Emigrant Letters: Exploring the ‘Grammar of the Conquered’

The relationship between language and culture is complex and the subject of several chapters in this Handbook (e.g. Chapters 2, 30, and 32 this volume). This chapter will consider how different varieties of English reflect the culture and pragmatic norms of their speakers. While different varieties of English can be distinguished by their distinctive use of morphosyntactic and phonological features, although many share non-standard forms, it is the reflection of the local culture and the pragmatic norms of its speakers that really create a distinctive variety of English. This process has been called acculturation (Kachru 2005; Sridar 2012) which is the process by which a language takes on the cultural cloak of its speakers. In the case of varieties of English, acculturation is often accompanied by deculturation, where the new variety of English divests itself of cultural references to older varieties, such as British English. And when the new varieties of English are postcolonial, this typically occurs at what Schneider has called the ‘nativisation’ stage of a new variety of English, a stage at which ties with the country or origin are weakening and interethnic contacts are strengthening (2007, 2010: 381) Acculturation is accomplished through several means. These are presented below, along with examples.

The interest in Malaysian English generated many studies on Malaysian English focusing on various grammatical features. However, modality in Malaysian English is still under-researched, especially in post-independence and new Englishes contexts. As a new variety of English, it raises questions on how Malaysian English has developed from the historical input variety, i.e., British English and how resistant or accepting Malaysian English is to American English which is highly influential globally. This study aimed to contribute to the development of Malaysian English studies by reporting a corpus-based research of the frequency and statistical differences of a set of modal and quasi-modal verbs in three spoken corpora representing Malaysian, British, and American English. AntConc software (Version 3.5.9) (Anthony, 2020) was used to explore and generate the relevant data in the spoken Malaysian English corpus, while the spoken British and American English corpora were accessed online using the tools on the respective websites. The findings show that the use of modal and quasi-modal verbs in spoken Malaysian English does not entirely resemble either of the Supervarieties, i.e., spoken British English and American English. Log-likelihood test carried out in the study shows significant differences in the use of certain modal and quasi-modal verbs between the varieties, suggesting that Supervarieties are not always in the lead in using quasi-modals. The results also suggest that these significant differences are mainly accounted for by the nativisation process and evolution of Malaysian English as a new English variety. The findings shed new light on the current knowledge of modal and quasi-modal verbs in post-independence spoken Malaysian English. Keywords : corpus-based; modal verbs; quasi-modal verbs; spoken Malaysian English; Supervarieties

The usages of have to and have got to differ between major varieties such as British and American English, but little attempt has so far been made to study variation between these two forms in other varieties. The aim of this chapter is to investigate this variation by comparing standard and nonstandard varieties of British English (BrE) and those representing another “national variety” spoken in the British Isles, viz. Irish English (IrE). My database comprises, first, the spoken components of two International Corpus of English (ICE) corpora, viz. ICE-Great Britain (ICE-GB) and ICE-Ireland (ICE-IRL). Secondly, the nonstandard varieties of BrE and IrE are examined on the basis of corpora collected from traditional vernacular English English (EngE) and both southern and northern IrE dialects. The quantitative study of deontic have got to vs. have to shows that their distribution is significantly different in BrE and IrE: in spoken BrE, have got to is proportionately clearly more frequent than in IrE, in which have to is by far the preferred variant. On the other hand, the near absence of have got to in both educated and especially vernacular spoken IrE strongly suggests that have got to never really made its way into IrE. An examination of 19th-century IrE texts and two other “contact Englishes”, viz. Hebridean English and Indian English, reveals a similar difference, which may be explained as “colonial lag”.

This chapter examines the use of the so-called were-subjunctive in hypothetical counterfactual conditional clauses in three varieties of English: British, Irish and Indian English. Some recent studies have suggested that the were-subjunctive has declined in frequency in the last half-century or so and is being replaced by indicative was. Another change, possibly connected with the decline of the were-subjunctive, is the increasing use of would in the subordinate clause of conditional sentences. The database of this study consists of the written and spoken components of the International Corpus of English (ICE) corpora from British, Irish and Indian English. Existing studies of American, Australian and some South Asian Englishes are used as further points of comparison. The results show that in British English the distribution between subjunctive were and indicative was is fairly even, although there is a slight majority for the was option. Indian English behaves much like British English, retaining a firm place for the were-subjunctive in its grammar. In Irish English, by contrast, the were-subjunctive is a clear minority choice as compared with British English or Indian English.

