From 1976, then aged eleven, to 1994 I have spent often five months or more annually, living, working and learning Irish in Maínis, on the smallholding of Seán and Máire Chúláin (speaker abbreviations 12S, 16M, abbreviated further to S and M), sometimes also working for their daughter Máirín Brown (43M) in a local shop and sometimes with their son Jaicí Chúláin (52J), a local builder. My formal investigation into the local dialect began circa 1982 with queries and observations on vocabulary. The main results of my lexical work are contained in the present Vocabulary (Chapter 14). I devoted my time solely to fieldwork for the first time in 1994 for six months while working on my doctoral thesis and I have done some further fieldwork since 1997. A good deal of the material collected (both primary and secondary) remains to be analysed.
Observations from everyday interaction, direct elicitation, and analysis of recorded material are the three main methods of data collection used. In query sessions and recordings, speakers were made aware, if necessary, that ‘natural, unconscious, nonbookish’ speech was the purpose of the investigation. (Reading was used in one exceptional instance where Máire (16M) was asked to read a passage containing many words which have phonemic nasalisation (1.341, Table 1.19).) In direct elicitation there is a tendency for certain speakers to produce stylistically more formal or ‘correct’ or ‘older’ forms than in everyday ‘unmoni- tored’ usage although this tendency is very often weak given the absence of a clearly codified or recognised prestige norm. Results from query are generally indicated by ‘q’ following the speaker abbreviation. Doubtful or impermissible forms, when included, are also indicated, e.g. Øperm = impermissible. Forms produced by a confused or unsure informant are not generally given and in cases where they are of particular interest their status is also clearly indicated in my discussion.
The work of Tomás de Bhaldraithe, particularly ICF, GCF, NIGCF, FFG (and before the publication of FFG the word lists published in volumes of Éigse 1942– 7), has been the single most important reference and starting point for investiga- tion. Most of GCF and the indexes of ICF and NIGCF were worked through with Seán and Máire Chúláin, my two main informants; FFG was worked through mainly with Máire; queries were made about forms from all four publications which were not known to me from conversation heard in Maínis. Words in the
Preface 46
description of the noun in GCF formed the basis for my questions and question- naires on the noun. My chapter on historical phonology is most indebted to and generally most directly comparable with ICF, with many additional words from FFG, and assistance in finding the Old and Early Modern Irish equivalent in ING (de Bhaldraithe 1981).
This study uses the tools of four branches of linguistics: descriptive linguistics, historical linguistics, dialectology and sociolinguistics. The analysis is indebted to the Labovian school of sociolinguistic investigation and to others in the field of language change and variation, in particular Trudgill’s work (e.g. on Norwich English, 1974), and the work of the J. and L. Milroy on Belfast English (e.g. 1985). The term ‘apparent time’, for example, is used to indicate generational differences (in language) which contrasts with ‘real time’ to indicate actual diachronic language comparison. The term ‘semi-speaker’ I use following Dorian (e.g. 1978) for a speaker who has not full native competence. The term ‘tradi- tional’ dialect contrasts with ‘nontraditional’ or ‘young people’s’ dialect as employed by Schmidt (1985) for a similarly rapidly changing, endangered, in fact dying, language (cp. English ‘traditional-dialect’ superseded by ‘General English’ Wells 1982: 4–7 (in contrast, as with other minority languages, our ‘nontradi- tional’ speech is not a more general form of Irish); Gal 1978). The term ‘verna- cular’ (e.g. everyday conversation) contrasts with ‘higher register’ (e.g. prayer or song).
