Double and Triple Modals in the Scottish Borders

Home , Central Scots, Modern Scots, Southern Scots, Tag question

Description of Multiple Modality in Contemporary Scotland: Double and Triple Modals in the Scottish Borders

Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philologischen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br.

vorgelegt von

Anthony Bour aus Metz

SS 2014

Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Bernd Kortmann

Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Christian Mair

Vorsitzende/r des Promotionsausschusses der Gemeinsamen Kommission der Philologischen, Philosophischen und Wirtschafts- und Verhaltenswissenschaftlichen Fakultät: Prof. Dr. Hans-Helmuth Gander

Datum der Disputation: 15/12/2014

Map of the Scottish Borders region

Eyemouth

Duns

Peebles Galashiels Coldstream Innerleithen Melrose Kelso

Selkirk

Jedburgh

Hawick

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank my two supervisors, Professor Bernd Kortmann and Professor Christian Mair for their advice and support during my doctoral thesis. This research project would not have reached its potential without their ongoing help. My thanks also go to Doctor Christian Langstrof for his suggestions concerning the presentation of the tables and the organization and content of the thesis in general. I am grateful to Doctor Alice Blumenthal who kindly provided me with the content of her doctoral thesis. The presentation of her PhD thesis allowed me to improve mine a great deal. My gratitude also goes to Norma Coquillat who helped me proofread the entire thesis for several days as well as my former Master’s supervisor, Doctor Marc Deneire, who made additional proofreadings and offered me suggestions as regards the introduction of the doctoral thesis. Finally, this research project would never have been complete without the precious support of the inhabitants of the Scottish Borders, who actively participated in the completion of the questionnaires. Their knowledge, open-mindedness and kindness enabled this research to achieve a better level of understanding of this lively and complex dialectal phenomenon. I am also thankful to my parents and family for their unwavering support during this research from beginning to end.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of tables ...... V List of figures ...... X

Preface ...... 1

1. Introduction ...... 4

1.1. Multiple Modality in the Anglophone world: general principles ...... 4 1.2. MM Variation Surveys from 1973 to the present day ...... 11 1.3. Modal combinations in the Scots language ...... 18 1.4. Questionnaire survey ...... 22 1.5. Distribution of the questionnaires in the Borders’ towns ...... 26 1.6. Conclusion ...... 28

2. The morphosyntax and grammar of Multiple Modals in the Scottish Borders ...... 30

2.1. MMs in the 2012 and 2013 surveys: questionnaire, task one ...... 31 2.2. MMs in the 2012 and 2013 surveys: questionnaire, task two ...... 62 2.3. Conclusion ...... 87

3. Frequencies of MMs in speech and writing in Southern Scottish towns, 2010-2013 surveys ...... 89

3.1. Tendencies of use of MMs in the 2010’s ...... 90 3.2. Towns investigated in 2011 ...... 91

3.2.1. Kelso ...... 91 3.2.2. Jedburgh ...... 94 3.2.3. All the towns of 2011 ...... 97 3.3. Towns investigated in 2012 ...... 100 3.3.1. Galashiels ...... 100 3.3.2. Selkirk ...... 103 3.3.3. Peebles ...... 106 3.3.4. All the towns of 2012 ...... 109 3.4. Towns investigated in 2013 ...... 112 3.4.1. Eyemouth ...... 112 3.4.2. Duns ...... 115 3.4.3. Berwick-Upon-Tweed ...... 118 3.4.4. All the towns of 2013 ...... 121 3.5. Comparing the three main areas of research since 2010: Hawick, Kelso and Galashiels ...... 123 3.6. Conclusion ...... 130

4. Multiple Modality in Scottish society: Which factors and social variables are favorable for modal sequences? ...... 131

5. Multiple Modals and Tag Questions: ...... 136

6. MMs in negative and interrogative syntactic forms…………………….143

6.1. May can ...... 144 6.2. Should ought to ...... 147 6.3. Might can ...... 150 6.4. Conclusion ...... 153

7. ‘ll should can and used to would in syntactic

environments other than the affirmative: ...... 154

7.1. The negativity of ‘ll should can in Southern Scotland ...... 155 7.1.1. ‘ll should can becomes negative will can ...... 158 7.1.2. Alternate DMs to ‘ll should can ...... 161 7.1.3. ‘ll should can with negative markers ...... 166 7.1.4. Scottish Single Modals in the negative ...... 170 7.2. ‘ll should can in inverted forms ...... 172 7.3. What about used to would? ...... 175 7.3.1. The negative of a hybrid ...... 178 7.3.2. The inversion of a hybrid ...... 179 7.4. Conclusion ...... 180

8. Combinatorial possibilities currently acceptable in the Scottish Borders: final task of the 2012 and 2013 questionnaire surveys ...... 181

8.1. The 2012 survey: enquiry on the Central and Western Scottish Borders area ...... 184 8.1.1. Group 1: MMs used frequently by the informants ...... 184 8.1.2. Group 2: MMs which have an occasional use ...... 189 8.1.3. Group 3: MMs which are barely used ...... 202 8.2. The 2013 survey: enquiry on the Eastern Scottish Borders area ...... 209 8.2.1. Group 1: MMs used frequently by the informants ...... 210 8.2.2. Group 2: MMs which have an occasional use ...... 218 8.2.3. Group 3: MMs which are barely used ...... 233 8.3. Conclusion ...... 247

9. Final conclusion ...... 248

III

Bibliography ...... 252

Appendix 1 Bar graphs (figures 17-25) from the 2012 survey referring to the last task of the questionnaire survey (MMs belonging to group 3)………………....…259

Appendix 2 2011 Questionnaire ...... 268 2012 and 2013 Questionnaire ...... 274

Appendix 3 2011 Transcriptions ...... 279 2012 Transcriptions ...... 291

List of tables

Tables of chapter 1: Table 1: Questionnaires completed by the informants in the 2011 field survey ...... 26 Table 2: Questionnaires completed by the informants in the 2012 field survey ...... 27 Table 3: Questionnaires completed by the informants in the 2013 field survey ...... 27

Tables of chapter 2: Table 1: Number of people who hear and use the eight modal combinations...... 33 Table 2: Number of people who hear and use the eight modal combinations...... 33 Table 3: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 63 Table 4: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 63 Table 5: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 67 Table 6: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 67 Table 7: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 70 Table 8: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 71 Table 9: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 73 Table 10: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 73 Table 11: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 77 Table 12: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 77 Table 13: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 79 Table 14: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 80 Table 15: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 81 Table 16: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 82 Table 17: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 83 Table 18: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 83 Table 19: Frequency of selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 84 Table 20: Frequency of selection of the modal combinations by the informants...... 85

Tables of chapter 3:

Table 1: Oral frequencies females – males in percentage (Kelso) ...... 91 Table 2: Written frequencies females – males in percentage (Kelso) ...... 92 Table 3: Oral frequencies females – males (Jedburgh) ...... 94 Table 4: Written frequencies females – males (Jedburgh) ...... 95 Table 5: Oral frequencies females – males (All the towns) ...... 97 Table 6: Written frequencies females – males (All the towns) ...... 98 Table 7: Oral frequencies females – males (Galashiels) ...... 100 Table 8: Written frequencies females – males (Galashiels) ...... 101 Table 9: Oral frequencies females – males (Selkirk) ...... 103 Table 10: Written frequencies females – males (Selkirk) ...... 104 Table 11: Oral frequencies females – males (Peebles)...... 106 Table 12: Written frequencies females – males (Peebles) ...... 108 Table 13: Oral frequencies females – males (All the towns) ...... 109 Table 14: Written frequencies females – males (All the towns) ...... 110 Table 15: Oral frequencies females – males (Eyemouth) ...... 112 Table 16: Written frequencies females – males (Eyemouth) ...... 114 Table 17: Oral frequencies females – males (Duns) ...... 115 Table 18: Written frequencies females – males (Duns) ...... 117 Table 19: Oral frequencies females – males (B-U-T) ...... 118 Table 20: Written frequencies females – males (B-U-T) ...... 119 Table 21: Oral frequencies females – males (All the towns) ...... 121 Table 22: Written frequencies females – males (All the towns) ...... 122

Tables of chapter 4:

Table 1: Female table (oral social contexts) ...... 132 Table 2: Male table (oral social contexts) ...... 132 Table 3: Female table (written social contexts) ...... 133 Table 4: Male table (written social contexts) ...... 134

Tables of chapter 6:

Table 1: Negation and inversion of DM may can by the female informants...... 144 Table 2: Negation and inversion of DM may can by the male informants...... 145 Table 3: Negation and inversion of DM should ought to by the female informants ...... 147 Table 4: Negation and inversion of DM should ought to by the male informants...... 148 Table 5: Negation and inversion of DM might can by the female informants...... 150 Table 6: Negation and inversion of DM might can by the male informants...... 151

Tables of chapter 7:

Table 1: Negation of TM will should can ...... 157 Table 2: Inversion of TM will should can ...... 173 Table 3: Negation of DM used to would ...... 176 Table 4: Inversion of DM used to would ...... 177

Tables of chapter 8:

Tables from the 2012 survey:

Tables belonging to group 1: MMs in this group are used very often by the informants.

Table 1: Frequency of use of DM should ought to...... 184 Table 2: Frequency of use of DM used to could ……………………………………………186 Table 3: Frequency of use of DM might ought to...... 187 Table 4: Frequency of use of DM use tae could ...... 188

Tables belonging to group 2: MMs in this group are used occasionally by the informants.

Table 5: Frequency of use of DM might could ...... 190 Table 6: Frequency of use of DM should can ...... 191 Table 7: Frequency of use of DM would could ...... 192 Table 8: Frequency of use of DM may not could ...... 193 Table 9: Frequency of use of DM uisst tae coud...... 194 Table 10: Frequency of use of DM might not could’ve...... 195 Table 11: Frequency of use of DM must could...... 196 Table 12: Frequency of use of DM might better...... 197

VII

Table 13: Frequency of use of DM winnae can...... 198 Table 14: Frequency of use of DM ought to should...... 199 Table 15: Frequency of use of mustn’t could have...... 200 Table 16: Frequency of use of DM may should...... 201

Tables belonging to group 3: MMs in this group are barely used by the informants. Tables 17 through 25 in appendix 1 ...... 259-267 Table 26: Frequency of use of DM will can...... 203 Table 27: Frequency of use of DM wouldn’t could’ve...... 204 Table 28: Frequency of use of DM used to widnae...... 205 Table 29: Frequency of use of TM may should ought...... 206 Table 30: Frequency of use of TM will might can...... 207

Tables from the 2013 survey:

Tables belonging to group 1: MMs in this group are used very often by the informants.

Table 31: Frequency of use of DM should ought to...... 211 Table 32: Frequency of use of DM used to could...... 213 Table 33: Frequency of use of DM use tae could...... 214 Table 34: Frequency of use of DM uisst tae coud...... 215 Table 35: Frequency of use of DM might ought to...... 216 Table 36: Frequency of use of DM mustn’t could have...... 217

Tables belonging to group 2: MMs in this group are used occasionally by the informants.

Table 37: Frequency of use of DM might could...... 220 Table 38: Frequency of use of DM would could...... 221 Table 39: Frequency of use of DM winnae can...... 222 Table 40: Frequency of use of DM might better...... 223 Table 41: Frequency of use of DM must could...... 224 Table 42: Frequency of use of DM might not could’ve...... 225 Table 43: Frequency of use of DM should can...... 226 Table 44: Frequency of use of DM may should...... 227 Table 45: Frequency of use of DM may not could...... 228

VIII

Table 46: Frequency of use of DM will can...... 230 Table 47: Frequency of use of DM wouldn’t could’ve...... 231 Table 48: Frequency of use of TM will might can...... 232

Tables belonging to group 3: MMs in this group are barely used by the informants.

Table 49: Frequency of use of DM have to can...... 234 Table 50: Frequency of use of DM ought to should ...... 235 Table 51: Frequency of use of DM wull kin ...... 236 Table 52: Frequency of use of DM used to would ...... 237 Table 53: Frequency of use of DM used to widnae ...... 238 Table 54: Frequency of use of TM should might better ...... 240 Table 55: Frequency of use of TM might should oughta...... 241 Table 56: Frequency of use of TM may should ought ...... 242 Table 57: Frequency of use of TM may might can ...... 243 Table 58: Frequency of use of TM might will can’t ...... 244 Table 59: Frequency of use of TM will should can ...... 245 Table 60: Frequency of use of TM will should could ...... 246

List of figures

Figures of chapter 3:

Figure 1: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Kelso...... 91 Figure 2: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Kelso...... 92 Figure 3: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Jedburgh...... 94 Figure 4: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Jedburgh...... 95 Figure 5: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2011...... 97 Figure 6: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2011...... 98 Figure 7: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Galashiels...... 100 Figure 8: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Galashiels ...... 101 Figure 9: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Selkirk...... 103 Figure 10: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Selkirk...... 104 Figure 11: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Peebles...... 106 Figure 12: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Peebles...... 108 Figure 13: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2012...... 109 Figure 14: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2012...... 110 Figure 15: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Eyemouth...... 112 Figure 16: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Eyemouth...... 114 Figure 17: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Duns...... 115 Figure 18: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Duns...... 117 Figure19: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in B-U-T...... 118 Figure 20: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in B-U-T...... 119 Figure 21: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2013...... 121 Figure 22: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2013...... 122

Figure 23: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Hawick in 2010...... 125 Figure 24: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Kelso in 2011...... 125 Figure 25: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Galashiels in 2012...... 126 Figure 26: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Hawick in 2010...... 127 Figure 27: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Kelso in 2011...... 128 Figure 28: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Galashiels in 2012...... 128

Figures of chapter 8:

Figures from the 2012 survey:

Figures belonging to group 1: MMs in this group are used very often by the informants.

Figure 1: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should ought to...... 184 Figure 2: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to could...... 186 Figure 3: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might ought to...... 187 Figure 4: Histogram describing the frequency of use of use tae could...... 188

Figures belonging to group 2: MMs in this group are used occasionally by the informants.

Figure 5: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might could...... 190 Figure 6: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should can...... 191 Figure 7: Histogram describing the frequency of use of would could...... 192 Figure 8: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may not could...... 193 Figure 9: Histogram describing the frequency of use of uisst tae coud...... 194 Figure 10: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might not could’ve...... 195 Figure 11: Histogram describing the frequency of use of must could...... 196 Figure 12: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might better...... 197 Figure 13: Histogram describing the frequency of use of winnae can...... 198 Figure 14: Histogram describing the frequency of use of ought to should...... 199

Figure 15: Histogram describing the frequency of use of mustn’t could have...... 200 Figure 16: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may should...... 201

Figures belonging to group 3: MMs in this group are barely used by the informants. Figures 17 through 25 in appendix 1 ...... 259-267 Figure 26: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will can...... 203 Figure 27: Histogram describing the frequency of use of wouldn’t could’ve...... 204 Figure 28: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to widnae...... 205 Figure 29: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may should ought...... 206 Figure 30: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will might can...... 207

Figures from the 2013 survey:

Figures belonging to group 1: MMs in this group are used very often by the informants.