The current chapter is intended as an overview of the main focus of research on Irish English to date. This variety has been well served by scholars in recent decades with a flourishing of interest stemming from various approaches to analysing English in Ireland. After an introduction, there is a section on the early history of the variety of Irish English (Section 2). This is followed by a consideration of the main linguistic event in the history of Ireland, the shift from Irish to English for the great majority of the population 3) . In keeping with new trends in Irish English scholarship, shared features across the country as a whole are then reviewed (Section 4) . Following on from this, there is a section on the interpretation of features, considering in particular their possible sources (Section 5). Such reflections are relevant to the question of whether language contact or retention of dialect input are the source for features of Irish English. The last section looks at recent changes in Dublin English (Section 7) which are having a profound influence on the course of non-local varieties of English in the south of the country. A summarises these developments and points to other areas of interest in the field of language studies and English in Ireland.

This paper explores the comparative analysis of vowel systems within British, American, and Irish English accents, examining their phonetic characteristics, historical roots, and social implications. English has evolved into numerous varieties worldwide, primarily influenced by regional and social factors. The paper focuses on Received Pronunciation (RP) in British English, General American in American English, and Supraregional Irish English in Irish English, highlighting their distinct phonological features. Rhoticity and lexical sets are examined as key aspects of variation. Differences in the pronunciation of /r/ contribute to unique phonetic landscapes, with British English exhibiting non-rhoticity and American and Irish English maintaining rhoticity. The presence of centering diphthongs in British English and vowel contrasts before /r/ in Irish and American English further distinguishes these accents. Analysis of lexical sets reveals variations in vowel quality and realization, emphasizing the dynamic nature of phonological systems across accents. By examining these differences, the paper underscores the intricate interplay of historical, geographical, and social factors in shaping linguistic diversity. Understanding these nuances is essential for appreciating the complexity of English language variations and their cultural significance.

Reviewed by: A source book for Irish English by Raymond Hickey Joseph F. Eska A source book for Irish English. By Raymond Hickey. (Library and information sources in linguistics 27.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. Pp. xii, 541 & CD-ROM. ISBN 1588112098. $150 (Hb). This volume is intended to offer easy access to both linguistic and nonlinguistic references to those [End Page 839] interested in Irish English (also commonly known as Hiberno-English). An enormous amount of information is provided, making the book of great value to individuals approaching the subject matter for the first time as well as to specialists. Those concerned especially with dialectology, sociolinguistics, and language contact phenomena will find much of interest in its pages. The first section (1–32) provides an outline of the history of the English language in Ireland (starting in the late twelfth century) and examines early documents of the language from the late twelfth to the late sixteenth century. The second section (33–55) briefly discusses the issues with which scholars of Irish English have principally concerned themselves and provides some exemplary references. These include the identification of Irish English; its history; the debate over whether characteristic features of the variety are retentions or result from contact with Irish Gaelic; attitudes about Irish English; studies of its phonetic, phonological, and syntactic properties; subvarieties of Irish English; the variety as depicted in literature; and relationships abroad. The third section (57–457) is an annotated bibliography of 3443 linguistic (and some relevant nonlinguistic) publications that appeared up to late 2000 and bear upon the study of Irish English. It is subdivided into the general themes of ‘English in Ireland’; ‘Extraterritorial varieties’, including English in other historically Celtic-speaking areas, North America, and elsewhere; ‘Additional languages’ (i.e. the Insular Celtic languages and Norse, Flemish, Anglo Norman, Shelta, Polari, and Romani); ‘General references’ on nonlinguistic topics; and ‘Collections’ (i.e. collected volumes on a wide range of subjects). The annotations are very helpful, though sometimes colored by H’s own views. Not every item is annotated, and some do not provide complete bibliographical information. The volume is rounded out with a series of appendices, an index of authors cited, an explanation of the software found on the accompanying CD-ROM, and a shortish list of some items that appeared or were presented too late in the publication process to be included in the bibliography proper. The CD-ROM contains the bibliographic databases and annotations and a variety of software programs for managing them. It can be run under Microsoft Windows 98 or a subsequent version. Also included are a variety of help texts and reference files in .rtf format, along with further additional bibliographic items published too late to appear in the printed volume (readers are referred to H’s homepage for an up-to-date supplement to the printed bibliography). This volume and CD-ROM will be of great value to scholars of Irish English and related areas. Joseph F. Eska Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

