‘A THEORY OF LITERARY DIALECT |), LITERARY distet an author's attempt to represent inwiting a apoth tha rensieted regionally polal= jy ocbuih, His epreentation sey const merely Inthe use, ths sceaalonalspling change, lke Fantom taler than er or these of wor Ike servigrous or be may ‘to approach slentie accuracy by ropreseting i the mati eset and Ponete pecaries that he has ered. By framing the Geon i his manne, Tinelude Sinsderson ony suriou attempts fo supgest sh soa Fost the real dale of rel people. The sheer mispel By evaberence of Josh Blingr "Boa on the Musi” the ge of traditional maconeepons found in Al ss Dogpatch diet andthe ee uth’ Ingenious ne Elon nthe langungs of Lower Sbovia re all exclude ‘esording tothe dtntion of literry dle given here, {iss nuthor new nor eonne fo iis Keown work, Who- cr wishes precedent can fn it inthe stores of Chaveer "Reeves Tete), tho potsy of Spenser (The Shepherd’ ear), and the plays of Shakespeare (King Lea). The ovis Fenerally stele, however, with ch nncteenth Crier Joel Chandler Hari Mark Tein, My S turpiree Sersh Ome Jewet, Rivard Bapeson, soa nes Rswell Lowell Literary ile! i till Poplar and muy nedern authors, mong ter Mcjori Kinnan Raw! s George Sessions Perry, and Roare Bradford, have em ssl it irc. The aim of al these store as been teserious representation of a genuine speech ot dialect, ge a problem for the linguist, and a selentifi theory ‘though generally they have been conscious of the trary dialect must be worked out according to the prin- their ereations, and sometimes have exploited i, their of lingusties and the facts of dialect geography. pose has been truth, They have tried to presenta more ‘The following dieussion is an attempt to formulate prin- ‘ruth than they would have recorded with the standard by whlch the representations of Amerlean English dia: ing snd the conventional grammar, Hence, an ex isin iterature may be evaluated. Concomitenty, the lim- of their dialect writing, and 2 discussion of the pri sccording to which it has been waitten and must be ated, isa matter of pertinent eritical interest. In representing their dislect, these authors have b Chandler Harris which T completed recently as a di seutely conscious that they were depleting something gration under the direction of B Baghy Atwood; hence liar, something different from their own conception off ‘of the practises of dialect waiters will be iustrated “standard” language. ‘The characters who speak “dial these storie. However, both in connection with that ‘are set off, either socially or geographically, trom the uy and later Ihave examined the waitings of many other body of those who speak the anguage. Usually the and those prineiples which seem to be most general ed diflerence carries some connotation of inferiority, but a thee application have boon most fully developed. always. For example, in the Jeeves stories of P. G. We Mo be sure other studies of literary dialect have been made, house itis the master, Bertie Wooster, who speak & di fhe chief, and still definitive, analysis of literary dialect is ‘and the servant, Jeeves, who speaks the conventional la ound in the fst volume of George Philip Krapp's The ‘guage, although the pedantle lavor of his conversation Eplish Language in America, published in 19252 ‘The im- smggests dieleet. portance of Krapp's work in’ American English is widely oe ps eres err aoe re pce ors rere Cae eee ee ee aT earch Soe in ee ee Se ea “phonetic” re-spelling; grammatical forms are used that P ‘the unpublished field records, and the ea ee nee aioe Seen esa eee a Teena anatomy cael eee ee oc ae Dee ee ea ot RO ete Len een he eres Seer pean ea Saeco Se Sit Ae ‘Salas e Rp pEh DRE faeces Eprints ie cars ok te a eee ‘quently, examples of Mterary dialet vary considerably nee the extent to which they are “dialectal,” and no very ded rrles can be given regarding what to consider in tht ¢ sory. Regardless of the inelusiveness ofthe term, howe ‘every varlation from the conventional system of waiting‘conclusions based on these notions. A later (1947) and elaborate treatment than that of Kapp, although co ‘Southern writers, has been written at dissertation at O State University by James N. Tidwell. This study limited use of Linguistic Atlas feld records but did i think, provide as satisfactory a discussion of literary di ts is possible with modern scholarship in Ungulstie ge raphy." "Both these erties have been rather severe in their ‘ment of most authors who have employed literary dialect seems to me, however that their methods of evaluation bi largoly foreshadowed their conclusions, and criticising ‘their methods have been appended at relevant points in th iscustion. Both Krapp and Tidwell apparently decided advance what they ought to find and then made their eval ton on a basis ofthese predetermined ertera; bth include in thelr assumptions a faith in a standard English whieh not justified by the ndings of dislet geography; and nel realized the great importance which the author's own ape ‘would have on his representation of pronunciation feat ‘A different approsch would, think, be more Suita, oveloping the following thee authors of literary dileets have been seriously concer with the validity ‘and justice of thelr representations; equently, Ihave based my analysis on an examination the actual practises followed by the author, and [have Ee ‘eralized from the practises rather than from a hypothe ‘concept of perfection. The two major conditioning facto Ihave been the texchings of linguistic geography and recognition of limitations In the conventional orthography ‘The principles of linguistic geography which apply the study of literary dialeets have not ordinarily com wit the scholarly cognizance of stidents of Htersture; mor these principles themselves ae stil the subject of lively ea ‘roversy among the persons setively studying the probes of American dialects. For these reasons a rather elabara statement of those principles which apply tothe literary SRS baat beer etal oe rsa entation of dialect has been considered @ necessary pre- eto the main discussion. The abstract theories which are in the frst section are then recapitulated as they to particular problems and the work of particular 2, The result of this organization has been some repe> ‘but the complexities of the subject are such that T oen no better way of presenting the material. Follow ‘there disussions of separate probloms, I have gone into hhave formulated a procedure which ean be used in the pretation and enitcism of a particular author's work. 1 Before beginning a discussion of literary dialects — that J dialects which have existence as an author's impression of “rionally or soclally restricted varieties of the language — one must necessarily settle on a satisfactory definition of dla- . What, in terms of area lingulstics, or dialect geography, So far as anyone knows, all persons who communicate means of oral noiees, even those who have no written jeature, have some recognition of spesch conventions, or [pattems to which the sctual noises conform. ‘These con- tions are nat always systematically analyzed and record- fm a grammar, Dut when new words are added to the ‘erbal stock, they aze addled (ith rare exceptions) in terms “ofthe existing conventions, even though no speaker of the Aenguage could formulate « eatsfactory statement of them. ihn when a young perion ora stranger deviates pereoptibly m the acepted usage, the offending utterance is noticed ‘may be corrected, unless Indolence or politeness re- “stratus, Ie 5s ths communally necognized body af conventions “that constitutes a language | Although the language Iss corpus of implicit agreement, there are some differences which exist in the practises of the individual temabere of the linguistic group. Most such dit- {Gute Tg tot Kents 1. Phe “Cont ene Arn oon ae are eeferences are o slight as tobe imperceptible in the cont ot speech, oF belong to categories that the speakers have i conditioned to overlook —as the phonetially diferent quali fies of /¢/'n different contexts; but there ar also vari ‘that are common to a certain elas or residents of @ cet farea— such as the phonetically diferent qualities of “shea 0°" ‘Those variations which are systematic in one group ‘generally noticed by members of other groups ‘Moreover, the usages of the language are Mud, ‘quent changes in the conventions (each a3 may be descr Dy phonetic law) operate mare rapidly among some go than among others, and vary widely in the extent of th operstion. Furthermore, people mave about and carry th speech with them, and even without such movement th speech of one group affects the speech of adjoining group All these factors contribute to the formation of dialects ‘the language, and all users ofa language speak some di rather than the “language” itself. So far ax known, no fquage, not even if we include modern Latin, exist ia “pure” or non-islectal sate, ‘This rather abstract discussion may be made clearer an extended comparison, The word horte, for example abstraction which has detailed and specie meaning only i reference toa particular horse ot horses, In calling any ticular animal a horse, we indicate that we seein it ela features common to other horses in our experience, bul Wi do not mean that the specific horee under consideration | exactly like any other specife horse. When we go snd say the animal at hand isa specimen of breed A, we: cate that he has characteristies which in thelr total com nation belong only to that brood. But the diserete chara teristics of that breed may all be individually thared wi other breeds, For exemple, horses of breed A may be {in build to those at breed By in eal to thove of bread C, In adaptbilty to training to breed D. Siallarly, at any om ‘moment a dialect appears as ecletie rather than homegen ‘ous; its individuality exists inthe peculiarity ofits comb nation of features, not in the peculigity of the dla festures themselves. In fact, there may be no single feature ‘hich is found in that dialect and that daleet alone. ‘The proceas by which «dialect is localized ean be ius ated by two pronunciations which are regionally restricted. are the pronunelation of white as [watt] rather than nwa} and the pronunciation of garden with inital [2] ther than with initial [g]. These pronunciations might be ented in a Iterary dilect by the spellings w'ntr and ss, reepectively. ‘The pronunciation of white with ink (hr) rather than with initial [hw] is found as a wal_pronunciation along the coast of Georgia and th Carolina to the Peedee River, farther north rough- between Baltimore and New York (and inland), and in ‘coastal areas of New England* The pronunciation of ‘with Intal [af] occurs fairly often in all the eastern Mates south of the Potomac River. Thus the uso of {7} in and [gj] in garden by the same parton would localize in the coastal region south ofthe Peedee River; although features are widespread, they are widespread in other- different areas. Hence, a local dialect Is not a homogen- ution in onl one limited area —that area belng the region hich thelr diverse distributions overiap” Tt follows, of eee er ae hn eran ox enema at ctnty