Materials
Here is a list of 40 different language forms or patterns that are associated with Southern varieties of English. This list is adapted from lists that have been published in Oetting and McDonald (2001) and Oetting and Pruitt (2005). Unless noted, all forms/patterns are described in the literature as possible in African American English (AAE) and Southern White English (SWE); however, research on these forms has primarily focused on varieties of AAE.
Zero BE: Instances where copula and auxiliary be contexts are produced with a zero form (e.g.,They in the car). Zero-marking of be is rare or infrequent in some contexts (e.g., with first person pronouns, in past tense contexts, clause final positions, and in contexts with emphatic stress). This pattern occurs in many vernacular dialects of English in and outside of the US (e.g., Ireland); however, rate of zero be differs in AAE and SWE.
GO copula: Instances where go is produced as a copula (e.g., There go a duck for There is a duck). This form has been reported in Northern varieties of AAE and documented in only our AAE samples that were elicited from Southern speakers who lived in an urban area.
Be2: Instances where be is produced to signify an event or activity distributed intermittently over time or space, including auxiliary and copula contexts that refer to durative or habitual meaning (e.g., It be on the outside). Utterances with zero marked will and other uses of be (e.g., I'm going to be a dog) are not included. This pattern is thought to occur most frequently in AAE. As discussed by Alim (2004, You Know my Steez), AAE also includes a more restricted, equative copula form called Be3. Alim offers examples of this structure on pg. 183 in his monograph, with one of the examples being I be3 the baddest baller on the court, Liiiim. To date, we have not identified any be3 forms in our samples.
I'ma: Instances where i'ma is produced to indicate I'm going to (e.g., I'ma go peek and see if my class gone out that way). This pattern is mentioned in discussions of reduced gonna forms and is thought to occur primarily in AAE.
Subject-verb agreement with BE forms: Instances where is or was is produced with second person or plural subjects. (e.g., When we is about to go to church).
Zero auxiliary DO: Instances where auxiliary do is zero-marked. Many instances of this pattern within our data involve question inversion (e.g., How you get up here? and What you did?). Questions with an omitted do in the initial position of the utterance (e.g., You know what? and You got a baby?) are not counted. See discussion below about the coding of noninverted indirect requests/questions.
Zero auxiliary HAVE: Instances where auxiliary have, has, and had is produced as a zero form (e.g., I only been there a few times). As demonstrated by the example, many of these utterances involve the verb been.
Zero regular third present: Instances where regular third person –s marking on the verb is zero-marked (e.g., But when she poo on herself I don't change her). Decisions as to whether the context is present or past tense is based on context.
Zero irregular third present: Instances where a singular third person subject is produced with the verbs say, have, and do (e.g., She just do it herself). Utterances involving don't are not included since they are counted elsewhere. For the verb, say, all zero-marked forms are considered third present irregular. This decision is based on speakers' frequent use of historical present with the verbs say (e.g., So she says stop it). Within the sociolinguistic literature, a distinction between regular vs. irregular verb forms is not always made, although some like Myhill and Harris (1986) exclude the verb say in analyses of variable marking of third person because it is irregular, and they feel it is typically zero-marked.
Subject-verb agreement with don't: Instances where a third person singular subject is produced with the auxiliary don't (e.g., And he don't go to school).
Zero regular past: Instances where zero forms are produced with regular verbs to denote the simple past (e.g., I dress them before).
Dialect-specific regular past: Instances where regular verb is produced with a dialect-specific form, including double marked forms (e.g., kickeded) to indicate the simple past. These are extremely rare in our data and some would argue that they reflect developmental patterns in AAE and SWE, disappearing as AAE- and SWE-speaking children age.
Zero irregular past: Instances where an irregular verb is produced as a zero form to indicate the simple past (e.g., fall for fell).
Dialect-specific irregular past: Instances where a dialect-specifc form of past tense is produced with an irregular verb to indicate the simple past (e.g., Course I brung him up real fast). In some cases, a participle form is produced (e.g. I seen it).
Preterite had + Ved: Instances where had + a verb is produced to indicate the simple past (e.g., Then I had went on the back of the levee to the beach). The verb following had can be overtly marked or zero makred (e.g., had walked, had walk). This pattern has been documented to occur primarily in narratives, and in our data, its use has been limited to our AAE samples (both rural and urban). Nevertheless, a number of people have told us that this pattern is produced in a variety of nonmainstream dialects spoken in the Northeast.
Overregularization (also referred to as past tense regularization): Instances where regular past tense marking is used with an irregular verb form (e.g., She drinked it all).
