Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula | Language | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

The following report presents some of the findings of several years’ research on the relations between standard English and the non-standard English used by Negro speakers in various urban ghetto areas. The immediate subject is the status of the copula and auxiliary be in Negro non-standard English. The approach to the problem combines the methods of generative grammar and phonology with techniques for the quantitative analysis of systematic variation. The notion ‘rule of grammar’ is enlarged to include the formal treatment of inherent variation as a part of linguistic structure. Furthermore, a model is presented for the decisive solution of abstract questions of rule form and rule relations, based upon the direct study of linguistic behavior.

References

Bach, Emmon. 1967. Have and be in English syntax. Lg. 43.462–85.Google Scholar

Bailey, Beryl. 1966. Jamaican Creole syntax. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Bloom, Lois. 1968. Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Unpublished Columbia University dissertation. (To appear, MIT Press.)Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1955. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Gauchat, Louis. 1905. L’unité phonétique dans le patois d’une commune. Halle.Google Scholar

Grant, William, and Dixon, J. M.. 1921. Manual of modem Scots. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

House, Arthur S. 1961. On vowel duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33.1174–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 1966a. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1966b. The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washington Linguistics Review 3:4–22. (ERIC ED 010 871.)Google Scholar

Labov, William, Cohen, P.; and Robins, C.. 1965. A preliminary study of the structure of English used by Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Cooperative Research Report no. 3091. (ERIC ED 003 819, available through Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.)Google Scholar

Labov, William, Cohen, P., Robins, C.; and Lewis, J.. 1968. A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Coöperative Research Report no. 3288, vol. I. New York: Columbia University. (ERIC ED 028 423.)Google Scholar

Levin, H. (ed.) 1965. Project Literacy reports, no. 2. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, Peter. 1968. Grammar II. Yorktown Heights, N.Y.: IBM.Google Scholar

Solomon, Denis. 1966. The system of predication in the speech of Trinidad: a quantitative study of de-creolization. New York: Unpublished Columbia University dissertation.Google Scholar

Stewart, William. 1966. Social dialect. Research Planning Conference on Language Development in Disadvantaged Children. New York: Yeshiva University.Google Scholar

Stewart, William. 1968. Continuity and change in American Negro dialects. Florida Foreign Language Reporter 6:1.3 ff.Google Scholar

Wolfram, Walter. 1969. A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. (Urban language series, 5.) Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar