Conservación del patrimonio arqueológico arquitectónico de tierra

The earliest comments from a linguistic researcher came from Ellis’

publication in 1889. Although as formerly mentioned there were other observations from visitors to the IoM previously (Speed and Chaloner (see section 1.2.2)), Ellis’ study is the first which talks about MxE phonology.

Ellis’ research begins with a comment by Reverend Drury in 1879 saying that the “Manx peasantry are remarkable for their good English” and that their accent is “much more correct than that of the English peasants

generally” (Ellis 1889: 360). However, Ellis then goes on to refute these claims and states that the “dialect is mixed” and is by no means

“remarkably good” (1889: 360). Ellis’ main findings were that the accent on the IoM is merely a reproduction of neighbouring dialects; in particular the dialect of Lancashire. Ellis remarks:

It is impossible to regard the speech of the Isle of Man as anything but a variety of m.La. [mid-Lancashire], having numerous points of agreement and only one point of real difference (1889: 361)

Similar to his views on Welsh English, Ellis sees the variety spoken on the IoM as copied from neighbouring dialects rather than learned from within their own schools (Ellis 1889). Barry (1984: 168) and Broderick (1997: 123) state that by reducing MxE to an offshoot of a neighbouring dialect, Ellis has understated the influence of Gaelic or other unique language changes.

The biggest criticism of the findings is that the informants for Ellis’ (1889) study were not living on the IoM at the time of the data collection.

Although born on the Island, they were residents of Manchester.

The next sources are based on oral traditions and literature. They were created as a record of lexical items but also included some comments about MxE phonology. First, Moore, Morrison and Goodwin published the book A Vocabulary of the Anglo-Manx Dialect in 1924. It is considered by Broderick (1997: 124) as “the first substantial work on MxE”. The dictionary is

17 compiled from oral traditions and literary sources from authors such as T.E. Brown and Josephine Kermode. One example is the common term:

YUESSIR [jüso(r)], 'you sir', a disrespectful form of addressing a boy or man. Wharr are ye doin there, yuessir? ...

yuessir, come here. (Moore, Morrison and Goodwin 1924:

206)

The items recorded were documented as they were seen as distinctive to the IoM, thus giving the researchers the scope to analyse MxE. In the phonetics section, Goodwin writes that the ‘Lancashire peculiarities’ have made a strong impression on MxE and that inflection from MxG has also shaped the English spoken on the IoM (Moore, Morrison and Goodwin 1924: x). It is meaningful to note that although Liverpool was part of the historical county of Lancashire, it became an independent county borough in 1889. Therefore, it is presumed that Goodwin is not referring to the Liverpool accent in the quote above.

Written initially as a critique to Moore, Morrison and Goodwin’s (1924) publication, Manx Dialect Words and Phrases (Gill, 1934) adds an extra 250 words to Moore, Morrison and Goodwin’s 750. Gill’s new lexical items included loan words from Gaelic, such as meighing “meaning gentle, unassuming behaviour” (Gill 1934), which comes from the Manx meighey with the English affix -ing attached. Gill’s findings were that MxE is more of a mixed and distinct dialect than previously thought. Gill states that:

Manx English differs widely from any other English…it is not the modern representation of an early subdivision…but…a mingling of two distinct languages. (1934: 9)

Gill also hinted at levelling influences feeding into MxE; he cites education, tourism and the “blighting effect of the wireless” (1934: 10) as contributors to change.

Gill viewed MxE as a dying variety, believing that loan phrases from MxG were “a wasting asset in the dialect ever since the change over from Manx to English was finally accomplished” (Gill, 1934: 153). Presumably, Gill is referring to the loss of local dialectal forms in MxE. Gill also concluded that there was a growing influence from Liverpool on the Douglas dialect, something that is echoed in more recent findings (see Pressley (2002) below).

As readings of MxE phonology at the time, these sources must be treated with care. Maddrell argues that Anglo Manx as a dictionary of literary sources in the MxE dialect is acceptable but cannot be used as a specimen for natural MxE dialect as it is “codified and unnatural” (2001: 13). Written language cannot always be a true representation of spoken; especially within literature and poetry. Gill’s (1934) claims of MxE also came from literary sources rather than recording Manx people on the Island.

19 A review of these early studies tells us a little about the influences on the IoM and what the researchers believe were the unique qualities of MxE.

First and foremost are the statements of similarity between the English spoken on Mann and the Lancashire dialect. Ellis (1889), Moore, Morrison and Goodwin (1924) and Gill (1934) all recognise the importance of contact from Lancashire. A point of contention comes into play when discussing the level of influence from MxG. Ellis is said to have understated its influence (Barry 1984: 168, and Broderick 1997: 123), while Gill recognises the importance of MxG within MxE. The comments in which Gill discusses mechanisms of levelling in 1934 are of particular interest for this thesis, as it also hypothesises about the motivators of change. The fact that the radio was affecting MxE speech (although this is a contentious point in modern sociolinguistic studies) suggests a move towards a Received Pronunciation (henceforth RP) accent as the BBC were said to have encouraged conservative RP (emanating from the south east of England) accents within the 1920s and 1930s (Agha 2003). This thesis also investigates whether other accents of English have influence on MxE today.

1.3.2 Research with descriptive analysis of the phonology of Manx