Zero participles: Instances where past participles are produced as a zero form (e.g., It got drop; It was drop).
Dialect-specific participles: Instances where past participles are expressed with a simple past tense form or a dialect-specific form (e.g., But her whole head got broke).
Stressed BIN: Stressed BIN contexts describe an event that is thought to be on-going or the completive activity is in the remote past (e.g., Because I BIN having them for a bunch of times, and I BIN had shots). Been uses involving clear cases of zero-marked have are not included in this category but are included as instances of zero have (see above). BIN is thought to occur in AAE.
Ain't: Instances where ain't is used to indicate negation with be, do, or have are produced (e.g., We ain't got none).
Multiple negation: Instances where negation is marked more than once in the utterance (e.g., Cause she don't want no people on the rocks). This pattern often occurs with don't and ain't.
Indefinite article: Instances where indefinite article a is used and the following context involves a vowel (e.g., It's a animal story). This pattern is thought to occur in AAE.
Zero present progressive: Instances where the present progressive –ing inflection is produced with a zero form (e.g., Yep I'm build one of those). In our data, this pattern is rare and decreases with age. The present progressive -ing can also be reduced but we only code this form when the form is phonologically silent (we are not reliable in the lab coding the reduced forms).
Zero plural: Instances where the regular plural inflection is produced with a zero form (e.g., Six dollar and fifty-five). This pattern is thought to occur most frequently with nouns of weights and measures or with nouns preceded by quantification.
Zero possessive: Instances where the possessive inflection is prodcued as a zero form (e.g., We'll probably need everybody plates).
Zero infinitival to: Instances where infinitival to is produced as a zero form (e.g., I wanted her bake some cookies with the sugar). This pattern does not include zero to when it serves as a preposition (e.g., I went store).
For to/to: Instances where for to is produced as an infinitival form. These are extremely rare in our data (e.g., I mean for to take a walk and For to go to store and pay).
Zero of: Instances where the preposition of is produced as a zero form (e.g., I can't tell too much the story yet).
What as a relative clause marker: Instances where the what is produced as a relative clause marker, usually in contexts where that can be produced (e.g., Anything what my momma brings).
Zero relative clause marker: Instances where the relative marker serving as a subject of the relative clause is produced as a zero form (e.g., It's a girl got a skirt on; Then came a little boy had a net in his hand; and I got a baby brother came out of my mama stomach). Zero relative pronouns that serve as the object of a relative clause and are produced in many mainstream dialects of American English (e.g., I like the flowers she gave me). We count both types in some of our studies (e.g., Oetting and Newkirk 2011 coded all relative clause contexts to examine children's use of overt and zero forms of this structure by the type of sentence the children produced).
Done + verb: Instances where done + verb indicates a completive action or event (e.g. He's looking for his cat but it done went down the garbage can).
Fixin, fitna and dialect-specific modals: Instances where fixing is used as a main verb and followed by an infinitival to (e.g., He is fixing to go off of the roof like that) or fitna is produced to serve as the main verb and the infinitival to (e.g., He fitna go off the roof). We also include use of alternative modals such as might gotta (e.g., I might gotta take you somewhere) in this category because all of these patterns are infrequent in our data.
Dialect-specific pronouns: Instances where a pronoun with object case s produced and serves as the subject of the verb (e.g., Me and him do it sometimes). As can be seen by the example, dialect-specific use of objective case can occur in conjoined noun phrases. Also included in this category are instances where nominative marking is used instead of genative (e.g., They cat), and instances where masculine forms are used instead of feminine (e.g., He do it). Both of these latter two (like some of the other patterns on this list) may be generated by phonological factors, but they are included because of their influence on surface morphology. Pronoun choices involving gender are very rare and have only been found in our rural AAE samples.
Dialect-specific Reflexives: Instances where a dialect-specific reflexive pronoun form is produced (e.g, My daddy once went by hisself because he didn't want to be worried about us).
Demonstrative: Instances where an object pronoun form is produced and serves as a demonstrative (e.g., He wrecked them back tires).
Dialect-specific Datives: Instances where a personal dative is produced (e.g., I take me a shot).
Y'all varieties: Instances where a variant of ya'll is produced (e.g., y'all take turns; allya'll take turns, ya'lls take turns).
Appositive: Instances where both a pronoun and noun is used to refer to the same person(s) or object (s) (e.g., But my friend, he have a gate). This pattern occurs in the writing of English and in many dialects of mainstream American English, but it use is thought to be more frequent in AAE and SWE varieties.