Figure 31: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should ought to...... 211 Figure 32: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to could...... 213 Figure 33: Histogram describing the frequency of use of use tae could...... 214 Figure 34: Histogram describing the frequency of use of uisst tae coud...... 215 Figure 35: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might ought to...... 216 Figure 36: Histogram describing the frequency of use of mustn’t could have...... 217

XII

Figures belonging to group 2: MMs in this group are used occasionally by the informants.

Figure 37: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might could...... 220 Figure 38: Histogram describing the frequency of use of would could...... 221 Figure 39: Histogram describing the frequency of use of winnae can...... 222 Figure 40: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might better...... 223 Figure 41: Histogram describing the frequency of use of must could...... 224 Figure 42: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might not could’ve...... 225 Figure 43: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should can...... 226 Figure 44: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may should...... 227 Figure 45: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may not could...... 228 Figure 46: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will can...... 230 Figure 47: Histogram describing the frequency of use of wouldn’t could’ve...... 231 Figure 48: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will might can...... 232

Figures belonging to group 3: MMs in this group are barely used by the informants.

Figure 49: Histogram describing the frequency of use of have to can ...... 234 Figure 50: Histogram describing the frequency of use of ought to should...... 235 Figure 51: Histogram describing the frequency of use of wull kin...... 236 Figure 52: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to would...... 237 Figure 53: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to widnae...... 238 Figure 54: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should might better...... 240 Figure 55: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might should oughta...... 241 Figure 56: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may should ought...... 242 Figure 57: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may might can...... 243 Figure 58: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might will can’t...... 244 Figure 59: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will should can...... 245 Figure 60: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will should could...... 246

XIII

Preface

Multiple Modality is a dialectal and sociolinguistic phenomenon which started to become a subject of research in the early 1970’s. My own work on the subject began in 2008 and I have continued analyzing the morphology and syntax of this non-standard phenomenon located in Southern Scotland since then, focussing on the following research questions: What types of Multiple Modals (MMs) are possible in terms of syntactic structures in the affirmative, negative and interrogative forms? How many modal combinations are actually spoken and written in the Scottish Borders’ territory? What are the limits of the Multiple Modality system in regard to its vernacular grammar and syntax? Answers to these questions can be explored via the use of a questionnaire survey, which represents an essential part of dialectal studies. However, this research would not be complete without observing the extra linguistic variables in which these modal combinations are spoken and written in present-day Southern Scottish towns. These external variables represent different kinds of social, cultural and written contexts that would require the use of one or several modal combinations. This is why Variationist Sociolinguistics, as Sali Tagliamonte (2012) calls it, or Language Variation and Change by Jack Chambers (2001), is of course linked to my dialectal research. In the present thesis, I extend what I collected during the Master research project I carried out in 2009/2010 in Hawick (county of Roxburghshire, Scottish Borders). Thanks to the participation of 66 Scottish informants in the questionnaire survey, including the recording of conversations, I was able to gain a sound basis for the understanding of this dialectal phenomenon, not only in its morphosyntactic complexities, but also in its social and cultural aspects. In the early 1990’s, Keith Brown was the only researcher who had a keen interest in deciphering these types of MMs used in Hawick. Since this time, no other research has been carried out to describe the morphosyntax and use of modal combinations in Scotland. That is why only Keith Brown published a detailed paper on it in 1991 entitled: “Double Modals in Hawick Scots”. Since the 1970’s, most research on Multiple Modality has taken place in the USA with the arrival of over a million Scottish immigrants in the American South from the 18th century onward. In 40 years of research, MMs have mainly been studied in dialects of the American South including African American Vernacular English, without really taking into account the development of the Multiple Modality system in present - day Scottish English. I was content with Hawick during the Master period to really take the time to observe in greater detail the concrete reality of these complex modal sequences in one single town. This finally enabled

1 me to detect interesting changes since Brown’s research both at the dialectal and sociolinguistic levels. Findings obtained in this first field survey have made me realize the potential of these vernacular features that are still being used in this Scottish town in the 2010’s.

This thesis is, above all, oriented towards a detailed understanding of the morphosyntax of the Multiple Modality system in the entire Scottish Borders nowadays. It tries to throw light on the functioning of the system via a description and interpretation of the syntactic possibilities of modal combinations. The ordering of the modal elements, their positions in the diverse syntactic forms, the sense that they are supposed to take based on their positions in the sequences, and the diverse combinatorial possibilities that can be created in various situational contexts all represent the main orientation of this thesis. Since this research essentially works on data that were collected in the field, each chapter of the thesis is intrinsically connected with one or sometimes two tasks of the questionnaire survey. A detailed preview of the diachronic research on Multiple Modality accompanied by general data of this dialectal phenomenon in the English Speaking world are given in the first chapter of the thesis. The presentation of the questionnaire survey is also a part of this chapter. Five chapters (2, 5, 6, 7, 8) give priority to the morphology and syntax of Multiple Modals, addressing questions like the following: How is the morphosyntax of modal combinations tolerated in diverse Scottish- English and Scots examples by the inhabitants of the Borders? What is their personal analysis of these combinations present in these Anglophone and Scottish clauses? What can they (not) change based on their personal judgments and experiences with these vernacular modal structures? What is (un)grammatical based on their personal knowledge of some of these combinations? Chapter 2 tries to throw some more light on these aspects of the dialectal phenomenon. Chapters 3 and 4 give priority to the sociolinguistic aspects of this research, by evaluating the frequencies of use of these combinations both in the spoken and written media in chapter 3, whilst chapter 4 is concerned with the different social environments in which these combinations are spoken and/or written. This research project also gives special attention to an aspect of Multiple Modality research that has been so neglected over these past 40 years: the morphosyntax of modal combinations in negative clauses and questions. That is why chapters 5 to 7 deal with the current state of Double and Triple Modals when they are accompanied by negative markers and when they are inverted in WH or Yes-No Questions. Combinatorial possibilities of the Multiple Modality system in the Borders are tackled in the final chapter 8 of the thesis.

1. Introduction

1.1. Multiple Modality in the Anglophone world: General principles

This thesis offers a detailed study on a rather complex non-standard morphosyntactic phenomenon called Multiple Modality. This dialectal system is composed of hundreds of sequences of two modals, termed Double Modals (DMs), or three modals, called Triple Modals (TMs). Multiple Modals (MMs) 1 are mainly found in varieties of English spoken in Southern Scotland, Ulster, the Southern United States and Northern England. This dialectal phenomenon is still little known in Anglophone linguistic research. However sociolinguists, especially Marianna Di-Paolo (1986), Michael Montgomery with Margaret Mishoe (1994), Ronald Butters (1996) and Stephen Nagle (1994) were able to describe these structures with the help of detailed lists of modal combinations. The Multiple Modality system can be used in all three basic syntactic forms of the clause, viz. affirmative, negative (partial or full negation) and interrogative forms (WH-Questions, Yes-No Questions, Tag Questions), giving rise to a great number of combinatorial possibilities for all the MMs. Furthermore, by preparing these lists, these researchers had a common objective which was to better describe the diverse types of modal expressions of these combinations. The grammatical nature of these modal expressions plays an important role in the frequency of use of MMs in Anglophone societies. Researchers preparing these lists realized this possibility which is why they tried to measure the level of recognition of several combinations. They wanted to understand why some modal combinations are more easily accepted and more widely used in Scottish and American communities than others.

1 “The term double modal is used[…]because combinations of two modals plus verb overwhelmingly predominate in real life utterances and scholarly citations. Combinations of more than two modals have been attested[…]Some scholars therefore prefer the term multiple modals.” [Fennell and Butters 1996: 265]

At the top of each list (Montgomery and Nagle 1994: 94-95; Battistella 1995: 20-22), ubiquitous DMs are found followed by more archaic or complex MMs, such as TMs.

Here is a sample of the most widely used MMs nowadays in the Anglophone world:

Might could, might can, might should, might ought to, will can, used to could, should ought to…

Those which are barely recognizable mostly have spellings that do not chime in with the Traditional Standard English orthography such as

Might otta (American English spelling) for might ought to, micht cud (Scots spelling) for might could, mighta coulda (Northumbrian English spelling) for might have could have, yaised tae cud (Scots spelling) for used to could.

There are also cases in which modal sequences can contain three modals. Like the Scots combinations, their frequency of use remains limited unlike DMs. This is the case for TMs such as:

May might can, will should can, might will can’t…

Some DMs bear the same combination of tense. Marianna Di-Paolo calls them tense-matched forms, which means that they can have either a combination where both modals are in the present tense or the entire DM is in the preterite. Thus:

Might could is a preterite-preterite combination.

May can is a present-present combination.

Other combinations where tenses are mixed, hence tense mixed forms, such as present- preterite or preterite-present are also found in the lists:

Might can as a preterite-present combination

Must could as a present-preterite combination

The present-preterite combination of tenses is rare in all the lists of MMs contrary to the other three.

Concerning TMs, it will almost always be a mix between present and preterite as it can be seen below:

Will might can

Present-preterite-present

Might will can’t

Preterite-present-present

As regards the semantic field, the most widely spoken and recognized MMs, especially the “Queen of combination” might could as Juan-De-La-Cruz (1995: 82) likes to call it, have an Epistemic (E) 2 modal in first position followed by a Root (R) 3 modal in second position. This is the classic semantic ordering for a modal sequence. Battistella (1995: 31) regularly refers to this kind of ordering in his research of the DM construction.

2 La modalité épistémique, que l’on pourrait qualifier de modalité déductive, est une modalité “intellectuelle”, qui s’articule autour du champ sémantique du certain: la réalisation de la relation ~~est jugée incertaine, peu certaine, assez certaine, certaine, très certaine. On peut la paraphraser ainsi:~~

~~« it is (little, pretty, totally…) certain that S will + prédicat ». [Lapaire et Rotgé 2004: 188]~~

Epistemic modality or also called deductive modality is an “intellectual” modality which is based on the semantic field of certainty: the realization of the relation is judged as uncertain, little certain, enough certain, certain, very certain. The relation can be paraphrased as follows:

~~« it is (little, pretty, totally…) certain that S will + predicate ». [Translation of Lapaire and Rotgé 2004: 188]~~

3 Avec la modalité radicale, l’intérêt de l’énonciateur se porte principalement sur le sujet grammatical, ou, plus précisément, sur ce que S « peut » ou « doit » faire, être, etc. Cela en fait souvent « une modalité de l’agir », ou encore appelée « modalité pragmatique », centrée sur le sujet. [Lapaire et Rotgé 2004: 189]

With root modality, the speaker’s interest is mainly turned on the grammatical subject, what the subject “can” or “must” do, be… In this case, “a modality of the action” is created or also called “pragmatic modality” that is focused on the subject. [Translation of Lapaire and Rotgé 2004: 189]

~~The following example shows this traditional hierarchy of modal senses regarding Multiple Modality:~~

(1) You might could broad jump the Grand Canyon. (Pampell 1975: 113) E (M1) R (M2) Might could remains the best MM to illustrate the E-R semantic ordering of the combination. In this instance, might expresses weak probability meaning that the event is unlikely to occur. Generally, most modals positioned in the first tier of a DM or TM express diverse degrees of probability and therefore belong to the epistemic modality. Could, on the other hand, has the root sense of ability and is thus positioned toward the right of the combination, in the second tier of this example. Root modality covers senses that are not found in epistemic modality. That is why in second or third positions of MMs, it is common to find modals expressing not only ability but also simple suggestions, warnings, and more or less strong obligation. Thus, if this clause is turned into a Standard English construction, could will be replaced by a “semi-auxiliary”, a term suggested by grammarian Randolph Quirk (1985: 137):

You might be able to broad jump the Grand Canyon. semi-auxiliary Second and/or third modals in a combination are replaced in Standard English by different kinds of modal expressions or marginal auxiliaries that can be identified as semi-modals (or auxiliaries), quasi modals (or auxiliaries), comparative modals, adverbial modals and even catenatives such as be going to, have to and used to… All these grammatical categories of modality are found in the comprehensive grammar of Quirk et al. (1985: 137). “Catenatives” (Shay 1981: 314) is a more convenient term to qualify semi, quasi or marginal modals since a certain number of these modal expressions have more than one grammatical identity.

~~Below, the types of semantic orderings of MMs are shown as follows:~~

~~E-R representing the prototypical semantic ordering:~~

~~(2) You might could fool some people. (Butters 1996: 271) (3) The girls usually make me some but they mustn’t could have made any today. (Beal 1993: 195)~~

~~DM combinations also have other semantic orderings such as:~~

R-R: (4) You used to could do that in the old house. (Butters 1996: 274) R-E: (5) Yes, we ought to might go now. (Coleman 1975: 96) E-E : (6) I wonder if you may would help me. (Mishoe’s corpus 1991: 15) And for TMs: E-R-R: (6) He might used to could run the marathon. (Mashburn 1989: 133) E-E-R: (7) He’ll might can come the morn. (Brown 1991: 78) R-E-R: (8)Oh well, if you’re planning a trip we should might better go ahead have a look. How’s Wednesday for you? (Montgomery 1994: 16)

Based on these semantic combinations, dialectal interpretations can be quite numerous especially when a single MM can adopt more than one semantic ordering. It depends on the social and cultural contexts in which a modal combination is used. Which specific written (leaving text messages, writing reports or e-mail messages) or oral environments (discussions among friends, family members or co-workers, short talks in a public or private place…) enable the Multiple Modality system to make its hierarchy of senses appear? There is much to be done and despite 40 years of research on Multiple Modality that has mostly been devoted to American combinations, very few data and findings have been obtained so far in other places of the Anglophone world. That is why this research project will mostly focus on trying to develop a clearer picture of the current grammatical and syntactic development of Multiple Modals in a specific regional area of Great Britain called the Scottish Borders. Although, as many as 250,000 Scottish and Scots-Irish immigrants (Nagle 1993: 100) chose to leave the UK, especially from Ulster, for the United States between 1718

8 and 1775 (Montgomery 1994: 19), taking these constructions with them, some of the current descendents of those who remained in Southern Scotland have not completely given up on MMs. The fieldwork carried out in 2010 brought to light the continual use of these vernacular modal combinations in the dialects of the Scots language as well as Scottish-English varieties. Indeed, the presence of Northumbrian dialects in Southern Scotland for economic and historical reasons plays an important role in the stability and active spoken use of the Multiple Modality system in the whole area of the Borders. The research carried out in Hawick (14,801 inhabitants, cf. Scottish Borders Council) by Keith Brown in 1989 and by myself in April 2010 is considered as a first step in a more fine-grained analysis of the syntax of Southern MMs in the Scottish Borders. This dialect and sociolinguistic research is able to determine how stable and diversified Multiple Modality has become after an absence of 20 years in this aspect of research on Modality in European linguistic studies. This project lasts for three years, which means that one field trip per year is prepared. Each survey explores a group of four towns of the Borders except the last one where three towns are selected. Below are the names of the selected towns and the period in which they are visited: In April and May 2011, Kelso (6,150 inhabitants), Jedburgh, Coldstream and Melrose were investigated. Although Melrose is situated at the center of the region, the other three towns cover the South-Eastern area of the region which is very close to the English Borders.

The second field survey which was carried out in spring 2012 deals with Galashiels (12,367 inhabitants), Selkirk, Innerleithen and Peebles. The first two towns are located in the heart of the Borders whereas the last two ones are located in the North-Western area of the region.

Finally, in March 2013 the last field survey focused on Duns, the harbor town of Eyemouth and Berwick-Upon-Tweed. The first two towns are situated on the Eastern coast of the Scottish Borders, whereas Berwick-Upon-Tweed is a Northern English town located in the county of Northumberland. This last town shares an historical and linguistic heritage with the Scottish Borders region. This doctoral research will also deal with the various social contexts in which Scottish DMs and TMs are used nowadays and how frequently each of these MMs is spoken and written in the daily lives of Scottish Borders people. Each field survey leads to a specific geographical area with different attitudes and local traditions at the cultural and dialectal levels. These local differences in a single region have an impact on the use of Scottish-English and Scots dialects spoken and written in every group of towns investigated. The set of social contexts proposed

9 in the questionnaire gives first answers as for the proper places to look for in the quest of data collection of MMs. Where are they used regularly and what types of modal combinations can be found out in these particular locations? How frequently are some of these Scottish and /or American DMs and TMs spoken and written among the bidialectal 4 Scottish citizens? These questions require detailed answers that have to provide a new impulse to the understanding of Multiple Modality and its future perspectives in this new century. We are not in a standard context, meaning that rules to employ them in the spoken and written media change faster than those used for traditional modals 5 in Standard Englishes.

Finally, MMs, like many other features currently used in English dialects, are in a process of ongoing change at the social, semantic and syntactic levels. Like American MMs, Scottish MMs have an equally great potential of research and it is now time to concentrate more on the European territory where Multiple Modality was born. This doctoral research has the purpose to continue bringing more clarification and details in the Multiple Modality system and to enable other specialists of modality to regain further interests in these non-standard modal combinations in the not-so-distant future.

4 “Bidialectal refers to the use of two or more dialects. The term bidialectalism is also found. In education, usually refers to approaches that seek to teach a standard variety while also valuing children’s home or community dialects rather than eradicating these.” [Joan Swann, Ana Deumert, Theresa Lillis and Rajend Mesthrie 2004: 27]

5 “Les modaux font partie de la modalité. La modalité est l’expression d’un point de vue, elle concerne l’attitude d’esprit de l’énonciateur vis-à-vis de l’idée qu’il exprime. La modalité est le domaine des faits non réels ou non encore réalisés. [Chartier 2006 : 37]

“Modals are included in the modality system. Modality enables the speaker to express a viewpoint. It deals with the speakers’ attitude vis-à-vis the idea she/he expresses. Modality is used when events have not happened yet or when they cannot be realizable.” [Chartier 2006: 37]

~~1.2. MM Variation Surveys from 1973 to the present day~~

A small group of dialectologists and sociolinguists (Nagle, Battistella, Butters, Pampell, Boertien, Brown, Close, Mishoe and Montgomery etc…) worked on the Multiple Modality system from the 1970’s to the beginning of the 2000’s. Even though this type of linguistic study remained limited for the most part, I have been greatly inspired by this early research which led to my first study taking place in Hawick in April 2010. This first field survey allowed me to really observe the nature of this amazing linguistic, rather dialectal Scottish phenomenon. Despite the fact that the Scottish Borders is known to be a region where Multiple Modality is spoken mostly by working classes, this does not mean that these dialectal constructions are only used in this part of the English-speaking world. On the contrary, according to Juan-De-La-Cruz (1995: 77), an estimated 30 million people, especially those living in the American South, are familiar with MM combinations. Using Double Modals (DMs such as may could) and Triple Modals (TMs such as will might could) gives access to a spectrum of many possible interpretations as regards the semantic and syntactic fields. Previous research conducted in the 1980’s and 1990’s by Stephen Nagle (1989; 1995; 1997), Keith Brown (1991), Michael Montgomery (1994), Marianna Di-Paolo (1986; 1989) and Harmon Boertien (1986), mentioned a great number of examples, each of them containing at least one Multiple Modal (MM). Each of them worked on a specific geographical location, for example, Brown focused on the use of DMs and TMs in the town of Hawick. Nagle and Montgomery (1993) looked into the historical link between Scottish and American MMs. Montgomery and Margaret Mishoe (1994) also wanted to get a detailed look at the pragmatics of these MMs in North Carolina and South Carolina. Harmon Boertien chose to study MMs spoken in East and West Texas. In twenty years of research, all of these researchers, except Keith Brown, have essentially investigated American territories so as to trace the historical and geographical path that Multiple Modality has taken in this country over the past 300 years. They demonstrated that this dialectal phenomenon continued to spread for a long time after the first Scots had landed in America. These Scots formed the earliest and most predominant settlement group in much of the interior of the American South from Virginia to Georgia. MMs are present in the United States thanks to this group. Stephen Nagle is the first researcher who really thought of this transatlantic diachronic link between both countries. In one of his papers on the subject (1995: 209), he retakes Montgomery’s idea of 1989, asserting:

The historical home of the current double modals would appear to be in Scotland and Scots English. [Nagle 1995: 209] With Michael Montgomery, Nagle tries to prove that their origin is truly Scottish. In another paper (Nagle: 1997: 1514), he pursues his research on the origin of modal sequences by working on Leyburn’s theory of 1962 asserting:

The existence of double modals in both the Scottish and American Southern Vernacular suggests that they have a common origin, since much of the piedmont South was settled in the 18th and 19th century by descendents of Scots who went to Ulster in the 17th century. [Nagle 1997:1514]

Nagle is the first researcher who spent a lot of time in the 1980’s and 1990’s in stressing the importance of historical information and in the understanding of the true origin of these combinations. He also made regular connections in his analyses between historical and dialectal data.

The common point that can also be made between Northern UK and The USA is that modal sequences are only found in dialectal non-standard varieties of English which do not correspond to the government binding theory of Chomsky’s generative principles (Nagle 1993: 92; Battisttella 1995: 19). This theory claims that only one modal, representing the head of the clause, can be present in the English syntax. Before the 1980’s, research on MMs was quite limited. The very first paper which talks about MMs was published in 1973 by Ronald Butters, who at the time had only discovered four types of DMs: might could, might should, might would and might ought to.

These are four tense-matched combinations that have the “Epistemic (E) – Root (Root)” semantic ordering. Butters thought that they were essentially spoken in restricted Southern areas of the USA and nowhere else in the Anglophone World (1973: 276):

~~In fact, besides might could, at least three other such double modal expressions can be observed in actual speech in the South Midlands and the South. [Butters 1973: 276]~~

The ideas as regards the development and expansion of this phenomenon remained quite limited in Butter’s research. However he prepared several questionnaires to begin his investigations and drew his first conclusions by asserting that the main concentration of MMs was situated in the state of North Carolina:

Not surprisingly, familiarity with these items was far higher among southerners than non-southerners. Even though they are now, in North Carolina, living in a dialect area where double modals are used. [Butters 1973: 280]

He also limited his research to the use of MMs only in the affirmative without taking into account the negative and interrogative syntactic forms. Although he tried to understand the reasons why such a peculiar phenomenon could exist in American Southern dialects, he basically limited the potential of presence and diversity of modal combinations from a geographical and dialectal viewpoint. In 1975, John Pampell decided to pursue this research by going much further in the syntactic analyses of these modal constructions. He proposes more fine-grained explanations regarding the potential of these dialectal features. He is confident in the fact that they have concrete meanings for the Southern citizens who use them in their day-to-day verbal interactions. All these features can therefore be applied by a series of accurate semantic rules in each variety of English accepting these modal combinations. He wants to prove that these structures make sense, which he starts to do in his first and only paper on the subject in 1975:

The present study is part of an effort to examine in more detail the use of these double modals, with particular emphasis on extending the syntactic environments in which they are embedded. The ultimate goals in mind were to understand more exactly what these expressions are and how people use them. [Pampell 1975: 110]

His paper gave a better understanding of a part of the MM constructions. However, like Ronald Butters, he mostly exclusively dealt with DMs starting with might. Other researchers were also particularly interested in these MMs having the same tense-matched form, viz. the exclusive preterite-preterite form. Despite the discovery of numerous MM structures especially in the 1990’s, which implied the creations of lists elaborated by Stephen Nagle (1997), Stanley Whitley (1975), Marianna Di-Paolo (1989), Michael Montgomery (1994) and many others, sociolinguists such as Edwin Battistela wrote two papers in 1991 and 1995 focusing essentially on the grammatical and syntactic aspects of the preterite–preterite combination might could. Like Battistella, Joanne Close, in her 2004 doctoral thesis did the same. Above all, both tried to determine the grammatical categories to which the element might belonged in this DM construction from both sides of the Atlantic. This epistemic modal remains a fascinating morpheme to analyze since it still represents the nerve center of the Multiple Modality system. Despite the rich diversity of this system, might is still incorporated in many DMs and a minority of TMs that are well used orally by Anglophone people who

13 have multilingual skills. Being a determining component of Multiple Modality, might leaves little place for the remaining 80% of the combinations of the system. This bulk of MMs has very limited interactions in Scottish and other Anglophone societies in the 21st century. Most of the time, might in might could was described by Battistella as partly a modal, partly an adverb:

~~We can treat might as an adverbial modal which modifies could as a true modal which is the head of the clause. [Battistella 1991: 52]~~

Close gave exactly the same interpretation of might. For these two authors, might can be considered as a hybrid having several interpretations, depending on the geographical place as well as the kind of social infrastructure and social group in which it is used. Might in American double modality has generally been identified as an element that can never have its place as an independent tensed marker like in standard English. That is why could, as the second element of the construction, carries the complete status of a true and tensed modal. Already in 1975 Pampell drew the same conclusions, with might even accompanied by should: This result also strengthens the above conclusions about the partial modality of might: since should is clearly modal, it should more freely accept a contracted negative, while might is partly adverbial and as such would be more resistant. [Pampell 1975: 112]

In spite of Pampell’s assertion concerning the contracted negation of should, might shouldn’t still remained in the 1970’s in the category of medium acceptability according to the use of the informants of this DM. It was the same situation for might ought not. Other researchers, such as Turner (1981), qualified might as a non-modal, and Bigham (2000) adopted a direct approach by qualifying this element as a pure adverb, identical to the traditional adverbs maybe, perhaps and possibly in the American South. The contrary can be found in Scottish Englishes accepting DMs and TMs that treat might as a true modal operator sharing tense equally with the other modal. It therefore allows might to be inverted in the interrogative and to accept a negator that is placed between the two modals. In reality it makes much more sense to call these non-standard constructions Double Modals in Scotland, especially in the Southern area where Hawick is located rather than in the USA as Joanne Close asserted in her thesis:

~~The structure MODAL-MODAL is the correct way to analyse DMs in SEH (Scottish English in Hawick). [Close 2004: 186]~~

The Scottish informants give as much importance to might as to could when they are used in questions, affirmatives and negatives, which implies several combinatorial possibilities of interpreting an event. Thus, it makes much less sense in the USA to call the following structures might could, might should, might would…DMs due to the reasons explained above. However, there are always exceptions and the structure MODAL-MODAL in interrogatives, like Yes-No Questions and Wh-Questions, is acceptable in one specific Tennessee idiolect according to Close’s research:

~~In interrogatives at least, the speaker of Tennessee Idiolect appears to treat either M1 or M2 as modals. [Close 2004: 168]~~

Both modals enjoy the same grammatical status, viz. they are true auxiliaries, which make them equally independent in the syntax. This situation also puts the entire DM structure before the subject in a Yes-No Question. Battistella (1991: 51) even mentioned instances coming from different Southern States where the negator not is placed between might and could: (9) They might not could have gone over the state line to get her. (10) I don’t hear too well (…) I thought maybe I better put it [her hearing aid] On (or) I might not could understand you, so…

This is the main reason why he called might an adverbial modal. A part of its modality is still preserved. This sometimes allows the presence of a negator after the first element of the DM structure, but only in specific regions. Obviously these examples show that there is still the presence of double and triple modality on the American territory. Nevertheless, each location accepting these constructions does not apply the same rules. External circumstances (social, cultural, historical events) that make locations what they are define specific directions for each of these in the use of their lect(s) containing MMs. To better understand this complex linguistic phenomenon, varieties are the key.

What is termed “variations” or “variants” refers to a greater linguistic diversity in non- standard types of lects 6, that is, sociolects, dialects, idiolects and regiolects. MMs are accepted in a couple of these lects but people speaking these lects cannot adopt the same linguistic attitudes towards MM variations. A lot of choices are made in each lect or variety and these choices lead to a certain number of habits bringing about inherently the creations of semantic and syntactic rules in the mind of these inhabitants, rules that regularly change as time goes on. These regular changes must, above all, be seen as the outcome of the interaction of both social and cultural factors that make Multiple Modality change faster than a prescriptive standard system in which only one modal, instead of a combination, is permitted in order to represent the head of the clause. Rules are not static and they cannot dictate the ideal frame to follow for all the States and countries accepting the use of non-standard structures such as modal combinations. The research in Hawick in 2010 began analyzing the richness of these constructions despite the limited number of people that recognized them. Nonetheless, quite a lot of data were able to be gathered indicating the appearance of new interesting DM constructions among the population. These constructions contain modals that, according to Jim Miller (1993: 116), could not be found in the variety of Scots spoken in Hawick two decades ago:

~~Broad Scots lacks SHALL, MAY and OUGHT. [Miller 1993: 116]~~

As I explained above, varieties keep changing and evolving because human societies always make the first move towards change. What Miller asserted cannot be applied any more, especially due to an increase of immigration towards the Scottish Borders over these past twenty years. There has been an influx of new populations coming from different parts of Europe including the northern area of England where the citizens of the counties of Northumberland and Cumberland also use MM structures, although these non-standard constructions are not exactly the same. They transported their own modal structures and linguistic habits with them, which may create, with ongoing contacts of English and Scottish features, new mixed dialects that can generate dialectal features that have never been employed before by the rural and urban communities of the Borders.

6 The term is used by linguists to distinguish and label linguistic varieties, e.g. DIALECT (a regionally and socially distinct variety), ethnolect (an ethnically or culturally distinct variety), GENDERLECT (a variety associated with female or male speakers), sociolect (a socially distinct variety) or IDIOLECT (the language variety used by an individual speaker). [Joan Swann, Ana Deumert, Theresa Lillis and Rajend Mesthrie 2004: 178] 16

At present, it is possible to find new modal combinations in Southern Scotland integrating two modals out of three mentioned in the previous quotation, that is may and ought. Of the 66 questionnaires that were filled in, my research led me to discover that fifteen female informants regularly use might ought to, eleven female informants also use orally may can and eight use may will. With regard to male informants, six of them also use orally may can and may will. Ought to is also used by male informants with the following DM should ought to. Over 20 years ago, communications and transports did not go to a smart pace unlike the 2010’s. It implied greater linguistic and geographical barriers between Northumberland and the Borders, therefore restraining the use of DMs that have will, can, ought and should in their combinations essentially to Northern England. These were just a couple of results among many that were obtained there in 2010. These data give the opportunity to explore much more especially in the Scottish Borders where many local dialects, some of which accept the presence of MMs, are still spoken in towns similar to Hawick. Nothing in the study of these modal structures is limited, that is why a certain number of important lists of DMs and TMs have been established by sociolinguists and dialectologists over these past twenty-five years. Although the lists show a great number of MMs, few of them were studied and described in detail. The ubiquitous might could, as Battistella likes to call it, is one of the rare combinations like might should and might ought to that really fascinated a couple of linguists, which strangely implied a total absence of interest for most of the other modal sequences.

There is still a lot of research to do in this field of linguistics and it is hoped that the surveys conducted in South-Eastern Scotland from 2011 to 2013 bring the first detailed answers of this alive and complex non-standard modality system. It is about a field survey where direct contacts with the inhabitants of the towns of Southern Scotland give a better outlook over their own speech and grammar at the present time. The new results obtained through this series of three fieldworks enable me to make comparisons with the previous Hawick data. At the end of the doctoral research, it is hoped to have a clearer picture of the semantic, grammatical and syntactic behaviors of most MMs that are recognizable and regularly spoken and/or written in Southern Scotland. The surveys which are done also imply questions dealing with the use of MMs in the written and spoken media. It occasionally occurs that informants use these dialectal constructions in situations requiring writing. My first survey in Hawick gave me the chance to hear many comments on MMs and the Scots regional language from the informants who all have diverse origins in the Scottish Borders. They can propose accurate descriptions of what they think of the current status of their dialects, what is familiar

17 or conventional, grammatical or ungrammatical, appropriate in specific circumstances and forbidden in others, the limitation of the dialects in a writing context contrary to Standard English. Indeed, the written medium is often left behind when dealing with non-standard dialectal constructions, which is a mistake because non-standard features have a role to play in this medium. Finally, this heterogeneous complex dialectal entity that is Multiple Modality cannot be described and understood in its globality without taking into account the extralinguistic factors attached to this entity and that makes it change permanently, in other terms, the historical, social, geographical and cultural factors.

~~1.3. Modal combinations in the Scots language~~

Multiple Modality has existed for a long time. Its combinations are not limited to non- standard dialects of Scottish and American English. They are also present in the Scots language, which is not the Gaelic language spoken and written in the North-Western region of Scotland called the Highlands. Like English, the Scots language is composed of numerous dialects that are spread from the Lowlands, identified as Southern Scotland, to the Central and North-Eastern area of the country including the Shetland and Orcade islands. The language started to be spoken in the South-Eastern part of Scotland in the seventh century A.D. corresponding now to the Lothians and Scottish Borders counties. This language was originally brought by the Angles, a North-Western German people, who managed to spread northward through the Northern English counties of Yorkshire and Northumberland, forming small kingdoms, and ultimately crossing the river Tweed into Scotland. The Scots language was definitely well implanted into the Southern Scottish territory in 638 A.D. when the Angles captured the fortress called “Dyn Eidyn”, which they translated into their own language as Edinburgh. Thus, the Scots language was created from a group of dialects of Old English called “Northumbrian” (Murison 1977: 1; Douglas 2009: 42) or also labeled “Anglian” (McClure 2009: 2). The following invasions which struck Northern Britain explain in great part the numerous Danish, (Norman) French, Latin and Flemish words that are nowadays found in the Scots language. From these invasions came many dialects and variations of the Scots language, some of which are still spoken nowadays. They have diverse names, the best known of which is termed Broad Scots. This dialect takes part in the Southern Scottish dialectal group called Lowland Scots (Lallans). There is also the Doric idiom that is more identified as a North-Eastern spoken Scots dialect. Finally, the Central Scots Dialectal

18 area, which covers a small pocket of dialects spoken from Glasgow to Edinburgh, is connected syntactically and lexically with the Lowland dialects. This led to the creation of a written Central Scots variety especially used in a Scottish magazine called “Lallans”. However, Scots is on the whole an oral language. Karen Angelosanto, who is a specialist of the language, asserted that written varieties of Scots do exist and are as complex to pick up as any other written codes coming from other foreign languages:

~~While we might understand the local speech, written Scots is as foreign to us as German or Dutch and it hardly exists outside the literature classroom. [Angelosanto 2002]~~

Noticing the diversity of Scots dialects, it is important to observe that the spelling of modal combinations has regularly changed over the past centuries. These diverse modifications can be seen especially on the following modals: might, will, would, can, could and must. Susan Rennie in her book “Grammar Broonie” carefully described the spelling of these modals in the Modern Scots language although the written codes are rarely present. Thus, the six modals, previously mentioned, are written the following way in Modern Scots: micht, wull, wid, (also wud and wad), can, cud, maun.

From these six modals, DMs in Modern Scots can be created. In her book, Susan Rennie (1999: 10) gives three examples containing these modal combinations, the first of which is accompanied by the Scots negator no:

~~(11) Ah’ll no can post yer letter till the morn.~~

Sentence (11) contains the DM will can. This DM is also regularly used in Vernacular Scottish English. In this example, the first modal is cliticised and the negator is located between the two modals. The translation in Vernacular Scottish English in (11’) is written as follows:

~~(11’) I’ll no can post your letter until tomorrow.~~

~~Here comes the second example:~~

~~(12) Ye micht can see the doctor the day.~~

~~This clause contains one of the most frequently used MMs, namely might can (in Scots micht can). The translation into Scottish English gives in (12’) the following:~~

~~(12’) You might can see the doctor today.~~

The third example contains a particular DM that starts with a marginal modal followed by a central modal following Quirk et al’s terminology. The spelling of the marginal modal shows greater differences between Modern Scots (13) and Scottish English (13’) as it is illustrated below:

~~(13) Ah yaised tae cud eat whitivver ah wantit. (Scots)~~

~~(13’) I used to could eat whatever I wanted. (Scottish English)~~

~~It is sometimes more complex to propose translations of combinations that are not fully composed of central modals like the example in (13) written with the English then Scots spelling.~~

Another specialist of Scots, Robert Lawson, also plays an important role for the preservation of different morphosyntactic and lexico-semantic variations of the Scots language. In one of his papers that can be found on Google in a corpus called “Scottish Corpus of Texts and Speech” (Lawson: Scots extended Grammar Essay 1), he deals with the morphological, orthographic, syntactic and semantic complexity of modals and DMs. What is more, modals, based on his research, were various and great many during the Middle Ages when the Older Scots was spoken:

In thi period o aulder Scots, thi range o modal verbs in English is quite limitit in comparison. Thi Aulder Scots period hud a large quantity o modal verbs in its word stock; approaximately 15 separate modal verbs. [Lawson 2002 Scots writing: doc 594]

In the period of older Scots, the range of modal verbs in English is quite limited in comparison. The Older Scots period had a large quantity of modal verbs in its word stock; approximately 15 separate modal verbs.. [Lawson 2002 English writing: doc 594]

~~A couple of Lawson’s examples of DMs are thus illustrated:~~

~~(14) Wull ye kin get thi milk?~~

~~(15) I wull kin dae it!~~

~~In vernacular Scottish English, the ubiquitous wull kin becomes will can as in (14’) and (15’) below:~~

~~(14’) Will you can get the milk?~~

~~(15’) I will can do it!~~

Syntactic links exist between Modern Scots and Scottish English MMs. Although the spelling of modals more or less resembles each other, the syntactic ordering of both modals will or wull and can or kin remain the same in the affirmative and interrogative. The same can be asserted regarding the other examples with used to could or might can in the affirmative and will can in the negative.

The regular contacts with Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic) the Flemish, Norman French and Latin since the beginning of the Middle Ages has enabled the Scots language to appear under diverse dialects and through a series of numerous complex morphological, syntactic and spelling variants. These ongoing mixings of languages led to the creation of very distinct grammatical features, particularly the modal combinations. The origin of present-day MMs toward the English language, as asserted by Visser (1963-1973: 2404), is no longer appropriate based on the current research conducted by Nagle, Lawson, Douglas, Aitken, Macafee, McClure, Murison, Brown, Miller and many others. These researchers are providing more convincing dialectal materials through historical documents and field surveys that state the contrary. Scottish English MMs are actually more identified as Scottish MMs and/or Scots MMs rather than English MMs. The Scots historical link with Northern European languages, especially Icelandic and Swedish (Nagle 1995: 211), where combinations of two modals were also detected contributes to this stronger connection of many MMs of the English-speaking world with the Scots rather than with the English language.

~~1.4. Questionnaire Survey~~

The current linguistic study which has been conducted over a period of three years is both dialectal and sociolinguistic. Dialectal first because the PhD project is above all achieved thanks to the field surveys that are conducted every year in one or two counties of the Scottish Borders. Nothing can be more valuable than the data collected in the towns mainly due to the active participation of the locals. To obtain these data, this project requires a vital component necessary for all dialectal research identified as the questionnaire. Though not perfect, it is still capable of collecting many different ideas, concepts and opinions regarding the current development of syntactic and grammatical features at the intra and extralinguistic levels. It contributes to the understanding of ongoing interactions between lexical, morphosyntactic and phonological features with society. This is where sociolinguistics comes in. Indeed it literally means the study of language in social contexts. That is why some authors like Jack Chambers and Sali Tagliamonte prefer to talk about Language Variation and Change (LVC) (2001) and Variationist Sociolinguistics (VS) (2012) respectively to be able to highlight this permanent interaction between linguistics as a pure science of language and the social environments:

~~Studying language variation proceeds mainly by observing language use in natural social settings and categorizing the linguistic variants according to their social distribution. [Chambers 2001: 3]~~

The domain of inquiry of sociolinguistics is the interaction between language, culture, and society. Depending on the focus, virtually any study of language implicates a social connection because without this human component language itself would not exist. [Tagliamonte 2012: 1]

The features that are currently present in dialects, that themselves belong to bigger systems called languages, would have never existed without the appearance of civilizations first. This is why the collection of not only linguistic variables but also social variables such as class, age, gender, employment, outdoor activities of the informants enables me to further enlighten the reasons why dialectal features, MMs in this case, take specific directions and not others that can lead them to their continuous development or their death. What sorts of extralinguistic mechanism(s) lead to the absence, downfall, formation or renewal of certain features in dialectal systems? The extreme rapidity of communicative technologies via the

22 creation of cellphones and the internet network make developed societies move forward faster than anyone could have expected 25 years ago. It brings about the increase of contacts between people from different towns and countries via regular immigration movements as well. Contrary to the 1980’s, dialect contacts are now permanent and changes are occurring at all levels of languages and dialects. However, with the incorporation of extralinguistic factors in the questionnaire survey, I already have a detailed glimpse of what the future development of selected features will become in twenty-first century societies. The first enquiry conducted in Hawick in 2010 in the county of Roxburghshire was already beginning to present these sudden changes in modern societies. However, Hawick remains a very cultural town in both the historical and the language fields, thus allowing the Scots language and its dialects to resist more to this rapid modernization of the region. The 66 questionnaires of the time managed to discern this kind of cultural exception, this sense of preservation of traditional Scottish features such is the case of Hawick Scots MMs. The organization of the Hawick questionnaire to obtain these data was based on a method explained in detail in a book written by two French sociolinguists, Louis Jean Calvet and Pierre Dumont, entitled “L’enquête sociolinguistique” or “Sociolinguistic Enquiry” in English. They propose two main approaches to elaborate a dialectal and sociolinguistic questionnaire: Structured approach and non-structured approach.

The way questionnaires are distributed in the three field trips, from 2011 to 2013, is mainly based on the structured approach. This approach chosen for this project allows the preparation of questions that are termed in the jargon of social sciences as closed and semi-closed questions. A Closed question consists of the informant simply answering yes or no to a written question such as: Have you ever heard this type of underlined structure?: He’ll can help us the morn. Y N This remains the start of the questionnaire. The sequel is more based on semi- closed questions in which the interlocutor will have to select one MM feature among a list of four such as:

I didn’t------tak them at aa. A/ uisst tae coud B/ used to would C/ use tae could D/ used to could E/ another similar construction Also, it is up to the informant to choose social contexts and the frequencies in which they use MMs in the oral and/or written media. Of course the questionnaire always offers the possibility to write additional social contexts, to describe thorough situations in the current use of DM and TMs. The questionnaire measures the reality of the development of MMs, because people can very well say no to the use of a modal combination and replace it by another MM or a different (colloquial) standard or non-standard grammatical feature of their choice. The questionnaire also wants to show what is not possible to realize in this Multiple Modality system at the syntactic and grammatical levels. It is important to know to what general degree of vernacularism the social or local variety of an informant is in order to determine if her/his use of MMs is globally limited or on the contrary if it is diversified, flexible enough and in constant change. In sum, the essential questions to ask are: What is the current dialectal development of Multiple Modality? Up to what point can it change? The methodology that is employed to attempt to get first answers to these questions is efficient because very clear and accurate data can be obtained in the allotted time. Furthermore this structured approach of the questionnaire survey enables the informants not to spend too much time on each task. It takes between 15 and 30 minutes in the main to complete the questionnaire. This amount of time actually creates a better interaction between the informant and the fieldworker because, on the one hand, the fieldworker has to explain in the informant’s language the purpose of the questionnaire and what his role in the study is. On the other hand, the questionnaire was made in order for the local citizen to chat with the fieldworker during the completion of the tasks. Both conversations and questionnaire data are equally important for a better understanding of the dialectal phenomenon, which is why recordings of diverse talks are also put in place in the survey. Immediate intercultural contacts are created via the first talks and it helps the informant to feel more at ease with the fieldworker rapidly as well as with the filling-out of the questionnaire. This short but professional encounter both actors create is a fundamental part of research that would be much harder to create if the study adopted a sheer non-structured approach. This latter

24 approach is composed of open questions, which leaves the liberty for the informant to write a detailed answer for a limited number of questions. This technique keeps both actors from exchanging information especially the informant on her/his knowledge of Multiple Modality. Moreover, the tasks are systematically written, which leave place for digressions at some point. The questionnaire would become an essay which is not the intended goal. If some informants really have much knowledge on MMs that they wish to share with the fieldworker, it is better to record all this information on a digital voice recorder. Moreover, it allows the researcher to propose a couple of open questions to the informant since she/he has a great deal of knowledge to communicate.

I transcribe these detailed discussions from page 279 to page 298 of the doctoral thesis. Anyway as Calvet and Dumont assert, having only open questions in a questionnaire survey is never a good tactic:

La plupart des chercheurs préfèrent élaborer un questionnaire structuré comprenant à la fois des questions fermées et des questions semi-fermées, plutôt qu’un questionnaire composé uniquement de questions ouvertes. [Calvet and Dumont 1999: 18]

~~Most researchers prefer preparing a structured questionnaire comprising both closed and semi-closed questions, rather than a questionnaire only made up of open questions. [Calvet and Dumont 1999: 18]~~

Above all, this questionnaire model has been prepared to leave the informants the choice to express and to interpret Multiple Modality the way they wish based on their dialectal and language knowledge and experiences. It is important to hear what people have to say about Multiple Modality in order to have a clearer description of its current morphosyntactic development in the Scottish Borders. This research gives a great importance to a better description of the complexity and constraints of the grammar of MMs, which is mainly realized via the interaction between the fieldworker and the local informants reunited by this questionnaire survey.

