have the older English distinction between 'I haven't got indigestion' (I am not suffering from it at the moment) and "I don't have indigestion" (I am not a dyspeptic) than to level both, as America has now taught most Englishmen to do, under 'I don't have'" (Lewis in Fowler 1965:136). 1  7  Have you was the second most popular choice, with 35.1% and Have you got followed with 20.1%; 6.7% said both Have you got and do you have are correct. 1 8  126  There is also very little comment about these Flick say, " k i n d , sort, type:  kinds of apples;  Millward and  these words are singular and should be modified by  this or that, not by these or those.  In the phrase this kind (sort, type) of  2. is redundant and should be omitted" (Millward & Flick 1985:469). not comment. sneak.  Others do  There is also very little mention of snuck as the past tense of  The Oxford dictionaries do not include snuck. The Random House  Dictionary  of English Language lists s n u c k . identifying it as a "chiefly  dialectal" past tense and past participle of sneak. Dictionary  gives snuck  The Gage  Canadian  as an alternative informal past form;  do not include it in either their forms.  the handbooks  glossaries of usage or their unusual verb  I assume that this is a North American form (snuck  speech in Canada and 45.8%  is used in informal  of the S V E N speakers consider it "correct").  lack of comment may reflect the low rate of use of snuck in writing. out  a the  The Similarly,  back may also receive no comment because it is more a spoken than a  written  There  form.  is considerable comment  acknowledge  on l e n d / l o a n but there is little agreement.  that loan is sometimes used as a verb;  that such use be kept to informal  All  however, some recommend  speech only (Gage, Millward  and Flick), some  accept it (Messenger and de Bruyn, Random House Dictionary) ^ 1  and others  Winston Canadian Dictionary for Schools and the OED consider loan as a verb to be an acceptable Americanism; Fowler also identifies it as an Americanism. 1  9  127  condemn it as a verb entirely (Baker, Fowler ). It is small wonder, then, that 20  only 57.7% of the SVEN informants identify lend as the correct form.  There remain two items about which there is considerable comment and for which there seem to be Canadian forms. IV CANADIAN FORMS 741 797  He dived/dove into the water. It's already been proved/proven.  dove* proven*  73.6% 75.4%  Most reference works comment on proved and proven, generally agreeing that proved is the "correct" past participial form but giving proven as an alternative form.  Most, however, claim that proven is "archaic" (OED ), "best  left alone" (Fowler) or "an adjective only" (Baker).  Proven is recognized as  being appropriate "if quoting from Scots law" (Fowler 490) and some think that proven can be used only in a legal sense or legal context. Baker at least implies that proven, as an adjective, refers to "tested by time," whereas proved is simply "successfully tested or demonstrated" (Baker 1972:369).  The  Canadians, however, simply give proven as an alternative form for proved: Gage does not comment or condemn, neither does Flick. informants identify proven as the "correct" form. scholars nor the speakers condemn this form;  75.4% of the SVEN  Neither the Canadian  thus, I think has proven  may  be a Canadianism; whether or not has proven originates in Scots law, in Canada it is a common and acceptable form.  21  Fowler considers that loan, the verb, "was expelled from idiomatic English by lend But it survived in U.S., and has now returned to provide us with a NEEDLESS VARIANT" (Fowler 1965:341, emphasis his). It has been my own experience and that of several of my Canadian colleagues that Canadians must learn that proved is an acceptable form; I suspect that many Canadians who do not need to pay particular attention to 2 0  2 1  128  There is less agreement Most  scholars acknowledge  acceptable form. even  about dived and dove as the past participle of d i v e .  while  both possibilities and recommend d i v e d as the  Perhaps in part to attempt to account for both forms  recommending  one, scholars have  use and meaning of the two forms. intransitive  This  distinction has disappeared in Modern maintain dove.  a distinction between  animate  English;  transitive-intransitive however,  and inanimate  Scargill 1974:21 for a brief discussion.)  "submerged",  whereas  some speakers  subjects with d i v e d and  those who do use dived with  and dove with animate (The submarine dived;  different distinction, however;  distinctions in  there was also a weak transitive  particular  Few people maintain the distinction;  inanimate  some  In Old English there was a strong  verb from which we get d o v e :  verb from which we get d i v e d .  identified  existing  The boy dove).  The Oxford English Dictionary  (See makes a  it says that dove is used in the sense of  d i v e d is used in the sense of jumping into or breaking  the surface of the water. known to or maintained  I am not sure that these distinctions in meaning are by many modern speakers.  It does seem, however,  that Canadians do not agree with the assessment of d i v e d as the correct form; 73.6%  of the S V E N informants claim dove is the correct form.  seem to support this assessment, at least to some extent;  Canadian sources  Millward  and Flick's  comment is: d i v e d is the preferred past tense of d i v e , but dove is also acceptable" (Millward and Flick  1985:463).  Similarly, Gage claims that "both  forms are used in Canadian English for the past tense, though d i v e d seems to be more widely  preferred  in writing and in formal English.  However,  language do not realize that p r o v e d is correct. Though anecdotal, this experience supports the findings that has proven is a Canadian form.  d o v e is  129 the standard form for many people" (Gage 1983:345). According to The Survey of Canadian English slightly more speakers use dove than dived with both 22  human and inanimate subjects.  All 73.6% of the SVEN informants who think  that dove is the correct form also claim to use dove rather than dived. Thus, it seems that dove is a Canadian form, though it is used elsewhere as well. It seems, though, that Canadians too have to justify the use of dove: on a recent production of CBC Radio's "Gabereau," Vicki Gabereau responded to a recent 23  barrage of criticism about sports commentators' English.  24  Gabereau's guest  claimed that the distinction between dived and dove is one of rank, that, whereas dove would be used for a non-professional or a non-competitive dive, dived would be used for competitive and professional dives.  Thus, speaking of  the neighbourhood kids at the lake or the pool, one would say, "Yesterday, they dove into the lake" but, speaking of  Olympic  athletes, one would say,  "Yesterday, they dived into the pool." This explanation (whether valid or not) is at least in keeping with some sense of formal to informal usage; dived, the traditionally approved form in standard English, is reserved for the most formal case, while dove, the traditionally censured form, is reserved for a less formal case. However, it seems to me that dove is simply the form used by Canadians. ^ 2  See Scargill (1974:21-23). June 18, 1988. I believe this arose from the recent coverage of the selection of athletes for the Summer Olympic Canadian teams. 25 As was the case with proved, some of my Canadian colleagues and I had to learn to accept dived.  2 2 2 3  2 4  130  Of all of the above grammatical forms, then, Canadians could be said to have mistakenly  identified  "correct" forms for only 16.6%  following,  the  deemed correct  form  is not,  strictly  of the items; speaking,  for the  traditionally  correct:  V CANADIANS "INCORRECT" 741 797 781 689 809 817 777  He d i v e d / d o v e into the water. It's already been p r o v e d / p r o v e n . Do you like these kind(s') of apples? Mary is sitting between John and I/me. It's me/I! It has l a i d / l a i n there all night. If I had gone home, I would have found it.  Of these, proven and dove therefore, to me;  dove proven these kind I me lain would have  gone  73.6% 75.4% 56.9% 53.7% 66.7% 54.8% 45.9%  are acceptable Canadian forms and are not,  necessarily "incorrect"  in  Canadian English.  These  kind is not clear  it seems odd that the Survey of Vancouver English did not test this kind,  which I think is a common, standard Canadian form, along with the alternatives I  these  kinds and these  kind.  Of course, these  kind is incorrect, but  am not sure that only Canadians would confuse the forms;  testing of these forms needs to be done. all peculiar to Canadians;  The other errors, I believe, are not at  these are commonly found (in speech, at least)  most speech communities. I think accept It's  I think more  in  only the most die-hard purists would not  me! in speech in most speech communities (and where would it  occur in formal writing?);  many would agree that It's I!  sounds  pretentious.  At any rate, I don't think that any of these is a mistake that non-Canadians would not make as well; considered  as Canadian  I do, however, think that proven and d o v e , might be rather  than  deemed  "incorrect."  131 What is clear, however, is that Vancouver speakers identify standard forms as being "correct" for 83.4% of the items and that Canadians are no more or less "correct" than any other speakers of English;  it is also clear that for many  items there is both variation among speakers and lack of agreement among scholars about just what might constitute "correctness." evidence  26  Nor is there reliable  here that speakers who do identify the correct forms necessarily  use those forms or use them consistently.  These data, then, do not necessarily  indicate that absolute or traditional correctness is essential to Vancouver English; they do support the claim that a  notion  of correctness is an essential  or central feature of Vancouver English.  It may be the arbitrary nature of  traditional grammatical "correctness" that prevents its being a central feature of standard: that does not, however, prevent there being a notion of correctness that is associated with standard varieties.  4.2.3  Social Factors and Correctness  Because a notion of correctness seems central to standard, it is important to understand in greater detail the factors that might contribute to that notion of correctness.  Social factors such as gender, age and socio-economic status are  generally found to be relevant to linguistic variation and may also affect notions of correctness;  because of an association between notions of  correctness and education, level of education may also be significant to correctness.  Therefore, in order to better understand the nature of notions of  correctness as an aspect of standard, I will analyze the responses about Most speakers claim to use only those forms that they deem correct; however, the reliability of this particular self-reporting is extremely questionable. 2 6  132  correctness by the relevant social factors. grammatical  responses with the  and level of education. also  considered the  To do so, I cross-tabulated the  factors, gender,  relationship  between  notions  social factors but gender are statistically  nature  of  correctness and  Some of the  significance level.  The following  findings are particularly  report  A l l of the  significant in at least one third of the revealing of  of correctness, others of the variables for which there  agreement.  whether  Statistical significance was measured by the  Chi-square test of independence using a 5%  items.  socio-economic status  Because 16% of the S V E N informants were teachers, I  or not a person were a teacher.  grammatical  age,  organizes these results by  the  is little social factor.  4.2.3.1 Gender  Gender  is  generally  not  statistically  significant  to  correctness, although  may be some relation between gender and notions of correctness.  O f the 35  "Don't Know/Not sure" responses, 10 were from men and 25 from women. generally  thought  appropriateness more likely  in  that women language  to admit  if  than  uncertainty  not so much insecurity, but possibility;  are  women  more men  conscious of are.  27  7  It is  correctness and  These findings that women are  lend support to that b e l i e f  28  by  indicating  awareness that there may be more than one  are more  sensitive to linguistic appropriateness or  correctness than men are, then they are likely  2  there  to be more aware of the  See, for example, Labov (1966) Trudgill (1974) and Hudson (1980).  It seems to me that the term gender is too broad here; it is more likely that such things as role are hidden factors in gender that would more accurately or precisely define the correlation. However, it is not possible at this time to study such a likelihood; therefore, I use the term gender here with the proviso that it be considered as a social factor that conflates more precise relations. 2  8  133  possibilities, including the possibility of error. few to be considered solid evidence;  more  of the variables  women  than  men  really real between between  you and me you and I  Whereas 74.2%  findings  are  the  you and me.  traditionally  correct  49.2%  74.2%  42.5%  20.8%  44.4% 53.0%  57.0% 39.6% really  conclude that  correctness on the basis of its significant effect Rather, not  For these,  form:  29  of females identify  of the males agree.  one cannot  cross-  as the correct form, only 49.2%  similarly, whereas 57.0%  interesting,  The only other  and between  Females  form, only 44.4%  responses are too  in correctness is in the  Males  of females identify  men do the same; correct objective  real/really  recognize  35  more testing is indicated.  indication of gender as a significant factor tabulations  However,  of  me as the  Although these  gender  is significant  to  on only 2 of 42 variables.  it seems that gender may be significant to notions of correctness but is  clearly  significant  to  assessment of correctness.  4.2.3.2 Age  Age, on the other hand, seems to be significant to the assessment of correctness but not to notions of correctness.  30  For 15 (35.7%) of the  Note that Labov (1966), Trudgill (1972) and others have found hypercorrection such as "between you and I" to be more typical of women than men. These results seem to contradict their findings; however, this is an assessment of correctness rather than an indication of usage. It may well be that Vancouver women hypercorrect more than men in speech as others have found; this particular test simply is not a test of usage and, hence, of hypercorrection. 2  9  Though 35 cases are too few to determine statistical significance of a 3 group factor, the distribution of those cases across the age groups seems to 3  0  134  grammatical items, age is a correctness;  clearly significant factor in assignation of  for 12 of those there is gradation by age, indicating a change in  progress, and for 3, the youngest group behaves differently from the older two groups.  The forms and rates of assessed correctness are as follows: Young  Middle  Old  Do you have Have you  51.4% 21.0%  32.6% 40.0%  29.3% 45.5%  real really  23.8% 72.5%  38.8% 57.5%  32.5% 55.0%  anyways anyway  17.5% 73.8%  7.5% 92.5%  5.0% 92.5%  has drank has drunk  51.4% 38.1%  42.7% 46.9%...  36.4% 58.6%  Aren't I? Am I not?  77.9% 18.3%  72.6% 21.6%  52.6% 43.3%  sneaked snuck  16.3% 82.5%  51.3% 43.8%  88.8% 11.3%  dived dove  6.3% 93.7%  17.5% 73.8%  32.5% 53.8%  if it was warmer. if it were warmer.  58.8% 37.5%  42.5% 55.0%  30.0% 70.0%  between John and m e between John and I  28.6% 65.7%  39.6% 57.3%  56.6% 37.4%  between you and m e between you and I  41.9% 54.3%  49.0% 50.0%  61.6% 34.3%  gave it to Tom and m e gave it to Tom and I  32.9% 67.1%  50.0% 50.0%  73.8% 22.5%  31  indicate that age is not significant; 12 of the 35 responses were in the youngest age group; 8 were in the middle group and 15 were in the oldest group. Note that dived seems to be passing out of Canadian English; dove as the popular past tense form of dive is becoming more common. 3 1  135  82.5% 13.8%  76.3% 23.8%  41.3% 52.5%  to whom who to  38.8% 48.8%  30.4% 40.5%  62.5% 15.0%  lay down lie down  30.0% 68.8%  21.3% 76.3%  8.9% 91.9%  it has laid there all night it has lain there all night  47.5% 35.0%  41.3% 55.0%  22.8% 74.7%  It's It's  me! I!  The first three, do you have, real(ly) and anyway(s)  show either  gradation  with a noticeable division between the lowest age and the other two or just a division between  the youngest group and the  gradation by age. correctness younger. objective  is  There is indication, then, that people's assessment of  changing, with  There  older  people  being  is clear indication here that the  pronouns forms  people are more likely d o v e , has  others. The others show  more  traditionally  are being replaced as is the  to deem the traditionally  drank, and snuck  conservative correct  subjunctive;  32  gradation is found in these 15 items is striking;  The regularity  there  with which  Thus, the evidence  is about the correctness of these  unsettled items is likely to be because of change in progress;  grammatical  3  2  form  items, it  Thus, though age is significant to only 35.7% is clearly  an important  15  the indication,  then, is not that Canadians are unsure about correctness but that there change in progress.  than the  one might expect to find such  gradation for some unsettled items, but not for most. suggests that what uncertainty  young  unacceptable past tense forms  correct and young people are more likely  old to confuse the principle parts of He. and lay.  than  is  of the  concern for correctness;  there  This finding confirms Fowler's assessment of the subjunctive as a dying (Fowler 1965:595).  is  136 a clear relation between age and identification of traditionally correct forms, with evidence of change in progress for 15 of the unsettled items.  4.2.3.3  Socio-economic Status  Socio-economic status is also significant to assessment of correctness for 38% of the items and, for most items, the significance is stratified.  33  Socio-  economic status is significant in the following forms: SES I  SES II  SES III  SES IV  Have you got? Do you have?  24.7% 35.1%  28.6% 34.5%  14.9% 48.6%  9.4% 34.4%  has drank has drunk  62.3% 27.3%  58.3% 38.1%  36.5% 55.4%  10.8% 75.4%  less fewer  31.7% 56.7%  33.3% 66.7%  20.0% 76.7%  10.0% 85.0%  lend loan  45.0% 48.3%  53.0% 41.7%  59.3% 32.2%  73.3% 20.0%  between you and m e between you and I  35.1% 62.3%  45.2% 52.4%  55.4% 40.5%  70.8% 26.2%  It's me! It's I!  81.7% 15.0%  70.0% 25.0%  71.7% 23.3%  43.3% 56.7%  to whom who to  23.3% 46.7%  39.0% 40.7%  45.0% 35.0%  68.3% 16.7%  behind in back of  56.7% 10.0%  70.0% 5.0%  81.7% 1.7%  90.0% 3.3%  Yesterday he laid in the sun. 45.0% Yesterday he lay in the sun. 50.0%  26.7% 66.7%  20.0% 73.3%  15.0% 83.3%  34  The importance of socio-economic status to notions of correctness as indicated by "Not sure/don't know" responses cannot be assessed here; there are so few occurrences of the responses that their spread across the four socio-economic groups is inconclusive. 3 3  3 4  Recall that SES I is the lowest group and SES IV the highest.  137 lie down lay down  66.7% 28.3%  79.7% 20.3%  75.0% 25.0%  93.3% 6.7%  It has laid there all night. It has lain there all night.  36.7% 48.3%  44.1% 45.8%  45.0% 50.0%  23.3% 75.0%  there's there are  29.9% 48.1%  8.4% 75.9%  4.1% 75.7%  3.1% 78.5%  real really  51.7% 35.0%  51.7% 45.0%  16.7% 75.0%  6.7% 91.7%  these kinds these kind  13.5% 79.7%  28.6% 65.5%  44.0% 47.3%  66.2% 30.8%  between John and I between John and m e  72.7% 22.1%  69.0% 25.0%  47.3% 48.6%  18.5% 76.9%  give it to Tom and I give it to Tom and m e  61.7% 36.7%  66.7% 33.3%  40.7% 59.3%  16.7% 80.0%  Only the first of these, Have vou got/Do vou have?, is not clearly stratified by socio-economic status;  for this item, the second highest socio-economic group  has a higher rate of identification of Do vou have as the "correct" form than the highest group does.  For the other forms there is either clear socio-  economic gradation or, as for the last 5 items, clear gradation with a noticeable break between either the lowest socio-economic group and the other three (there's/there are) or the lowest and the highest two socio-economic groups. •> 3  It could be that education, as a factor in the calculation of socio-economic status, is salient in this variation.  It is clear, however, that for these items,  5 Most of the forms for which socio-economic status is significant are those for which there was little agreement among Vancouver speakers about correctness. However, it is interesting to note that behind/in back of is added here; Scargill explains that in back of is common in the U.S., whereas behind is the British form. He suggests that this is a social distinction here (Scargill 1974:36); these findings confirm his suggestion. 3  138 socio-economic status is significant to correctness and that the relationship between them is regularly stratified.  Because of the likelihood that education is significant to grammatical correctness,  36  it is worthwhile to test education apart from its role in socio-  economic status. There are four tests possible using the SVEN data; an education factor (+. PSE, i.e. plus or minus post-secondary education) can be used to test the significance to both uncertainty and correctness, and a teacher factor can be used to do the same. They will be considered in turn.  4.2.3.4 Level of Education Of the 35 "Don't know/not sure" responses, 19 were made by people without post- secondary education;  although this does not represent a sufficient  database on which to draw substantial conclusions, the fact that over half of the people who are unsure have less formal education than others does indicate that level of education may be a factor in notions of correctness. The results do indicate that education ought not be disregarded as a factor in correctness or grammaticality as some have suggested.  It is the case that for 38% of the grammatical items tested in SVEN, + PSE is a statistically significant factor;  the following forms are affected by level of  education:  Traditional grammatical correctness is arbitrary and conventional and, therefore, learned rather than acquired; hence, there is likely to be a direct connection between education and grammaticality. 3 6  139  +PSE  -PSE  62.0%  34.8%  fewer really these kinds lend between John and m e between you and m e give it to Tom and m e to whom It's I! behind Yesterday he lay in the sun.  82.6% 80.7% 54.2% 70.6% 59.9% 64.8% 66.7% 59.3% 40.4% 83.5% 78.9%  61.8% 45.8% 21.3% 46.9% 24.7% 38.0% 40.5% 31.3% 21.4% 67.2% 59.5%  dived there are different from anyway  25.0% 73.2% 70.2% 91.7%  13.7% 65.6% 51.5% 81.7%  has  drunk  3 7  For these items, those with post-secondary education are more likely traditionally Although  correct  38%  forms  than  those  is relatively  few  of the  between these two  without  post-secondary  grammatical  variables,  groups for these items cannot be ignored;  to select  education. the  differences  the degree of  significance makes it clear that level of education is a factor in correctness.  4.2.3.5 Teachers  It  seems that teachers  others  and that they  are  more  identify  certain  traditionally  a higher rate than non-teachers do. given by teachers;  whether  of  grammatical  correct forms  correctness as the  correct ones at  Only 4 of the 35 uncertain  or not teachers know  than  responses were  or use correct forms,  they  N o t e that for d i v e d , the majority of neither group choses the traditional form. 66.7% of those with post-secondary eduation chose dove as did 79.4% of those without; thus, though education level seems to be a factor, especially in choosing the traditional form, the traditional does not win out for the past tense of d i v e . Education does affect assessment of this form, but not to the extent that d o v e be considered incorrect in Canadian English. 3 7  140  are certainly less hestitant about them than others are.  They, of all groups  considered here, clearly have a notion of correctness.  The teacher-factor is  also statistically significant to 33% of the grammatical items; those  the following are  items:  has  drunk  fewer really dived these kinds between John and m e between you and me. give it to Tom and me. It's I! lend there are to whom different from anyway  Teacher  Non-teacher  70.2%  43.5%  92.1% 84.2% 34.2% 72.3% 80.9% 83.0% 86.5% 44.7% 76.3% 83.0% 60.5% 76.6% 100.0%  67.3% 57.4% 15.9% 30.4% 34.0% 44.7% 46.0% 27.2% 54.2% 66.7% 40.8% 57.5% 83.7%  Again, the rate of significance is noteworthy  here;  surely, though there is  significance for only 33% of the items, the extent of the difference responses of teachers  and of  non-teachers indicates that the  correctness cannot be ignored.  One might  differently  Of  education; identify  than  non-teachers.  hence they  more traditional  fall  well ask why  course, teachers  into the better-educated  between  significance to  teachers respond any  have post-secondary group already  shown to  forms than those with less education do.  However,  that can only be a partial explanation or the results would be more similar to those of the analysis by education factor; post-secondary  education correctly  identify  more teachers than others with traditional  knowledge that one learns best by teaching;  forms.  