This paper focuses on verb syntax and especially the use of modal auxiliaries with the progressive form (MODAL + be V- ing ) in standard and nonstandard spoken varieties of Irish and British English. Modal auxiliaries are known to be undergoing major changes in present-day Englishes, while increasing use of the progressive has been observed for both nonstandard and standard varieties globally. The results show higher rates of use of MODAL + V- ing in Irish English than in British English. Particularly noticeable is the more frequent use of WILL + V- ing in both standard and nonstandard Irish English than in British English. These findings suggest a certain degree of distinctiveness for Irish English vis-a-vis British English in this domain of grammar. Keywords: Irish English; British English; modal auxiliaries; progressive

The first decade of the twenty-first century has been characterised in Irish English studies by a diversification of research agendas. Whereas studies before 2000 were largely concerned with internal issues in the development of Irish English, more recent research has been marked by the desire to view Irish English in the context of international varieties of English, as demanded by Barker and O'Keeffe (1999). Much has changed in the study of Irish English in the last decade or so. This is in part due to a broader perspective adopted by researchers and also to the emergence of new ways of looking at Irish English: see Barron and Schneider (eds) 2005; Hickey, 2005, 2007a; Corrigan, 2010; Amador-Moreno, 2006, 2010. There seems to be a less exclusive concern with Irish English within the strict orbit of British English and the effects of contact with the Irish language. This is perhaps aided by looking at Irish English in the context of English as a global language (Kirkpatrick ed. 2010). A function of this globalisation is variation and that in itself brings richness and diversity. In the context of English language teaching, Irish English is one of many types of English.

English was established in the north of Ireland by the British colonisation of Ulster from the late sixteenth century onwards. This ‘Plantation’ brought large numbers of settlers from Great Britain – especially central and southern Scotland and the north, north-west Midlands and south-west of England – but never achieved its goal of replacing the Irish with a British population. This left Ulster with three major vernacular language varieties, Irish Gaelic, Scots and English, with Scottish Gaelic in some areas. Northern Irish English is the outcome of contact between these. Most of its phonology, syntax, morphology and lexicon are shared with other varieties of English, particularly Southern Irish English, but like Southern Irish English, Northern Irish English retains Early Modern English features now defunct or marginal in Great Britain. There is a broad distinction between the more English-influenced dialects of Mid and South Ulster and the more Scottish varieties of eastern and northern coastal areas, but the predominance of Scottish settlers in the Plantation era is seen in Scots influence beyond the core Ulster Scots dialect areas. And the effects of the Gaelic substrate can still be traced, especially where Irish remains an everyday vernacular or has gone out of use relatively recently.

The debate surrounding the status of learning English as a second language (ESL) has evolved greatly over the past twenty years. During this period, both the identification and classification of new varieties of English, such as Hawaiian, Maltese and Filipino English, has garnered considerable attention around the world from many educators. The spread of new Englishes has had a large impact on teaching, allowing educators to target their teaching methods more accurately to meet the needs of their learners. However, this has not always been the case, as notable examples of Englishes can be found that seem to buck this trend such as Hong Kong English. In the case of non-native Englishes, the question of what is the best approach for educators to adopt; whether or not to teach the local variety or a native speaker model, is worthy of attention. Previous studies into attitudes towards new varieties of Englishes have generally followed a quantitative approach focusing on speakers? attitudes towards a given English, with few detailed qualitative studies conducted. Furthermore, the current classifications for the emergence and development of new varieties of English have dismissed the importance of speakers? sense of the value, usefulness and importance of the language they use, or their sense ownership of their English. Little in-depth research has been conducted into how notions of ownership may develop with the development of a new variety of English. To address this lack of data and provide educators with practical suggestions for teaching students of new Englishes, this presentation sets out to explore and examine the language attitudes of young professionals? attitudes toward the English that they use and how these attitudes can affect ESL learners? attitudes toward World Englishes. In addition, data from this presentation will add further to the body of the literature concerning the factors affecting new English speakers? sense of ownership.The results show that when the learners believe their English is inferior to native models, then the notion of ownership suffers, often as a result of learners sensing no usefulness in their English. The motivational level of learners lacking this sense of value in learning a specific variety of English will suffer, and they will search for a more prestigious model of English to study. In such cases educators should change their teaching methods to better meet learners? language ambitions and abilities.

The present qualitative and quantitative study investigates the use of Late Modern English would on the basis of corpus data from Late Modern Irish English and of data from the Archer Corpus for Late Modern British English. It is the aim of the paper to show to what extent differences observed in the use of would in contemporary Irish and British English are already observable in data from the Late Modern period. For comparison with contemporary varieties, data from ICE Ireland is investigated and compared to previous findings on ICE-GB. It is found that the well-documented differences between the categories in the present day varieties are only partly in evidence in the corpus material from the Late Modern period. While will is found more frequently both overall and in contexts expressing prediction in the Irish English than in the British English data, would does not show any significant differences in the corpus texts. These partial differences are argued to be due to the as yet incomplete variety formation processes of Irish English in the period in question.

In the English-speaking world, be-deletion, or copula absence, is best known as a likely creole feature of African American English (AAE) and basilectal Caribbean Englishes. This historical case study examines Raymond Hickey’s contention that attestations of be-deletion in present-day Irish English (IrE) must lead to revision of accounts assuming that be-deletion does not and did not occur in the Englishes of Britain and Ireland. A survey of reports of be-deletion in present-day and historical varieties of British English (BrE) and IrE suggests that be-deletion is and was found not only in Ireland, but also in Scotland and northern England, regions that contributed greatly to British settlement in Ireland. Deletion appears to have been widespread in IrE historically and was present in time to cross the Atlantic with Ulster Scots (Scotch-Irish) settlers in the eighteenth century and with other Irish emigrants in the nineteenth. However, an analysis of the letters of one individual writer from the Corpus of Irish English Correspondence (CORIECOR) shows that his be-deletion in a range of preceding and following grammatical environments deviates from the robust patterns reported for AAE and Caribbean Englishes. IrE is thus unlikely to have exerted much direct influence on be-deletion in AAE and Caribbean varieties. Nonetheless, be-deletion in IrE may have provided input into some marginal grammatical contexts where deletion was once found in AAE but has since been lost. Some of these—such as following what, it, that, and this—seem to be robust contexts for be-deletion in the IrE letters and are contexts where copula deletion in the Irish language suggests that the Irish substrate exerted some influence on be-deletion in IrE.

Among prescriptivists, the Irish have long had a reputation for not following the rule requiring a distinction betweenshallwith first-person andwillwith other grammatical subjects. Recent shift towardswillwith all persons in North American English – now also affecting British English – has been attributed to the influence of Irish immigrants. The present study of data from theCorpus of Irish English Correspondence(CORIECOR) finds that Irish English has not always preferredwill. Rather, the present-day situation emerged in Irish English between the late eighteenth and late nineteenth centuries. This important period covers the main language shift from Irish to English, and simplification in the acquisition process may account for the Irish English use ofwill.In eighteenth-century Irish English,shallpredominated. Comparison with other colonial Englishes of the period – US English (Kytö 1991) and Canadian English (Dollinger 2008) – and with north-west British English (Dollinger 2008) shows broadly similar cross-varietal distributions of first-personshallandwill. Irish English shifted rapidly towardswillby the 1880s, but was not unusual in this respect; a similar development took place at the same time in Canadian English, which may indicate a more general trend, at least in colonial Englishes. It is thus doubtful that Irish English influence drove the change towards first-personwill.We suggest the change might be associated with increasing literacy and accompanying colloquialisation (Mair 1997; Biber 2003; Leechet al.2009: 239ff.). As Rissanen (1999: 212) observes, and Dollinger corroborates for north-west British English,willpersisted in regional Englishes after the rise of first-personshallin the standard language. Increased use ofwillmight have been an outcome of wider literacy leading to more written texts, like letters, being produced by members of lower social strata, whose more nonstandard/vernacular usage was thus recorded in writing. There are currently few regional letter corpora for testing this hypothesis more widely. However, we suggest that, in nineteenth-century Ireland, increasing literacy may have helped spread first-personwillas a change from below. The shift to first-personwillthat is apparent in CORIECOR would then result from greater lower-class literacy, and this might be a key to understanding this change in other Englishes too.