~~1.5. Distribution of questionnaires in the Borders’ towns~~

After the first dialectal survey in Hawick, three more enquiries were carried out in the Scottish Borders. In total, 165 questionnaires were completed in eleven towns from 2011 to 2013, four of which represent the bulk of the doctoral study which are: Kelso, Galashiels, Peebles and Berwick-Upon-Tweed. Among the 165, three people in 2011 did not indicate their age but their questionnaire was still taken into account in the study. They will just not be indicated in the tables below. More male informants participated in this research in Galashiels whereas it was the female ones from Peebles who took a great interest in this study. The following tables indicate the number of questionnaires that were distributed in each town, per gender and per age group:

~~Kelso Jedburgh Melrose Coldstream Age groups Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women 11_20 1 2 21_30 1 6 31_40 5 3 1 1 41_50 2 6 4 2 2 51_60 2 10 2 3 2 1 2 61_70 5 4 1 71_80 2 2 1~~

~~Table 1: Questionnaires completed by the informants in the 2011 field survey~~

~~Galashiels Selkirk Innerleithen Peebles Age groups Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women 11_20 1 1 1 21_30 4 3 1 2 31_40 2 4 41_50 5 3 1 1 6 51_60 3 1 2 1 1 6 61_70 1 1 3 1 71_80 1~~

~~Table 2: Questionnaires completed by the informants in the 2012 field survey~~

~~Berwick-Upon- Tweed Eyemouth Duns Age groups Men Women Men Women Men Women 11_20 1 21_30 1 1 1 31_40 2 4 1 2 1 41_50 5 1 1 51_60 3 2 2 61_70 1 1 71_80~~

~~Table 3: Questionnaires completed by the informants in the 2013 field survey~~

The informants aged between 40 and 60 years old represent the common age groups that completed the questionnaire in most of the dialectal surveys. Contrary to younger groups, they have a more solid background of the Scots language and Scottish-English dialects that contain some modal sequences. They are multilingual people who are more used to seeing these types of vernacular constructions composed of modals put in juxtaposition in a Southern Scottish or Northern English syntax. However, in the first table, the age groups that recognize MMs can be extended in Kelso to cover the 31-70 age groups for the male informants. In the last table, the 31-60 age groups living in Berwick-Upon-Tweed and Eyemouth were more interested in completing the questionnaire and to indicate what they use in terms of Scottish and/or English MMs. In general, it is in the larger towns of the region that the dialectal survey had a more important impact and received serious interest by the informants contrary to the small local

27 towns like Selkirk, Innerleithen or Duns. What is more, female informants have always been more numerous to complete the questionnaire survey than the male ones since the start of this research. Most of them took the time to read the questionnaire properly and they were naturally more intrigued by the study contrary to men.

The age groups that are targeted in each table by means of a bracket contain a number of informants who for a good part have a sum of knowledge of modern Scottish-English dialects that is substantial enough to be able to describe the current development of modal combinations. However, contrary to Hawick in which similar age groups were represented, the level of standard expressions to replace MMs keeps increasing significantly. Hawick has always remained a typical traditional ground for history and dialects. It is a small geographical pocket of the Borders where the Lowland Scots vernacular in its morphosyntax and phonology is used more fluently in both the spoken and written media. Since the start of the new millennium, the rest of the region has given a greater importance to historical events and neglects little by little the dialectal side. The last field survey in 2013 confirms this tendency toward an overt Anglicized standardization of Southern Scottish dialectal practices, therefore gradually weakening the Multiple Modality system in the entire region shortly.

~~1.6. Conclusion~~

Multiple Modality is not a recent dialectal phenomenon that has just appeared in the Scottish Borders over these past 40 years by the increase of cultural contacts between the Southern Scottish and Northern English towns. Previous research conducted since the 1970’s, especially Stephen Nagle’s research (1993: 99) has already gathered the necessary amount of information to prove that these sequences of modals go back at least to the eighteenth century. Other researchers of the Scots such as Karen Angelosanto, Fiona Douglas and Robert Lawson are even working on the possibility that this dialectal phenomenon may go back to the Older Scots period (1100-1450 AD). It has survived for many centuries and it has continuously undergone many changes with war conflicts, societal instabilities and regular movements of populations. It is now time in the 21st century with the invading presence of Modern Standard English in peaceful Western English-speaking societies to observe how Multiple Modality will continue to survive. How will its syntactic, grammatical and semantic complexity change in the years to come? How can it be maintained in traditional Scots and Scottish-English

28 varieties with this accelerated internationalization of cultures that continues to weaken local and regional dialects? Will it finally manage to play a role in even more globalized English- speaking communities? These are questions that the citizens of Southern Scotland also need to ponder, not just the researcher. One of the main goals of field surveys is to create an equal dynamic interaction between the fieldworker and the Scottish citizen. At the very end, these discussions must enable further clarification of the current development of Multiple Modality in this regional area of the Anglophone world. The citizen remains the main actor of this PhD research. All mainly depends on the (extra)linguistic behavior of the Scottish informants who will have the last say on the future of MMs and the vernaculars in which the modal combinations are integrated. It is under these conditions that MMs may or may not become fully functional dialectal forms in the modern world.

~~2. The morphosyntax and grammar of Multiple Modals in the Scottish Borders~~

This chapter focuses on the first two tasks of the questionnaire. Each task is composed of eight clauses that have a Scottish English, Northern English or Scots syntax. The common point that these clauses share is the presence of one modal sequence in each of them. By observing these sentences, the informant has to determine if she/he recognizes and /or uses these proposed combinations in her/his own dialect(s). The combinations are already present in the clauses of the first task and a list of four different modal sequences is proposed in the second task of the questionnaire. In this case, the informant just has to pick the best combination that is appropriate for her/him for the said-clause. Her/his choice is also based on her/his personal knowledge and experience of these vernacular constructions. In both tasks, the informant can choose another modal combination that is not proposed in the questionnaire and /or to write another vernacular or standard construction that is more or less connected with the impressive spectrum of modal expressions. These first two tasks enable the observation of the attitude of Scottish or English informants toward these sequences of modal. We can already determine for certain informants what the MMs represent in terms of popularity and importance in Southern Scottish dialectal culture. This already gives a preselection of the number of informants who basically reject most if not all the modal sequences, which implies more standard interpretations proposed by this group of people in the rest of the tasks. Or, on the contrary, there can also be two other groups of informants who carry a general positive interest in these vernacular constructions. The differences that can exist among these two groups are for example, an occasional use of a diversified variety of combinations without being a determining syntactic structure of integration in common discussions and talks for one of these two groups. On the contrary, the other group uses many types of Scottish and English MMs on a daily basis without generally creating a problem of communication with other citizens of the region that would not have their vast knowledge of these combinations. Indeed, this dialectal phenomenon is always more recognized than spoken in Southern Scotland. This last group is composed of pluridialectal people that avoid speaking Standard English as much as possible. These three groups are described in greater detail in the final task of the questionnaire. For reasons of non-stabilization of the questionnaire prepared in 2011, this chapter focuses on the data of the last two field surveys carried out in 2012 and 2013. The attempts to include

American clauses in the 2011 questionnaire that also had MMs in their syntax did not prove useful since they were completely incomprehensible by the informants. They were replaced by clauses written in Scots for the other two surveys. Therefore, most data from this period are not taken into account in this chapter. The relevant Scottish-English clauses of 2012 and 2013 that already appeared in one of the same two tasks during the 2011 study are naturally integrated in this chapter. The analysis of MMs in the first task of the questionnaire survey starts below.

~~2.1. MMs in the 2012 and 2013 surveys: questionnaire, task one~~

This part of the thesis will deal with the first task of the questionnaire. Contrary to 2011, both 2012 and 2013 questionnaires are identical in their presentation and content. The current status of MMs can be described and explained in greater detail due to the investigations carried out in seven towns during these last two years, which are:

~~Galashiels, Selkirk, Innerleithen and Peebles for 2012~~

~~Eyemouth, Duns and Berwick-Upon-Tweed for 2013~~

~~The first task of the questionnaire is composed of eight clauses each containing a Double Modal (DM), which are as follows:~~

(1) I know I might could and should enjoy myself. (2) You have to can drive a car to get that job. (3) He’ll can help us the morn. (4) I was afraid you might couldn’t find this address. (5) A good machine clipper would could do it in half a day. (6) He used to widnae let me up the brae: ah wis terrified i him. (7) He wouldn’t could’ve worked, even if you had asked him. (8) He should can go tomorrow.

~~It will be up to the informants to determine whether they recognize and use the DMs by means of three specific questions:~~

~~A/ Have you ever heard this kind of underlined structure?~~

B/ Would you use this structure yourselves in a specific context? If yes, mention the context(s) and indicate if you use the structure on a day-to-day basis (d-t-d), every now and again (n&a) or rarely. C/ If not, try to replace it by another one which, according to you, would be more suitable in this context. Do the same for the other seven sentences.

This type of (semi)-closed questions, based on the terminology of Calvet and Dumont (1999), gives first details as for the current level of acceptance of these combinations when informants see them written in Scottish-English or Scots sentences. This is what this first task is trying to determine. By completing it, a speaker can easily recognize and use one or several DMs displayed in the task but some combinations that she/he uses are not necessarily appropriate to the proposed clauses. In this case, she/he can either use another DM that will fit in more with the sentence or just propose another non-standard feature that is not an MM or simply a Standard English feature. The speaker or informant can fully express what she / he really wants, what she / he considers as the appropriate syntactic interpretation in a specific non-standard environment based on her/his knowledge and experience of the Scottish-English vernaculars. This is the purpose of the questionnaire in this first task.

Data that represent the alternative constructions of the informants, if they decide to replace the MMs mentioned in the questionnaire, will be displayed in eight tables, one per clause. Each table will be composed of four columns and two of them are for the female and male standard constructions of replacement respectively. The other two concern non-standard ones for each gender too. This study is strengthened by tackling both the 2012 and 2013 field surveys, implying a data comparison between these two groups of towns. The first group visited in 2012 covers the Central and North Western region of the Borders. The second group visited in 2013 is located in the Eastern coast of the region. These three geographical areas give a first direct perspective of a regional positive or negative tendency that people have of this complex vernacular modal system.

Before touching on this aspect of the first task, two specific tables are going to show the figures corresponding to the number of speakers that did not reject the proposed DMs in the eight clauses. These two tables represent a strong minority of people who tends to preserve some of the former and newer Multiple Modals (MMs) used in the Scottish Borders. The last two field surveys carried out in the region show that there is still a core group of people who

32 consider the use of these MMs as grammatical in their lives on different social occasions. They are identified as common vernacular constructions by this minority. The first two questions of the first task of the questionnaire enable the fieldworker to get the first pieces of information regarding the number of people who actually hear and use these modal combinations in their daily lives. These two questions also indicate the degree of frequency in which the minority group uses these modal combinations. Both tables below indicate the data pertaining to these two questions. The data that need particular attention are written in bold.

Would you use it 2012 Have you ever heard yourselves in a similar this kind of structure? context? M W M W might could and should 8 16 9 12 have to can 7 5 3 3 ‘ll can 9 12 3 11 might couldn't 3 5 2 3 would could 3 7 1 6 used to widnae 6 9 2 4 wouldn't could've 3 11 3 8 should can 10 10 4 7

~~Table 1: Number of people who hear and use the eight modal combinations.~~

Would you use it 2013 Have you ever heard yourselves in a similar this kind of structure? context? M W M W might could and should 1 11 3 6 have to can 1 10 1 5 ‘ll can 1 15 1 9 might couldn't 4 10 2 5 would could 1 11 1 7 used to widnae 2 12 1 4 wouldn't could've 1 8 1 6 should can 1 9 1 6

~~Table 2: Number of people who hear and use the eight modal combinations.~~

~~The figures represent a minority of Scottish informants who have heard and/or used some of the eight Multiple Modals set forth in the first task of the questionnaire. This minority group~~

33 remains strong because they mostly use more than one multiple modal in their dialect(s). From these findings, it can be noticed in both tables that Multiple Modals might could and should and ‘ll can are not unfamiliar dialectal constructions among the female respondents. They apparently hear and use both modal combinations regularly. Yet, the 2013 table shows a greater homogeneity in the male and female data regarding the second question than the 2012 table. Based on the eight male questionnaires only, this homogeneity was expected. Concerning the female figures, we notice that in 2013 most of them hear the MMs more often in questions than they speak them. This especially regards the first six with a slight majority for ‘ll can where 15 women hear it and nine of them use it essentially in the spoken medium. It is wouldn’t could’ve by female respondents essentially and should can by both genders, which are used the same way in 2012. As for the frequency in which informants use some of these eight DMs in 2013, there are five questionnaires where women use a minority of them on rare occasions, particularly might could and should, might couldn’t and used to widnae. The three of them are rarely spoken and written due mainly to their morphological complexity. One woman also indicated that she uses have to can and ‘ll can regularly. Both of them have simpler forms, especially ‘ll can, and they have always belonged to the Broad Scots dialect of the Borders, which makes their use quite common and natural among Scottish informants. Finally, three 2013 questionnaires indicate a day-to-day use of almost all the eight DMs of the first task by two women and one man. These modal combinations have no secrets for these specific informants who have a greater knowledge and understanding of the dialects of the Scottish Borders unlike the majority of the Scottish population of this region.

Concerning the presentation of the other tables displaying the structures that replace the eight underlined MMs, a number in brackets is added beside the structures that were repeated several times by different respondents. When a structure is just written once, there are simply no brackets. What is more, sentences written in bold indicate that both genders proposed the same structures of replacement. The analysis of the first task also contains paraphrases to describe the meaning of the constructions of replacement proposed by the informants. These paraphrases are created by the author of the doctoral thesis.