however, there  that these are teachers of grammar or even of English.  It  is common  is no indication  However, it is possible  that teaching, regardless of the subject matter, makes one more conscious of  141  language and correctness;  teachers are responsible for communicating  clearly and for correcting the communication skills of their students regardless of the subject matter being taught.  Given that even the youngest  age group of SVEN would have completed high school before the emphasis shifted from essay-writing to multiple choice examinations (preferably computer-marked!) and from correctness to creativity, it could be that the SVEN teacher-respondents have both learned traditional correctness and, by teaching and marking, gained a level of certainty about correctness that their non-teacher counterparts do not have.  At any rate, the finding that teachers  respond differently to questions about grammar than non-teachers do indicates teaching and education are significant to both correctness and notions of correctness.  If correctness is associated with standard and if education is important to correctness, as these findings reveal, then the role of education in standard, both in its development or maintenance and in its role in language variation, cannot be ignored.  Future studies are needed to investigate in more depth the  nature of the relationship among education, correctness and standard. However, it is clear from the above tests that a notion of correctness is associated with standard English.  Therefore, the tests of the definition of  standard as that variety spoken by the majority of speakers and typified  by correctness indicate that both parts of the definition are  corroborated, though "correctness" must be qualified.  Before attempting such  qualification, however, it is necessary to consider the processes through which a variety must have passed for it to have become standard, both for what such a consideration may reveal about standard, correctness and  142 education and about the extent to which Canadian English is a distinct variety of Standard English. 4.3 Processes of Standardization in Canadian English The test of standard using the SVEN data indicates that the definition given here is acceptable with this set of data; however, it is important to determine whether or not the standard identified here is a distinct one.  One means of  determining whether or not a variety is a standard one or is a distinct one is to assess whether or not it has passed through (or, perhaps, is in) the four stages essential to the establishment of a standard variety.  Hudson (1980) identifies  four processes in the development of a standard: selection, codification, elaboration of function and acceptance.  Testing Canadian English for  evidence of the four processes is made complicated by there being two levels to consider—Standard English and Canadian English as a variety of Standard. Both questions that have been raised about Canadian English (i.e. Is Canadian English standard? and Is there a standard Canadian English?) can be addressed by considering evidence of the completion of the four processes: if Canadian English is a variety of Standard English, it will have passed through the four processes just as other varieties of Standard have done; if there is a standard variety of Canadian English, there will be evidence that this variety of Canadian English has passed through the four processes.  I will argue in the  following sections that there is some evidence in Canada for both.  143  4.3.1 Selection  For a language or a variety to have become standard, it must have completed a process of selection, i.e. it will be a variety that has been selected as the one to be developed into the standard. standard vary,  but  are  The criteria for selection of a variety as  generally  documented standard variety  extra-linguistic.  Perhaps the  best  in English is Standard Written English,  which is  shown to have developed from London English and to have been accepted by about  1430  early  as the language of official business.  38  There is evidence that the  London dialect was an Essex type with some correspondence with  Middlesex and Surrey as well;  by about 1258 the London dialect had changed in  character from a Southern to a more Midland type of dialect.  As a Midland  dialect, London English represented a middle position between the North and South;  it represented a kind of compromise.  the extremes  of  The district was  also the most heavily populated of the major dialect areas and was prominent politically and economically. universities;  The district was also the location of the two  thus, it was prominent in education as well.  It  follows, then, that  a Midland dialect would be selected as the standard for written English. Because London was the capital of England, London English was the  variety  selected as the standard, both as the basis of Standard Written English and subsequently as the basis of standard spoken English. there were no radical changes in tends to  fix  forms rather  English has spread widely today  3  8  shows relatively  In the ensuing period,  Standard Written English,  than encourage variation from the British Isles,  little variation  or change.  since writing Thus, though  Standard Written English  from nation to nation.  Canadians, like  See, for example, Baugh (1957), Samuels (1972) and Williams (1975).  144 Americans and the people of other British colonies, have adopted Standard Written English as the vehicle of official business. This adoption is, in a sense, another level of selection, one which contributes to Standard Written English transcending regional dialect barriers.  Thus, it is clear that Standard Written  English in Canada has completed a process of selection.  The development and selection of standard spoken rather than written English is less clear because spoken varieties are more diverse and less fixed than written ones.  It is possible, particularly in accent, to have several varieties of  a standard form.  Furthermore, it is difficult to recognize what varieties may  serve as vehicles of official business or, in de Saussure's words, "serve the whole community" (de Saussure 1966:195). One test of a standard spoken variety is whether or not it is accepted or endorsed by public schools and institutions of higher education; if students are encouraged to adopt a particular accent as being appropriate to the school or to the career for which they are preparing, then that accent has been selected as a standard. Thus, in Britain, speakers of a variety such as Cockney, for example, would be encouraged to leave their accent behind and adopt Standard British English when they pursue higher education; similarly, in the U.S. speakers of strong regional varieties such as those in the deep south may be encouraged to adopt an accent akin to Network English as they pursue higher education. It is 39  The advisability of teaching (or, as some put it, imposing) Standard English in schools has been discussed at length by educators (see, for example, Trudgill [1984] and Edwards [1979]). Although many are loathe to admit, especially in a democratic country such as the U.S., that there are varieties of language which may be more socially acceptable than others, the continuing controversy about teaching standard English at the expense of regional varieties clearly indicates that some varieties have been selected as standard and others have not. It is not important for my purposes here to identify precisely what those varieties are; I merely show that such a selection process 3 9  145  evident, then, that some accents of English in Britain and the U.S. have been selected and developed as standard spoken varieties.  In Canada, there is less  clear or specific evidence of the preference of some speech over others because of the homogeneity of the Canadian English accent; there has been selection of standard speech within Canada.  nonetheless, Although General  Canadian (i.e. "that variety spoken from Toronto westward" [Avis 1975:118]) is used by so many speakers in Canada that it is easy to neglect that it is a selected standard form, the censuring of Newfoundland English by the media, some educators and employers, for example, indicates that General Canadian has 40  indeed been selected as standard. As Avis points out (1973a), General Canadian is likely to have developed from a dialect of old Upper Canada, specifically in Toronto, the area of most influence in the development of Canada; Toronto English, then, has been selected and developed as the standard, now General Canadian English.  Thus, there is evidence in Canada that there has been selection of varieties to become both written and spoken standards; a previously selected form (Standard Written English) has been adopted as the Canadian standard written form, and Toronto English was selected and has developed into General Canadian English, the standard Canadian spoken form.  The first of the  has taken place. Hence, I refer readers to the discussion elsewhere and to dialect descriptions in each country if they wish to pursue the details of the discussion or of the selected varieties. Despite linguistic tolerance in Canada, Newfoundland English is not heard widely beyond Newfoundland itself. Furthermore, it is censured by some; for example, as recently as 1980, a major retail outlet in Vancouver, replaced its telephone receptionist who had a strong Newfoundland accent because her accent did not project the image the firm wanted to project to the general public.  4 0  146  processes essential to development of a standard, then, has been completed in Canada.  4.3.2  Codification  The second process a standard variety will have gone through is what Hudson calls codification.  After a variety has been selected, it will be delineated and  described in dictionaries and grammar books; and the agreed-upon forms are given.  in this way, the variety is fixed  Speakers, then, can learn to use the  forms identified as typical of or correct in that variety.  Codification generally  refers to or is useful for the written standard rather than the spoken, though pronunciation keys in dictionaries and some descriptions of speech also serve to provide the kind of guidelines that are inherent in codification.  41  Given  the relationship between codification and written standard, however, it is necessary to consider both codification of Standard Written English and of such varieties as British, American and Canadian;  once again, if there is  evidence of codification of Canadian English as distinct from Standard English in general, then it can be argued that Canadian English is a variety of Standard or, perhaps, that some variety of Canadian is Standard Canadian English.  Note that there is inevitably some sense of prescriptivism in even the most descriptive dictionaries and grammar books; as soon as speakers seek the conventional form, the work referred to is used prescriptively however the writers may have intended it. I think in the case of dictionaries and grammar books, it is pure folly to pretend that prescriptivism can be avoided; speakers seek answers to the question "What is the correct form?" and they expect lexicographers and grammarians to provide those answers. I will not, therefore, in this discussion of codification, attempt to avoid sounding prescriptive; to do so is not appropriate in this context.  4 1  147  4.3.2.1  The  earliest  Dictionaries  complete English dictionary  is that of Samuel Johnson, published  in 1775; his codification of English did much to fix spelling and usage, especially in Britain.  In 1828, Noah Webster's two volume dictionary was  published in the U . S .  Webster undertook his work, including an earlier,  shorter dictionary, because he wanted to set up an American standard of good usage in contrast to the British standard set by Johnson. and American English had dictionaries by the early century.  approaches the OED authority.  English  published in twelve volumes between 1884 and 1928, with a  supplement published in 1933.  many  part of the nineteenth  Johnson's dictionary was succeeded by the Oxford  Dictionary,  editions)  Thus, both British  There  It is generally  agreed that no other  for historical detail and, for many, it remains the final  are newer  and shorter dictionaries  (many of them  that make the codification of British English readily  speakers.  dictionary  Similarly,  other  American dictionaries  have  Oxford  accessible to been produced.  Webster's dictionary, or rather various editions of it, continues to be a popular resource for speakers of American English, while others such as Random House Dictionary of the English Language College  Dictionary  Dictionary  are used as well.  and Funk and Wagnall's  Recent editions of the American  forms;  include  American  specific reference  recognizing  English.  Heritage  include notes on usage (the opinions of a Panel on Usage) under  entries for which there is disagreement of variant  thus  Standard  to differences  differences  between  between  Standard  British  some of these and British usage,  and Standard  American  148 Dictionaries of Canadian English are a much more recent development than those of British and American English, and their publication has not been without difficulty.  Until quite recently, Canadians used either British or  American dictionaries or they had recourse to Canadian editions of American dictionaries.  For several generations, Canadian public schools have used the  Canadian edition of Winston's school dictionary; there is also a Canadian edition of Funk and Wagnall's college dictionary.  However, these Canadian  editions differ very little from their American counterparts, generally doing little more than making mention of some spelling differences in the introduction.  While these Canadian editions do indicate a need for, perhaps  even a market for, a Canadian dictionary proper, they are only a partial or temporary solution to the demand for Canadian works and indicate only the very beginning of codification.  Negative attitudes toward the study and  description of Canadian English have delayed production of a Canadian dictionary;  some thought Canadian English did not warrant its own dictionary,  while others thought the audience for a Canadian English dictionary was not extensive enough to make such an undertaking financially viable. The 42  following excerpt from Avis' article, "Canadian English," reprinted in the introduction to the  Gage Canadian Dictionary  , indicates some of the critical  attitudes that Canadian lexicographers had to deal with before gaining approval of their undertaking: It has been argued in these pages that there is such a thing as a distinctive variety of Canadian English; yet it should be observed that this distinctive variety is referred to as "Canadian English" and not as "the Canadian language." The fact is that Canadians share one language See Avis 1957, 1966a and 1973 for discussions of the problems of justifying and producing a Canadian dictionary.  4 2  149 with Britons, Americans, Australians, and a host of other people, both inside the Commonwealth and beyond it. To claim that there is a Canadian language, or, as many Americans do, an American language, is to distort the meaning of the word language for nationalistic purposes. On the other hand, it is a form of blindness to insist, as many do, that "English is English" and that only fools "dignify the slang and dialect" of Canada by giving it serious attention. (Avis in Gage 1985:xxiii) In the 1960's Canadian English began to receive the serious attention Avis and others thought it should have; Gage published a series of Canadian dictionaries. The 1983 edition of the the earlier  Canadian  Gage Canadian Dictionary  Senior Dictionaries  ; it incorporates material from the  Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles  Gage in 1967.  , which was published by  There are also Canadian school dictionaries for both juniors (i.e.  elementary school) and intermediates (i.e. high schools). the  is a revision of  Gage Canadian Dictionary  The recent edition of  includes usage notes, some of which indicate  British or American preferences, thus recognizing differences between Canadian, British and American Standards. This codification of Canadian English, then, indicates that another of the processes through which a standard must pass has at least begun in Canada.  There are also now small dictionaries of at least two regional varieties of Canadian English; the Dictionary  Dictionary of Prince Edward Island English and  of Newfoundland English  the  have both been published in Canada.  Though scholars would not argue that either of those varieties is to be seen as the standard for Canadians in general, publication of these dictionaries does indicate that varieties of Canadian English are now being identified and contrasted;  rather than Canadian English being compared with only British  150  and American English, different compared.  varieties within  Canada are now being  Thus, this codification provides evidence that Canadian English  gained a stature similar to that of American and British English;  has  since one can  describe varieties within Canadian English, it is evident Canadian English is not being dismissed as a variety of either British or American English but is being accorded its own position.  The evidence of dictionaries of Canadian  English and varieties of Canadian English, then, suggests that Canadian English both is and has a standard variety.  4.3.2.2 Grammar Books  There have, of course, been many English grammar books written in the last two centuries; of English  Jespersen's Modern  Grammar  English  and Curme's English  Grammar, Grammar  Zandvoort's A  Handbook  are only three of many.  Most grammar books describe or prescribe (or both) Standard Written English, which has been adopted as the standard written form in most English speaking nations;  therefore,  this form of codification is evident for most written  English.  There are also, however, many handbooks for writers, a type of  grammar book compiled specifically  to help in composition rather than to  describe the grammar of a language or to teach grammar; applied grammar book.  these are a kind of  In the last decade or two, there has been a  proliferation of handbooks of English, especially in the U . S . ;  there is a large  market for handbooks that can be used in English composition classes at colleges and universities throughout companies address this market;  the U . S .  Most major publishing  hence, Harcourt Brace, Random House, Little  Brown and Prentice-Hall, for example, all have handbooks of English on the  151  market.  This evidence of codification is extensive, especially for American  English.  As was the case for Canadian English Dictionaries, the production of handbooks has been much slower in Canada and has been preceded by a period of production of Canadian editions of American handbooks. As in the U.S., the demand for handbooks in Canada is high; as Peter Desbarats writes in his introduction to the second edition of the  Harbrace College Handbook for  Canadian Writers :  In Canada, the publication of this revised edition could hardly be more timely. In the study and teaching of -English, as in many other academic, disciplines, educators and parents are scrambling back to "the basics" after several decades of "progressive" education. Many of us have felt an entire generation—our children—have suffered from an excess of "doing your own thing" amid exaggerated claims that literacy in print was about to join the study of Latin and Greek among the discarded antiques in the attics of academia. Low levels of literacy in university students confirmed this. Now, with a renewed interest in such basic subjects as English grammar, this book should be welcomed not only by students and educators but by the many adults who feel the need for a "refresher course" in grammar, and for a quick reference to the basic rules of good Canadian English. (vi) This increased demand for handbooks has coincided with the increased recognition of Canadian English as an independent variety of English; therefore, there has been a demand in Canada for Canadian handbooks. Jane Flick in her introduction to the Canadian edition of Celia Millward's for  Writers  Handbook  states the rationale behind producing Canadian editions rather  than writing Canadian handbooks: two considerations lessen the desire for all-Canadian postsecondary texts. One is, pragmatically but importantly, the  152 economics of producing books for a relatively small market. The other is the proven excellence of the structure and basic content of certain American textbooks. Happily, some publishers have found a creative solution: bringing out Canadian editions of American texts, special editions that are Canadianized not merely in their place of publication and their cosmetics but in their examples, their references, their spelling, their content, and their emphasis. (Millward and Flick 1985:x) The first stage in this kind of Canadian codification, then, has been the production of Canadian editions.  The extent to which a Canadian edition is  Canadianized ranges widely; some do as little as add a preface to the Canadian edition and a list of Canadian resource material; others add to those two things some Canadian examples (or, more accurately, substitute Canadian place names in examples or substitute a Canadian topic [such as "The Riel Rebellion"] in a sample research paper), and adopt metric units and "Canadianized" spelling.  43  Many also add a discussion of spelling differences, including what is preferred in Canada, in their introduction to spelling.  44  The most Canadianized editions  include comments throughout (and especially in the "Glossary of Usage") on differences between American, British and Canadian usage where relevant. Some will also include a list of Canadian spelling variants, usually giving the preferred Canadian version first.-* 4  Thus, there is a range of Canadianization  of handbooks. At best, I think, the publication of (and increase in) Canadian editions of American handbooks indicates a beginning of this kind of codification of Canadian English;  4 3  it is far from complete.  See, for example, Baker, Ledbetter and Gamache's The  Canadian Practical  Stylist with Readings. 4 4  See, for example, Hodges and Whitten's Harbrace  College Handbook For  Canadian Writers. 4  ^  See, for example, Millward and Flick's  Handbook for Writers.  153 There are, however, some original Canadian handbooks in publication now. Perhaps, the best known is Messenger and de Bruyn's the Canadian Writier's Handbook  published in 1980. Their aim is  to provide not a rhetoric but a handbook or reference book covering the important elements of correct writing: the conventions of grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling, and usage that prevail in Canada today. (xix) In doing so, they do not belabour discussion of Canadian English as it differs from others; they do point out usage that is peculiar to Canadian English or is thought to typify Canadian English, particularly in their discussion of spelling.  For the most part, they simply present a handbook of Canadian  English.  This, then, is a central example of codification of Canadian English.  Joanne Buckley has recently published Fit to Print:  The Canadian Student's  Guide to Essay Writing, which also simply presents Canadian conventions  without qualifying them. The Department of the Secretary of State of Canada has also produced a Canadian handbook, The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing.  It does include a discussion of American, British and  Canadian spelling differences and makes one reference to American usage in "words commonly misused or confused" and is more self-consciously 46  Canadian than the other two Canadian manuals mentioned here, perhaps because it is a government publication whose purpose is, in part, to contribute "to the Department's role of supporting and fostering the use and development of Canada's official languages both within the federal public service and in other sectors of Canadian society" (Williams and Bayerl 1985:21). This publication is further evidence of a growing body of handbooks of Canadian English. 4 6  '"Indian reserve' in Canada; 'Indian reservation' in the United States." (222)  154  There is, then, evidence of codification of Canadian English, in the production of both Canadian dictionaries and Canadian handbooks or grammar books. Thus, two of the four processes through which a standard must pass are evident for Canadian English.  4.3.3  Elaboration of Function  The third process which a variety must have undergone in order for it to be a standard variety is what Hudson calls elaboration of function: it must be possible to use the selected variety in all functions associated with central government and with writing, for example in parliament and law courts, in bureaucratic, educational and scientific documents of all kinds, and of course in various forms of literature. This may require extra linguistic items to be added to the variety, especially technical words, but it is also necessary to develop new conventions for using existing forms—how to formulate examination questions, how to write formal letters, and so on. (Hudson 1980:33) To some extent, elaboration of function was complete when Canadians adopted Standard Written English as their written form.  