Professor T. P. Dolan is a lexicographer and regular contributor to programs on Irish radio and television, who has made the term Hiberno-English widely known in Irish society. has thus been hugely influential in making the Irish more aware of the features that make their English different from other Englishes. Hiberno-English is nowadays very much a sign of identity for many, a form of English that sets the Irish apart from other native speakers of English. Professor Dolan is also the director of www.hiberno-english.com, which is, as he describes it 'a living museum' or 'living laboratory of HE vocabulary and syntax', where people from all over the world can log questions about the English of Ireland. T. P. Dolan, profesor, lexicografo y colaborador habitual en diferentes programas de radio y television, ha conseguido dar a conocer el termino Hiberno-ingles a una gran parte de la sociedad irlandesa. Gracias a el, en parte, los irlandeses son mas conscientes de las caracteristicas que hacen que el ingles que hablan sea diferente de otras variedades. El hiberno-ingles es en la actualidad un signo de identidad para muchos, una forma de expresion que diferencia a la irlandesa de otras culturas anglo-parlantes. El profesor Dolan dirige tambien la pagina web www.hiberno-english.com, 'un museo viviente', o 'un laboratorio de vocabulario y sintaxis hiberno-inglesa', como el mismo lo describe, en el que cualquiera puede enviar preguntas sobre el ingles que se habla en Irlanda. It is a great pleasure to sit down and talk to someone with whom I share similar research interests. I suppose we should start by defining what Hiberno-English is. What is Hiberno-English? it the same as IrE? Hiberno-English (HE) is the technical term for the Irish use of English. It is a term used, first of all, in the early nineteenth century by the poet Tennyson, and it's been in use ever since then, by very distinguished authors, writers and scholars such as Seamus Heaney (he uses it in his introduction to his great translation of Beowulf). The term Irish English is a misnomer, because it works on the principle that 'Irish English' is similar to Australian English, American English or Canadian English, which it isn't. English was transported to these countries, but did not mix with the a the native languages. In Ireland, Hiberno-English means that you have two languages in kind of unruly shotgun marriage together, fighting all the time over the centuries, for syntax, pronunciation, vocabulary, idiom. 'Hiberno-English', therefore, exactly symbolises this very healthy connexion between the two disparate and independent languages. So, for you, Hiberno-English is more a contact vernacular than a colonial variety of English ... Yes, it is. It's two languages in contact, two languages in equal contact as both have very, very strong backgrounds, both have powerful grammars, and both have very powerful literatures as well, so both have the prestige of being independent languages. In other countries, this is not the case. English never had to fight another language. In comparison with all of those other varieties of English, what is different about the English spoken in Ireland? First of all, the pronunciation is quite different, because it retains the pronunciation of the English language in its earlier forms, for example, meat is pronounced like mate Very many of the older pronunciations of English are retained in HE, but much more important, we find English consonant and vowels removed and replaced by Irish vowels and consonants, so 'th' in the word thought is often pronounced as [t], thus making it sound like taught. There are many other examples, initial 's' in stairs is sometimes pronounced as 'sh', film is pronounced as fillum. The grammar is particularly different; we say in HE things such as I'm after having my dinner, Is it there that you're going?, He came in and I writing my letter, all of which are based on the grammar of the Irish language. …