~~(1) I know I might could and should enjoy myself.~~

~~2012~~

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard constructions proposed by women: proposed by women:~~

- I know I should enjoy myself (2) - I know I micht enjoy myself - I know I may enjoy myself (2) - I know I will enjoy myself - I know I would enjoy myself - I know I can enjoy myself - I know I can and will enjoy myself - I know I ought to enjoy myself - I know I could and would enjoy myself - I know I must enjoy myself - I know I probably would enjoy myself - I know I do enjoy myself

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

- I know I may enjoy myself (2) - I know I would enjoy myself (2) - I know I will enjoy myself - I know I should enjoy myself - I know I might enjoy myself - I know I could and should enjoy myself - I know I may perhaps enjoy myself - I know I might and should enjoy myself - I know I will maybe enjoy myself - I know I will enjoy myself - I know I probably should and will enjoy myself - I know I could and will enjoy myself

~~2013~~

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard constructions proposed by women: proposed by women:~~

- I know I could and should enjoy myself (2) - I know I might could and would - I know I should enjoy myself (3) enjoy myself - I know I might enjoy myself (2) - I may enjoy myself - I know I possibly could and should enjoy myself - I know that I ought to enjoy myself - I know I might, could, should enjoy myself - I know I might could and would enjoy myself - I know I might, and that I should enjoy myself - I might be able to and should be able to enjoy myself - It could be fun

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

~~- I know I could and should - I know I would enjoy myself - I know I might and should enjoy myself - I will enjoy myself~~

In both surveys, very few non-standard structures of replacement were written by the respondents. In total, two were proposed by women respondents, one for each survey. The alternative clause corresponding to the female column of 2012 contains the Scots spelling of single English modal might, viz. micht. The rest of the modals have not been included. On the contrary, the clause of the other table of 2013 indicates in the female column a slight modification of the Triple modality (TM) that is split into two parts due to the conjunction and separating might could from would. Only the last modal of the original TM has been changed. It is all that can be said regarding the non-standard interpretations written by men

36 and women for the first sentence. The interpretations are standard mainly due to great difficulties for the informants in giving a meaning to the first clause when this one contains a TM accompanied by a conjunction. It remains difficult to read for most Scottish respondents even for those who are knowledgeable in non-standard modality. Therefore, a lot of standard interpretations are proposed. In both surveys, three types of syntactic forms need to be described in this dominant standard environment:

- First, the regular presence of single modals will, would, should, may, might and ought to in both surveys. The first four modals are essentially proposed by both genders in 2012, especially more than once for should, may and would. Regarding the last two modals, might is more present in the female column of the 2013 table whereas ought to remains a rare type of modal that was found only once in each survey.

- Second, the importance of keeping two modals in the proposed constructions but the difference with the modal combinations is that they are separated by the coordinating conjunction and. Informants have their own preferences regarding the ordering of the two modals. In 2012, can and will, could and would were written by two women who apparently wish to maintain the same tense for each grammatical structure of this kind, viz. the present tense with both can and will followed by the past tense with could and would. Four other standard constructions of this type were proposed by men but this time it was a tense mixing in two of the four:

~~Should and will implying a past followed by a present tense. Could and will implying the same type of tense mixing.~~

The other two, Could and should followed by might and should are both homogenized constructions. These latter structures were also written in the 2013 table. Could and should by both gender and might and should by only one man. Most informants prefer selecting a few modals in the TM or replacing some of these modals of the combination to create this type of standard association of modals via a conjunction rather than to reduce the clause to a single modal element.

-Third, the conjunction is replaced by signs of punctuation to maintain the association of modals. This is what occurred in the 2013 survey unlike in 2012, where no punctuations were indicated. However, the impact on these changes remains slight since only two female

~~37 speakers separated the sequence of modals by commas. What is more, two alternative clauses were put in place by these two women. One indicated both the comma and the conjunction:~~

~~- I know I might, and that I should enjoy myself.~~

~~Whereas the other put commas only, which gives as follows:~~

~~- I know I might, could, should enjoy myself.~~

Despite the continuing presence of single modals in standard interpretations when people want to remove all signs of groupings of modals, there is nevertheless another standard tendency to artificially maintain a part of this vernacular ordering of Multiple Modality. This is done by the addition of small morphemes or signs of punctuations. This other tendency is rapidly increasing at present in the Scottish Borders.

~~(2) You have to can drive a car to get that job.~~

~~2012~~

Standard constructions proposed by women: - You have to be able to drive a car… (10) - You have to drive a car to get that job (6) - You need to be able to drive a car… - You could drive a car to get that job - You have to drive to get that job (2) - You must have car to get the job - You must drive a car to get that job - I would need a car… - You have to be able to drive to get… - You have to drive to get to that job - You do have to drive a car to get…

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

- You have to be able to drive a car… (3) - You have to drive a car to get that job (3) - You need to be able to drive a car… (3) - You could drive a car to get that job (1) - You have to know how to drive a car - I have to drive to the job - I would have to drive a car to get that job - You have to drive the car to get to the job - You have to hold a driving licence to apply for that job - You can drive a car to get that job - You must drive a car to get to that job - You must be able to drive a car to get…

~~2013~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by women:~~

- You have to be able to drive… (6) - You have to drive a car to get… (3) - You can drive a car to get… (2) - You need to be able to drive to get… - You should be able to drive a car to get… - I do drive a car to get to my work

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

~~- You have to drive a car… (2) - You have to be able to drive a car… - You can drive a car… - You need to drive a car… (2) - You have to drive to get that job~~

Have to be able to is clearly the most representative standard construction of replacement among the female respondents in both surveys. Semi modal have to and ordinary verb need to with or without be able to are both regularly written in the questionnaires too. These three types of grammatical structures are the favorite linguistic tendency expressed particularly by the female gender for this second sentence when the DM have to can is replaced by a more or less equivalent standard-type construction in both the 2012 and 2013 tables. This new clause brings no non-standard dialectal interpretations in the right hand columns of each table. As said earlier, all of the proposals remain standard with a net preference for the semi modal have to. Both male and female informants insisted on the maintenance of have to over can. This indicates that the external sense of obligation in this example, viz. the absolute necessity to drive a car (the external mandatory element) and to use it to get the job, is given in priority to the sense of ability. Most of the informants apply this traditional grammatical rule learned in childhood without hesitation. However, in 2012, two men and two women did not follow this rule and they wrote must. They probably consider the fact that there are not any real differences between must and have to any more. Regarding Need to, it is an alternate form to have to, which was the favorite construction of one woman and three men in 2012. One woman and two men also selected this same feature in 2013. It is also very important to mention the presence of another semi modal be able to in most of the interpretations that contain have to. Indeed the informants who chose to assemble both semi modals in their interpretation wanted to insist on the necessity of adding the sense of ability in order to realize the action (get the job). Have to, alone, is not enough for some of these people and it is therefore necessary to integrate a second root sense which is ability:

~~40 have to be able to drive a car RSM1 + RSM2 7 in order to make sure that the action is complete.~~

~~Before tackling the third clause, four specific 2012 interpretations need to be analyzed. In two of them the conditional is integrated with the addition of the central modal 8 (Quirk 1985: 137) would:~~

~~- I would need a car to get that job. M 9 OrdV 10 - I would have to drive a car to get that job. M SM 11~~

Both sentences, written by one woman and one man respectively, contain would in the first sentence followed by the ordinary verb need and in the second sentence by the semi modal have to. Both informants added would to attenuate the strong influence of the sense of obligation because they envisage more than one option in order to finalize the action (get the job). The first sentence with the combination M+OrdV means in a paraphrase the following:

~~It would be necessary for me to have a car to get that job. (but if I do not manage to have one, I will do without it all the same.)~~

Due to the weak obligation sense expressed in the clause and the paraphrase, it gives the possibility to have more than one solution to resolve the issue. Despite the attenuation of the obligation brought about by would, the second sentence still has a different meaning from the first one. The following paraphrase, for the combination M+SM, will show this divergence of interpretation:

~~It would be high time I drove a car to get that job.~~

7 RSM: Root Semi Modal 8 “Central Modal” is a term proposed by Quirk to classify core modality 9 M: Modal (two equivalent terms also exist: Central Modal or Core Modal) 10 OrdV: Ordinary Verb 11 SM: Semi Modal

This time it is a stronger recommendation made by the informant himself to increase the chances of having that job. Yet, at the same time, it does not express a pure external obligation, which therefore means that even if he does not drive a car, he may still have a chance to get the job in question.

~~Now regarding the last two interpretations which are:~~

~~- You do have to drive a car to get that job. - You can drive a car to get that job~~

The first sentence proposed by a female informant increases the obligation meaning significantly by adding auxiliary do in the affirmative. It is an interpretation that leaves no space for more than one direction. Two synonymous paraphrases are possible:

It is imperative for me to drive a car to get that job Or I have no choice but to drive a car to get that job. In the second sentence, the male informant is the only one to have emphasized the ability meaning and to have thus put this sense in first position by means of the preservation of central modal can and the deletion of semi modal have to. As in the conditional, there is more than one possible option because there is still a chance, even remote, in this sentence of getting the job without having the ability to drive. Contrary to have to can, the third sentence will contain a more regional Scottish DM.

~~(3) He’ll can help us the morn.~~

~~2012~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by women:~~

~~- He can help us the morn (5) - He’ll be able to help us the morn (4) - He can help us in the morning (2)~~

- He’ll help us the morn - He will help us the morn - He can help us this morning - He’ll help us tomorrow - He will help us the morning - He can help us tomorrow - He’ll be able to help us tomorrow - He’ll be able to help us in the morning

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

- He can help us the morn (6) - He will help us the morn (3) - He’ll help us the morn (3) - He can help us in the morning (2) - He’ll be able to help us the morn - He’ll help us in the morn - He may be able to help us the morn - He will help this morning

~~2013~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by women:~~

- He’ll help us the morn (3) - He can help us the morn - He will help us tomorrow - He’ll be able to help us the morn (2) - He will help us in the morning - He’ll be able to help us tomorrow - He’ll help us in the morning - He will help us the morn

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

~~- He can help us the morn - He’ll help us the morn - He will help us tomorrow - He should help us the morn (2) - He’ll be able to help us the morn - He’ll help us tomorrow~~

As in the previous two clauses, the informants decided it would be best to propose standard interpretations only. This is not new regarding this third clause owing to the similar syntactic behavior adopted by the informants of the 2011 survey in Kelso and Jedburgh. The differences must be perceived in the preferences given to modals will and can. Contrary to the previous survey, the female informants of Galashiels, Peebles and Selkirk have a clear preference for the modal of ability rather than the one expressing futurity. Nine of them deleted will over can and four of them emphasized will by deleting can. Among the male informants, there is no clear majority because eight of them mentioned will only and eight others did the contrary. The sociolinguistic study of 2011 presented a different situation where can was mostly chosen by the male respondents and will by the female respondents. There was at this time a gap separating both genders concerning their preferences between both modals. Now the differences are narrowing down in these three towns. Few changes occurred with regard to the association of will with be able to. Six women replaced can by this semi modal while maintaining will. Only four of them did this in the previous survey. As in 2011, only one man proposed this option. Despite that will (‘ll) be able to is proposed more often by women than men, the tendency in the choice of this grammatical construction has remained unchanged in both surveys. The 2013 table shows the almost exact same patterns of standard variations for both genders. Again, no vernacular features are proposed. Most men and women who completed the questionnaire in the Eastern coasts of Scotland and the English town of Berwick-Upon-Tweed wrote above all the contracted or full form of will. As in the 2012 field survey, it is noticed that be able to is only integrated in the structure of replacement by a minority of informants. They represent three women and one man for this type of choice in the 2013 survey. Regarding time markers, now and again both genders change with a preference for the Scots

44 future time marker the morn. Most respondents of 2012 also wanted to maintain it in their standard interpretation of the clause. It remains a common and popular marker spoken and written among the Scottish populations of the Borders. It can therefore be used as much in Standard and vernacular regional Englishes as in the Scots language often called “Broad Scots”. But contrary to tomorrow, in the morning and this morning, its use is restricted to Southern regional areas of Scotland, the Ulster Scots linguistic area and Northern England. Sentences written in bold were also proposed by both genders in 2012. The only slight change is the presence of central modal should replacing ‘ll can proposed by two male informants in 2013 whereas in 2012 it was may accompanied with be able to.

~~(4) I was afraid you might couldn’t find this address.~~

~~2012 Standard constructions Non-Standard constructions proposed by women: proposed by women:~~

- …you couldn’t find this address (6) …you might no find… (2) - …you might not find this address (5) - …you might not have found this address - …you wouldn’t find this address - …you might not be able to find this…(4) - …you wouldn’t be able to find this address (2) - …you may find this address - …you’d be unable to find this address - …you won’t be able to find this address - …you maybe wouldn’t find this address - …you might find this address - I didn’t think you would be able to find the… - …you maybe couldn’t find this address - …that you might not find this address

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard Constructions proposed by men: proposed by men:~~

- …you might not find this address (3) - …you might no find… - …you couldn’t find this address - …you no find this address - …you wouldn’t find this address - …you not be able to find - …you might not have found this address - …you might be not able to find this address (2) - …you may not find the address - …that you couldn’t find this address - …you couldn’t find the address - …you wouldn’t be able to find this address - …you mightn’t find this address - …you may be unable to find this address - …you would not find this address

~~2013~~

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard constructions proposed by women: proposed by women:~~

- … you might not find this address (2) - I was afraid you might no - …you wouldn’t find this address (2) find this address - …you might not be able to find this address - I was afraid you wouldn’t be able to find this address (3) - I was afraid you may not be able to find this address (2) - I was afraid you couldn’t find this address (2) - …you would be unable to find this address

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

~~- I was afraid you wouldn’t find this address - …you might not find this address - …you might not be able to find this address - …you would not find this address (3)~~

As in the previous clause, the fourth one has mainly been turned into an important set of standard interpretations in which central modals might, could, and would are the leaders of this standardization process in the last two field surveys. In 2012, Might is proposed twelve times, could seven times and would four times in both affirmative and negative forms, followed or not by the semi modal be able to in the female column. This order does not differ from the 2011 study where the same example was presented in the questionnaire. In the male column for 2012, the order changes slightly where might was proposed seven times, could three times and would three times as well. What is new is the decrease of non-standard constructions among the female participants. Two different kinds of vernacular structures are written, one of which was proposed three times, twice in the female column and one in the male column:

- I was afraid you might no find this address. Only one woman in 2013 proposed this same non-standard interpretation of the clause and it is the only vernacular interpretation present in the table of this period, which enables the presence of standardness to be felt even more in the last field survey. The negation no is identified, according to Keith Brown (1991: 81), as a narrow-scope negation, meaning the process of negativity of the clause only starts after central modal might. The position of the negation is very important because it determines the semantic interpretation of the entire clause. With a paraphrase, it gives the following:

~~I was afraid there was a possibility that you would not find this address.~~

In the 2011 study, six informants, four women and two men, had decided to do the contrary and to mention Scottish sentential negator nae instead of no. In this case the position of nae was found after could by deleting might, which occurs neither in the 2012 nor in the 2013

~~47 studies. It is important to remember that the form, function and position of negators as well as the types of modal associated with them brings about the flux of semantic patterns.~~

The second type of non-standard structures that has been proposed twice by only two men presents a grammatical structure devoid of auxiliaries but which has a negative particle followed by an ordinary verb or a semi modal:

~~- I was afraid you no find this address. - I was afraid you not be able to find this address.~~

Both informants do not mind marking the omission of the auxiliary in this type of context because they think the sentence can still be understandable. The omission of a grammatical morpheme in a clause entails a process of simplification that in this case poses no problem of comprehension when it is used in the oral medium, in a relaxed situation.