Standard Written English has  been elaborated to serve all the purposes of the language of nations; legal terms, expressions and precedents have been set, scientific and medical terminology has been developed, and an extensive corpus of literature has been written in English.  However, there is also evidence of Canadian English  undergoing elaboration of function itself;  the most concrete evidence is  codification of particular uses of Canadian English.  For example, the most  significant evidence of elaboration of function within Canadian English is the recent publication of Yogis'  Canadian Law Dictionary  and of Sanigan's  155 Canadian Words  and Phrases—Legal Maxims  ; one might think that in a legal  system based on precedent and originating in the laws of England, legal language would transcend such national divisions as those between Canada and Britain.  However, when standard language is used for a particular  function (such as legal), then the particular use interpretation supercedes the general;  47  in a legal context, then, one interprets a term in its specific legal  sense rather than in its general sense.  Similarly, when language is used in a  particular situation, then it must be interpreted in a way appropriate to that situation; for example, if a term has one meaning in England and one in Canada, then one must interpret appropriately to the situation in which the term occurs. In Canadian law, just as a legal precedent set by a Canadian judge supercedes a precedent by an American or a British judge, the meaning of a legal term specific to Canadian English is accepted rather than the meaning of the legal term in the U.S. or Britain.  That there are enough differences in  legal language among Canada, the U.S. and Britain to warrant compilation of Canadian legal dictionaries indicates that Canadian English is sufficiently 48  different to justify its study and description.  The publication of dictionaries of  Canadian legal terms (along with Canadian guides for legislative draftsmen)  For example, in general usage, infant refers to a very young child or baby; in Canadian legal usage, however, the term refers to people below the legal age of independence (19 in B.C.). In legal documents, then,"The infant children of..." refers to children under the age of 19 rather than to babies only as it would in general usage. It would be inappropriate to interpret infant in its general sense when reading a legal document; the legal use interpretation must supercede the general.  4 7  Note that Words and Phrases—Legal Maxims is continually updated; the most recent addition was published in 1986.  4 8  156  also indicates the extent to which Canadian English has undergone its own elaboration of function for legal matters.  There is also evidence of Canadian English having been elaborated for use in government, writing, education and the media.  For example, Canadian  handbooks, such as those mentioned above, are evidence of the development of particular conventions for using forms in different kinds of writing and documentation;  the increase in publication of Canadian handbooks and their  use in education systems indicate elaboration of function for education. The publication by the government of Canada, The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing,  is particularly indicative of elaboration of function for  bureaucratic purposes.  There are also the CBC's guides to Canadian English,  which delineate that form of English which is appropriate to public broadcasting in Canada. There is also, of course, a substantial body of Canadian Literature;  49  the publication of the Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature  is evidence that the Canadian literary corpus is both extensive and recognized as unique.  Thus, Canadian English, as distinct from Standard Written English,  has been elaborated for most functions typical of a standard.  4.3.4 Acceptance  Hudson's description of acceptance is as follows: the variety has to be accepted by the relevant population as the variety of the community—usually, in fact, as the national language. Once this has happened, the standard language serves as a strong unifying force for the state, as a symbol of its independence of other states (assuming that its standard is unique and not shared with others), and as a 4 9  See Klinck's Literary History of Canada:  Canadian Literature in English.  157 marker of  its  difference  from  other states. (Hudson 1980:33)  Acceptance is somewhat more difficult to assess than the other processes, especially for a variety of Standard English;  Hudson's qualifying assumption  (i.e. "that its standard is unique and not shared with others") encapsulates some of the difficulty. Strictly speaking, since unique is an absolute term, if one could discover even a single difference between Standard American English and Standard Canadian English, for example, then the qualification would hold;  however, scarcely anyone would wish to distinguish one variety  from another on the basis of a single form.  One must consider, rather,  whether there are enough differences to justify identifying a variety as unique.  It is, I believe, in this area that scholars have disagreed about  Canadian English;  some have thought that there are not enough differences  between Canadian and American English to warrant identifying Canadian English as unique; others have thought that there are. The problem is intensified when discussing standard varieties of English, especially written varieties, because they are fixed, made more conventional through institutionalization, and consequently, are less subject to variation and change than regional varieties; thus, they will be more similar than dissimilar. It is, therefore, difficult to determine both which versions of Standard English are unique varieties and which of those has been accepted. The problem for Canadian English is complicated by the reluctance among scholars to accept this variety as a legitimate subject of study; the extent to which researchers have been inhibited by the resistance to serious treatment of Canadian English is evident even in SVEN. In Section XII of the Survey, attitudes toward Canadian, American and British English are tested;  158 informants were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with such statements as "A British accent is more pleasant to listen to than an American accent" and "Since the American spelling of some words is much more reasonable than the British, Canadians should use the American rather than the British spelling of these words." Though these statements do not directly elicit language attitudes in the way that a matched guise test would, both are worded positively and both assume that American and British English are extant varieties and that Canadians recognize them.  However, the question  meant to assess attitudes toward Canadian English is not only worded negatively, indicating doubt or defensiveness in the minds of the investigators, but also is a statement about the existence or recognition of Canadian English rather than about the value of it;  respondents had to agree  or disagree with the statement, "It makes no sense to speak of a uniquely Canadian English, differing from both 'American English' and 'British English.'" Such a statement does not assume that Canadian English exists or that Canadians would recognize their own variety.  Thus, even those  researchers most dedicated to describing Canadian English are inhibited by the continuing negative attitude toward such study.  This difficulty has arisen,  in part, at least, because of disagreement about the origins and development of Canadian English and about the effect of American and British influences on Canadian English.  These points of contention are peculiar to scholars rather  than to speakers of Canadian English;  therefore, they may reflect a seeming  lack of acceptance by scholars rather than by speakers.  However, each must  be considered before acceptance of Canadian English by speakers themselves can be assessed.  159  4.3.4.1  Development of Canadian English  There is little agreement  among scholars about the  some, like Scargill (1975), think while  it developed directly from British English,  others, like M . Bloomfield (1975), think  English through the Loyalists. Canadian English are English is a variety  source of Canadian English;  it developed from American  Although I will argue that the origins of  incidental  in  determining  whether  or not  Canadian  of standard English, this lack of agreement about those  origins both explains the questioning of Canadian English as a variety standard English and reflects the  uncertain  status of  Canadian English.  There are several events and periods in the early settlement thought to be important  of  of Canada that are  to the development of Canadian English.  Newfoundland was colonized by the English as early as 1583; Treaty of Utrecht gave Acadia (the  Maritime  in 1713, the  Provinces) to England.  Between  1717 and 1763 both British and American settlers moved into Nova Scotia. 1749, the city of Halifax was founded; British,  In  at that time there were several thousand  about one thousand American and one thousand five  hundred German  or Swiss inhabitants in Halifax.  After the Treaty of Paris in 1763, which gave  the British control over Acadia,  Canada, Newfoundland and Cape Breton, there  was very between  little immigration 1776  until  after  American Independence  in  1776;  and 1812 there was a heavy influx of United Empire Loyalists,  raising the population of Upper Canada to about 100,000, approximately which was American. Britain 1820  However, after the War of 1812,  was encouraged;  and 1850.  about  immigration  300,000 British immigrants  arrived  66%  of  from between  Thus, during the period between about 1783 and 1820, American  160  English was predominant in Central Canada, but after immigration British  from  and  the  British Isles  American  immigrants.  1820, heavy and steady  re-established at least 5  a balance  between  0  Those who argue that Canadian English is a direct descendent of British English cite the very early  settlement  of Canada by Britain and  several immigrant  theory;  British  rather  the than  dialect  and that, as institutionalization  American  possession  surges as evidence for their  they claim that the rapid increase in British immigration  must have affected by  of Eastern Canada, the early  immigrants,  after  was  1812  undertaken  it is more appropriate to  51  describe Canadian English as a descendent of British English than as a branch of American English. that the  Those who support the Loyalist theory, however,  period during which there  immigrants  in  Canada (late  were more  eighteenth  and early  crucial one in the development of a dialect; "Canadian modified  English...is basically by  other  eighteenth  influences, notable  American than nineteenth  British  century)  support their claim, they minimize  was  a  for example, one claims that century  among which  American English are  Southern Standard  English and the English taught by Scots school teachers" (Bloomfield To  argue  1975:6).  both the extent of immigration  from  Britain before and after the influx  of United Empire Loyalists and the prestige  that would be attached to military,  clergy and teachers, most of whom were  British.  However,  one cannot deny that there  are many  similarities  between  By the mid 1800's, roughly half of Canadian settlers had immigrated from Britain, compared with the two-thirds American immigrants in the early 1800's.  5  0  The military and most of the clergy were British, and schools were established by British on the British system.  5  1  161 American and Canadian English that could indicate American origins; Canada is, afterall, a part of North America.  Both theories, however, have merit  because of the many similarities between Canadian English and both British English and American English.  Proponents of the theory of British origins  cite the many similarities between Canadian and Northern British English varieties as evidence for their argument; they also point to the strong Canadian r (also a feature in Northern British dialects) as compared with the American northern and southern r-less varieties.  On the other hand,  proponents of the theory of Loyalist origins argue that Canadian pronunciation resembles American more than British English and that even the distinctively Canadian feature known as "Canadian raising" is also found in Martha's Vineyard . While an argument can clearly be made for either origin of Canadian English, both theories ignore the possibility that the origins of Canadian English, like the variety itself, are simply mixed.  Both theories also minimize the possibility  that Canadian English has developed in ways of its own, or that some of its development parallels that of American English without necessarily having derived from the American;  Canadian and American English may contain  independent but parallel innovations.  Furthermore, neither theory pays  enough attention to the fact that American English itself has its origins in Britain;  whether the English that is spoken in Canada came directly from  Britain or from Britain through America is in some ways immaterial. Rather, the important point is that all three (British, American and Canadian) are gross regional varieties of a common language—English. Thus, it seems to me that the origins of Canadian English, particularly as being either British or  162 American, are not pertinent to consideration of whether or not Canadian English is standard or is accepted by the people as such.  The disagreement is,  however, indicative of scholars' indecision about the status of Canadian English and does, therefore, contribute to there being two questions rather than one about standard in Canadian English and to the seeming lack of acceptance of Canadian English as standard by scholars.  4.3.4.2 Influences on Canadian English Similarly, the assumptions about American and British influences on the development of Canadian English contribute to there being two questions rather than one about standard in Canadian English and indicate some lack of acceptance by scholars of Canadian English as standard.  Most scholars think  that British and American English have always exerted strong influences on Canadian English;  studies of Canadian English classify forms as either British  or American and discuss the effects of British and American English on Canadian, including consideration of whether Canadian English is more British than American or is becoming more American than British (see, for example, Avis 1957, Scargill 1972, Allen 1975, Gregg 1975). Both the presentation of the material on Canadian English and the material itself indicate that Canadian English is developing in an unusual situation which Scargill calls "the unique situation of Canadian English:" Because of the course of its settlement and because of its geographical situation, Canada has close ties not only with Britain but also with the United States. Canadian English shows divided usage in certain areas of spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary and syntax. (Scargill 1972:13)  163 It is assumed, then, that the unique context affects the development of Canadian English. It cannot be denied that Canadian English has a unique context and that both American and British influences are evident.  Not only is there a great deal of  contact between Canadians and both Americans and Britons but also the emphasis on what is called "the Canadian mosaic" contributes to the uniqueness of the Canadian context.  It is typical of Canadian culture that  immigrants retain not only their own language but also their own language variety; though Canadians are expected to learn one of the two national languages, there are many work places in which bilingual foremen are hired to facilitate communication between managers who speak only English and labourers who speak only Italian, German or other European or Asian languages.  In such a tolerant linguistic environment, there is even less  pressure for speakers of other dialects of English to adjust their accents to more closely resemble Canadian.  Furthermore, teachers in the Canadian  public school system, some of whom either originate from or have been trained in British systems and use and teach British forms, conventions and variants and some of whom either originate from or have been trained in American systems and use and teach American forms, conventions and variants, bring the two influences into the immediate learning environment of young children;  the influences of British and American on Canadian are  integrated in the Canadian culture. Thus the two influences on Canadian English that are thought to be very powerful, though foreign, work  within  the Canadian speech community. The Canadian mosaic, then, moves what once might have been foreign influences into the immediate speech community;  164 the cultural tolerance demanded by the mosaic heightens the uniqueness of the Canadian context and could increase the strength of American and British influences on Canadian English. It is not surprising, then, that Canadian English is described as it compares and contrasts with both British and American English;  both its origins and  development are related to these two national varieties.  However, there are  some ways in which the consideration of the two influences is distorted or exaggerated.  Keeping in mind that Canadians do speak Canadian English,  52  not British or American, one must question the emphasis on the two foreign influences.  To focus on such questions as "Is Canadian English more American  than British?" and "Is Canadian English becoming more and more like American English?" is to ignore Canadian English as it is and to oversimplify the two influences thought to exert force on Canadian.  Although it is clear  that neither British nor American English can be ignored or discounted as influences on Canadian, it is not likely that their influences are the same. On the one hand, however one thinks English found its way to Canada, one can see British English as the roots or the ancestral language of both Canadian and American English; respect.  53  hence, British English may prompt attitudes of loyalty and  On the other hand, American English may be seen as a competitor,  Such studies as those done by Allen (1975), Avis (1957 & 1966a), Chambers (1975), Clarke and Hollet (1986), Gregg (1975), Pringle, Dale and Padolsky (1986), Scargill and Warkentyne (1972) and Woods (1979) adequately quantify a distinctive variety of English used by Canadians.  5 2  People's language attitudes are central to language variation and change; positive evaluation of language varieties will motivate adoption of forms of those varieties and negative evaluation of varieties will inhibit adoption of forms from those varieties. See, for example, Ryan and Giles 1982 and Lambert 1972. 5 3  165  as a variety from which Canadian English must be distinguished rather than one to which it should be connected;  hence, American English may prompt  attitudes of disregard and rejection.54  Furthermore, British English, as an  origin of Canadian English, has its strongest effect or influence in the past, in the history of Canadian English;  geographically the two nations are more  distinct than Canada and the U.S. are and there is less direct communication and travel between Britain and Canada than there is between the U.S. and Canada.  American English, rather than being primarily the source of  Canadian English, is a continual influence through both intermingling of the people of the two nations and widespread, extensive communication, mostly from the U.S. to Canada. Thus, the two influences are different in nature, in frequency and in intensity;  Canadian English, then, is not caught between  two equally powerful influences.  Rather, American and British influences, in  different ways and at different times, operate along with the other influences such as age, gender, socio-economic status and function found to be significant to language variation and change.  Thus, though the Canadian  context is unique, the American and British influences are simply two factors in the development of Canadian English, not the only or the main motivators of that development.  While the tendency to describe Canadian English as it compares and contrasts with British and American English is natural, a full description must move on to look at the variety itself and at differences within the variety. Section XII of the SVEN database shows that Canadians do evaluate British English positively and American English negatively; these findings are confirmed by Woods (1979) and Warkentyne (1983). See also Pringle (1985). 5 4  166 Investigation of Canadian English is relatively new and is only now developing beyond the early stages; Canada  55  recent studies of varieties within  indicate the beginning of scholars' acceptance of Canadian English.  Thus, though it is clear that the early tendency to consider Canadian English primarily as it differs from or is similar to British and American English has contributed to uncertainty about the status of Canadian English as a variety of Standard English, many scholars now accept Canadian English as a distinct variety of Standard. Thus, the lack of agreement about the origins of Canadian English and the focus on (and, perhaps, exaggeration of) British and American influences on Canadian English both lead to the possibility of asking whether Canadian English is a variety of Standard English (or even, some might suggest, a variety in its own right). Although it seems clear that the question is unjustified (or accusatory), it is evident that those who insist that Canadian English is merely a variety of American English, for example, are challenging the acceptance of Canadian English as a standard variety.  However, those who  have gone on to study both Canadian English as it is distinct and varieties within Canada clearly accept Canadian English.  4.3.4.3 Acceptance of Canadian English The reluctance of some scholars to accept Canadian English is not reflected in the speakers' acceptance and use of the variety; not only do Canadians See, for example, those done by Clarke (1981) in Newfoundland, Gregg (1984a) in Vancouver and Pringle, Dale and Padolsky (1986) in the Ottawa Valley.  5 5  167  continue to speak Canadian English in spite of American and British influences their  right  within the  own variety.  In  culture,  the informants  defence, of Canadian English. (i.e.  think there IS  14%  are neutral  they  first  around the  moderately;  58%  agree.  category;  in the question about  indicated an awareness, and even a  the responses are stronger  than  in rating scales is for responses to cluster for  this  question, however,  responses clustered  Thus, despite the question being worded negatively,  Furthermore,  that  Canadian E n g l i s h .  there is now  the  findings  recognize  56  it is clear that  This, then, is  Canadian English is accepted.  enough quantification  of  Canadian English as it  distinct from American and British English to identify  American.  disagree with the  Of those who disagree, 38% do so strongly and only 19% do so  evidence  intuitively  defend  that could be called Canadian English),  However,  speakers accept and even defend  English;  and even  of those who agree, 18% do so strongly and only 10% do so  moderately.  further  identify  of the informants  a variety  the tendency  neutral  at the extremes.  most  and 28%  appear;  also they  spite of the bias inherent  Canadian English in S V E N ,  statement  but  specify the  Canadian  differences  speakers  it  as a unique variety  that have made  as being  neither  is of  people  British  nor  Both the usage of Canadians and the recognition by others that the  Results of tests are, of course, only as strong as the weakest part of the test. In the case of the attitudes and awareness section of S V E N , the weakness is the methodology used; self-reporting using rating scales is not the best way to assess language attitudes and the questions were not worded clearly. Thus the figures may not accurately reflect people's attitudes; however, as these results are not invalid, only weak, and they confirm what one observes in usage and confirm findings in other, more reliable studies (see Warkentyne 1986), it is reasonable to use them as an indication of acceptance of Canadian English as standard.  5  6  168  speakers are Canadian (or, in some places, depending on how far from either Britain or the U.S. the speaker is travelling, that the speakers are not American, not British or not either) are evidence of acceptance of Canadian English.  Furthermore, the use of General Canadian rather than, say,  Newfoundland English in the media, legislature, schools and in the general business of the nation, indicates acceptance of one variety of Canadian as standard.  