Sociolinguistic variation and methodology: after as a Dublin variable

Abstract

Introduction Perhaps because of the interest and controversy which has been associated with the link between the Irish language and Hiberno-English, purely synchronic studies in which the direct influence of Irish can be effectively discounted are very rare. Classic descriptive studies such as those of Henry (1957, 1958) concentrate on rural dialects, while structural analyses such as those of Bliss (1972), Henry (1960–61), and others have tended also to look at Hiberno-English only in comparison with Irish. Although some early writers (e.g., Hayden and Hartog 1909) have also given space to a consideration of the role of earlier English forms in the development of Hiberno-English, these writers too were concerned only with rural varieties in which both Irish influence and dialectal ‘conservatism’ might be strongest. Recent studies by Harris (1983, 1984) have examined aspects of Hiberno-English more rigorously, while still using a contrast between this variety and ‘standard English’ or Irish as a point of departure. We examine here a well-known syntactic feature of Hiberno-English, the use of after as a perfective marker, whose origins, though still not well documented, may lie in the large-scale contact between English and Irish speakers in the seventeenth century (see Bliss 1979 and Kallen 1986). What is of concern, though, is the set of factors which governs the contemporary use of after in Dublin, a large urban centre in which the Irish language can effectively be ruled out as a direct influence on the modern use of English.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 63 citations exist upstream.