With or without omission, be able to is again regularly written in the fourth clause. This semi modal has been proposed eight times by the female respondents and only four times by the male respondents. Most of the time in this type of clause, it is preceded by a modal auxiliary which is might with a negative particle (might not) but a minority of Scottish informants, two women and one man, in the 2012 study, prefer putting wouldn’t before the semi modal structure. Modals may and won’t are also associated with be able to in this study but they remain exceptional in the main.

The same sentence proposed in the questionnaire in 2013 describes a more homogeneous situation in the distribution of standard interpretations made by the Scottish informants. There is however a slight preference for would in the negative accompanied by be able to regarding three female speakers. This central modal is accompanied by the main verb find among three male speakers. Two women maintained could with a contracted negative whereas two other female informants did the contrary by maintaining might with the uncontracted negative not instead. Two women preferred turning might couldn’t into Standard English in the present tense which gives may not be able to with the negation after the central modal whereas one woman preferred attaching a negative affix on be able to which gives unable to. Finally, only one woman proposed a non standard interpretation of the clause by replacing not with the Scottish negator no put between might and main verb find. Standard interpretations remain quite diverse and proposed in a more homogeneous way by the informants, which was not the

48 case in the previous two field surveys. Also, several other non-standard interpretations were written at that time. The reduced number of informants for 2013 mostly explains this greater homogeneity in the informants’ data.

~~(5) A good machine clipper would could do it in half a day.~~

~~2012~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by women:~~

- …clipper would do it in half a day (10) - …clipper could do it in half a day (6) - …clipper would be able to do it in…(4) - …clipper would do it quicker - …clipper is able to do it in half a day - With a help of a good machine clipper you would do it in half a day

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard Constructions proposed by men: proposed by men:~~

- …clipper would do it in half a day (6) - A could dae it better wi a - …clipper could do it in half a day (5) lawn mower - …clipper would be able to do it in… (2) - …clipper may do it in half a day (2) - …clipper would have done it in half a day - …clipper should do it in half a day - …clipper should be able to do it in…

~~2013~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by women:~~

~~- …would be able to do it in half a day (5) - A good machine clipper would do it in half a day (4) - …could do it in half a day (4) - …couldn’t do it in half a day~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

~~- A good machine clipper would do it in half a day (2) - …could do it in half a day - …would be able to do it in half a day - …should do it in half a day (2) - …may well do it in half a day~~

Would, could and should are the favorite standard constructions in the 2012 table to replace the DM would could. The previous survey in Kelso and Jedburgh showed the same tendency where would with or without a semi modal or an aspectual marker has always represented a better choice if the DM is split into two parts. There are no significant differences to observe in the 2012 table between both genders except the presence of modals should and may proposed by four men, thus considering the entire DM as inappropriate in this clause. There is also the addition of a non-standard construction proposed by one man who preferred writing the clause by using the modern Scots spelling but he maintained the English spelling for could. In this non-standard clause, could is maintained instead of would, which is not the case in the rest of the interpretations that are mostly standard. This will be the only vernacular interpretation for this sentence among the three sociolinguistic studies.

In 2013, many informants preferred removing one of the two central modals of the combination. Two men chose to remove both modals and to integrate should instead. May well was suggested by one man, a construction that resembles the DM may will in the morphology but also in the semantics and that finally allows the removal of would could from the original clause. Also, five women and one man maintained would followed by the semi modal be able to. Despite that there are fewer interpretations for 2013, there is still a majority of standard interpretations where only would is maintained. Would is the central modal that really stands out over could or should in the three surveys especially among the female informants. In 2011, would remains the favorite standard modal used to modify the fifth sentence for 12 women and 12 men. In 2012 the figures keep growing indicating that 16 women and nine men choose would. In the last study of 2013 there are still nine women and three men who have continued to retain this modal. Could has always been selected as a second choice in the standard interpretations of both genders. In 2012 and 2013, Should is the third choice for two men respectively except in 2011 where will was the third choice for two women. In the main, people prefer to write one of the two modals of the DM of the sentence in order to propose a standard interpretation 99 % of the time.

~~(6) He used to widnae let me up the brae: Ah wis terrified i him.~~

~~2012~~

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard constructions proposed by women: proposed by women:~~

- He used to not let me up… (3) - He widnae let me up… (6) - He wouldn’t let me up… (2) - He wouldnae let me up… - He never used to let me up… - He wouldnae let me up… - He would not let me up… (2) I was feart o him - He wouldn’t let me up the brae: I was terrified of him - He used to stop me going up the brae - He would not let me up… - He never used to let me up the brae:

~~I was scared of him - He would never let me up… - He would not let me up the brae: I was afraid~~

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard Constructions proposed by men: proposed by men:~~

- He wouldn’t let me up the brae… (3) - He widnae let me up, ah wis - He never used to let me up… feared “o” him - He used to not let me up… - He widnae let me up…: - He used to let me up the brae… I was terrified by him - He won’t let me up the brae… - He used to no let me up… - He used to let me up the brae: - I widnae can [?] that wi’ I was terrified of him - He wouldn’t allow me up the hill: I was terrified of him - He refused to let me up the brae: I was terrified of him - He wouldn’t let me up the brae: I was terrified of him 2013

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard constructions proposed by women: proposed by women:~~

- He wouldn’t let me up the brae. (2) - He widnae let me up the brae: - He used to no(t) let me up the brae: Ah wis terrified o’ him. Ah was terrified o’ him. - He wudnae let me up the brae - He used to not let me up the brae. - He wouldn’t used to let me up - He used to let me up the brae. the hill: I was terrified of him. - He didn’t used to let me up the brae. - He wouldn’t used to let me up - He used to not let me up the hill: the brae. I was terrified of him. - He wouldn’t use to let me up

~~- He would not let me up the brae. - He wouldn’t let me up the brae: I was afraid of him.~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

~~- He wouldn’t let me up the brae. (2) - He wouldn’t let me up the brae: I was terrified of him.~~

The 2012 table proposes a few more non-standard constructions with a clear preference for the modal widnae as opposed to wouldnae both of which are translated by wouldn’t in Standard English. Despite this slight increase, there are still a great number of informants who suggested standard interpretations for the sixth sentence. They mostly deleted the marginal modal used to over the central modal would accompanied by a negator. Both genders insisted rather more on the use of volition expressed by would than the habitual past expressed by used to. Would is regularly followed by (un)contracted not and one female informant chose to put the adverbial negator never instead of not. Never was in fact included when used to was the modal expression that was chosen by the female or male respondents in their own interpretations of the sentence. Never was the favorite negative particle for used to because the respondents could then avoid asking themselves if used to must adopt a modal behavior or on the contrary if it has to become a main verb? The behavior of used to in the negative form still remains so complex to determine for most Scottish people that the use of never is constantly employed in such linguistic situations. Finally, would not or wouldn’t was written eight times by women and five times by men. Used to is waning and it was proposed six times by women and only four times by men. Looking at rarer interpretations, one man and one woman erased let and replaced it by two other verbs which are: allow and stop. Another man also proposed to maintain the sense of volition but in the present tense, which finally turns wouldn’t into won’t (does not want to). In the 2013 study, changes were essentially brought by women in both the standard and non- standard columns. In the standard one, a slight majority of them, five to be accurate, chose to

53 maintain used to in the affirmative and the negative (used to no(t) and didn’t used to) rather than wouldn’t and widnae. In the non-standard column, three women decided to reverse both elements of the DM and to write a new combination by using the standard English spelling rather than the Broad Scots one, which gives wouldn’t use(d) to. Only three men proposed another interpretation of the clause in a standard way by maintaining wouldn’t instead of used to. Despite these differences, what remains common in both linguistic inquiries is the linguistic attitude of most of the informants, except six, to modify this type of clause in a more English way by replacing the modern Scots orthography by the mainstream English spelling even if they wish to maintain the DM or create another modal combination. Every year, English gains even more ground in the Scots language in Southern Scotland due mainly to its direct geographical and diachronic ties with Northern England. On the one hand, the arrival of more immigrants in the Borders explains the general attitude to adopt a more International English model and on the other, to use the Standard English spelling system more often in the Scots syntax.

~~(7) He wouldn’t could’ve worked, even if you had asked him.~~

~~2012~~

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard constructions proposed by women: proposed by women~~

- He wouldn’t have worked,… (3) - He wouldn’t worked,… - He couldn’t have worked,… (2) - He would not of worked,… - He could have worked,… even if you asked him - He would not have worked,… (4) - He wouldn’t and couldn’t of - He wouldn’t have been able to work,… worked,… - He could’ve worked,… - He wouldnae could’ve worked,… - He couldn’t have worked, even if - He wouldn’t had worked, you asked him even if you have asked him

~~- He would have been unable to work,… - He could not have worked,…~~

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard Constructions proposed by men: proposed by men:~~

- He wouldn’t have worked,…(5) - He wouldn’t worked,… - He couldn’t have worked,… (2) - He widny be able to work, - I wouldn’t work for them even if asked - He would not of worked, - He could have worked,… - He wouldn’t of been able to - He wouldn’t be able to work it out, - He widnae work,… even if you asked him - He couldn’t of worked,… - He will not have worked,… - He may not work, even if asked

~~2013~~

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard constructions proposed by women: proposed by women:~~

- He wouldn’t have worked… (3) - He wouldn’t of been able to work - He would not work even when asked - He wouldnae’ve worked… - He would not have been able to work… - He wouldnae could have worked - He wouldn’t have been able to work even if you had asked him - He wouldn’t’ve worked even if you’d asked him - He couldn’t have worked…

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

~~- He wouldn’t have worked even if you had asked him - He would not have worked even if you asked him - He could not work even if you asked him - He wouldn’t be able to work…~~

The use of would(nt’) in the 2012 table is much more common than could(n’t) if we have a look at the standard constructions of replacement proposed by men (nine would(n’t) versus four could(n’t)) and women (seven would(n’t) versus three could(n’t)). The same situation is observed in 2013 where nine women out of 10 and three men out of four maintained wouldn’t instead of couldn’t. Also, among the standard constructions of 2012, be able to was proposed by two women and one man to replace the second modal of the MM, viz. could. The negation was maintained after would, as in the DM, in two of the three proposed constructions. There is however one clause where the negation has changed place and has been attached in the semi modal construction be able to in the form of a prefix:

~~- He would have been unable to work,…~~

~~If the negator was put in the same place in would could in the seventh clause, it would give the following:~~

~~- He would couldn’t have worked, even if you had asked him.~~

Would is also very popular among the non-standard structures of replacement (three would(n’t) versus zero could(n’t) for women and five would(n’t) versus one could(n’t) for men). Two women maintained both modals, one added the coordinating conjunction and to keep the link between the two modals in a standard way since the conjunction literally splits the DM structure:

~~- He wouldn’t and couldn’t of worked,… M1 M2~~

Because of this separation, a second contracted negator is necessary to maintain the level of negativity which affects the seventh clause from beginning to end. The female informant did not wish to change the meaning of the clause, just its morphosyntactic model. This same person also used the of-preposition that replaces the auxiliary have in more relaxing and informal communicative situations. Regarding the second woman, she just modifies the negator which gives the following:

~~- He wouldnae could’ve worked...~~

It is again the same type of negation, a sentence wide-scope negation that scatters its influence from beginning to end of the clause, the only difference is found in the spelling of the negative which is written in vernacular Scots. Would remains the favorite modal among many informants unlike could. It is a tendency already observed in the previous sociolinguistic surveys of the Scottish Borders. The difference between the informants of the diverse Scottish towns is in their use of the non- standard vernacular spelling of would. Scottish and Scots dialects present many different types of spellings of would. These spellings vary regularly due mainly to the genders. As mentioned in the table above, men informants prefer writing a more traditional spelling for would and for the negative, that is widnae and widny unlike women who prefer maintaining a contemporary spelling of modals but with the addition of a slight vernacular trace in the negation which gives wouldnae. The informants who proposed non-standard constructions have regularly replaced have by of to mean that they use a second register of variation when not talking to foreigners or tourists. The maintenance of Double Modality and the deletion of have between a modal and a past participle also participate in the elaboration of this second register spoken at a smaller scale. In the main, informants who wish to interpret this seventh sentence in their own way, prefer in their great majority, to sacrifice could rather than would in a standard or vernacular context. The last field survey carried out in 2013 shows the exact same tendency particularly from the standard viewpoint since, contrary to 2012, there are very few vernacular interpretations proposed by the informants. In this last survey, one of the most amazing standard interpretations is the double contraction of both the negation and the perfect auxiliary which gives wouldn’t’ve worked. The Non-Standard Scots version of it which is wouldnae’ve

57 worked indicates the same semantic level as the standard one. Both grammatical structures were proposed by female speakers and were never mentioned before in the previous linguistic fieldwork. Wouldn’t have worked remains one of the most common interpretations by both genders expressing an impossible or irrealis action that the other structure couldn’t have worked also shows but the latter adds an additional semantic level called ability which has a root sense. To finish, it is also interesting to notice that one woman replaced the auxiliary have by of which in a non-standard environment is identified as an auxiliary equivalent to ‘ve in Standard English and not the preposition. Several people had also included the “of auxiliary” in Galashiels and Selkirk in 2012.

~~(8) He should can go tomorrow.~~

~~2012~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by women:~~

- He can go tomorrow (6) - He should be able to go tomorrow (5) - He should go tomorrow (3) - He would go tomorrow (2) - He could go tomorrow (2) - He will go tomorrow - He is able to go tomorrow - He should not go tomorrow

~~Standard constructions Non-Standard Constructions proposed by men: proposed by men:~~

- He can go tomorrow (5) - He should nae gan the morn - He should go tomorrow (2) - He should be able to go tomorrow - He may go tomorrow - He may be able to go tomorrow - He is likely to be able to go tomorrow - He’ll be able to go tomorrow - He might go tomorrow

~~2013~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by women:~~

~~- He should be able to go tomorrow (6) - He can go tomorrow (2) - He should go tomorrow (2) - He’s able to go tomorrow - He can go tomorrow - He could go tomorrow - He ought to go tomorrow~~

~~Standard constructions proposed by men:~~

~~- He can go tomorrow (3) - He should be able to go tomorrow - He should go tomorrow - He would go tomorrow~~

In the 2012 survey, Should, with or without be able to or a negator, remains the favorite modal auxiliary in the standard constructions proposed by the female respondents. There were nine, as in the 2011 survey, who kept should instead of can. However, six of them (instead of eight in the previous survey) did the contrary by maintaining can only. The situation is reversed in regard to the male informants where five of them preferred can and only three preferred should. This represents a great change because the male informants had a very different linguistic behavior in the 2011 survey where there were ten who chose should and only four to select can. Should and can also prefer to be used individually in the standard interpretations by most Scottish informants in 2013.

~~The 2012 table indicates a minority of informants who chose not to maintain either modals and preferred to write another one. In the female standard column, it is observed that would~~

(two women), will (one woman)l and could (two women) were written instead of the DM by five women in total. In the male standard column, three of them chose two other modals: two wrote may and one decided to write the past of may, viz. might. A more specific modal type, ought to, was proposed by one female informant instead of the modals of the DM in the 2013 table. Also, central modals would and could were also chosen to replace should can in the sentence by one man and one woman respectively during this last fieldwork.