Although in an age of science and technology people assume that  the only proof of something is statistical and is found through controlled experimentation, to discredit what one knows and sees evey day because it has not been tested in a lab and the results published in a respectable journal is not to be encouraged. One must keep in mind that scientific experimentation might confirm or specify what one intuitively knows is the case but it is never to replace or to confound common observation. Rather, we must accept what is commonly observed as well as that which has been confirmed in experimentation.  Speakers' use and identification of General Canadian, then,  are evidence of acceptance;  Canadian English has attained a level of  acceptance that is typical of standard. Thus, there is evidence of completion of selection and acceptance in Canadian English function.  and a growing body of evidence of codification and elaboration of The evidence indicates clearly that Canadian English is a variety of  standard English;  there is also some evidence that there is a standard variety  within Canadian English.  Clearly, then, the standard identified in this analysis  of the SVEN database is distinct.  169  4.4 Conclusion This consideration of the processes of standardization in Canadian English and the tests of standard using Canadian data, then, reveal a good deal about both the definition of standard and the status and nature of Canadian English. Not only do they clarify the extent to which Canadian English has undergone the processes of standardization but also they provide information that is helpful for reconsidering the definition of standard.  4.4.1 The Definition  In light of thefindings,the definition of standard as that variety used by the majority of speakers and typified by correctness can be refined. The tests show that the majority of speakers agree on most of the correct forms; however, "used by the majority" on its own does not distinguish standard.  If one were describing the language of, for example, a  counterculture that defined itself in part by the use of a particular variety of a language, the majority of the speakers in that community would agree on particular forms;  however, the forms would not necessarily be standard—they  would be typical of that community and used by the majority, but not standard beyond that community.  There must, therefore, be further specification of  standard such that it would not mean simply normal or typical of any single speech community.  To some extent, addition of "typified by correctness"  provides the necessary specification; precise.  however, it is neither accurate nor  Although there is clearly a notion of correctness associated with  standard, it is not clear that standard is necessarily typified by traditional correctness.  At best, I think "typified by correctness" may be a peripheral  170  feature of standard, while "associated with a notion of correctness" may be a central  feature;  therefore,  a more  accurate qualification  may  be  "and  associated with a notion of correctness" or "and thought to be correct."  However, it may be the case that even "notion of correctness" is imprecise. The tests show that education is a statistically  significant factor  in correctness;  as education is also a central aspect of the codification and the elaboration of function of language that are seen to be essential to standardization, it may be the case that a notion of correctness is an important implies education, codification and elaboration itself essential to standard.  Traditional  feature more because it  of function than because it  correctness is established or fixed by  codification and is then taught or perpetuated  by education systems;  of correctness arise, in part, at least, from both the establishment correctness and the  adoption of  such institutions as schools.  and instruction in that  remains unclear;  of  standard varieties.  Precisely what  the preliminary  that refinement standardization: acceptance.  in)  the  about of  thus, more tests and consideration of the nature  of  indication based on the  of the definition  may take into  and can be used to determine  are indicated.  analysis of Canadian data is  account the processes of  selection, codification, elaboration  Since these processes are central  standard variety  by  be essential to definition  correctness or notions of correctness as delineators of standard  However,  of  Thus, both correctness and notions of  correctness or even a notion of correctness might standard  notions  "correct" variety  correctness are bound to education as a part of (or instrumental processes of establishment  is  of  function  and  in the establishment of a the status of a variety  as being  171  standard, they might  be taken as essential features  possible elements in an acceptable definition the very accurate  general than  definition  of standard  of the term.  of standard as "the  It  and,  therefore,  is possible that  approved model" is more  "associated with notions of correctness" as the qualifier  of "used  by the majority" because "approved model" alludes to the process of acceptance.  However,  "approved model" is too general in that there is no  indication of who or what has given the approval;  just as "used by the  majority  of speakers" could describe a nonstandard variety  majority  of  speakers in a counter-cultural  approved by the  the process of codification.  the  group, "approved model"  leaders of such a community.  only alludes to the processes, whereas  used by  Furthermore,  could be  "approved model"  a notion of correctness is included in  Hence, "approved model" is not only less accurate  but also less precise than "associated with a notion of correctness" is. preliminary connection  indication among  might  is  significant  correctness  and  the  to  "correctness"  processes of  suggest that a more precise definition  establishment  those processes.  education  education,  of a standard variety processes of  that  rather  than  one factor  and  include  that develops from of  I  speakers" indicates the variety  "conducting the of function;  business of  with)  standard  assume here that without selection  having taken place, codification would not be possible, that "used by of  (or  the  used by the majority of speakers for  conducting the business of the nation."  majority  the  establishment  might  Hence, a more precise and accurate definition  be "that codified variety  The  the  thus, this definition  nation"  the  has been accepted and that  encompasses all  aspects of  embodies all four processes of  elaboration  establishment  of a standard and respects those aspects of standard that were tested against the S V E N data and found essential to Vancouver English.  172  Until  such time that tests have been conducted which reveal more clearly the  relationship  among  education, correctness and  standard varieties, particularly standard varieties, I than the earlier one;  the  relative  it  clearly  refinement  indicate that the  "correctness."  indicated for  of the  definition,  and it eliminates the emphasis on It  also includes those processes  Thus, though more tests of and work  better understanding and possible these tests  original observational definition  used by the majority  establishing  salience of each as aspects of  delineates standard  through which a standard is established.  further  processes of  believe this refined definition is more useful and precise  the little understood element  on standard are  the  using Canadian English of  standard  as "that variety  of speakers and typified by correctness" should, for  accuracy, at least be revised to "that variety used by the majority and associated with notions of correctness."  of speakers  Even more precise is the  following:  that codified variety used by the majority of speakers for  conducting  the business of the nation.  4.4.2 Canadian English The  above consideration of standard in  Canadian English provides evidence  both that Canadian English is a variety of Standard English and that there is a standard variety  of Canadian English.  The extent to which General Canadian  English has been codified, elaborated for specific functions and accepted as the  variety  of Anglo-Canada removes doubt about its status and about the  validity of using Canadian data as a basis for generalizing about English. evidence of the extent to which the majority  The  of speakers select standard forms  173 (or the same forms) supports the observation and quantification of the unique homogeneity of Canadian English;  the geographical and social homogeneity is  complemented by majority agreement for almost 80% of the SVEN variables by an average of more than 75% of speakers.  Canadian English, then, is a variety  of Standard English, has its own standard variety (General Canadian) and is typified by a unique kind and degree of homogeneity. On the one hand, the similarities between Canadian English and other varieties of Standard English are sufficiently great to allow legitimate testing for those varietal properties that distinguish standard and prestige.  On the other hand,  the differences between Canadian English and other varieties of Standard English are particularly illuminating when helping us to formulate maximally viable definitions of prestige and standard. This work will, therefore, conclude with a brief reconsideration of prestige and standard in light of these findings.  CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION: RECONSIDERATION OF STANDARD A N D PRESTIGE  The initial two surveys of use, one general, the other specific to the Canadian context, reveal a certain confusion about the meaning of the terms standard and prestige as these have been employed in sociolinguistic and dialect theory and studies.  In discussing these various definitions, we were able to locate  possible sources which contribute causally to the terminological disarray. Subsequent tests on Canadian data using provisional definitions of standard and prestige were intended to further clarify their meanings.  These  tests have revealed important theoretical points about the terms and their use, about prestige, about standard and about Canadian English.  I will summarize  these and then conclude with suggestions for further research.  5.1 The Terms  The terms standard and prestige have often been used interchangeably; they can and should, however, be kept distinct. Prestige has here been defined as that  variety spoken by the highest socio-economic  group and  emulated by others. Although there is little or no evidence in Canadian English of the realization of such a concept, evidence in British English indicates that the definition is acceptable.  Standard has been redefined here  as that codified variety used by the majority of speakers for  conducting the business of the nation.  This definition is appropriate  for General Canadian, the standard variety for Canadians. It is likely that it is also appropriate for other standard varieties, but future studies will be necessary to confirm this as well as to substantiate the redefinition. However, it is clear that standard and prestige can be distinguished;  whereas a prestige  175 variety is used by the highest socio-economic group, a standard variety is used by the majority of speakers.  Dialectally and contextually, there have been  some differences in the use of the two terms; some scholars, having concrete evidence of both a standard variety and a prestige accent, have used the terms precisely and distinctly.  Others, having no concrete evidence of linguistic  realization of a prestige variety, have used both terms loosely.  However,  sociolinguistic and dialect studies, especially of standard varieties, are necessarily contrastive;  therefore, it is essential for clarity to use the terms  precisely and distinctly even where no prestige variety has been realized linguistically or socio-linguistically in a particular speech community.  5.2 Prestige  The absence of a clear prestige in Canadian English raises questions about the mechanism of variation and change. Prestige is thought to be a main motivator in sociolinguistic variation and, subsequently, in change. However, since one observes variation and change in such varieties as Canadian English in which there is no evidence of a distinguishable prestige, it seems likely that the motivator for variation is a concept or notion of prestige rather than a concrete, identifiable variety or set of forms realizing that concept. One indication of prestige as a motivator of language variation is hypercorrection (i.e. the over-generalization of a rule by speakers of lower classes, especially in careful speech, in their attempt to emulate the prestige group). Both Labov (1966 passim ) and Trudgill (1974:90-132 passim ) found hypercorrection in their surveys of New York and Norwich respectively.  In their surveys  hypercorrection was indicated by cross-over patterns (i.e. the tendency of a middle socio-economic group, in their striving to be correct or to get ahead, to  176  have a higher rate of use of some forms than the group above them on the socio-economic scale);  Labov found a cross-over pattern between the highest  two socio-economic groups and Trudgill found one between the working classes.  In the Vancouver Survey, no cross-over patterns indicate  hypercorrection in the lower groups as they attempt to emulate the prestige group;  rather, one finds some hypercorrection in the highest socio-economic  group.  For example, the highest socio-economic group adopts an aspirated III  intervocalically in the most careful speech;  since the rule in Canadian  English is that ft/ is aspirated syllable initially rather than intervocalically, this is evidence of hypercorrection on their part.  The highest socio-economic  group, then, behaves as if there were prestige forms other than their own to emulate; this is evidence both of the lack of an established upper socioeconomic group and of motivation for language variation that is typical in communities in which there is a prestige group or variety. Vancouver speakers apparently have some notion of prestige, though they do not have a realization of that prestige to imitate.  It could also be the case that speakers simply avoid stigmatized forms in the absence of clear prestige forms. It is often the case that people know or recognize what they do not like or will not accept before determining what they do like or will accept. Thus, the absence of an established socio-economic hierarchy and the absence of a clear prestige form in Canadian English may indicate a stage of dialect development during which speakers avoid stigma rather than emulate prestige.  An effect of avoiding stigma, or rather, of over-  avoiding stigma, would bear striking and perhaps indistinguishable resemblances to hypercorrection; only the motivation and direction of over-  t.  177 avoidance would be different from those of hypercorrection.  Thus, the effect  on language use of avoiding stigma would closely resemble that of emulating prestige, especially in cases where there are two complementary forms, one desirable, the other not. It is not clear, then, that anything must function as the prestige even when one finds evidence of "hypercorrection;"  in early  stages of dialect development, stigmatization may produce a similar effect. However, it is also possible that stigmatization serves to confirm a notion of prestige as a motivator of variation or that the two may work together to influence language variation.  It is important, therefore, to recognize that  prestige as a motivator of variation and change does not function in any simple way nor need it be concretely realized to be influential. The concept of prestige (either alone or in conjunction with identifiable stigmatized forms) may motivate variation;  a linguistic realization of that concept is not  necessary as a motivator.  5.3 S t a n d a r d  While the concept of prestige alone may serve as a motivator of variation and change without being linguistically realized, the tendency is to look for something concrete, a realized concept, that serves to motivate variation and change. It is sometimes thought that standard serves instead as a motivator of variation and change, since neither prestige nor standard is stigmatized. The findings here indicate that it would be more accurate to say that, in the absence of a clear prestige such as RP, standard may provide the notion of prestige that is central to variation and change.  In Canadian English, the  standard variety, General Canadian, seems not to be the most prestigious variety; tests such as those done by Warkentyne (1983), Gregg (1984a) and  178 Woods (1979) show that British English is the most highly evaluated variety 1  in Canada;  Canadian English follows, with American English being the least  highly evaluated. However, work such as that of Clarke (1982) suggests that, although speakers of British English may be most highly evaluated by Canadians on status dimensions, such is not the case with respect to the solidarity or personal attractiveness dimensions. In other words, British speakers do not appear to be uniformly positively evaluated by Canadians. Thus, British English seems to be more prestigious than Canadian English but it does not serve as the prestige variety; it is neither spoken by the highest socio-economic group nor emulated by other groups.  As Warkentyne claims,  British English "is so distant and vaguely understood that it is not a force for change in Canada" (Warkentyne 1986a:172).  Given the distance between  British English and Canadian English, the lack of uniformity of the evaluation of British English and the lack of emulation of British English by Canadians, I would argue that, though British English is prestigious, it does not provide a model for even the concept of prestige in Canadian English.  2  Rather, the  approval and acceptance that are a part of the standard (General Canadian) provide the notion of prestige necessary to variation and change;  in this  sense only, then, standard may function in Canadian English as prestige does in British English;  the two are not, however, synonymous.  1 See also Pringle (1985). See Trudgill (1986a) for a discussion of the essential nature of face-to-face interaction in language change.  2  179  5.4 Canadian  English  It is clear from this study that Canadian English is a variety of Standard English;  it is also evident that there is a standard variety (General Canadian)  within Canadian English.  The study also confirms the commonly held view  that Canadian English is typified by a unique homogeneity; it is a distinct variety of standard and, as such, is valuable for studying differences as well as similarities.  These findings reveal that the homogeneity of Canadian English  extends beyond geographical to include social and, to some extent, stylistic parameters;  thus, even while the study illustrates that Canadian English is  standard and as such can be seen as representative of standard, it also confirms the uniqueness that distinguishes Canadian English from other varieties.  Therefore, Canadian English is shown here to be useful for studying  both concepts thought to be common to standard varieties and those thought to typify Canadian itself.  5.5 Future Studies  The evidence here that our study and understanding of standard have been too general indicates a need for further study;  furthermore, these findings  suggest that future studies be more specific than those conducted in the past. Early sociolinguistic studies have been immeasurably more specific and concrete than any work done before Labov's innovative study in New York City;  however, the sociolinguistic factors that he identified are very broad.  Although it has been well established that socio-economic status, age and gender are significant to sociolinguistic variation, this study indicates that those general factors must be broken down to reveal and test their more  180  specific elements.  For example, future socio-dialect studies in all contexts  should include an education variable, distinct from the education factor implicit in the socio-economic status of the informants;  such inclusion will  facilitate testing the effect of education on sociolinguistic variation. The indication here that education is significant to sociolinguistic variation suggests, then, that socio-economic status is too general and must be broken into its components and each component tested for salience in language variation and change.  Similarly, age and gender must, in some instances, be  considered as general rather than specific;  gender may mask such things as  roles in situations and relations and age may mask such things as loyalty to or familiarity with other varieties of English.  3  The identification of education as  a factor in correctness and grammaticality, then, leads to the recognition that the time has come for sociolinguistic studies to undertake identification of the salient aspects of the traditional social variables and to conduct studies using the more specific social variables. Only as studies move from the general to the specific, will our understanding of the mechanism of sociolinguistic variation increase;  it is, therefore, important that future sociolinguistic  studies in Canada and elsewhere test variables more specific than age, gender and socio-economic status.  The evidence in this work suggests beginning with  a consideration of education (income, occupation and place of residence) rather than general socio-economic status.  This is particularly important in studies of Canadian English as American and British influences are thought to be significant to variation within Canadian English; in this context, then, what appears to be age may more accurately be national loyalty, for example. Given the history and development of Canadian English, these factors are likely to be as important in Canadian English variation as a simple age factor is.  3  181 5.5.1  Canadian Studies  Given the absence of a clearly established upper socio-economic group in Western Canada, it is, perhaps, too soon to conduct further studies of prestige in Canadian English, at least in the west. However, studies of standard are recommended;  Canadian studies are needed to further investigate the role of  education in standardization, perpetuation of the unique blend that constitutes Canadian English and in establishment of the homogeneity that typifies Canadian English.  It seems that neglecting direct studies of the effect and role  of education on language variation and development has contributed to there being little concrete and specific understanding of the relation among education, variation and standardization.  There are more vague notions that  there is a connection than there is evidence of how direct and how strong that connection might be.  I recommend, therefore, that studies begin by testing  the effect of particular trends in public education on such concrete categories as traditional grammatical correctness.  For example, there was a trend in  Canada (and, I believe, in the U.S.) beginning in the early 1970's and extending to the mid 1980's to de-emphasize correctness and to emphasize creativity.  Not only was traditional grammar not taught in public schools  during that period, but also teachers did not correct spelling, grammar or punctuation at all; they gave positive feedback on the creativity or on the content of students' work. Thus, there is a group of people who have not had traditional education in grammar and the rudiments of English.  One could,  then, study the effect of that particular education and the lack of it on language variation by comparing a group of people whose education did not include traditional training with those whose education did. Such a study could provide specification of the effect of one aspect of education on  182  language development;  in doing so, it could provide the basis both for further  study of the role of education in a more general sense and for the expansion and elaboration of an understanding of the role of education in establishment and development of standard varieties.  Studying the effect of one specific,  directly related aspect of education, such as teaching grammar, on language variation and the development of standard would provide a solid basis on which to develop a more complete consideration of the effect of general education.  Although it is clear that the blend that constitutes Canadian English arises out of the origin and development of Canadian English, it is also likely that the blend is perpetuated because of the influences of American and British within Canada, especially within the education system.  Because there are both  Americans and Britons teaching in Canadian schools, the blending of forms that typifies Canadian English is ongoing.  Canadian children are, probably  unintentionally, being taught both American and British forms, not Canadian English and the blend that typifies it, but both American and British forms; a teacher trained in Britain may insist that a British form is correct, another trained in the U.S. may insist that an American form is correct. It is not just that Canadian students, then, cleverly learn to use, for example, -our when writing for one instructor and -or when writing for another (though they do that), but that they may be instructed to use, say, -ize rather than -ise. but -re rather than -er.  