Existential it and they: Instances where it or they is produced and serves as an existential pronoun (e.g.,My dad grabs it with a paddle whenever it's only men).
Wh- noninversion: Instances where a Wh- question form begins the utterance or clause, but the auxiliary is not inverted (e.g., Why this one won't sit).
Below is a list of the 10 most frequently produced nonmainstream forms or patterns of the African American English and Southern White English dialects we have studied. In Oetting and McDonald (2002) and Oetting and Pruitt (2005), we showed that nonmainstream form densities calculated with these 10 patterns are highly correlated (r > .85) to nonmainstream form densities calculated with a wider range of patterns.
zero be - He walking to the store; zero regular third - He want to go with you; zero auxiliary do - Which one you want?; S-V agreement with don't - He don't want to go; zero irregular past - He fall down already; multiple negation - I don't want no more; S-V agreement with be - They was going to do it; alternative pronoun - Me and him are going; zero regular past - Yesterday he jump; appositive - My sister, she takes piano.
One way to describe an aspect of a speaker's nonmainstream dialect is to quantify the speaker's use of salient forms and patterns that are associated with that dialect. An index of a speaker's rate of these dialect-specific forms and patterns is also referred to as a speaker's density of nonmainstream (NM) forms. In the literature, there are at least three ways to calculate the density of a speaker's nonmainstream form use. These three ways are illustrated below. In Oetting & McDonald (2002) we showed that these three ways of calculating nonmainstream form densities are highly correlated (r > .90). The first method is the fastest and one we recommend for clinical practice. For research and when time is not limited, we often use the second method, because it leads to the greatest spread between our participants' nonmainstream form densities. Nevertheless, with correlations of .90 or higher, all three methods lead to speaker ratings that are highly consistent with each other.
Three Methods:
- Number of utterances with one or more nonmainstream form divided by the total number of utterances produced by the speaker.
- Number of nonmainstream forms produced by the speaker divided by the total number of utterances produced by the speaker.
- Number of nonmainstream forms produced by the speaker divided by the total number of word produced by the speaker.
Density metrics reflect a speaker's use of nonmainstream forms within their dialect and not their use of their dialect. When speakers of a dialect produce utterances, every utterance and every word/form within the utterance reflects their use of their dialect (unless they are code switching or changing their dialect to accommodate the listener). In other words, nonmainstream dialects include mainstream forms (dialect general forms) and nonmainstream forms (dialect-specific forms). Nonmainsteam form density metrics are based on the nonmainstream forms of a dialect only; thus, density metrics should never be used in isolation to describe a children's use of their dialects.
One of the fastest ways to classify a person's dialect and density of nonmainstream form use is to use a listener judgment task. As illustrated in Oetting and McDonald (2002), our blind listener judgment task is constructed in the following way.
We randomly select a 1 to 3-minute excerpt from an audio taped sample of a person speaking (we typically use a 1-minute excerpt from conversational speech). We ask three graduate students who are familiar with the dialect of interest to independently listen to the excerpt. To facilitate their ratings, we ask them to consider four types of linguistic behaviors (vocabulary, grammar, phonology, and stress/intonation) and we give them a rating sheet with a 7-point Likert scale. Below is an example of a scale created for Cajun English. For dialect type, we may classify someone as a Cajun English speaker if two or more listeners rate the excerpt with a score of 2 or higher. For dialect density, we average the three listener ratings together.
1 = no use of Cajun English 3 = little use of Cajun English (present in less than 25% of utterances) 5 = occasional use of Cajun English (present in 25% to 40% of utterances) 7 = heavy use of Cajun English (present in 40% or more of utterances)
___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 ___6 ___7 ___No Use Heavy Use
If you are interested in using this type of rating scale, a copy of a full scale is listed in the appendix of Oetting & McDonald (2002).
All students and faculty members who work in the D4 Child Language Lab are expected to read the attached manual and agree to the guidelines outlined. Before students can work in the lab, they should email Dr. Oetting or the lab coordinator a signed copy of the last page.
All students and faculty members who work in the D4 Child Language Lab must complete training in Responsible Conduct of Research via LSU's Office of Research and Economic Development, CITI IRB Training. Before students can work in the lab, they should email Dr. Oetting or the lab coordinator a copy of their training certificate. Students should also keep a copy of their certificate for their records.
We are happy to share our experimental stimuli with other researchers. Please email Dr. Oetting if you are interested in this stimuli. Our newest stimuli is an animation of our past tense probe.