ji:r/, never /ði:z ji:r ji:r/, is found. Thus /ðis/ seems to be more
favoured as a pronoun, and /ði:z/ as an adjective; this, of course, is only
a tendency.
In the plural, the position is more clear-cut. The normal adjective
plurals are /ðejz/ and /ðejz ji:r/, which outnumber /ði:z/ and /ði:z ji:r/
by a large margin (see Table 2). Such cases of the latter as do occur may
perhaps be ascribed to Standard English influence, since /ði:z/ is clearly
used normally as a singular rather than a plural form. The absence of any
reflex of /ðejz/ as a plural pronoun is discussed below.
The other forms present little morphological difficulty. There is only
one occurrence of /ði-ki:/ as a pronoun, although as an adjective it almost
outnumbers /ði:z/ and /ðat/ together, so it seems to belong primarily to
the adjectival system. The normal singular pronouns are either the simple
forms or the ‘second compounds’, the ‘first compounds’ being most unusual.
In the plural of the adjective, the simple forms are much more
frequent than their equivalent ‘first compounds’, whereas in the plural of
the pronoun, there is apparently only the one form /ðej/. The status of
this form is discussed below.
The following are examples of those demonstatives which are not
further discussed below. The uses of /ðat/ as a singular adjective, of /ði-
ki:/ as a singular or plural adjective, and of all the pronouns are fully
exemplified in the syntactic section, and thus no examples are given here.
/ði:z/
I come down “here to live in this little old “street.
Well; “this year, I done a bit “lighter.
Now “this season, tis “over.
This was coming “this way.
/ðis ji:r/
There’s all this here sort of “jobs going on to “day.
I was down “there where this here “plough was up “here.
Iðejzl
These places be alright if you know where you’m “going to.
They got to pay the “wages to these people.
I do a bit of “gardening . . . and likes of all these things.
/ðej/
What makes all they “hills look so well?
Where “Jim was sent to, they two “met.
“They won’t have all they sort of people up there.
Tell “Cooper to “shift “they “stones “there.
We may now turn to the functions of those forms whose uses are
identifiably different from those of Standard English.
The most striking feature of the demonstrative system is that, in the
singular adjective system at least, there is apparently a three-term
opposition /ði:z : ðat : ði-ki:/, in contrast with the two-term system of
Standard English. It seems fair to say that the role of /ði:z/ is similar
to that of 'this' in Standard English (but see note on /ði:z ji:r/ below),
but any attempt to differentiate /ðat/ and /ði-ki:/ proves extremely
difficult. There are a number of sentences of the type:
If you was to put “that stick in across “thicky pony . . .
where the two forms seem to fill the same function. The virtual absence of
/ði-ki:/ from the pronoun system, together with the fact that /ði-ki:/ is
three times as frequent as /ðat/ as an adjective, would suggest that /ði-
ki:/ is the normal adjectival form in the dialect, and that /ðat/ has a
greater range, having a function which is basically pronominal but in
addition adjectival at times. This is further supported by the fact that
when presented with sentences of the type:
He turned that “hare “three “times and “he caught it.
the informant claimed that /ði-ki:/ would be equally acceptable and could
indicate no distinction. Thus there are pairs of sentences such as
I used to walk that there “two mile and “half.
You'd walk thicky “nine “mile.
or again
That finished “that job.
I wouldn’t have “thicky job.
There are certain cases where either one form or the other seems to be
required. In particular, /ðat/ is used when actually indicating a size with
the hands:
Go up and see the stones “that length, “that thickness.
while /ði-ki:/ is used in contrast with /t?-ðr/, where Standard English
would normally use ‘one’ or ‘the one’.
Soon as they got it “thicky hand, they’d thruck(?) it away with the
“tother.
In the adjective plural, the contrast between /ði-ki:/ and /ðej/ is
not a real one, since /ði-ki:/ is found only with numerals.
I had thicky “eighteen “bob a “week.
I expect thicky “nine was all “one “man’s sheep.
When presented with /ði-ki:/ before plural nominals, the informant
rejected them. It would therefore be preferable to redefine ‘singular’ and
‘plural’ in the dialect to account for this, rather than to consider /ði-
ki:/ as a plural form; this would accordingly neutralize in the plural any
/ði-ki:/:/ðat/ opposition which may exist in the singular.