In this way they are taught different forms that blend to  comprise Canadian English without knowing that it is a blend or that there are alternatives.  The blend that is Canadian English, then, is perpetuated quite  unselfconsciously.  It is important, therefore, to test the influence of education  183  on the perpetuation of Canadian English as a blend of British and American forms;  rather than assuming that the influences lie mostly in the origins and  development of Canadian English and in exposure through media to American and British forms, the extent to which the influence within the public school system perpetuates the blend should be examined. Testing the effect of education on the blend that constitutes Canadian English could be incorporated in a study of the effect of education on standardization; analyzing the extent to which the mix is perpetuated through education could begin as a component of the larger study.  Not only should the group that has been taught traditional  grammatical correctness (either directly or by being expected to write and speak correctly) be studied for the effect of that teaching on usage, but also it should be analyzed for whether it has been taught a mixture of American and British forms, how implicit or explicit that teaching has been and how effective it has been. One study could thus provide inroads to a better understanding of the role of education on the development of standard English and on the perpetuation of the mix that typifies Canadian English.  It is also important to consider the extent to which education has been a factor in establishing the homogeneity that typifies Canadian English.  Education is  thought to be one factor in dialect levelling; as students attend school and learn standard English along with their own varieties, the learned standard variety exerts control on their native spoken varieties.  As a result, their  spoken varieties become more like the standard and less distinctive;  in some  cases, the standard learned at school replaces the spoken variety. Thus, education has a levelling effect on dialect variation. In North America, where public education has been available to a wide range of the socio-economic  184 spectrum since very  early  in the  countries' settlements, there  dialect variation than there  is in Britain, where  only the elite in the early  settlement  developing.  Therefore, the  diversity  is less  dramatic  education was available  to  period when English dialects were that typifies  dialect variation  in  Britain  is not as striking in North American countries where education has been a right  for all  since early  connection between  in the nations' developments.  education and dialect  levelling  Although the  seems obvious, the  of education on dialect levelling has not been directly studied.  effect  To some extent,  the effect of education on dialect levelling has been eclipsed by the belief that mass communication has been instrumental  in levelling.  However,  it  seems to  me that, to some extent, the effect of television and radio on dialect development  has been exaggerated.  general (and  standard)  varieties  Although the  to speakers who  aural media  transmit  would otherwise  be isolated  and in the process of developing their own varieties and in doing so may provide a model for speakers to emulate, there is no interaction between hearer and speaker that would make the media variety practical to the hearer.  the  seem to be vital or  Furthermore this aural medium does not provide an  environment in which the hearer (when he took on the role of speaker in a conversation) might  actually  Hence,  being  rather  than  imitate the instrumental  speaker he hears in the media. in  language  mass communication is more likely to exert control. varieties  generally  standard varieties  used on radio  and television are  exert control on the  amount  development  and change,  Because the language standard varieties,  and  of change or divergence there  is likely to be in regional varieties, at most it is likely that extensive television viewing  and radio listening would inhibit  would not necessarily initiate or motivate  change away  from the  change toward  that  standard, but  variety.  185 Furthermore, many dialects other than the general and standard are transmitted through the aural media;  many popular programmes, especially  both American and British soap operas that are viewed each week by thousands of Canadians, transmit regional and social variation that would not 4  otherwise be heard by many Canadians.  Hence, though mass communication  may support or contribute to dialect levelling, it is not likely that it would be the cause of widespread levelling toward the standard. As Trudgill argues "linguistic accommodation to salient linguistic features in face-to-face interaction is crucial in the geographical diffusion of linguistic innovations" (Trudgill 1986a:82); thus, it is more likely that only direct exposure to standard varieties would contribute to levelling. and active;  Exposure through education is direct  there is interaction and intercommunication between speakers of  standard and those learning it or learning to use it more effectively.  Hence, it  is likely that education is much more powerful in dialect levelling than mass communication is.  Therefore, the effect of education on dialect levelling  should be studied.  If the homogeneity that typifies Canadian English is an  extreme in dialect levelling, then the Canadian context ought to be studied as it has contributed to that homogeneity.  It is an over-simplification to explain  the homogeneity in terms simply of the settlement pattern of Canada; of course that pattern accounts for much of the homogeneity, but the role of education at least as a part of that settlement pattern must be considered also. The SVEN questionnaire included questions about TV viewing and radio listening; the data gathered indicates that people spend more of their TV viewing hours watching programmes that include very casual dialogue, much of it in regional varieties rather than general or standard English, than they do watching the news and documentaries that are broadcast in general and standard English. One need only flip from channel to channel during prime time viewing hours to sample the many varieties that are now being transmitted to viewers.  4  186  It is important, therefore, to consider the role of education in both the development of the homogeneity of Canadian English and the development of a blend of British and American forms that typifies Canadian English.  5.5.2 General Studies  Studies of a general nature, or in contexts other than the Canadian, are also indicated.  Some contrastive studies are necessary not only to test the  applicability offindingsfrom one context in another but also to increase understanding of the concepts themselves.  For example, comparison of the  importance of education to correctness and language development in Canada and the U.S. is necessary if we are to understand the effect of education on dialect levelling.  These two North American countries have similar (though  not the same) development patterns and periods and yet the dialect variation in the two countries is quite different.  Contrastive studies are needed,  therefore, to determine the difference that is significant to language variation and development in each country. For example, it could be that the same influence that contributes to Canadian English continuing as a blend of American and British forms may be significant to the extent of homogeneity that typifies Canadian English;  contrasting similar American and Canadian  speech communities may reveal the absence of a similar influence in the U.S. Just as Canadian and American English have been contrasted, so too must the influences on variation in the two contexts be contrasted if we are to more fully understand such things as standardization and levelling.  These early tests using Canadian data indicate several possibilities for consideration and confirmation in other contexts.  The definitions themselves  187 should be tested against data from different contexts;  the role of education in  correctness should also be tested in other contexts (as well as in Canada). Studies beyond Canada are also needed to expand the contexts in which something may be said to be the case. Testing definitions of standard and prestige using Canadian data, for example, is a good beginning. Similar tests in other communities are necessary, however, to extend the contexts and generalize from the findings.  5.6 General Conclusion Thus, this consideration of standard and prestige in general and in Canadian studies illustrates that, though our understanding and analysis of these concepts have increased sharply since the advent of sociolinguistic and sociodialect studies in the 1960's, more study and analyses are necessary for refinement of definitions of the terms and for understanding of the development and role of the concepts in language variation and change. This work reveals that Canadian studies are both acceptable and important for expanding that understanding, and that contrastive studies are needed. Furthermore, it indicates that future studies must include more specific social variables than those established as significant by early sociolinguistic work; if our understanding of the concepts of standard and prestige, especially as aspects of the mechanism of sociolinguistic variation and change, is to be refined, the model for testing socio-dialect variation must also be refined. Future socio-dialect studies must move beyond the general variables, age, gender and socio-economic status, and consider their more specific components such as education.  familiarity or loyalty, role in a speech situation and  188 Bibliography Abercrombie, D. et al., editors. 1964. Longmans-Green.  London:  In Honour of Daniel Jones.  Alatis, J.E. and G.R. Tucker. 1979. Language in Public Life (GURT 79). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Alexander, Henry. 1939.  "Charting Canadian Speech." 4th Series, 10, 457-458.  Journal of Education  (Nova Scotia),  .  1940.  . 1941. .  "Linguistic Geography."  47, 38-47.  Queen's Quarterly  "Collecting Canadian Speech."  15, 45-47.  Queen's Review  1951. "The English Language in Canada: An Essay Prepared for The Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts and Sciences" ("Massey Report") In Royal Commission Studies. Ottawa: King's Printer. 13-24.  . 1955. "Is There a Canadian Language?" 3.  CBC Times,  Allen, Harold B. 1973-6. The Linguistic Atlas of the Upper Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.  February 27. 2-  Midwest.  and Gary N. Underwood, editors. 1971. Readings in American Dialectology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts . Anshen, Frank. 1978. Statistics Publishers. Argyle, M. 1969.  for Linguists.  Social Interaction.  Rowley, MA: Newbury House  London: Methuen.  Arlotto, Anthony. 1972. Introduction to Historical University Press of America.  Linguistics.  Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things With Words. University Press.  Cambridge: Harvard  Avis, Walter S. 1957. "Canadian English Merits a Dictionary." 256. . 1965.  New York:  Culture  18, 245-  A Bibliography of Writings on Canadian English: 1857-1965.  Toronto: W.J. Gage. . 1965a. "Problems in the Study of Canadian English." In Communications et Rapports du Premier Congres International de Dialectologie Genirale. Louvain. 181-191.  . 1966. "Canadian Spoken Here." In M.H. Scargill and P.G. Penner, editors, Looking at Language. Toronto: Gage. 17-39.  189 . 1966a. "Why a Canadian Dictionary?" Speaking of Dictionaries Toronto: Gage. 1-4.  1.  . 1969. "Canadian English, Part II of Linguistica Canadiana, edited by J-P Vinay." Canadian Journal of Linguistics 15, 70-73. . 1972. "So eh? is Canadian, eh?" Canadian Journal of Linguistics 89-104.  17,  . 1973. "Problems in Editing a Canadian Dictionary: Phonology." In  Annals of the New York Academy of Science (Lexicography in English) 211, 110-114.  . 1973a. "The English Language in Canada: A Report." Current Trends in Linguistics 10, 40-74.  . 1975. "The Phonemic Segments of an Edmonton Idiolect." In J.K. Chambers, editor, Canadian English: Origins and Structures. Toronto: Methuen. 118-132. and A.M. Kinloch. 1978. Writings on Canadian English: 1792-1975. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside. Bahr, Dieter. 1977. A Bibliography of Writings on the English Language in Canada from 1857 - 1976. Heidelberg: Carl Winter UniversitStsverlag. Bailey, Richard W. and Manfred Gorlach. 1982. English as a World Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. and Jay L. Robinson. 1973. Varieties of Present-Day English. New York: Macmillan . Bain, B. 1982. The Sociogenesis of Language. New York: Plenum. Baker, R.J. 1986. "A Response to H.B. Woods." In W.C. Lougheed, editor, In Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Occasional Papers  Number 1, Strathy Language Unit. University. 152-156.  Kingston, Ont: Queen's  Bates, E. 1976. Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New  York: Academic Press.  Baugh, Albert C. 1957. A History of the English Language. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, Codes and Control. Vol. 1: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Berry, J.W., R. Kalin and D.M. Taylor. 1977. Multiculturalism and Ethnic  Attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services,  Canada.  190 Blishen, B.R. 1958. "The Construction and Use of an Occupational Class Scale." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 24, 519-531. Bliss, A. 1979. "The Emergence of Modern English Dialects in Ireland." In D. O'Muirithe, editor, The English Language In Ireland. Dublin: Mercier. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language.  New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.  Bloomfield, Morton W. 1975. "Canadian English and its Relation to Eighteenth Century American Speech." In J.K. Chambers, editor Canadian English: Origins and Structures. Toronto: Methuen. 3-11. Brown, P. and C. Fraser. 1979. "Speech as a Marker of Situation." In K. Scherer and H. Giles, editors, Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 33-62. . and S. Levinson. 1979. "Social Structure, Groups and Interaction." In K. Scherer and H. Giles, editors, Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 291-342. Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chamberlain, Alexander F. 1890. "Dialect Research in Canada." Dialect Notes 1, 43-56. Chambers, J.K. 1975. Canadian English: Origins and Structures. Toronto: Methuen. 1986. "Three Kinds of Standard in Canadian English." In W.C. Lougheed, editor, In Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Occasional Papers Number 1, Strathy Language Unit. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University. 1-15. and Peter Trudgill. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press Clarke, S. 1981. "Speech Stereotypes in Newfoundland: An Initial Investigation." Unpublished Manuscript, Memorial University of Newfoundland. .  1986. "Sociolinguistic patterning in a new-world dialect of HibernoEnglish: The speech of St. John's, Newfoundland." In J. Harris, D. Little and D. Singleton, editors, Perspectives on the English Language in Ireland. Proceedings of the First Symposium on Hiberno-English. Dublin: Trinity College.  191 and Robert Hollett. 1986. "Sociolinguistic Variations in a Small Urban Context: The Saint John's Survey." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods V - Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria. Colombo, John Robert. 1974. Colombo's Canadian Quotations. Edmonton: Hurtig. . 1976. Colombo's Canadian References. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Cronin, Fergus. 1965. "Do You Speak Canadian?" Canadian Weekly, February 27. Cullen, Connie. 1971. "Dialect Research on Prince Edward Island." English Quarterly 4:3, 51-53.  Curme, George O. 1947. English Grammar. New York: Barnes and Noble. d'Anglejan, A. and G.R. Tucker. 1973. "Sociolinguistic Correlates of Speech Style in Quebec." In R.W. Shuy and R.W. Fasold, editors, Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. 1-27. Darnell, Regna, editor. 1971. Linguistic Diversity in Canadian Society. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc. •  ., editor. 1973. Canadian Languages in Their Social Context. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc. ., editor. 1976. Language Use in Canada. Research, Inc.  Edmonton: Linguistic  Davis, A.L., editor. 1972. Culture, Class and Language Variety. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. and L.M. Davis. 1969. "Recording of Standard English Questionnaire." Orbis 18, 385-404. Davis, Lawrence M., editor. 1972. Studies in Linguistics: In Honour of Raven I. McDavid, Jr. University, AL: University of Alabama Press. De Camp, D. 1958-9. "The pronunciation of English in San Francisco." Orbis 7, 372-391, Orbis 8, 54-77. de Saussure, F. 1966. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill Paperbacks.  192 deVries, John and Frank G. Vallee. 1975. "Data Books on Aspects of Language Demography in Canada." For Conference on the Individual, Language and Society, Kingston, November 1975. Carleton University. . 1980. Language Use in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Minister of Supply and Services, Canada. Authority of President of Treasury Board. deWolf, Gaelan. 1984. "A Comparison of Phonetically-Ordered Phonological Variables in Two Major Canadian Urban Surveys." Journal of the International Phonetic  .  Association.  1986. "Methods in Statistical Analysis of Compatible Data from Two Major Canadian Urban Sociolinguistic Surveys." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods V - Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria.  Dittmar, N. 1976. Sociolinguistics: A Critical Survey of Theory and Application. London: Edward Arnold. Drysdale, P.D. 1959. "A First Approach to Newfoundland Phonemics." Canadian Journal of Linguistics 5, 25-34. .  1971. "Her Parkee, Made of Caribou...Using a Dictionary as Source Book." English Quarterly 4, 47-50.  Duncan, H.D. 1962. Communication and Social Order. New York: The Bedminster Press. Eckman, F.R. 1977. Current Themes in Linguistics.  New York: Hemisphere.  Edwards, J.R. 1979. Language and Disadvantage. London: Edward Arnold. England, George Allen. 1925. "Newfoundland Dialect Items." Dialect Notes 5, 322-346. Ervin-Tripp, S. 1964. "An Analysis of the Interaction of Language, Topic and Listener." In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, editors, The Ethnography of Communication. American Anthropologist Special Publication. Menasha, Wl: American Anthropological Association. 86-102. Evans, Mary S. 1936. "Terms from the Labrador Coast." American Speech 6, 56-58. Fasold, Ralph W. and Roger W. Shuy. 1972. Analyzing Variation in Language. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Ferguson, C. 1959. "Diglossia." Word 15, 325-340.  193 Fishman, J.A. editor. 1968. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton. . 1971. Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. House.  Rowley, MA.: Newbury  , R.L. Cooper and A.W. Conrad, editors. 1977. The Spread of English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Foster, Brian. 1968. The Changing English Language. New York: Macmillan. Fowke, Edith. 1976. Folklore of Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Fowler, H.W. 1965. Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2nd edition. Revised by Ernest Gowers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fowler, R.B., B. Hodge, G. Kress, T. Trew. 1975. Language and Control. London: Routledge. Francis, W. Nelson. 1954. The Structure of American English. Ronald Press.  New York: The  . 1963. The English Language. New York: W.W. Norton. Fraser, C. and K.R. Scherer, editors. 1982. Advances in the Social Psychology of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, R.C. and R. Kalin, editors. 1981. A Canadian Social Psychology of Ethnic Relations. Toronto: Methuen. , D.M. Kirby, R.Y. Pablo and E.S. Castillo. 1975. "Ethnic Stereotypes: The Role of Language." Journal of Social Psychology 96, 3-9. Geikie, A.S. 1857. "Canadian English." Canadian Journal 2, 344-355. Giglioli, Pier Paolo, editor. 1972. Language and Social Context. Modern Sociology Readings. London: Penguin.  Penguin  Giles, H. 1977. "The Social Context of Speech: A Social Psychological Perspective." ITL: A Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 27-42. and R.Y. Bourhis. 1976. "Methodological Issues in Dialect Perception: Some Social Psychological Perspectives." Anthropological Linguistics 18, 294-304. R.Y. Bourhis and A. Davies. 1979. "Prestige Speech Styles: The Imposed Norm and Inherent Value Hypotheses." In W. McCormack and S. Wurm, editors, Language in Anthrolopology IV: Language in Many Ways. The Hague: Mouton. 589-596. R. Bourhis and D. Taylor. 1977. "Toward a Theory of Language in Ethnic Group Relations." In H. Giles, editor, Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.  194 R.Y. Bourhis, P. Trudgill and A. Lewis. 1974. "The Imposed Norm Hypothesis: A Validation." Quarterly Journal of Speech 60, 405410. and P. F. Powesland, editors. 1975. Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press. W.P. Robinson and P. Smith, editors. 1979. Social Psychology and Language. London: Pergamon Press. W.P. Robinson and P.M. Smith, editors. 1980. Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press. and B. Saint-Jacques, editors. Oxford: Pergamon Press.  1979. Language and Ethnic Relations.  K. Scherer and D. Taylor. 1979. "Speech Markers in Social Interaction." In K. Scherer and H. Giles, editors, Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 343-381. and P. Smith. 1979. "Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence." In H. Giles and R. St. Clair, editors, Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. P. Smith, B. Ford, S. Condor and J. Thakerar. 1980. "Speech Styles and the Fluctuating Salience of Sex." Language Sciences 2, 260282. and R.N. St. Clair, editors. 1979. Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. D.M. Taylor and R.Y. Bourhis. 1973. "Towards a Theory of Interpersonal Accommodation Through Language: Some Canadian Data." Language in Society 2, 177-192. Goody, N. 1978.  Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Graham, Robert Somerville. 1955. "The Anglicization of German Family Names in Western Canada." American Speech 30, 260-264. .  1957. "The Transition From German to English in the German Settlements of Saskatchewan." Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 3, 9-13.  Greenbaum, S.  1976.  "Contextual Influence on Acceptability Judgements."  International Journal of Psycholinguistics 6,  .  1977.  5-11.  "Judgements of Syntactic Acceptability and Frequency."  Studia Linguistica 31, 83-105.  195 .  1977a. "The Linguist as Experimenter." In F.R. Eckman, editor, Current Themes in Linguistics. New York: Hemisphere. 124-144. . editor. 1985. The English Language Today. Oxford: Pergamon. Gregg, Robert J. 1973. "The Diphthongs /si/ and /al/ in Scottish, Scotch-Irish and Canadian English." Canadian Journal of Linguistics 18, 136145. .  1973. "The Linguistic Survey of British Columbia: The Kootenay Region." In Regna Darnell, editor, Canadian Languages in Their Social Context. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc.  .  1981. "General Background to the Survey of Vancouver English (SVEN)" in H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods IV - Papers from  the Fourth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology.  University of Victoria. .  1983. "Local Lexical Items in the Sociodialectal Survey of Vancouver English." Canadian Journal of Linguistics 28, 17-23.  . 1984. "Canadian English" English Around the World. Vol. 2. Tokyo: Kenkyusha Ltd. .  1984a. "Final Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada on An Urban Dialect Survey of the English . Spoken in Vancouver." Unpublished manuscript.  .  1984b. "The Survival of Local Lexical Items as Specific Markers in Vancouver English." Orbis.  .  1986. "New Methods Developed in SVEN for the Investigation of Grammatical Variability and for the Analysis of Resultant Data." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods V - Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology.  University of Victoria.  . 1986a. "The Standard and Where We Stand Now." In W.C. Lougheed,  editor, In Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Occasional  Papers Number 1, Strathy Language Unit. Kingston, Ont: Queen's University. 157-168.  Gumperz, J. and E. Herasimchuk. 1975. "The Conversational Analysis of Social Meaning: A Study of Classroom Interaction." In M. Sanches and B. Blount, editors, Socio-cultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press. and D. Hymes, editors. 1964. The Ethnography of Communication. American Anthropoligist Special Publication. Menasha, Wl: American Anthropological Association.  196 and D. Hymes. 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics. Rinehart and Winston. Gzowski, Peter. 1985. The Morningside Papers. Stewart.  New York: Holt,  Toronto: McClelland and  Hale, Kenneth. 1965. "On the Use of Informants in Field-work." Journal of Linguistics 10, 108-119.  Canadian  Halliday, M . A . K . , Angus Mcintosh and Peter Strevens. 1973. "The Users and Uses of Language." In R.W. Bailey and J.L. Robinson, editors, Varieties of Present-Day English. New York: Macmillan . Hamilton, Donald E . 1964. "Standard Canadian English: Pronunciation." In Horace G . Lunt, editor, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. 456-459. Harris, Barbara P. 1986. "Self-image, Perception of Stereotypes and Language Variation." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods V - Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria. and Joseph K. Kess. 1975. "Salmon Fishing Terms in British Columbia." Names 23:2, 61-66. Hasebe-Ludt, E . 1981. "Aspects of Spontaneous Speech in the Urban Dialect Study of Vancouver English." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods IV - Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria. .  1986. "Methodology of Spontaneous Speech Analysis." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods V - Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria.  Hatch, Evelyn and Hossein Farhady. Applied Linguistics. Hewett, N.  1982. Research Design and Statistics for Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.  1971. "Reactions of Prospective English Teachers Toward Speakers of a Nonstandard Dialect." Language Learning 2 1 , 205-212.  Hewstone, M .  1985. "The Role of Language in Attribution Processes." In J . Jaspars, F. Fincham and M . Hewstone, editors, Attribution Theory: Essays and Experiments. London: Academic Press.  Higgins, E.T., C P . Herman and M.P. Zanna. 1980. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Higinbotham, John D. 1962. "Western Vernacular." 10, 9-17. Hill, Archibald, editor.  1969. Linguistics Today.  Alberta Historical Review  New York: Basic Books.  197 Howay, F.W. 1942. "Origins of the Chinook Jargon." British Columbia Historical Quarterly 6, 225-250. Hudson, R.A. 1980. Sociolinguistics.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Hughes, A. and P. Trudgill. 1979. English Accents and Dialects: An  Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of British English.  London: Edward Arnold.  Hymes, D. 1964. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper. .  1974.  Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Innes, J.M. and C. Fraser. 1971. "Experimenter Bias and Other Possible Biases in Psychological Research." European Journal of Social Psychology 1, 297-310. Irwin, R. 1977. "Judgements of Vocal Quality, Speech Fluency and Confidence of Black and White Speakers." Language and Speech 20, 261-266. Jespersen, Otto. 1956. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols. London: Allen and Unwin. Jones, Daniel. 1940. An English Pronouncing Dictionary. London: Dent . . 1950. The Pronunciation of English. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joy, R.J. 1972. Languages in Conflict. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Kachru, B. 1982. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kinloch, A.M.  1971. "The Survey of Canadian English: Possible Evidence for Pronunciation." English Quarterly 4:4, 59-65.  . 1973. "The Survey of Canadian English: A First Look at New Brunswick Results." English Quarterly 5:4, 41-49. . 1986. "A Response to I.W.V. Pringle" In W.C. Lougheed, editor, In  Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Occasional Papers  Number 1, Strathy Language Unit. Kingston, Ont: Queen's University. 39-40.  Kirwin, William. 1960. "Labrador, St. John's and Newfoundland: Some Pronunciations." Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 6:2, 115-116. .  1965. "Lines, Coves and Squares in Newfoundland [Street] Names." American Speech 40, 163-170.  198 .  1968. "Bibliography of Writings on Newfoundland English." Regional Language Studies - Newfoundland 1, 4-7.  .  1974. "Newfoundland Usage in the 'Survey of Canadian English'." Regional Language Studies - Newfoundland 5, 9-14.  Kleiven, J. 1979. "Social Stereotypes Elicited by Linguistic Differences." In R. Rommetveit and R. Blakar, editors, Studies of Language, Thought and Verbal Communication. London: Academic Press. 401-407. Klinck, Carl F. 1965. Literary History of Canada: Canadian Literature in English Vols 1-3. 2nd edition (1976). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Klymasz, Robert. 1963. "The Canadianization of Slavic Surnames: A Study in Language Contact." Names 11,81-105, 182-195, 229-253. Kroch, Anthony S. 1978. "Toward a Theory of Social Dialect Variation." In Language in Society 7, 17-36. Kurath, Hans. 1949. Word Geography of the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ..  1964. "British Sources of Selected Features of American Pronunciation: Problems and Methods." In D. Abercrombie, et al, editors, In Honour of Daniel Jones. London: Longmans-Green. 146-255. 1964a. "Interrelations Between Regional and Social Dialects." In Horace G. Lunt, editor, Proceedings from the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. 135-143. [Reprinted in Harold B. Allen and Gary N. Underwood, editors, Readings in American Dialectology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts. 365373.] 1965. "Some Aspects of Atlantic Seaboard English Considered in their Connections with British English." In Communications et rapports du premier congres international de dialectologie ginirale. Louvain. 239-40.  1970. "English Sources of Some American Words." American Speech 45, 60-68. 1972. "Relics of English Folk Speech in American English." In Lawrence M. Davis, editor, Studies in Linguistics: In Honour of Raven I. McDavid, Jr. University, AL: University of Alabama Press. 367-375. and B. Bloch.  England.  1939. Handbook of the Linguistic Geography of New  Brown University Press.  and R.I. McDavid, Jr. 1961. The Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.  199 M. Hanley, B. Bloch and G.S. Lownan Jr. 1939-43. Linguistic Atlas of New England. Brown University Press. Labov, William. 1963. "The Social Motivation of a Sound Change." Word 19, 273-309. .  1964. "Stages in the Acquisition of Standard English." In Roger W. Shuy, editor, Social Dialects and Language Learning: Proceedings of the Bloomington, Indiana, Conference 1964.  National Council of Teachers of English.  .  Champaign, IL:  1965. "On the Mechanism of Linguistic Change." Georgetown Monographs in Language and Linguistics 18, 91-114.  .  1966.  Social Stratification of English in New York City.  Washington, D.C: Centre for Applied Linguistics. .  1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  .  1972a. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  . 1972b. "Variation in Language." In Carroll E. Read, editor, The Learning of Language. N.C.T.E. New York: Appleton Century Crofts Educational Division, Meridith Corporation. Lambert, Wallace. 1972. Language, Psychology and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press. .  1981. "Social Influences on the Child's Development of an Identity." In R. Gardner and R. Kalin, editors, Ethnic Relations. Toronto: Methuen.  Laver, J. and P. Trudgill. 1979. "Phonetic and Linguistic Markers in Speech." In K. Scherer and H. Giles, editors, Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-32. Lee, D.J. 1979. Emerging Ethnic Boundaries. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Lee, R. 1971. "Dialect Perception: A Critical Review and Re-evaluation." Quarterly Journal of Speech 57, 410-417. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1962. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston .  Second  Leon, P.R., and P. Martin. 1976. Toronto English: Studies in Phonetics and Phonology. Unpublished Manuscript. Lieberson, S. 1970. Language and Ethnic Relations in Canada. New York: Wiley.  200 Light, R.Y., D.P. Richard and P. Bell. 1978. "Development of Children's Attitudes Toward Speakers of Standard and Nonstandard English." Child Study Journal 8, 253-265. Lougheed, W.C., editor. 1986. In Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Occasional Papers Number 1; Strathy Language Unit. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University. Lovell, Charles, J. 1955. "Lexicographical Challenges of Canadian English." Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 1:1, 2-5.  .  1955-6. "Whys and Hows of Collecting for the Dictionary of Canadian English." Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 1:2, 3-8, 2:1, 23-32.  .  1958. "A Sampling of Material for a Dictionary of Canadian English Based on Historical Principles." Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 4:1, 7-33.  Lunt, Horace G., editor. 1964. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. Lyons, John, editor. 1970. New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. MacKey, W.F. and J. Orastein, editors. 1979. Sociolinguistic Studies in Language Contact. The Hague: Mouton.  Marckwardt, Albert, H. 1971. "The Concept of Standard English." The Discovery of English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. and Randolph Quirk. 1964. A Common Language: British and American English.  Government.  London: BBC and the United States  Marks, CT. 1976. "Policy and Attitudes Towards the Teaching of Standard Dialect: Great Britain, France, West Germany." Comparative Education 12, 199-218. McConnell, R.E. 1979. Our Own Voice: Canadian English and How It Is Studied. Vancouver: Gage. McCormack, W. and S. Wurm, editors. 1979. Language in Anthropology IV: Language in Many Ways. The Hague: Mouton. McDavid, Raven I., Jr. 1951. "Midland and Canadian Words in Upstate New York." American Speech 26, 248-256. .  1954. "Linguistic Geography in Canada: An Introduction." Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 1:1, 3-8.  201 .  1960. "The Second Round in Dialectology of North American English." Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 6:2, 108-115.  .  1969. "Dialects: British and American Standard and Nonstandard." In Archibald Hill, editor, Linguistics Today. New York: Basic Books. 79-88.  . 1972. "Some Notes on Acadian English." In A.L. Davis, ediitor, Culture, Class and Language Variety. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Milroy, L. 1980.  Language and Social Networks.  Moon, Barbara. 1962. 2.  Oxford: Blackwell.  "Does Anyone Here Speak Canadian?"  MacLean's,  June  Murdoch, M. 1981. "Visual-Aural Prompting in the Vancouver Survey Questionnaire." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods IV - Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria.  .  1985. "A Proposal for Standardization of Computer-Coding Systems in Linguistics Surveys." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods V Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria.  Noseworthy, Ronald G. 1974. "Fishing Supplement: Linguistic Atlas of Newfoundland Dialect Questionnaire." Regional Language Studies - Newfoundland 5, 18-21. O'Grady, W. and M. Dobrovolsky, editors. 1987. Contemporary Linguistic Analysis: An Introduction. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman. O'Kane, D. 1977. "Overt and Covert Prestige in Belfast Vernacular Speakers: The Results of Self-Report Tests." Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 2, 3.  Orkin, M.M. 1970.  Speaking Canadian English: An Informal Account of the English Language In Canada . Toronto: General.  . 1973. Orton, H. 1962.  Canajun, eh?  Don Mills, Ont.: General Publishing.  Survey of English Dialects I-IV.  London: Edward Arnold.  , S. Sanderson and J. Widdows. 1978. The Linguistic Atlas of England. London: Croom Helm. Osgood, CE. and P.H. Tannenbaum. 1955. "The Principle of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude Change." Psychological Review 62,42-55.  202 Owens, Thompson. 1986. "Testing for Linguistic Insecurity in Language Variation Surveys." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods V -  Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria.  Padolsky, Enoch and Ian Pringle. 1977. "Reflexes of M.E. Vowels before /r/ in Ottawa Valley Dialects of Hiberno-English Types." Unpublished Paper presented to Canadian Linguistic Association, Fredericton. Partridge, Eric and John W. Clark, editors. 1968. British and American English since 1900. New York: Greenwood. Patterson, G. 1895-7. "Notes on the Dialect of the People of Newfoundland." Journal of American Folklore 8, 27-40; 9, 19-37; 10, 203-13. Peacock, F.W. 1974. "Languages in Contact in Labrador." Regional Language Studies - Newfoundland 5, 1-3.  Perlin, A.B., editor. 1959. The Story of Newfoundland. St. John's: Guardian Limited. Poison, James. 1969. "A Linguistic Questionnaire for British Columbia: A Plan for a Postal Survey of Dialectal Variation of B.C., with an Account of Recent Research." Unpublished MA Thesis. University of British Columbia. Porter, Bernard H. 1963. "A Newfoundland Vocabulary." American Speech 38, 297-301. Powesland, P. and H. Giles. 1975. "Persuasiveness and Accent-Message Incompatibility." Human Relations 28, 85-93. Pratt, Mary-Louise.  1977.  Toward a  Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse.  Bloomington: Indiana University Press.  Priestly, F.E.L. 1957. "English Language" in Encyclopedia Canadiana. .  1968. "Canadian English." In Eric Partridge and John W. Clark, editors, British and American English since 1900. New York: Greenwood.  Pringle, Ian. 1985. "Attitudes to Canadian English" In Sidney Greenbaum, editor, The English Language Today. Oxford: Pergamon. 183-205. . 1986. "The Complexity of the Concept of Standard." In W.C. Lougheed, editor, In Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Occasional Papers Number 1, Strathy Language Unit. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University. 20-38. , Ian Dale, and Enoch Padolsky. 1986. "Linguistic Survey of the Ottawa Valley." In H.J. Warkentyne, editor, Methods V - Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria.  203  Quirk, R. and J. Swartik. 1966. Investigating Hague: Mouton.  Linguistic Acceptability. T h e  Reed, Carroll E . 1961. "The Pronunciation of English in the Pacific Northwest." In Harold B. Allen and Gary N . Underwood, editors, Readings in American Dialectology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts . Robinson, W.P. 1972. Penguin.  Language and Social Behaviour. Harmondsworth:  Rodman, Lilita. 1974-5. 7:4, 49-82. .  "Characteristics of B . C . English."  1986. "Reading Style."  English  In H J . Warkentyne, editor,  Quarterly  Methods V -  Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria Press. Rogers, P. W . 1970. "Unlocking the Canadian Word Hoard." 77, 111-123.  Rommetveit, R. and R. Blakar, editors.  1979.  Queen's  Quarterly  Studies of Language, Thought and  Verbal Communication. London: Academic Press. Ryan, E . B . and J.T. Cacioppo.  1981. "Review of 'Social Markers in Speech',  edited by K.R. Scherer and H. Giles."  Language in Society 10, 443-  447. Ryan, E . B . , M.A. Carranza and R.W. Moffie. 1977. "Reactions Toward Varying Degrees of Accentedness in the Speech of Spanish-English Bilinguals." Language and Speech 20, 267-273. Ryan, E.B. and H. Giles, editors.  1982.  Attitudes Towards Language Variation:  Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold. .  1982a. "Prolegomena for Developing a Social-Psychological Theory of Language Attitudes." In E . B . Ryan and H . Giles, editors,  Attitudes Toward Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold.  208-223.  Ryan, E . B . , H . Giles and J. Sebastian. 1982. "An Integrative Perspective for the Study of Attitudes Toward Language Variation." In E . B . Ryan and H. Giles, editors, Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social and  Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold. 1-19. Samarin, William I. 1967. Field Linguistics: A Guide New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Samuels, M . L .  To Linguistic Field Work.  1972. Linguistic Evolution with special reference Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Sanches, Mary and Ben G . Blount. 1975. Sociocultural Use. New York: Academic Press.  to English.  Dimensions of Language  204 Sandilands, John. 1912. Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase-Book: Things a Newcomer Wants to Know. Winnipeg: Telegram Job Printers. [Reprinted, Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1977.] Sanigan, Gerald D. 1986. Canadian Words and Phrases—Legal Maxims. 3 vols. Don Mills: Richard DeBoo. Sankoff, D. 1978. Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language, an Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. . 1931. "Dialect." In E.R.A. Seligman, editor, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. V. New York: Macmillan. 123-126. .  1933. "Language." In E.R.A. Seligman, editor, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. IX. New York: Macmillan. 155-168.  Scargill, M.H. 1954. "A Pilot Study of Alberta Speech: Vocabulary." Journal of Canadian Linguistic Association 1:1, 21-22.  .  1955. "Canadian English and Canadian Culture in Alberta." Journal of Canadian Linguistic Association 1:1,26-29.  .  1956. "Eighteenth Century English in Nova Scotia." Journal of Canadian Linguistic Association. 2:1, 3.  . 1965. "The Growth of Canadian English." In Carl F. Klinck, editor,  Literary History of Canada: Canadian Literature in English. Vol.  1.  .  Toronto: University of Toronto Press.  265-273.  1968. "Canadianisms from Western Canada, with Special Reference to British Columbia." Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Vol. 6, Series 4, 181-185.  . 1973. "Is Riz, Some Hot, Clumb, and Other Canadianisms." English Quarterly 6:2, 115-121. .  1973a. "Using the Historical Dictionary: A Concise Dictionary of Canadianisms." Speaking of Dictionaries. No. 2. Toronto: Gage.  .  1974.  Modern Canadian English Usage: Linguistic Change and  Reconstruction.  Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.  . 1977. A Short History of Canadian English. Victoria: Sono Nis Press. and P.G. Penner. 1966. Looking at Language. Toronto: Gage. and H.J. Warkentyne. 1972. "The Survey of Canadian English: A Report." English Quarterly 5:3, 47-104.  205 Scherer, K. and H. Giles, editors. 1979. Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seary, E.R. 1958. "The French Element in Newfoundland Place Names." Journal of Canadian Linguistic Association 4:2, 63-69. .  1962. "Linguistic Variety in the Place Names of Newfoundland." Canadian Geographical Journal 65, 146-155.  .  1971. Place Names of the Avalon Peninsula of the Island of Newfoundland. Memorial University Series 2. Toronto:  University of Toronto Press.  , G.M. Story and W.J. Kirwin.  1968. The Avalon Penninsula of  National Museum of Canada, Bulletin No. 219. Anthropological Series 81. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.  Newfoundland: An Ethno-linguistic Survey.  Sebeok, Thomas A. 1973. Current Trends in Linguistics 10: Linguistics in North America. 2 vols. The Hague: Mouton. Sebeok, T., editor. 1960. Style in Language. New York: Wiley. Seligman, C, G.R. Tucker and W.E. Lambert. 1972. "The Effects of Speech Style and Other Attributes on Teachers' Attitudes Toward Pupils." Language in Society 1, 131-142. Shuy, Roger W., editor. 1964. Social Dialects and Language Learning:  Proceedings of the Bloomington, Indiana, Conference 1964.  Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.  .  1971.  Sociolinguistics: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective.  Washington, D.C: Center for Applied Linguistics. and R.W. Fasold, editors. 1973. Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Shuy, Roger W., Walter Wolfrom and William Riley. 1968. Field Techniques in an Urban Language Study. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Sledd, James. 1973. "Bidialectalism: A New Book and Some Old Issues." American Speech 48:3-4, 258-269. Smith, E.M., editor. 1972. Studies in Linguistics in Honor of George L. Trager. The Hague: Mouton.  206 Snyder, M. 1980. "Seek and Ye Shall Find: Testing Hypotheses about other People." In E.T. Higgins, CP Herman and M.P. Zanna, editors, Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 277-303. Southerland, Ronald H. 1987. "Language in Social Contexts." In O'Grady and Dobrovolsky, editors, Contemporary Linguistic Analysis: An Introduction. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman. Spilka, I.V. 1970. Force Study of Diglossia in French Canada. Montreal: Mimeo University de Montreal. St. Clair, R.N. and H. Giles. 1980. Language.  The Social and Psychological Contexts of  Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Stevenson, Roberta C. 1977. "The Pronunciation of English in British Columbia: An Analysis of the Responses to the Phonological Section of the Gregg-Poison Postal Questionnaire for B.C., with Suggestions for Further Dialect Investigation in the Province." Unpublished MA Thesis. University of British Columbia. Story, G.M. 1957. "Newfoundland English Usage." In Encyclopedia Canadiana 7, 321-322. .  1957. "Research in the Language and Place-Names of Newfoundland." Journal of Canadian Linguistic Association 3, 47-55.  .  1959.  "Newfoundland Dialect." In A.B. Perlin, editor, The Story of Newfoundland. St. John's: Guardian Limited. 68-70.  Strang, B. 1970. A History of English.  London: Methuen.  Strevens, Peter. 1985. "Standards and the Standard Language." English Today 2 (April), 5-8. Sturtevant, E. 1917. Linguistic Change: An Introduction to the Historical Study of Language. Chicago: Phoenix Books, University of Chicago Press. . 1947. An Introduction to Linguistic Science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sweet, Henry. 1890. A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Toye, William. 1983. The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature. Toronto: Oxford. Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  207 1974a. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society.  Harmondsworth: Penguin.  1978. Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. Arnold.  London: Edward  1981. "Linguistic Accommodation: Sociolinguistic Observations on a Socio-Psychological Theory." In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Circle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1983. On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives. London:  New York University Press.  1984. Applied Sociolinguistics. London: Academic Press. 1986. "Why 'Canadian Raising' is not Canadian: Dialect Mixture and the Analysis of Colonial Dialects." In HJ. Warkentyne, editor.  Methods V- Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Vicoria.  1986a. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.  and Jean Hannah. 1985. International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English 2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold. Turner, J.C. and H. Giles. 1981. Inter group Behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell. Ullrich, H.E.  1971. "Linguistic Aspects of Antiquity: A Dialect." 13, 106-113.  Anthropological Linguistics  Van Eerde, J. 1979. "Facets of the Breton Problem." Language Problems and Language Planning 3, 1-8.  Veltman, CJ. 1979. "New Opportunities for the Study of Language Shift: The Anglicization of New England Language Minorities." Language Problems and Language Planning 3,65-75. Wanamaker, M.G.  1959. "Canadian English: Whence? Whither?" Journal of  Education (Nova Scotia) 5th series, 9, 22-26.  .  1976-77. "Who Controls Writing Standards?" English Quarterly 9:4, 45-52.  Warkentyne, HJ. 1971. "Contemporary Canadian Usage: A Report on the Survey of Canadian English." American Speech 46:3-4, 193-199. .,  editor. 1981. Methods IV - Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria.  .  1983. "Attitudes and Language Behaviour." Canadian Journal of Linguistics 28:1, 71-76.  208 ., editor 1986. Methods V - Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria. . 1986a. "A Response to RJ. Gregg." In W.C. Lougheed, editor, In  Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Occasional Papers  Number 1, Strathy Language Unit. Kingston, Ont: Queen's University. 169-177.  Weinreich, U. 1963. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton. Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English 1-3. University Press.  Cambridge: Cambridge  . 1986. "Sound Changes in British and North American English and their Synchronic Consequences." In HJ. Warkentyne, editor,  Methods V - Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology. University of Victoria.  Williams, F. 1970. Language and Poverty. Chicago: Markham. Williams, Joseph M. 1975. Origins of the English Language: A Social and Linguistic History. New York: The Free Press. Willinsky, J. 1986. "Computing the Standard." In W.C. Lougheed, editor, In  Search of the Standard in Canadian English. Occasional Papers  Number 1, Strathy Language Unit. Kingston, Ont: Queen's University. 101-111.  Wilson, H. Rex. 1973. "Dialect Literature: A Two-Way Street?" Canadian Journal of Linguistics 18, 157-162. Wolfram, W. and R.W. Fasold. 1974. The Study of Social Dialects in American English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Woods, Howard. 1979. "Socio-dialectal Survey of the English Spoken in Ottawa." Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of British Columbia. Wyld, H.C. 1963. A Short History of English. 3rd edition. London: John Murray. Yogis, John. 1984. Canadian Law Dictionary. Toronto: Barrons Educational. Zandvoort, R.W. 1957. A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longmans.  