The dialect of Iorras Aithneach has multidimensional variation in many parts of its phonological and grammatical systems. One can list well over one hundred substantial linguistic variables. Dialectologically Conamara is a mixed zone. ‘Conamara’ is used in this work to denote the area west of Lough Corrib as far as the sea. Iar-Chonnachta (English West-Connaught) is the historically more accurate term for this area (Ó Con Cheanainn 2002: 223, n. 154). Many isoglosses, some of which are bundled along the Connacht–Munster border in South-East Co. Galway, fan out at Galway Bay to the north of Conamara, or through Conamara, or to the south — giving the impression of an Irish equivalent to the well-known Rhenish fan of German dialectology or the spread of isoglosses pertaining to Franco-Provençal in South-East France. There are also compromise features in the interstitial central Irish zone to which Conamara belongs. This geolinguistic situation, combined with the sociological changes some of which are seismic in proportion, results in a dialect with much variation and change. Central Munster dialects have been described as relatively homogeneous in Ó Cuív (1951: 72). In fact the Irish of central Cois Fharraige, the best documented dialect closest to ours, is also described as homogeneous in comparison with unhomogeneous eastern Cois Fharraige (de Bhaldraithe 1945: xi). This would imply that central Cois Fharraige is also more homogeneous than the traditional dialect of Iorras Aithneach. This may well be the case but it must be borne in mind that Iorras Aithneach comprises a far greater area than central Cois Fharraige which is a compact district of three neighbouring townlands in de Bhaldraithe’s studies. Three townlands in Iorras Aithneach would also yield more homogeneous results, not only because of the geographically more limited sample but simply because the smaller number of speakers would show less interpersonal variation.
A small amount of quantitative work dealing with Irish and Scottish Gaelic has been hitherto published.1 Quantitative diachronic comparison between the main
corpora of Old Irish glosses has nonetheless a long history (e.g. Strachan 1897, 1899, McCone 1980, Ó hUiginn 1986). The quantitative and structured decline of reduplication in Middle Irish texts has been described by Lewis (1984); the increase in use of independent pronouns in Early Modern Irish texts has more recently been studied by Roma (2000). Quantitative methods can play a key role in Late Middle Irish historical linguistics and literary textual studies as illustrated by Mac Gearailt (1992, 1993). Important quantitative dialectological studies include Jackson’s (1968) study of the distribution of one phonological feature in Scottish Gaelic, Ó Sé’s (1991) lexical diffusion analysis of two conflicting proso- dies in the Gaelic of the Isle of Man, and Ó Dochartaigh’s (1987) impressive quantification of various phonological features of Ulster Irish from Wagner’s Atlas. In an important generative description of nominal morphology based on material (now available in ‘Airneán I(I)’) from Iorras Aithneach, Nominalformen
im Conamara-Irischen (Wigger 1970), there are early analyses with regard to percentage usage of the various inflectional endings (102 ff.), of lenition of dependent nouns (124–9) and rates of genitive case use (129–34). Wigger (2004) contains frequency counts and comprehensive concordances of a spoken corpus from Ros Muc, Co. Galway. The percentage ‘patterns of mutation in Irish loan- words’ are analysed primarily according to anlaut in Stenson (1990b); cp. O’Malley Madec (2002, 2004). Ó Maolalaigh (e.g. 1999a, 2002, 2003f) has relaunched Scottish Gaelic comparative dialectology from a sound quantitative base. Specifically variationist perspectives dealing with synchronic intradialectal variation are less common. The ‘generational differences in Donegal Irish’ in a small number of phonological variables in Rann na Feirste are clearly shown by Ó Dochartaigh (1982). Dorian (1977; 1981: 114–156) quantifies certain aspects of semi-speakers’ use of East Sutherland Gaelic. The most substantial variationist analysis is that of Dorian (1994, also 1996) where the usual geographical, stylistic and intergenerational variation is discussed but where a further type, termed personal-pattern variable, is proposed. In fact many of the same linguistic variables are found in most Irish and Scottish Gaelic dialects and therefore occur and are analysed in my study of Iorras Aithneach. The time depth of my study is one hundred and thirty years in comparison with Dorian’s forty, due to the fact that earlier recordings of the Iorras Aithneach dialect exist and that it is still a community vernacular.2 See also my variationist presentation (in Irish) of a selec-
1 Compare: ‘Zur Frage der Variation ist die Forschungslage recht unausgewogen ... . Während
Methoden der Dialektologie des 20. Jhs. in Irland durchaus rezipiert und angewandt worden sind, kann man für die Soziolinguistik nur das Gegenteil feststellen.’ (Wigger 2003: 252). Wigger is, however, incorrect in his claim (2003: 270) that change in the tense sonorants of northern Irish and of Scottish Gaelic has not been reliably studied. As well as the various dialect monographs on Ulster and Scottish Gaelic, one can refer to Ó Baoill (1979b, 1980), Ó Dochartaigh (1987: 74–8, 92–6), Ní Chasaide (1979), Shuken (1980), MacAulay ([1988]), Ó Maolalaigh (2001) and SGDS.