In the pronominal system, there is only one occurrence of /ði-ki:/:
My missis bought “thicky before her “died (a radio).
It is true that most of the occurrences of /ðal/ as a pronoun do not
refer to a specific antecedent, e.g. I can’t afford to do “that, but there
are a number of cases where /ðat/ does play a role closely parallel to /ði-
ki:/ above.
As “I was passing “that, and “that was passing “me (a dog).
As there are no other examples of /ði-ki:/ as a singular pronoun,
either simply or as part of a ‘first’ or ‘second compound’, and no cases at
all in the plural, it seems fair to say that any /ðat/:/ði-ki:/ opposition
is realized only in the singular adjective, and that here too it is
difficult to see what the basis of any opposition might be. A list of
representative examples of /ðat/, /ðat ð?r/, /ði-ki:/ and /ði-ki: ð?r/ is
given below, in their function as singular adjectives, so that they can
easily be compared.
/ðat/
All they got to “do is steer that little “wheel a bit.
You’d put in “dynamite to blast that stone “off.
Us’d go “in that pub and have a pint of “beer.
/ðat ð?r/
I used to walk that there “two mile and “half.
Good as “gold, that there “thing was.
/ði-ki:/
All of us be in “thicky boat, you see.
‘Thicky “dog’, he said, ‘been there all “day?’
Stairs went up “there, like, “thicky side, “thicky end of the wall.
Thicky place would be “black with people . . .
I travelled thicky old road “four “ year . . .
What’s “thicky “little “place called, before you get up “Yelverton?
Thicky field, they’d “break it, they called it.
He was going to put me and Jan “up thicky night.
“Never been through thicky road “ since.
/ði-ki: ð?r/
Jim Connell carted home thicky there jar of “cyder same as he carted
it “up.
We got in thicky there “field . . .
The morphological status of /ði:z/ and /ðis/ as singulars, and of
/ðejz/ and /ði:z/ as plurals has already been discussed. Syntactically,
their use seems to correspond to Standard English closely, except in one
important respect: the ‘first compound’ forms are used in a way similar to
a non-standard usage which is fairly widespread, in the sense of ‘a’ or ‘a
certain’.
/ði:z ji:r/
He’d got this here “dog.
You’d put this here great “crust on top.
The ‘first compound’ is never used as an equivalent to Standard
English ‘this’, being reserved for uses of the type above, although there
is another form /ði:z . . . ji:r/, which is occasionally used where
Standard English would show ‘this’, eg Between here and this village “here
like.
In the plural, an exactly parallel syntactic division occurs between
/ðejz/ (cf Standard English ‘these’) and /ðejz ji:r/.
These here “maidens that was here . . .
I used to put them in front of these here “sheds.
They got these here “hay-turners . . .
In all the above examples, the ‘first compounds’, both singular and
plural, refer to items which have not been mentioned before, and which are
not adjacent to the speaker; they are thus referentially distinct from the
normal use of Standard English ‘this’.
Although we can fairly say that /ði:z/ and /ðejz/ are syntactically
distinct from their equivalent first compounds, what of the other adjective
compounds /ðat ð?r/, /ði-ki: ð?r/ and /ðej ð?r/? There seems to be no
syntactic division in these cases between them and their equivalent simple
forms, so it is perhaps not surprising that Table 2 shows them to be
without exception much less common than /ði:z ji:r/ and /ðejz ji:r/, which
have a distinct syntactic role. Forms such as
Us got in thicky there “field
and
Good as “gold, that there “thing was.
do not seem any different from
Us “mowed thicky little plat . . .
and
He turned that “hare “three “times . . .
There is certainly no apparent correlation with any notional degree of
emphasis.
In the case of the singular pronouns, the ‘first compounds’ are
extremely rare, cf.
He done “well with that there. (/ðat ð?r/)
He went out “broad, this here what’s “dead now. (/ði:z ji:r/).
The basic opposition here is between the simple forms and the ‘second
compounds’ /ðis ji:r ji:r/ and /ðat ð?r ð?r/. Here the syntactic division
is fairly clear: the second compounds are used in certain adverbial
phrases, particularly after ‘like’, where the demonstrative refers to no
specific antecedent:
Tis getting like this here “here.
I’ve had to walk home “after that there there.
Ñòðàíèöû: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