209 APPENDIX A: OUTLINE OF CONTENTS OF SVEN QUESTIONNAIRE  The sections of the questionnaire used to conduct the "Urban Dialect Survey of the English Spoken in Vancouver" include: Section I Background Information Section II Visual-Aural Prompting Section III Word List Section IV Picture Description and Narrative Section V Syntactic Variation Section VI Local Words Section VII Reading Passage Section VIII Questions about Vancouver Section IX Spontaneous Narrative Section X Series Section XI Word Pairs Section XII A Subjective Attitudes and Language Awareness Section XII B Language Rating Scales  210  APPENDIX B: READING PASSAGE "Hi, Mum!" Barry shouted running into the house. tonight? school.  "What's for supper  This morning at the library I saw Mary Wilson, a girl I knew in high She's been working for the past year and is just beginning at UBC.  want to call her now and I'd sure like to ask her to supper.  I  How about it, eh?"  His mother was in the living-room putting up a new mirror she'd just bought at Eatons.  "That'll be all right, dear,"  and leisurely way.  she answered in her usual calm  I've invited Aunt Dorothy and Uncle Harold also.  We're  going to have the trout your father caught last Saturday, with potato salad, mixed vegetables, and sliced tomatoes. cookies.  Apricot whip for dessert with almond  A real hot weather meal, nice and easy to prepare!"  "That's fantastic, Mum! Mary and I wanted to see a Peter Sellers picture at The Vancouver East Cultural Centre.  It's supposed to be very good, so we'd  better be there by a quarter past eight to be sure of getting seats.  Any chance  we might eat a little early?" "I'm sorry, son, we can't possibly eat for about an hour and a half. known, we could have eaten sooner.  But I was late getting things started  because the electricity went off this afternoon. anyway.  If I'd  You'll have plenty of time,  Why don't you ask Mary to come over right away, so we can start  eating once it's ready?  I'm sure it won't bother your father to eat early, as he  has a heavy schedule of work for this evening." "Okay, Mum.  Say, can I have something to eat now?  sandwiches for lunch and an orange, so I'm starving.  I only ate egg  What's in the fridge?"  "Help yourself to anything, Barry, except for the makings of tonight's meal, naturally. you like.  There's bread and butter and malted milk, or whatever else  When you're finished, would you carry that carton of empty bottles  211  out to the garage?  Mike's been out there nearly all day working on that old  Pontiac he got on Tuesday.  The brakes are faulty and there also seems to be  something wrong with the steering wheel, so it's important to get all that fixed before  driving anywhere.  Saturday  and  Sunday.  having company  After  While  been  Tell  out  there,  you can  remind him  him there's plenty of hot  water  we're  when  he  He's probably very dirty!"  little later Barry  she'd  you're  for supper.  wants to wash up. A  He's talking about going to Eastern Washington for  went  introduced  out to pick  to  the  Mary  Walters  up in his father's  family,  they  noticed  Falcon. she  was  wearing a cast on her right leg, and begged her to tell them the details of what had  happened. "Last  Wednesday  I  was  riding  my  bike down Balsam  Street  towards  Kitsilano Beach when I accidentally ran the front wheel through some o i l and skidded.  After a futile attempt to keep my balance I fell.  It was right in front  of a dentist's office, and somebody who was looking out of the window rushed out and drove me down to the Vancouver General Hospital without waiting for an ambulance.  Unfortunately I had fractured my leg.  escape,  could  as  it  have  been  much  worse.  particularly as I always enjoy dancing so much. But  I  Actually I had a narrow hate  not  being  mobile,  I can't go swimming either.  wasn't it interesting my meeting Barry again today?  We were in a lot of  the same groups our last year in school, probably because both our last begin with W .  But I almost didn't recognice him."  "What have you been grandmother, law.  names  doing since high school, Mary?"  who had come from  asked Barry's  Edmonton to visit her son and  daughter-in-  212  "During the winter I went to business college, and since February I've been working as a secretary at City Hall.  From our office building there's a  wonderful view of the North Shore mountains.  It was a very interesting job,  especially as I often got to attend council meetings.  I gained a lot of valuable  experience, but I'm really enjoying being a student and attending lectures. My parents live in the United States, you know, south of Bellingham, but I've been living in Vancouver with my aunt on Fifth Avenue since I was thirteen. I wish they were nearer, of course, but we see each other regularly." "Do you really find living in Canada preferable to the U.S.A.?" asked Mrs. Walters. "I certainly do," answered Mary.  "Someday I'd like to become a writer  and settle down here in this beautiful province of British Columbia, but right now I'm trying to decide whether or not to become a Canadian citizen. Without that I couldn't get the job I want in Ottawa after I've graduated." After dinner, everybody congratulated Barry's father for catching such delicious fish, and his mother for being such a good cook. Then they all sat out on the balcony until 7:30, when it was time for Barry and Mary to leave for the theatre.  213 APPENDIX C: VISUAL-AURAL PROMPTS  I have included here photocopies of only the Visual-Aural prompts for some of the items to which I refer in this work.  Most prompts used were glossy, colour  photos taken from catalogues and magazines;  they were mounted on large  cardboard cards and shown to the informants by the interviewer, who indicated which picture the informant was to respond to.  Although the  pictures photocopy very poorly, the attached give an idea of what was included and may clarify some confusion, particularly about lexical items.  214  256.  Rug/Carpet  215  256/257. Rug/Carpet  257.  Rug/Carpet  217  258.  Rug/Carpet  218  258.  Rug/Carpet  219  259. Can/Tin 260. Canned/Tinned  259/260  220  4 r  265.  Lying/Laying  265.  Lying/Laying  4^  *  * « , i«  ?7  J 4  *  I  221  268/269. Train/Railway Station  270.  Train/Railway  222  270.  Train/Railway Tracks  277.  Stove/Range  224  JANUARY  275.  Frying Pan/Skillet  214.  Tulips  277.  Stove/Range  226  279.  Curtains/Drapes  227  228  285.  Verandah/Porch  229 APPENDIX D: FORMS USED BY MOST SPEAKERS IN ALL SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS  LEXICAL VARIABLES  1  ITEM  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  256. Carpet/Rug  Carpet  66.0%  258. Rug/Carpet  Rug  66.3%  259. Can/Tin  Can  61.0%  260. Canned/Tinned Fruit  Canned  91.7%  262. Mow Lawn/Cut Grass  Cut Grass  48.5%  263. Sofa/Chesterfield (1st choice)  Chesterfield  70.7%  263A. Sofa/Chesterfield (2nd choice)  Sofa  39.5%  264. Tap/Faucet  Tap  62.1%  265. Lying/Laying  Lying  73.7%  267. Cutlery/Flatware/Silver  Cutlery  46.4%  269. Train Station/Railway Station  Train Station  43.7%  271. Television/TV  TV  94.6%  275. Fryfing] Pan/Skillet  Frying Pan  81.7%  277. Stove/Range  Stove  69.0%  2  3  4  ^he first 25 items listed here are responses to visual-aural prompting; hence the responses are the forms used to refer to pictures shown. The remaining 17 items, beginning with 842 "Saltchuck - meaning" are responses to questions asked about local terms. Respondents were asked what each term meant, whether they had ever heard anyone say the word and whether they themselves use it; hence the responses to the last two questions are selfreporting only and cannot be checked for accuracy. Picture of wall-to-wall shag "carpet" with several pieces of furniture on it. Picture of an area covering with some design and a fringe around the edge. There is an item of furniture partly on the "rug" and several large figures on the floor near the "rug." Picture of a cat on a bed. 2  3  4  230  RESPONSE  ITEM 278.  Blind[s]/Shade[s]  281.  Verandah/Porch  283.  Verandah/Porch 3  284.  Verandah/Porch  4  285.  Verandah/Porch  5  286.  OVERALL RATE  Blind  67.5%  Verandah  70.4%  Porch  51.9%  8  Porch  69.8%  9  Verandah  57.3%  2:45 (1st choice)  Quarter  90.0%  287.  2:45 (2nd choice)  Two  290.  11:15 (1st choice)  Quarter  After  291.  11:15 (2nd choice)  Eleven  Fifteen  292.  10:30 (1st choice)  Ten-thirty  84.3%  Zed  76.9%  Sea, Ocean, Seawater  58.7%  Yes  91.7%  844. Saltchuck - Has Used  Yes  55.0%  846. Skookum - Heard  Yes  86.0%  5  l  7  297.  Z - Zee/Zed  842.  Saltchuck -  843.  Saltchuck - Heard  848.  Siwash -  6  Meaning  Meaning  849. Siwash - Heard  Don't Yes  to Three  Forty-five  Know  Eleven  50.9% 44.7% 45.5%  44.2% 52.2%  Picture of a window covering that is attached to a roller at the top of the window opening and pulls down to form a solid cover for the entire window; there is a fringe at the bottom and a cord for pulling the blind down or letting it up. Stately Victorian home with turret and gables and a covered "verandah" across the front and extending partly down the sides of the house. 5  6  Small two storey house with steps going up to the front door and a mall gabled roof above the door. The starway and the roof are not connected except by the wall of the house. 7  Old three story house with stairs leading up to a small "porch" at the front door. The "porch" has stone posts and wood pillars leading up to a small gabled roof which covers the area. Old farm house with a covered "verandah" extending across the front of the house.  8  9  ITEM  OVERALL  RESPONSE  RATE  850. Siwash - Has Used  No  85.2%  850A. Siwash - Manner of Use  Derogatory  72.2%  850B.  No  86.9%  851.  Siwash - Heard Squamish -  Recently  Meaning  Don't  Know  68.8%  853. Squamish - Has Used  No  854.  [Small]  Oolichan -  Meaning  50.9%  Fish  56.0%  855. Oolichan - Heard  Yes  84.0%  856. Oolichan - Has Used  Yes  65.2%  857A. Saskie -  Don't  Know  95.6%  Don't  Know  61.3%  Meaning  857D. Saskabush 860.  Meaning  Slough - Spelling  Slough  85.1%  232  GRAMMATICAL VARIABLES  1 0  ITEM  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  658. Have you got? (Other used)  Never  661. Behind/in back of me  Behind  91.3%  (Correct)  72.4%  1 1  662.  Behind/in back of me (Other)  Never  97.9%  665.  Behind/in back o f  Behind  74.6%  666.  Behind/in back of (Other  Never  96.0%  Drank  98.3%  Never  98.7%  Never  93.2%  Bought  87.5%  Never  95.2%  669.  Drank/Drunk  670.  Drank/Drunk  674.  Has  677.  Bought[en]  678.  Bought[en]  681.  There is/are  682.  There is/are (Other  685.  (Correct)  1 2  (Correct)  13  (Other  Drank/Drunk 1 5  Used)  used) (Other used)  14  (Correct)  (Other 8  used)  eggs...(Correct)  Brought[en]/Brung  There  Used) 16  (Correct)  Are  69.2%  Never  82.8%  Brought  96.0%  86 of the questions concerning grammatical variables were asked in pairs, one asking what the informant thought the "correct" form was, the other asking whether or not the informant used any form or forms other than the one judged "correct." A l l socio-eonomic groups had exceptionally high rates of negative response to the second question, that involving self-reporting of the forms they themselves use. A l l groups had rates ranging from 72.39% to 100.00% (average 90.71%) claiming that they "never" use forms other than those they identified as being correct. Although such responses are suspect and indicate the need for further testing to assess the accuracy of selfreporting, they are included in this appendix to show both the consistency of the four socio-economic groups and the unusually high rates of response. 1  0  The informants reported that they they deemed "correct." 1  "never" use a form other than the one  1  l 2  In  "The car is behind/in back of the garage."  1 3  In  "Yesterday  1 4  In  "Today he has already  1 5  In  "Bought[en]  bread isn't as tasty  1 6  In  "I've  brought[en]/brung  often  he drank/drunk  3 glasses of  milk."  drank[en]/drunk[en] 2 glasses of as homemade."  them  home  with  me.  milk."  233  ITEM  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  686.  Brought (other used)  Never  98.0%  690.  Between John and me/I (Other)  Never  85.4%  694.  Between Y o u and me/I (Other)  Never  87.7%  Helen and I  97.9%  698. Helen and I/me (Other Used)  Never  93.8%  701. Aren't I?/Am I n o t ?  Aren't  697. Helen and I / m e  (Correct)  17  (Correct)  1 8  I?  67.9%  702. Aren't I? (Other used)  Never  81.6%  705.  Lay  68.3%  706. Lay/Laid (Other Used)  Never  95.4%  709.  Different  From  60.5%  710.  Different  Never  95.2%  713.  Less/Fewer People (Correct)  Fewer  71.3%  Never  88.9%  Never  90.8%  Never  86.6%  Doesn't  96.0%  Used)  Never  97.7%  Used)  Never  86.6%  Lay/Laid  (Correct)  1 9  from/to/than(Correct) from/to/than  714. Less/Fewer (Other 718. Me - O b j e c t  Used)  (Other Used)  20  722.  Sneaked/Snuck  725.  Doesn't/Don't  726.  Doesn't/Don't (Other  730. Real/Really 733.  1 7  In  Where  23  (Other)  22  21  (Other Used)  (Correct)  (Other  are/Where's  24  (Correct)  In  1 9  In  2 0  I n "He gave it to Tom and me."  2  1  In  Are  80.4%  "Helen and I are going shopping."  8  1  Where  "I'm always short of money, aren't  I/am I not/amn't  "Yesterday he lay /laid/lied in the sun for 3 hours." "They  sneaked/snuck into  the theatre."  2 2  In  "He doesn't/don't bother me."  2 3  In  "She's a real[ly] nice lady."  2 4  In  "Where's/'re/are  my  gloves?"  I/ain't I?  234  RESPONSE  ITEM 734. Where are (Other Money  Used)  Never  90.4%  Any  99.7%  737.  Any/No  738.  Any/No (Other  Used)  Never  100.0%  741.  Dived/Dove  (Correct)  Dove  73.6%  742.  Dive/Doved (Other  Never  90.0%  Had Seen  50.4%  Never  77.4%  749. If I was/were you (Correct)  Were  93.8%  750. If I was/were (Other Used)  Never  98.8%  753.  Doesn't/Don't  Doesn't  754.  Doesn't/Don't (Other  757.  Let's not/Don't  25  745. Had seen/saw 746.  (Correct)  OVERALL RATE  2 6  Used)  (Correct)  Had seen/saw (Other  used)  (Correct)  27  let's  Used) (Correct)  28  758. Let's not (Other Used) 761.  Anyway[s]  (Correct)  762.  Anywayfs]  765.  Used not/Didn't  (Other  Used)  use  (Correct)  2 9  766. Used not (Other Used) 769.  Forgot[ten]  770.  Forgot[ten]  25i  "He dived/dove into the water."  n  30  (Correct)  (Other  Used)  like  anything.  99.2%  Never  99.6%  Let's Not  97.1%  Never  98.3%  Anyway  86.3%  Never  79.6%  Never used to  75.8%  Never  90.1%  Forgotten  94.0%  Never  98.3%  I n "If we had/had of/ hadda/would of/would have seen/ we saw you, we would have spoken to you." 2 6  2 7  In  2 8  "He doesn't/don't  like  anything/nothing."  In  "Don't let's/Let's not/ Let's don't take the bus."  2 9  In  "We used not/didn't  3 0  In  "He must have forgot(ten) my name."  use/usedn't/never used to go there."  235  ITEM  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  773. Should Have (Correct)  Should Have  83.3%  774. Should Have (Other Used)  Never  93.9%  777. Had gone/went (Correct)  Had gone  45.9%  778. Had gone/went (Other Used)  Never  75.7%  782. These Kinds of Apples (Other)  Never  96.0%  786. To who[m] (Other Used)  Never  75.9%  789. Saw/Seen (Correct)  Saw  96.3%  790. Saw/Seen (Other Used)  Never  100.0%  794. If I was/were warmer (Other)  Never  93.7%  797. Proved/Proven (Correct)  Proven  75.4%  798. Proved/Proven (Other Used)  Never  89.2%  802. Lend/Loan (Other Used)  Never  86.6%  805. Ate/Had Eaten (Correct)  Had Eaten  65.7%  806. Ate/Had Eaten (Other Used)  Never  83.8%  810. It's me/I  Never  79.1%  813. Lie/lay down (Correct)  Lie  78.7%  814. Lie/lay down (Other Used)  Never  97.1%  817. Laid/Lain (Correct)  Lain  54.8%  31  32  33  34  35  36  3 7  (Other Used)  38  In "You shoulda/should of/should have seen him run." In "If I went/hadda gone/had of gone/would of gone/would have gone/had gone/had of went home, I would have found it." In "I saw/seen him yesterday." In "It has already been proven/proved." In "Can you lend/loan me $5?" In "After we ate/had eaten dinner, we played cards." In "(You knock on the door. In answer to the question "Who's there?", you answer:)" In "It has laid/lain/lied there all night."  3 1 32  33  34 35  36  37  38  236  ITEM  RESPONSE  818. Laid//lain (Other used)  Never  OVERALL RATE  93.7%  821. Out back/in the back (Correct) In the back  52.9%  822. Out back/in the back (Other Used) Never  94.4%  825. Nice day, eh?  No  47.9%  826. It goes over here, eh?  No  61.8%  828. Think about it, eh?  No  57.2%  829. What a game, eh!  No  43.4%  830. What are they trying to do, eh?  No  79.0%  831. This girl is up on the 27thfloor,eh, there she gets out on the ledge, eh,... No  84.8%  832. Eh, what did you say?  No  79.1%  832A. Thanks, eh?  No  90.7%  832B. Comments about eh.  Tries to avoid it/ Doesn't like it  42.3%  39  40  833. Gotten over cold  41  834. Gotten cooler  42  836. Gotten there  43  ("Gotten" used) Yes - "Gotten"  ("Gotten" used) ("Gotten" used)  837. Gotten fixed ("Gotten" used) 44  45.2%  No - "Got"  39.9%  No - "Other"  49.5%  No - "Got"  37.7%  In "(Someone asks you for something that is in the backyard, behind the house). You'll find it..." Nine sentences containing e_h. were given to the respondents and they were asked to tell which ones they would say. In this and the following 4 items, respondents were asked not which form was correct, but in which sentence they would use "gotten". The sentence for this was "I haven't gotten over my cold yet." In "It had gotten cooler." In "She was supposed to have gotten there at 3." In "He had just gotten the refrigerator working when the power failed." 39  40  4 1  42  43  44  237 839. Gotten up  ("Gotten" used)  45  ITEM  Yes - "Gotten"  RESPONSE  42.6%  OVERALL RATE  1065. Into/to/in  Into  98.8%  1096. To/for  To  83.0%  1226. Anyway[s]  Anyway  98.3%  1435. Out of  Of  77.7%  Lying  73.7%  46  47  48  49  265. Lying/Laying  50  In "You should have gotten up earlier." 6ln the Reading Passage In the Reading Passage In Reading Passage ("You'll have plenty of time, anyway.") In the Reading Passage, (in "somebody who was looking out of the window") testing whether or not the "of is lexicalized and, if so, how it is realized. In Visual-Aural prompting; picture of cat on a bed.  45 4  4 7 48  49  5u  238 PHONOLOGICAL VARIABLES  ITEM AND STYLE  RESPONSE  1. /VtV/ (butterful, tomato, thermometer.water..) Minimal Contrast /th/ Reading Passage /d/f/ 2A. /VtVn/ (button, Eatons, eaten) Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  67.8% 76.1% / / / /  78.8% 86.3% 91.7% 90.2%  /rt'/r-V /rt'/r / /rt'/rV /rt'/r /  83.8% 83.6% 91.2% 96.5%  2C. /ntVn/ (mountain, sentence) Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  /nth/ /nth/ /nth/ /nt/  61.7% 58.3% 62.5% 51.9%  2D. /ttVn/ (sultana) Visual-Aural  /*t»/*V  77.5%  2B.  /rtVn/ (curtain, carton, important) Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  A'/ A'/ A'/ A'/  OVERALL RATE  ?  7  ?  ?  ?  ?  3. /ntV/ (painting, mounted, centre, dentist...) Minimal Contrast /nth/ Word List /nth/ Series /n0/ Visual-Aural /nth/ Reading Passage /nt/  91.4% 76.5% 56.8% 69.2% 47.7%  4. /rtV/ (Quarter, Alberta, thirty, shorter...) Minimal Contrast Word List Series Visual-Aural Reading Passage  82.3% 57.3% 66.1% 60.3% 65.8%  /rth/ /rth/ /rd/rr/ /rd/rr/ /rd/rr/  239  ITEM AND STYLE RESPONSE 5. /tiV/ (salted, melting, altar, insulted...) Minimal Contrast /* th/ Word List /* th/ Visual-Aural /*th/ Reading Passage Iiii 6. /3iC-v/ (light, bicycle, bike, rice...) Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  OVERALL RATE 96.7% 88.2% 64.2% 88.1%  /si/ /si/  98.5% 95.9%  /si/ /si/  94.8% 97.4%  7. /sitV/ (typewriter, united, lighter, invited...) Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  8.  /si/ /si/ /si/ /si/  94.0% 90.4% 89.6% 83.6%  /AU/ /AU/ /AU/ /AU/  93.5% 92.6% 89.8% 95.9%  Minimal Contrast Word List  /AU/ /AU/  91.5% 95.8%  Visual-Aural Reading Passage  /AU/ /AU/  91.3% 95.6%  An/ An/  72.9% 68.6%  Visual-Aural  An/  67.3%  Reading Passage  An./  78.1%  /AUC-V/  (house, mouth, south,, outside...)  Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage 9. /AUtV/  (outer, shouting, about a, out of)  10. An/ (Vbl) (painting, lying, working...) Minimal Contrast Word List  240  ITEM AND STYLE 11. A q /  (Nom)  Minimal  (Ceiling,  RESPONSE awning,  building...) Ar)/  80.0%  Word List  Aq/  72.2%  Visual-Aural  Aq/  78.1%  Reading  Aq/  71.9%  12. A q /  Contrast  Passage  (Pron)  (something,  anything,  nothing)  Word List  Aq/  87.4%  Visual-Aural  Aq/  84.6%  Reading  Aq/  89.7%  Aq/  61.7%  Aq/  66.7%  Aq/  67.0%  /w/ /w/ /w/ /w/  71.4% 78.5% 79.9% 77.3%  Visual-Aural  It /  63.4%  Reading  It/  74.8%  13. A q /  Passage  (other)  Minimal  (during,  entering...)  Contrast  Word List Reading 15.  OVERALL RATE  Passage  Ihv/f (why, wheelbarrow, Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  16.  /aerV/  17B. /t>/  (married,  carrot,  Passage  what,  barrow,  where...)  marry...)  (vase)  Minimal  Contrast  la/  50.8%  Reading  Passage  /ei/  81.6%  la/  47.9%  17C. / W  (khaki, garage)  Visual-Aural 17D.  Ix>/  (aunt, half)  Reading  Passage  92.4%  241  ITEM AND STYLE 17E.  tol  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  (palm, calm, almond)  Minimal  Contrast  lr> i  59.9%  Word List  /at  72.6%  Visual-Aural  lat  54.3%  Reading  lat  58.5%  17F.  tol  Passage  (because, whatever, what else, want to)  Minimal  /A/  95.0%  Word List  /A/  75.8%  Visual-Aural  la/  61.9%  Reading  /A/  75.0%  Word List  /« /  53.0%  Visual-Aural  /© /  69.4%  /  41.6%  lo t  91.9%  Word List  la t  76.5%  Visual-Aural  lo t  74.0%  IuI In I / u/  99.1% 98.3% 79.0%  lit  84.1%  Word List  lit  76.8%  Visual-Aural  lit  81.3%  Reading  HJ  92.2%  17G. tol  Passage (balcony, album, alcohol)  Reading 18A.  Contrast  Passage  /u/ (good, cookie, books, foot, could...)  Minimal  Contrast  18D. /u/ (your, you're, sure...) Minimal Contrast Word List Reading Passage 19. A r /  (mirror, ear,  Minimal  Contrast  Passage  earring, nearer,  here...)  242  ITEM AND STYLE  RESPONSE  20. / e g / (legs, veggies, pegs, Minimal  21.  begged...) /ei/ei/  65.3%  Word List  It /  48.2%  Visual-Aural  /ei/ei/  64.2%  Reading  It I  61.5%  /ai /  89.2%  Word List  /ai /  59.6%  Visual-Aural  /a /  72.2%  Reading  Passage  /at /  86.6%  /Var/  (intrusive a )  laiil  Contrast  Passage  (sterile, futile, missile,  Minimal  22.  mobile)  Contrast  (near, mere, our, here ear...)  Word List  mi  97.9%  Visual-Aural  /a /  51.9%  Reading  10/  98.2%  10/  71.3%  Word List  /a/  60.9%  Visual-Aural  /a /  61.8%  Reading  /a /  54.9%  10/  97.2%  10/  88.8%  /a/  67.8%  lot  89.8%  Word List  /o /  86.3%  Visual-Aural  /o /  78.1%  Reading  /o /  85.9%  22A.  Passage  / V a l / (intrusive a) (file,  Minimal  22C.  futile)  Contrast  Passage  / V a n / (intrusive a)  Minimal  (been,  known)  Contrast  Word List  23.  O V E R A L L RATE  Reading  Passage  /orV/  (orange,  Minimal  Contrast  Passage  borrow,  foreign  sorry...)  243 ITEM AND STYLE  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  24. Imi (Canada, that, cast, Vancouver, balance...) Minimal Contrast /ffi / Word List /ffi / Visual-Aural / Reading Passage /ffi /  70.0% 77.5% 66.7% 88.8%  25. <alm> (aim, balm, palm, psalm, almond, calm) Minimal Contrast Iv I Word List /o / Reading Passage /o /  52.7% 55.9% 54.4%  26. #and# Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  /nd/ /nd/ /nd/  90.1% 97.9% 93.4%  28. /ns/ (sense, dancing, once, sentence...) Reading Passage  /nts/  66.7%  29. lis! (false, pulse, else, wilson...) Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  lis/ Its/ Us/ lis/  75.3% 81.9% 80.4% 89.9%  30. /t # j/ (front yard, that yard, not yet...) Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  Aj/tjj/ P\t P\/  45.9% 36.6% 46.9%  31. /tj/ (natural, culture, temperature...) Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  AJ/ A|/ /tj/  99.2% 99.6% 99.0%  32. / 9 r a / (temperature, naturally, cultural...) o Word List I0r9/ Visual-Aural /srtf/ Reading Passage lars/  52.3% 56.1% 36.3%  244  ITEM AND STYLE 33. /C-alvju/  34.  (regular,  RESPONSE vocabulary,  particular...)  Word List  /ju/jo/  73.7%  Visual-Aural  /ju/ja/  94.8%  Reading  Passage  /js/  61.1%  /h-stress/ (her, his, him) Reading Passage  / h /  76.5%  It /  71.8%  It /  75.3%  HI HI /9 /  87.7% 89.5% 58.2%  Word List  /ao/  77.1%  Visual-Aural  /ao/  87.9%  Reading  /aco/  98.5%  I nisi  69.9% 79.6%  35. / c r i /  (raspberry,  library,  Calgary...)  Word List Reading  Passage  37. / C i / (Prefix) (reduce, Minimal Contrast Word List Reading Passage 38. <oun>  39.  O V E R A L L RATE  (mountain,  because, remind...)  council)  Passage  /nts#/ (chants, cents, Minimal Contrast Visual-Aural  prints,  students)  /nts/  SPECIAL PROFILE WORDS ITEM AND STYLE  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  40. Sandwiches Reading Passage  /seevidgaz/  36.7%  41. Vase Minimal Contrast Word List Visual-Aural  /vaz/ /vaz/ /vaz/  50.4% 53.0% 65.6%  42. Garage Visual-Aural  /garag/  32.6%  43. Groceries Word List  /grosriz/  45.3%  45. Schedule Visual-Aural Reading Passage  /skedga*/ /skedgua*/  32.5% 39.2%  46. Fifth Word List Reading Passage  /fife/ /fife/  61.9% 87.9%  47. February Reading Passage  /febjuveri/  36.0%  48. Arctic Visual-Aural  /ortluk/  45.1%  49. British Columbia Word List Visual-Aural Reading Passage  /bridij ka*Ambia/ /bndij ktAmbia/  46.0% 40.8%  /bndij kaiAmbia/  75.4%  246  ITEM AND STYLE 50. Quebec  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  /kvabek/ /kvabek/  48.0%  Word List  /vsnkuvsr/  29.3%  Visual-Aural  /vsenkuvar/  36.3%  /vferjkuvar/  58.4%  Word List Visual-Aural 52.  54.0%  Vancouver  Reading Passage 53. Ottawa Reading  55.9%  Passage  55. W Visual-Aural  /dAb9*ju/  61.5%  Reading  /dAbsju/  69.3%  /zed/  76.8%  Visual-Aural  /bjudsfo*/  71.2%  Reading  /bjudsfo*/  73.3%  Word List  /afsn/  40.7%  Reading  /afsn/  68.6%  /9gein/  57.0%  /nutk/ /mUk/  67.9%  Word List  /...et/.../  71.3%  Reading  /...©tj.../  61.2%  Passage  56. Z Visual-Aural 57.  Beautiful  Passage  58. Often  59.  Passage  Again Word List  63. Milk Visual-Aural Reading 64.  Passage  74.7%  Congratulate  Passage  247  ITEM AND STYLE 65. Luxury Word List 66.  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  A..kj9.../  83.9%  Word List  /eni6irj/  86.7%  Reading  /eniSirj/  69.7%  /enivei/  84.6%  /eniver/  73.3%  Word List  /VL8/  88.2%  Reading  /vie/  73.0%  /VlSAUt/  56.7%  /nuktiar/  50.4%  /...weiz/ /...wiz/  56.9% 97.9%  /icfsr/  67.5%  /nicfer/  67.1%  /bin/ /bin/ /bin/  82.1% 88.2% 55.8%  Anything Passage  67. Anyway[s] Reading 68.  Passage  Anywhere Reading  Passage  70. With Passage  71. Without Visual-Aural 72. Nuclear Word List 73. Always Word List Reading  Passage  74. Either Word List 75. Neither Word List 76. Been Minimal Contrast Word List Reading Passage  248  ITEM AND STYLE 78. Were Minimal Contrast  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  Word List  /war/  Reading Passage  /war/  83.9% 92.9% 99.8%  /oragin/  57.9%  /oragin/  42.5%  /kitsatainou/  34.6%  /kitsgfainou/  41.7%  84. Mary Reading Passage  /mcri/  80.4%  85. Mom Reading Passage  /mAm /  91.6%  86. eh Reading Passage  /ei/  84.5%  87. Prestige Word List  /prsstig/  66.0%  88. Sunday Reading Passage  /...dei/  61.5%  91. Wednesday Word List Reading Passage  /vcnadei/ /wen2dei/  61.2% 49.2%  93. Friday Series  /...di/  55.3%  94. Saturday Reading Passage  /SfEthardei/  46.4%  81. Oregon Minimal Contrast Word List 82. Kitsilano Word List Local Terms  /war/  ITEM AND STYLE 95. Oolichan Local Terms 97.  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  /u*9k9n/  54.5%  /karma*/  42.3%  /vedztebtz/  73.0%  Caramel Visual-Aural  99.  Vegetables Reading  Passage  100. Pumpkin Visual-Aural  /...mpk.../  88.3%  Word List  /sAmpSirj/  60.3%  Series  /SAmpSirj/  55.9%  /SAmp8irj/  85.4%  101.  Something  Reading  Passage  102. Tomato Visual-Aural  Aameidou/  49.7%  /t9meidou/  59.2%  /atgrn/  77.3%  /aL9rn/  82.3%  /rekggnaia/  80.3%  /hAndrgd/  58.3%  /pgtheidou/  55.8%  Word List  /orinj /  48.0%  Reading  /ornj /  41.3%  Reading  Passage  103. Iron Word List Visual-Aural 105.  Recognize Word List  107.  Hundred Series  108. Potato Visual-Aural 109.  Oranges Passage  250  ITEM AND STYLE  RESPONSE  OVERALL RATE  110. Unfortunately Reading Passage  /An.../  100.0%  111. Details Reading Passage  stress syllable 1  98.7%  112. North Shore Reading Passage  /nor jor/  67.9%  114. Canadian Reading Passage  /k9neidisn/  97.7%  /ar/ /aar/  66.7% 73.5% 93.5%  116. Guarantee Word List  /geeronti/  43.8%  118. Wheelbarrow Word List Visual-Aural  /wiiberou/ /viiberou/  27.3% 35.0%  119. Going to Reading Passage  other  32.0%  /taibreri/  61.3% 43.7%  115. Our Minimal Contrast Word List Reading Passage  120. Library Word List Reading Passage 122. Mountain Reading Passage  /iaibreri/  /macb'n/  61.0%  251 APPENDIX E : FORMS USED BY THE MAJORITY VERSUS THOSE USED BY EACH SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP  Reported in the following table economic groups. majority;  Note  that "majority"  refers to relative  as low as 22%;  were several possible variants,  was merely  whether  rate of agreement.  What  variant  the  separately,  majority  absolute In cases may  be  among speakers of  a particular  and tables  are  arranged  differed  from  the  hence the rate of use of a  is not significant to the analysis.  included the tables in this appendix.  However,  as some readers  as well as the rate of  socio-economic group, I  have  Each linguistic level is considered by  socio-economic group  which  differs  majority. Lexical  Socio-economic  847.  than  was being considered here  may be interested in which variants were preferred agreement  relative  or not socio-economic group IV  and from other socio-economic groups;  particular  the  rather  nonetheless, if that is the percentage given in the table, it  represents the highest  from  across socio-  i.e. what is reported is the form used by the most speakers.  for which there  majority  are the forms which vary  group  Items  IV  Skookum (Has Used) Majority IV III II I  2)  55.2%  1) 2) 2) 2)  50.8% 52.7% 64.3% 52.6%  1) 2)  Yes No  1  For each item, the socio-economic group is given (in Roman Numerals), then the code number (in arabic numerals) of the form chosen and the rate at which the form was chosen; the legend for the codes is given at the right. Hence the figure may be read 55.2% of the majority chose "no"; 50.8% of the fourth (highest) socio-economic group chose "yes", etc. 1  252  293. 10:30 (2nd choice)  2  858.  Majority IV III II I  4) 2) 4) 4) 4)  52.1% 46.2% 61.1% 53.2% 59.5%  Majority IV III II I  7) 8) 7) 7) 7)  22.0% 23.1% 25.7% 25.0% 23.4%  1) Ten-thirty 2) Half past ten 4) Does not use other form  Slough (Meaning)  3  7) Run-off ditchman-made 8) Dirty, dead, lowlying water  •economic groups IV and III Drapes/Curtains  4  Majority IV III II I  2) 1) 1) 2) 2) 2)  55.3% 52.3% 46.0% 46.0% 69.1% 64.9%  1) Curtains 2) Drapes 3) Others  Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 1) 1) 2)  50.9% 72.4% 54.2% 53.5% 76.3%  1) Yes 2) No 3) Not Sure  Socio-economic group I 852.  Squamish (Heard)  The first choice was 1) Ten-thirty. The rates for this group are low because people identified eight possible meanings for the term, including 2) water channel, dried creek, 3) pond, small lake, 4) backwater, arm of river, 5) tidal pools, flats, inlet, 6) swamp, marsh, 7) run-off ditch—man-made, 8) dirty, dead, low-lying water, 9) backwater and tidal flats. With so many possibilities, the figures are thinly spread. 2  3  A picture showing solid coloured fabric hanging straight down either side of a small window.  4  253  845.  Skookum (Meaning) Majority IV III II I 5  5) 5) 5) 5) 1)  25.3% 29.2% 28.4% 23.8% 27.3%  2) 2) 2) 1) 2)  46.4% 39.0% 56.7% 50.0% 48.3%  2) 2) 2) 3) 3)  37.7% 46.9% 44.6% 40.5% 52.0%  1) 2) 3) 4)  Train Tracks Railway Tracks Railroad Tracks Other  Majority 4) 29.3% IV 4) 55.4% III 1) 31.1% II 4) 25.0% 5) 28.6%  1) 2) 3) 4)  Only Dinner Only Supper Dinner/Supper Usually Dinner 5) Usually Supper  5) (very) good, fine, okay 1) Don't know  Socio-economic group II 282.  Verandah  6  Majority IV III II I  1) Verandah 2) Porch 3) Others  Socio-economic groups I & II 270. Train Tracks Majority IV III II I Socio-economic groups I & III 298. Dinner  7  Rates are low because people gave five different definitions (2) big, 3) strong, 4) sturdy, husky, hefty, 5) (very) good, okay, fine, 6) other) and some said they didn't know. 5  A picture of the lower portion of what appears to be a drawing of a twostorey house. Two steps lead up to a covered "porch" extending across the front of the house. The "porch" has a railing supported by spindles, and spindled posts support the "porch's" roof. Four people, a man, woman and two children, sitting on the porch are drawn in the style associated with children's books and are depicted in fashions from the early twentieth century.  6  7  Responses to the question, "What do you call your evening meal?"  Grammatical  Socio-economic 673.  721.  729.  693.  717.  groups I  and  Items  II  has drunk (correct) Majority IV III II I 8  2) 2) 2) 1) 1)  47.7% 75.4% 55.4% 58.3% 62.3%  (correct) Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 1) 2) 2)  52.1% 65.0% 51.7% 53.3% 51.7%  (correct) Majority IV III II I  2) 2) 2) 1) 1)  61.7% 91.7% 75.0% 51.7% 51.7%  sneaked/snuck  Real [ l y ]  1 0  9  Between you and me/I (correct) Majority 1) 50.7% IV 1) 70.8% III 1) 55.4% II 2) 52.4% I 2) 62.3% me - object  11  (correct) Majority IV III II I  2) 2) 2) 1) 1)  52.3% 80.0% 59.3% 66.7% 61.7%  8  In  "Today he has already drank[en]/drunk[en]  9  In  "They  sneaked/snuck  into  the  1 0  In "She's a real[ly] nice lady."  1 1  In "He gave it to Tom and I/me."  theatre."  1) 2)  drank drunk  1) 2)  sneaked snuck  1) 2)  real really  1) 2)  me I  1) 2)  I me  2 glasses of milk."  785. To Who[m] (correct) Majority IV III II I 12  841. Got[ten] to try.(used) Majority IV III II  827. Still here, eh? (used) Majority IV III II I  2) 2) 2) 1) 1)  43.9% 68.3% 45.0% 40.7% 46.7%  1) who...to 2) to whom  3) 3) 3) 1) 2) 1)  29.5% 45.2% 41.8% 27.3% 27.3% 36.2%  1) 3) 2) 4)  1) 1) 1) 2) 2)  44.2% 50.8% 48.5% 49.3% 47.7%  1) yes 2) n o  yes no, +other no, +got reject  Socio-economic groups I and II (with some deviance) 840.  Got[ten] an answer. Majority IV III II I  3) 2) 3) 3) 1) 1) 2)  28.9% 28.9% 43.6% 32.4% 29.6% 32.9% 32.9%  1) Yes 2) No, +got 3) No, +other  Lend/loan (correct) Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 1) 1) 2)  57.7% 73.3% 59.3% 53.3% 48.3%  1) lend 2) loan  Socio-economic group I 801.  1 2 1 3  13  In "To whom did you give the book?/Who did you give the book to?" In "Can you lend/loan me $5?"  838.  Got[ten] braced  Majority IV III II I  3) 3) 3) 3) 1)  33.3% 51.6% 37.7% 31.6% 49.3%  If...was/were warmer. (correct) Majority 2) IV 2) III 2) II 1) I 2)  54.2% 60.0% 53.3% 53.3% 56.7%  1) yes 3) no, -i-other 4) other - reject 2) no, +got  Socio-economic erouD II 793.  1) 2)  was were  Socio-economic group IV 809.  781.  It's me/I  (correct)  Majority IV III II I  1) 2) 1) 1) 1)  66.7% 56.7% 71.7% 70.0% 81.7%  These kind[s] of apples (correct) Majority 2) IV 1) III 2) II 2) I 2)  56.9% 66.2% 47.3% 65.5% 79.7%  1) Me 2) I  1) these kinds 2) these kind  Socio-economic groups IV and III 689.  Between John and me/I (correct) Majority 1) 53.7% IV 2) 76.9% III 2) 48.7% II 1) 69.1% I 1) 72.7%  1) I 2) me  Socio-economic groups IV and II 657.  Have you got?  (correct) Majority IV HI II I  2) 3) 2) 3) 2)  38.1% 42.2% 48.7% 35.7% 35.1%  2) Do you have.. 3) Have you...? 1) Have you got.  257 835. Got[ten] killed (used) Majority IV III II I  1) 36.1% 3) 48.4% 1) 37.1% 3) 31.6% 1) 44.9%  1) yes 3) no, +other 2) no, +got  258 Phonological  Socio-economic  group  Items  IV  1. / V t V / - (butter, tomato, writer, Word List Majority  united...) 2) 49.3%  IV  3) 62.6%  2)  d/r  III  2) 48.9%  3)  th  II I  2) 55.0% 2) 57.1%  Majority  2) 54.2%  IV  3) 55.8%  2)  d/r  III II I  2) 56.7% 2) 62.5% 2) 58.3%  3)  th  Majority  2) 60.5%  IV  3) 49.8%  2)  d/r  III II I  2) 59.5% 2) 67.2% 2) 66.9%  3)  th  Series  Visual-Aural  /aerV/  (married,  Minimal  vary,  narrow,  carry...)  Contrast Majority IV III  2) 1)  46.6% 60.0%  1)  £  2)  C  2)  48.3%  II I  2) 2)  57.8% 49.2%  Majority  2)  54.2%  IV  1)  49.2%  1)  £  III  2)  55.8%  2)  C  II I  2) 2)  60.8% 52.5%  Majority  5)  46.4%  IV  2)  48.3%  2)  III II I  5) 5) 5)  50.0% 50.0% 54.2%  5)  Word List  Ivi  (tomato, vase...)  Visual-Aural  ei  259  Socio-economic groups IV and III 14. /nju/, /tju/, /dju/ (newspaper, student, duke. Minimal Contrast Majority 2) 45.9% IV 1) 56.4% III 1) 47.7% II 2) 51.2% I 2) 56.2% 25. <alm> (Palm, almond, calm...) Visual-Aural Majority IV  1) 3)  39.9% 44.2%  III II I  3) 1) 1)  42.1% 39.8% 41.5%  17C A>/ (garage, album...) Reading Passage Majority IV  2) 2)  38.1% 35.6%  III II I  4) 2) 2)  43.3% 46.7% 40.4%  1) ju/j© 2) u/o  1) x> 3)  0  2)  a  4)  33  Socio-economic group III  Socio-economic Group I 22. /Var/ (intrusive 8) (near, mere , our...) Minimal Contrast Majority 1) 52.9% IV 1) 54.4% III II I Socio-economic groups I and II 14./nju/, /tju/, /dju/. Series  1) 1) 2)  53.3% 59.9% 55.9%  1) a 2)  8  (newspaper, Tuesday, duke...) Majority IV  1) 1)  43.5% 68.3%  III II I  1) 2) 2)  48.3% 31.7% 50.8%  1) ju/jo 2) u/o  260 Visual-Aural  Word List  28. /ns/ (once, sense...) Visual-Aural  Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 1) 2) 2)  43.3% 58.3% 43.1% 47.6% 49.4%  Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 1) 2) 2)  44.6% 54.3% 48.2% 49.1% 45.8%  Majority IV III II I  2) 2) 2) 1) 1)  50.4% 55.3% 55.2% 50.5% 51.0%  1) ju/j© 2) u/o  1) ju/jtt 2) u/o  1) n S 2) nts  Socio-economic groups IV and I 28. /ns/ (sense, dancing, once...) Minimal Contrast Majority 2) 50.3% IV 1) 53.9% III 2) 52.8% II 2) 54.2% I 1) 50.3% Word List  Majority IV III II I  2) 1) 2) 2) 1)  49.4% 50.8% 51.9% 52.0% 52.5%  2) 1) 2) 1) 2)  38.9% 40.0% 42.2% 40.8% 43.8%  1) n s 2) nts  1) n s 2) nts  Socio-economic groups IV and II 35. /cri/ (raspberry, library...) Visual-Aural Majority IV III II I  1) c 2)  261 Socio-economic groups IV. Ill, and II 14. /nju/, /tju/, /dju/. (news, student, duke) Reading Passage Majority 2) 46.3% IV 1) 46.8% III 1) 49.1% II 1) 49.7% I 2) 54.7%  1) ju/jo 2) u/o  Special Profile Items  Socio-economic group IV 46. Fifth Visual-Aural  57. Beautiful Word List  74. Either Reading Passage  82. Kitsilano Reading Passage  83. Capilano Word List  Majority 1) 50.0% IV 2) 48.3% III 1) 53.3% II 1) 56.7% I 1) 48.3%  Majority 1) 50.0% IV 2) 43.1% III 1) 51.4% II 1) 47.6% I 1) 61.0%  Majority IV III II I  2) 1) 2) 2) 2)  64.3% 51.7% 70.0% 67.2% 71.7%  Majority 1) 30.4% IV 6) 18.3% III 1) 35.0% II 1) 38.3% I 1) 31.7%  Majority 1) 37.9% IV 3) 38.3% III 1) 45.0% II 1) 45.0% I 1) 45.0%  1) flf8 2) fl8  1) bjudgfo* 2) bjuthgfot  2) 1) aicfer  1) kits9lainou 6) kitsaleeno  1) kaepgiamou 3) keepgfanou  263  97. Caramel Word List  102. Tomatoes Word List  108. Potatoes Word List  122.  Mountain Word List  Visual-Aural  40.  Sandwiches Visual-Aural  Majority 1) 31.9% IV 33) 30.8% III 1) 28.4% II 1) 34.1% I 1) 44.2%  1)  karma*  33) other  Majority 1) 35.0% IV 33) 46.2% III 1) 33.8% II 1) 39.3% I 1) 41.6%  1) tameidou 33) other  Majority IV III II I  1) patheidou 2) patheithou  1) 2) 1) 1) 1)  36.3% 52.3% 39.2% 31.0% 45.5%  Majority 1) 45.0% IV 2) 35.0% III 1) 53.3% II 1) 58.3% I 1) 45.0%  1) macont'n 2) maanthn  Majority 1) 43.3% IV 2) 38.3% III 1) 38.3% II 1) 50.0% I 1) 56.7%  1) maont'n 2) maonthn  Majority 1) 28.7% IV 3) 28.3% III 1) 27.2% II 1) 46.7% I 1) 45.0%  1) s©mvidgaz 3) s-Bndmdzaa  45. Schedule Word List  94. Saturday Series  60. Lieutenant Word List  Majority IV III II I  1) 33) 1) 1) 1)  26.7% 27.7% 23.0% 29.8% 37.7%  Majority IV III II I  2) 1) 2) 2) 2)  30.5% 27.7% 30.1% 36.1% 31.2%  Majority IV III II I  2) 1) 2) 2) 2)  56.0% 61.5% 50.0% 60.7% 72.7%  1) skedgo* 33)i other  2) seedsrdei 1) seethgrdei  2) tut... 1) tcft...  Socio-economic groups IV and III 48. Arctic Word List  Majority 1) 32.9% IV 2) 54.7% III 2) 35.6% II 1) 38.6% I 1) 37.3%  117. Dual Minimal Contrast Majority IV III II I  1) 2) 2) 1) 1)  42.7% 49.2% 37.7% 53.2% 50.7%  1) arthik 2) arktluk  1) dust 2) djU9*  265 117. Dual Word List  Majority 1) 31.3% IV 2) 27.7% III 2) 35.1% II 1) 39.0% I 1) 35.5%  1)  dU9*  2) djuat  Socio-economic group III 109. Oranges Visual-Aural  Majority 1) 47.2% IV 1) 46.2% III 2) 45.9% II 1) 54.2% I 1) 50.6%  121. Mirror Minimal Contrast Majority 1) 40.5% IV 1) 52.3% III 2) 44.6% II 1) 42.2% I 1) 40.3%  121. Mirror Visual-Aural  88. Sunday Series  Majority 1) 41.5% IV 1) 56.9% III 2) 36.5% II 1) 41.7% I 1) 38.2% Majority IV III II I  2) 2) 1) 2) 2)  53.4% 50.8% 50.7% 52.4% 61.8%  1) ornj 2) orinj  1) mir: 2) our:  1) mir: 2) our:  2) ...di 1) ...dei  89.  92.  Monday Series  59.  2) 2) 1) 2) 2)  51.8% 54.7% 54.1% 51.2% 57.1%  Majority IV III II I  2) 2) 1) 2) 2)  53.3% 50.8% 50.0% 54.8% 58.4%  Majority  1)  55.0%  IV  1)  III  2) 1)  .di .dei  2) 1)  .di .dei  55.4%  1)  VlSAUt  1)  64.9%  2)  VlcfAUt  II I  2) 1)  52.4% 57.1%  Majority  1)  56.8%  IV  1)  66.2%  1)  sgen  III  1)  62.2%  2)  9gein  II I  2) 1)  50.6% 51.3%  Majority  Thursday Series  Socio-economic 71.  Majority IV III II I  group  II  Without Word List  Again Passage  121.  94.  Mirror Reading  Passage 4)  36.7%  IV  4)  47.7%  4)  mirsr  III  4)  43.2%  1)  mir:  II I  1) 4)  29.8% 36.4%  Majority  1)  38.3%  IV  1)  50.0%  1)  ssethardei  III  1)  41.7%  2)  ssdsrdei  2) 1)  46.7% 33.3%  Saturday t  II I  69. Sherbet Word List  104. Apricots Visual-Aural  Majority 1) 54.7% IV 1) 67.7% III 1) 66.2% II 2) 58.3% I 1) 49.4% Majority IV III II I  5) 5) 5) 1) 5)  51.0% 50.0% 55.0% 52.5% 53.3%  1) 1) 1) 2) 2)  54.2% 73.3% 66.7% 45.0% 55.0%  1) ...8t 2) ...art  5) ei... 1) ee...  Socio-economic groups I and II 43. Groceries Visual-Aural  90. Tuesday Series  91. Wednesday Series  Majority IV III II I  Majority 1) 23.6% IV 1) 35.4% III 1) 30.6% II 3) 17.9% 1) 17.9% I 2) 23.7% 4) 23.7% Majority 1) 53.5% IV 1) 58.5% III 1) 60.3% II 2) 49.4% I 2) 48.7% 1) 48.7%  1) grosriz 2) grojriz  1) 2) 3) 4)  tjuzdei tuzdei tjuzdi tuzdi  1) venzdei 2) venzdi  80.  113.  New Westminster Word List  Preferable Reading Passage  Majority IV III II I  1) 26.3% 1) 33.8% 1) 31.1% 33) 27.4% 33) 29.9%  Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 1) 2) 2)  Majority IV  5) 41.3% 5) 53.3%  III II I  5) 38.3% 5) 47.4% 3) 36.2%  Majority IV III II I  1) 61.7% 1) 81.5% 1) 71.6% 1) 53.6% 3) 49.4%  Majority IV  1) 42.5% 1) 56.7%  III II I  1) 36.7% 1) 46.7% 2) 48.3%  Majority IV  2) 52.5% 2) 66.2%  III II I  2) 62.2% 2) 50.6% 1) 66.2%  59.6% 83.3% 63.3% 53.3% 55.0%  1) njuvesminstar 33) other  1) stress syllable 1 2) stress syllable 2  Socio-economic group I 58. Often Visual-Aural  105.  120.  62.  Recognize Reading Passage  Library Visual-Aural  Leisure[ly] Word List  5) ofan 3) ctfthan  1) rekagnaiz 3) rekanaiz  1) •Jraibreri 2) taibrari  2) 1)  Reading Passage  Without Reading Passage  Khaki Word List  Khaki Visual-Aural  Newspapers Word List  Visual-Aural  Majority IV III II I  2) 2) 2) 2) 1)  56.9% 70.8% 62.2% 57.8% 61.0%  2) 1) ttj...  Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 1) 1) 2)  58.7% 68.3% 60.0% 58.3% 51.7%  1) V l 6 A U t 2) VL^AUt  Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 1) 1) 2)  42.0% 46.9% 50.0% 39.0% 53.8%  1) karki 2) keki  Majority IV III II I  1) 42.4% 1) 53.4% 1) 41.7% 1) 40.0% 6) 36.7%  Majority 1) 30.7% IV 1) 44.6% III 1) 33.8% II 1) 27.4% 2) 27.4% I 2) 42.9% Majority IV III II I  1)  1) 1) 1) 2)  29.7% 33.3% 35.0% 26.7% 32.3%  1) karki 6) other colour substituted  1) njus... 2) nus...  1) njus... 2) nus...  42.  99.  47.  90.  61.  Garage Word List 1)  35.0%  IV  1)  43.1%  1)  ggrag  III  2)  gsreedg  1)  39.2%  II I  1) 2)  36.9% 26.0%  Majority  1)  44.2%  IV  1)  50.0%  1)  III  2)  vedgthabtz vedzdab^z  Vegetables Word List  1)  43.3%  II I  1) 2)  50.0% 45.0%  Majority  1)  20.1%  IV  1)  30.0%  1)  februeri  III  2)  febjugri  February Visual-Aural  Tuesday Reading  1)  16.9%  II I  1) 2)  23.3% 33.3%  Majority  1)  35.3%  IV  1)  39.0%  1)  tjuzdei  III II I  1) 1) 2)  40.7% 40.0% 30.0%  2)  tuzdei  Majority  4)  53.0%  IV  4)  76.9%  4)  III  4)  52.7%  1)  ...in ...ain  II II  4) 1)  52.4% 62.3%  Majority  2)  48.3%  IV  2)  50.0%  2)  mi3*k  III  1)  43.3%  1)  miik  1) 2)  46.7% 60.0%  Passage  Genuine Word List  Socio-economic 63.  Majority  groups II  and  III  Milk Word List  II I  121.  Mirror Word List Majority  1)  49.2%  IV  1)  61.7%  1)  III II I  2) 2) 1)  50.0%  2)  43.3% 50.0%  Majority  2)  11.7%  IV  2)  16.7%  2)  III  8)  15.0%  7)  II  7)  16.7%  8)  2)  13.3%  Majority IV  1) 3)  24.7% 24.6%  1)  seemvidzaz  III  1)  21.6%  2)  ssenvidzsz  II I  2)  3)  seendwidzsz  1)  23.8% 36.4%  Majority IV III II I  5) 1) 5)  52.7% 49.2% 54.1%  5)  ei... ee...  1) 5)  48.8% 61.0%  1) 1) 33) 1) 33)  22.0% 29.7% 21.6% 25.0% 24.3%  mir: * ffltr:  53. Ottawa Visual-Aural  I  ad8V9  Socio-economic groups IV and II 40.  104.  Sandwiches Word List  Apricots Word List  1)  Socio-economic groups I and III 42.  Garage Reading  Passage Majority IV III II I  1) gsrag 33) other  99.  Vegetables Visual-Aural  108.  Potatoes Reading  Majority  1)  47.9%  IV  1)  66.7%  1)  vedgthsbfz  III  2)  43.3%  2)  vedzdab^z  II I  1) 2)  46.7% 40.0%  Majority  3)  32.0%  IV  3)  38.5%  3)  psteidou  III  5)  36.5%  5)  psteido  3)  34.5% 26.0%  Passage  II I  No  discernable pattern  47.  by  socio-economic group  February Word List Majority  53.  5)  4)  15.4%  5)  15.4%  3)  febjuveri  IV  5)  21.7%  4)  febjueri  III  33)  20.0%  5)  fcbruveri  II I  3) 4)  23.3% 20.0%  33)  other  Majority  8)  12.7%  IV  2)  16.9%  1)  adswa  III  8)  14.9%  2)  pths-wa uthgva  Ottawa Word List  II I Even  distribution  104.  Apricots Reading  between  two  33)  17.6%  8)  1)  15.6%  33)  other  forms  Passage Majority IV III II I  1) 1) 5)  50.4% 50.0%  1)  ei...  50.0%  5)  m...  1) 5) 1) 5)  50.0% 50.0% 58.3% 56.7%  273  APPENDIX F : "CORRECT" GRAMMATICAL FORMS 657 669 673 677 685 701 713 721 729 737 741 757 765 773 781 789 797 801 805 681 733 749 793 689 693 717 785 697 809 725 753 661 665 709 821 761 705 813 817 745 777 769 1  Do you have Have vou got enough money? drank Yesterday he d r a n k / d r u n k 3 glasses... drunk TnHay he has alreadv d r a n k / d r u n k . . . bought Boughtfen") bread isn't as tasty as... brought T've often broughtCen") them home... Aren't I? T'm always short of money, aren't I? fewer There are l e s s / f e w e r people here than... sneaked They s n e a k e d / s n u c k into the fridge. really She's a reaKly ) nice ladv. any T didn't see a n y / n o monev in the box. dove He d i v e d / d o v e into the water. Let's not Let's not take the bus. never used We used not to go there. should have You should have/of/shoulda seen him... these kind Do you like these kind(s) of apples? saw I saw/seen him vesterdav. proven Tt's already been p r o v e d / p r o v e n . lend Can vou lend/loan me $5 After we ate/had eaten dinner, we played...had eaten there are There is/are 8 eggs in the fridge. where are Where are mv gloves? were If I was/were vou. I'd vote against it. If it was/were warmer, we could go for... w e r e Mary is sitting between John and I/me. I me Just between vou and me/I. I think... me He gave it to Tom and me/I. to whom To who(m) did vou give the book? Helen and I Helen and I are going shopping. me It's m e / I ! doesn't He doesn't/don't bother me. anything He doesn't like a n y t h i n g . behind He. was standing behind me. behind The car is b e h i n d the garage. from M y house is very different f r o m yours. in the back You'll find it out back. anyway Well. anvwavCs'). that's over. lay Yesterdav he l a v / l a i d in the sun. lie L i e / l a v down right away! lain It has l a i d / l a i n there all night. had seen If we had seen vou. we would have... would have gone If I had gone home. I would have... forgotten He must have forgotCten ) mv name. 1  1  Numbers correspond to those in the questionnaire.  38.1% 98.3% 47.7% 87.4% 96.0% 67.9% 71.3% 52.1% 61.7% 99.7% 73.6% 97.1% 75.8% 83.3% 56.9% 96.3% 75.4% 57.7% 65.7% 69.2% 80.4% 93.8% 54.2% 53.7% 50.7% 52.3% 43.9% 97.9% 66.7% 96.0% 99.2% 91.3% 74.6% 60.5% 52.9% 86.3% 68.3% 78.7% 54.8% 50.4% 45.9% 94.0%  APPENDIX G: DICTIONARIES AND HANDBOOKS CONSULTED  Dictionaries American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978.  New College Edition.  Fowler, H.W. 1965. Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd edition. Revised by Ernest Gowers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary,  Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1974.  Gage Canadian Dictionary . Oxford  Canadian Edition. Toronto:  Toronto: Gage, 1983.  Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English.  University Press, 1974.  Oxford English Dictionary.  Press, 1971.  Compact Edition. 2 vols. London: Oxford University  Random House Dictionary of the English Language:  York: Random House, 1968.  Sanigan, Gerald D. 1986. Canadian Words Don Mills: Richard DeBoo. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.  1976.  of Canada, 1974.  College Edition.  New  and Phrases—Legal Maxims.  3 vols.  8th ed. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam,  Winston Canadian Dictionary for Schools.  Yogis, John. 1984.  London: Oxford  Toronto: Holt, Rinehat and Winston  Canadian Law Dictionary.  Toronto: Barrons Educational.  Handbooks Baker, Sheridan. 1972. Crowell.  The Complete Stylist.  Buckley, Joanne. 1987.  Fit to Print: The Canadian Student's Guide to Essay  Writing.  2nd edition. New York: Thomas  Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.  Crews, Frederick B. 1977. The Random York: Random House.  House Handbook,  2nd edition. New  275 Department of the Secretary of State of Canada. 1985. The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing. Malcolm Williams and Frank Bayerl, editors. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Elsbree, Langdon, Nell G. Altizer and Paul V. Kelly. 1981. The Heath Handbook of Composition. 10th edition. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath Fowler, H.R. 1980.  The Little, Brown Handbook.  Boston: Little, Brown.  Hodges, John C. and Mary E. Whitten. 1986. Harbrace College Handbook For Canadian Writers. 2nd edition. (Editorial consultant, Bruce R. Lundgren, University of Western Ontario. Foreword by Peter Desbarats, Dean, Graduate School of Journalism, Western Ontario.) Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Messenger, William E. and Jan de Bruyn. 1980. The Canadian Writer's Handbook. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall. Millward, Celia and Jane Flick. 1985. Handbook for Writers: Canadian Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada.  Edition.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098220/manifest

Comment

Related Items