2 Analysis of recordings of Norwich English speakers born between 1875 and 1973 provides ‘an
overall age-range ... of 98 years’ (Trudgill 1988: 38). Recordings of speakers from Virrat, southern Finland, born between 1880 and 1983, including the rare ‘panel study’ approach of recording the same speakers on separate occasions, provide a range of 103 years and fascinating data (Nahkola and Saanilahti 2004). Cp. recordings of former African American slaves born between 1844 and 1861, e.g. Walker (2001: 13); Trudgill (1998: 199) for analysis of recordings of New Zealand English speakers born since 1850. The greatest potential time depth I have come across is that of a study of recordings of Danish speakers born since 1840, with the oldest born in 1813, reported in Brink and Lund (1979: 196).
Preface 48
tion of noun plural variables (Ó Curnáin 1997). As long ago as 1941, Sommerfelt recommended in the context of the study of Irish dialects that ‘persons of differ- ent social groups and age groups [be taken] as object of study’ (Baumgarten 1974: 130).1 It is indicative of the regrettably conservative nature of much
dialectology in Ireland that his recommendation remained prescience for almost half a century and that his insight and the insights of the later literal revolution in (socio-)dialectology were generally absent in this field.
One does of course frequently encounter more traditional labels such as ‘free variation’ to describe variable phenomena in Irish. As the description presented in this work will prove, an older more conservative ‘categorical’ paradigm is inade- quate even at the descriptive level (cf. for example Trudgill 1983: 33 ff.). Through use of specific queries and elicitation techniques (cf. Matsuda 1993: 7 and references in note 9 therein) a broader range of forms has been discovered than found in previous monographs. For example, unremarkable enough nominal plurals such as dreithiúracha, bainsiúchaí and alltachaí have not been previously reported for Conamara (or anywhere regarding the last two forms). Nor has such a wide range of plurals for many lexemes been previously reported, e.g. glaise (glaSE) → glaSExEþþ, glaSExiÉþþ, glaSiÉ.ExiÉþþ, glaSiExiÉþþ, glaSeÉ.ExiÉþþ, glaSeÉxiÉþþ, glaSeÉxEþþ, glaSexiÉþþ, glaSaxiÉþþ, glaSuÉxiÉþþ, glaSoÉxiÉþþ, glaSAÉxiÉþþ, glaSAxiÉþþ, glaSrExiÉþþ, glaSreÉxiÉþþ, glaSÐ !uÉxiÉþþ, glasreÉxiÉþþ, glaskEniÉþþ, glasnExiÉþþ, etc.
Analysis of variables forms a significant part of this book. Given the large number of variants and variables I have counted from primary and secondary sources, one hundred per cent accuracy in the actual figures has undoubtedly not been achieved. The loss of accuracy owing to the wide range of variables was preferred to a narrower range of investigation which would have guaranteed higher accuracy in noting and counting variants. Variants were counted from listening to recordings, in many cases only once or twice. It is hoped, however, that overall conclusions and patterns would not be substantially changed by more exact figures. Only occasionally did I count variants from current speech, by writing tokens in lists, in which case I was passive in the interaction and only a small number of variables, generally only one, was covered.
Methodologically it is shown that careful use of secondary sources, particularly material in Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann, can be invaluable for our understanding of the speech of the late nineteenth century, which will have implications for, among other things, the study of intergenerational change. A computerised system of retrieval of texts and recordings from Roinn Bhéaloideas Éireann would be of immense value for all interested in the use of that material.
In linguistic fieldwork, one’s observations improve as one becomes better acquainted with the data. My phonetic records cover a span of twenty two years, from 1984 to 2006, and inevitably I now have doubts about some of my earlier transcriptions. Where I do, and where there is no longer the possibility of check- ing the form, I have indicated my reservation by giving the year of transcription (in the 1980s) after the speaker identity, e.g. M84 (recorded from Máire in 1984).2 The major transcriptional inconsistency which permeates this work has to
1 Cp. Quiggin (1906: v): ‘Indeed I have been forcibly impressed with the great differences noticeable
between speakers of different ages’; MacAulay (1978–81) for Scottish Gaelic.
2 When far later years are given following a speaker’s abbreviation, the date is considered to have
some other significance. For example, 79A97 indicates a citation (of a borrowing) from speaker 79A, aged seventeen or eighteen, in 1997 (borrowing being more common in latter years). Cp. II.VIII.
do with the indication of nasalisation on vowels. Notes taken before 1994 only rarely indicate nasalisation; after 1994 nasalisation was often indicated when independent of nasal consonants. Transcriptions since 2001 are the most accurate, given my improved understanding of nasalisation beside nasal consonants. Even since 2001, however, much incidental and nonphonemic nasalisation has been transcribed only where nasalisation was under discussion. Cf. 1.310. This slow development of my understanding and transcription of nasalisation has led to the inconsistency where the same token from the same speaker may be transcribed nasalised in sections 1.269–1.352 but unnasalised elsewhere in this work, or where words, which I now know to be nasalised (by the speaker), were tran- scribed with oral vowels (in sections other than 1.269–1.352, 13.1–13.32). In such instances it is the transcription with nasalisation that is more accurate than that without nasalisation (of the same token from the same speaker).
So also with my quantitative analysis of variation. The primary material gathered in the field is not based on a representative sample of the age, sex or location of Iorras Aithneach speakers. It was gathered firstly from my oldest and most will- ing and available informants in Maínis, in particular Seán (12S from Carna) and Máire (16M from Maínis), with less in-depth work elsewhere. When I came to analyse the data and began to count tokens of by-forms, and in some cases to calculate simple percentages according to mostly phonological environments, I began gradually to recognise, as well as to learn from my general reading, that by-forms are best analysed as conditioned variants of (sociolinguistic) variables. The quantitative analysis in this work is therefore of the most basic kind, by now out-dated, and makes no claims for statistical robustness.
It is hoped that the relatively new methodology and approach for Irish dialectal investigation used in this study broadens the scope and depth of description and analysis. It would be gratifying to encourage a fresh impetus in the relatively neglected research area of spoken Irish and investigative fieldwork. This work is all the more urgent given that native Irish is rapidly disappearing.1
Numerous questions are raised and pointers given by the initial results of my study for further research both in Iorras Aithneach and in the Gaeltacht as a whole. It is obvious, for example, from my brief description of register that any analysis of the higher register or stylistics of a given dialect must have as its basis a sound knowledge of the vernacular with which the higher register contrasts. The study of the higher register of other dialects should enable the investigation of the geographical distribution of high register features and their (geographical and other) relation to the vernaculars. A few examples of further research questions can be suggested here. Does loss of phonemic nasalisation follow the same or similar patterns elsewhere? Is non-nasalisation a register marker in Iorras Aithneach generally and also elsewhere? What would a similar investigation of plural formation yield, for example, in Cois Fharraige, given de Bhaldraithe’s (GCF §§ 107–8) analysis (rephrased here in variable rule terminology) of [<iExiÉ> >> <eÉxiÉ>] vs. [<uÉxiÉ> >> <oÉxiÉ>], or in North Connacht where the <uÉxiÉ> variant is more dominant? What are the sociological variables and extra- linguistic conditions related to the large amount of variation and change described? What would a linguistic and sociolinguistic investigation into the
1 As are most of the languages in the world (Crystal 2000, and Dixon 1997); concerning the
Preface 50
development of a new third plural subject pronoun dur yield? This innovation is found in a wide area of greater Conamara from Tuar Mhic Éadaigh in the north to Iorras Aithneach in the west and Na Forbacha in the east. These questions and many others have intrinsic value for the study of Irish but can of course contribute uniquely to general linguistics.