Only in 2012, one person, a male informant, chose to write a non-standard construction by maintaining should and not can followed by the Scottish negator nae. The sentence thus contains a sentential negator that is separated from should which in theory is not possible according to the Scottish English rules explained by Keith Brown (1991). But this is not the first time that this negative particle is used this way in the Scottish Borders. Like the negator, the verb go and the time marker tomorrow underwent a modification of their spelling too to make the sentence non-standard. One must remember that these dialectal spellings represent one variant among many for each word when writing in non-standard Scots. Much has been explained regarding the linguistic modifications made by the informants who did not wish to maintain the DM present in the eight sentences. Finally, their number is not insignificant and the obvious presence of standard linguistic interpretations makes the Multiple Modality system weaker every year.

To sum up, the first task of both field surveys continues to show that most people who never or rarely use MMs prefer to turn each clause into Standard English. They do this to show that the presence of dialects in the written medium is inconceivable for them in the 21st century. The concept of dialects and of these modal combinations for many people can only head toward an ironic use or when reviving historical folklore. It is difficult for modal combinations to have a place in the modern, social, technological and economic world. Fortunately, the research also shows that a core minority of younger and older people thinks otherwise and that there may be more than one way to make their dialects and regional languages regenerate in this modern world. They truly believe that these modal combinations that belong to some of the Scottish dialects have their place in contemporary Scotland and that they can have more than a single linguistic role to play in their own towns. This minority situation acting differently from the rest has always been observed in the three field surveys. In this first task, the four counties of the Borders and the English town of Berwick-Upon-

Tweed have generally displayed figures that already reveal a greater movement toward standardization of Scottish-English variations. However, it is important to assert that the minority of informants who naturally accepts the presence of MMs in their region will continue defending their linguistic competencies in the years to come. It represents a multilingual heritage giving detailed and realistic descriptions of what vernacular features of the Scots varieties really are, and what they have to offer in contemporary societies for the ongoing development and preservation of Southern Scottish culture.

~~2.2. MMs in the 2012 and 2013 surveys: questionnaire, task two~~

As in the previous task, data comparisons will be made between both 2012 and 2013 surveys with the help of eight tables. Informants have to choose one MM among the four proposed for each clause. There are eight sentences that contain a blank and it is up to the informants to fill it out by a DM, TM or another similar (non) standard dialectal structure. The eight sentences are presented as follows:

(1) Ye------get the bus efter midnight. (2) I thought maybe I better put it (a hearing aid) on or I------understand you. (3) He------do it for you. (4) The girls usually make me toasted sandwiches but they------made any today. (5) I didn’t------tak them at aa. (6) I might could do something for her, but you------take her home. (7) The lad------muck the byre. (8) You------have the oil changed.

The goal of this task is to be able to understand the linguistic behavior of informants when they are confronted with a choice to make in very specific linguistic contexts. It also enables a better measure of their general level of recognition and comprehension of fewer known grammatical features belonging to vernacular dialects of their regional areas. Based on their own linguistic experience and their personal advice on the concept of dialects, what is

(im)possible to achieve in this intricate relation between the vernacular MMs and the rest of the elements of the clauses? What is their current level of acceptance of these MMs in English, Scots and Scottish-English clauses? Do their own interpretations of MMs lead even more to a standardized process or on the contrary to a continuous development of a modern vernacular of the Scots language and its dialects? That is what the second task of the questionnaire will attempt to answer.

~~(1) Ye------get the bus efter midnight.~~

~~2012 MEN WOMEN A/ winnae can 8 10 B/ wullna can 0 1 C/ wull kin 0 1 D/ willnae kin 1 4 E/ other non-standard features 5 12 E/ other standard features 6 1~~

~~Table 3: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 MEN WOMEN A/ winnae can 2 2 B/ wullna can 1 0 C/ wull kin 0 1 D/ willnae kin 1 5 E/ other non-standard features 2 4 E/ other standard features 1 5~~

~~Table 4: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

This is the only table among the eight, for both surveys, in which more non-standard features are selected or suggested by the informants than standard grammatical features. This is the exception for this type of authentic Scottish DM written with different possible spellings and accompanied by several types of negators. Dialects of Scots have one or several of these alternate spellings in their systems. Many respondents were interested in this clause due essentially to the presence of typical Scots DM will can under its numerous spelling forms. It is the most known and used modal combination in Southern Scotland even for people who have little knowledge in Scottish

63 dialects. The popularity of will can means that most informants who refused to tick an MM in the list, still proposed a non-standard feature of replacement containing will often joined by a negator or one of its dialectal spellings rather than a standard construction. Regarding the list, 25 respondents in 2012 chose to tick one of the four DMs notably winnae can which was selected by eight men and ten women. Wullnae can and wull kin were each ticked by one woman and one man and four women showed an interest for willnae kin. In 2013 there is a slight preference for willnae kin selected by five women. Unlike the previous field survey, winnae can is not considered as the most appropriate DM for the clause according to both genders. Still, two men and two women chose it. Regarding the other two MMs in B/ and C/, they are mostly rejected by the informants and even by the users of MMs as in 2012 in Galashiels and Selkirk. Other informants chose to write the DM of their own which increased the richness in the non- standard dialectal writings of the clause. As well as with the addition of these DMs, the majority preferred to mention one modal only, will particularly with a negator rather than can alone. Here are the other non-standard proposals made first by male informants for 2012:

- Ye winnae get a bus efter midnight. (once) - Ye wullna get a bus efter midnight. (once) - Ye wudnae get a bus efter midnight. (once) - Ye cannae get a bus efter midnight. (once) - Ye canny get a bus efter midnight. (once)

As can be observed, the spellings are diverse in the modals of these five clauses. The spelling of the negation ny in canny corresponds more to the traditional dialect of Hawick called “Hawick Scots”. It is not the case of nae which is the modern spelling of the negation in “Central Scots” recognized by all the men and women who have some knowledge of their own dialect(s) and Scottish dialects in general. “Central Scots” today is the most spoken and written vernacular variety in Scotland. It may be represented in the near future as the norm to follow for the Scots language. Na, often attached to wull, will and can, is also a type of negation similar to nae. Most of the informants who propose these vernacular structures of replacement know the spelling variations and contractions of the modals in presence of a negative particle such as willna(e) that can be turned into winna(e). Generally these spellings are used for almost any types of circumstances or contexts in the Scots language and Scottish- English variations. The habits and preferences of the informants, based on their own

64 variation(s) and linguistic knowledge, remain the main factor of decision for these morphemes. Unfortunately, they do not appear in the 2013 study except for the negator na attached to a primary auxiliary, also written in Scots, which gives dinna. In fact, only two non-standard suggestions were made by male informants during the last survey:

~~- Ye no can get a bus efter midnight. (Structure in italics proposed once) - Ye dinna get a bus efter midnight. (once)~~

~~Let’s now take a look at the non-standard features of the 12 female respondents who proposed the following in 2012:~~

- Ye willnae get a bus efter midnight (once) - Ye will can get a bus… (once) - Ye will not can get a bus… (once) - Ye we can get a bus… (once) - Ye willnae can… (twice) - Ye willnae ken if… (once) - Ye wull can… (once) - Ye wunni can… (once) - Ye couldnae… (once) - Ye cannae… (twice)

Features which are identified as modal combinations are underlined. Seven of them chose to use their own spelling DM, which is a rare situation and the only one that will show so many spelling variations for a single DM, hence its wide popularity as a typical Southern Scottish DM present only in the European Anglophone area. Two female respondents maintained the English spelling to write their DMs, viz. will can and will not can. Two, on the contrary, proposed willnae can with a mixing between the English and Scottish spellings. Two other women also created this mixed form but added a traditional spelling corresponding more to the Hawick variation of the Scots language mainly due to the presence of the negator ni, which creates a process of contraction with the modal wull. Thus wull and wunni in DMs wull can and wunni can reflect these rare orthographies that a minority of informants still has in their knowledge of the language and they continue to use these

65 combinations occasionally. Finally one woman proposed a very typical orthography of will which is we pronounced [we:] in Scots. It does not keep the female respondent from creating a DM of her own. As for the rest of the constructions, it is important to notice that willnae ken is not a DM because the element following the central Scots negator nae is identified as the Scottish verb ken (know in English), not modal can in English or kin in Scots. Finally three respondents only mentioned can and elided will or wull. These three informants added the negator nae after can and could. It is surprising to see in this list how diversified the spelling of DM will can is. The common point between all these propositions is found in the occasional spelling modifications of the first modal will accompanied or not by a negative particle that also undergoes several modifications in its spelling. Although the spelling possibilities to write can or could in Scots are numerous as well, none of the female informants wanted to modify the root modal of ability. Four women in 2013 also proposed non-standard features. They do not correspond to the morphosyntactic variations of the other 12, particularly the underlined DMs:

~~- Ye canny get a bus efter midnight. (proposed once) - Ye widnae get a bus efter midnight. (once) - Ye wuld kin get a bus efter midnight. (once) - Ye’ll no can get a bus efter midnight. (once)~~

The last two clauses contain DMs written in Scots whereas the first two contain one modal each written in Scots. It is not the first time that people have proposed other similar spellings in Scots for single modals and MMs that are not mentioned in the questionnaire choices. The field surveys that have been made since 2010 in the Borders show that Scottish spelling variations in the field of modality are diverse, therefore, all these orthographic possibilities entail the ongoing creation and development of a great many social and geographical dialects of the Scots language. Amazingly, the stronger presence of Standard English also creates more mixed forms of both the English and Scots spellings leading to a greater complication process and a greater heterogeneity in the syntax and spelling of modern Scottish-English dialects too. But of course, an eventual all-out presence of Standard English in the near future would make the current dialectal situation reverse in the Scottish Borders. Fortunately, it is not the case yet but informants continue to propose standard features that do not belong to the history of the Scots language nor to the MM system.

In general, this first table in both surveys showed more non-standard features selected or personally suggested by both genders than traditional mainstream English features. This will not be the case for the other seven tables in both surveys in which the MMs are not as much used as will can and its numerous orthographic alternatives in Scottish-English dialects. Though a minority of informants will continue claiming that they use other DMs and TMs, a more significant number of standard features is gaining ground in the Scottish Borders region.

~~(2) I thought maybe I better put it (a hearing aid) on or I------understand you.~~

~~2012 MEN WOMEN A/ might not couldn’t 2 4 B/ might couldn’t 1 0 C/ may not could 4 3 D/ might will can’t 0 0 E/ other non-standard features 3 8 E/ other standard features 11 13~~

~~Table 5: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 MEN WOMEN A/ might not couldn’t 1 1 B/ might couldn’t 1 1 C/ may not could 1 1 D/ might will can’t 0 0 E/ other non-standard features 0 8 E/ other standard features 4 11~~

~~Table 6: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

In the 2012 study, there is a net preference for two DMs among the informants. First might not couldn’t, which remains special due to the presence of a Double Negation inside the DM structure, was selected by six people. The Double Negation or Negative Concord cannot be placed in every DM or TM. It remains a rare situation and we mostly find one uncontracted negative particle between the two modals and one contracted negator positioned after the second modal. Second, may not could, which here has only one negator, was selected by

67 seven people. Strangely might couldn’t, known as a very common DM in Scotland and other Anglophone countries, was chosen by only one male informant this time. Regarding the 2013 table, it is more homogeneous in the selection of MMs. Three men and three women chose the first three DMs. The only TM which is might will can’t was rejected by both genders in the two tables.

In total, 14 informants selected an MM among the four proposed in 2012 and only six in 2013. As said in the previous clause, more standard features are starting to appear, creating another linguistic attitude tending to leave vernacular features aside. However, the non- standard features proposed by men and women are still representative and coherent with their own social environments in order to make it possible to analyze them in detail. In both surveys, more women proposed non-standard dialectal features than men, particularly in 2013 where no men proposed any vernacular features to replace the MMs of the list. Only three men in 2012 proposed the following vernacular features in italics:

~~- I thought maybe I better put it (a hearing aid) on or I wouldnae understand you. (once)~~

~~- I thought maybe[…]on or I whe understand you. (once) - I thought maybe you better put yer hearing aid on to understand ye. (once)~~

One man proposed to include wouldnae being the translation of wouldn’t in Standard English. The use of wouldnae here is strictly conditional. Regarding the second clause, the informant added the word whe which is a more traditional dialectal modal meaning won’t. The spelling is mostly based on the pronunciation of the ancient Scots word. There is also an alternative spelling to this word which is we. Both words are not found in Central Scots. The third clause is mostly a modification of the possessive determiner and the object pronoun in modern Scots. Yer for your and ye for you.

~~More non-standard features were proposed by female respondents in both surveys.~~

~~Here are the women’s vernacular features for 2012:~~

- I thought maybe[…]on or I willnae understand you. (twice) - I thought maybe[…]on or I might no understand you. (three times) - I thought maybe[…]on or I couldnae understand you. (once) - I thought maybe[…]on or I wouldn’t could understand you. (once) - I thought maybe[…]on or I might not could understand you. (once)

~~Here are the women’s vernacular features for 2013:~~

- I thought may be I better put it (a hearing aid) on or I couldnae understand you. (once) - I thought[… ]or I might not can understand you. (once) - I thought[…]or I wouldnae could understand you. (once) - I thought[…]or I might no understand you. (once) - I thought[…]or I widnae understand you. (once) - I thought[…]or I couldny understand you. (once) - I thought[…]or I might no could understand you. (once) - I thought[…]or I winnae understand you. (once)

One woman in 2012 wrote a different DM from the ones proposed in the list. She wrote wouldn’t could which is exceptional due to the contraction of the negator between both modals. Its synonymous Scots variation wouldnae could has also been proposed by another woman the following year. A modal combination presented this way has never appeared in research papers that deal with Multiple Modality nor in lists of MMs prepared by sociolinguists such as Marianna Di-Paolo (1986) or Michael Montgomery (1994). Further study on this special DM will need to be made to understand how such combinations in the system of Multiple Modality can occur. Might not could was also proposed but it is very similar to might couldn’t. Again in 2013, the Scots equivalent might no could was suggested by one woman too. Of course it is the same DM and the difference remains in the position of the negator and the diverse spellings of this negative. Yet, the difference can be seen in the Scots spelling of negatives attached or detached to both MMs in 2013 rather than the exclusive maintenance in 2012 of the English spelling in wouldn’t could and might not could. These four women apparently consider, in their own idiolect, that it is more appropriate to put

69 the negator between the two modals rather than after the second modal. This change of position does not really affect the meaning of the clause in this case. These four women represent an exception among the majority of people who generally preferred inserting standard mainstream features. Regarding the other vernacular features, 11 other informants, six in 2012 and five in 2013, decided to write single modals only with diverse Scots spellings. Again, it is interesting to notice a more important desire among some people to include traditional Scots spellings for these single modals in 2013. Scottish spellings of 2012 represent modern spellings that can be understood by every speaker of the Scots language which is more labeled as Central Scots. Winnae is identified as a traditional Southern Scots form rather than willnae which corresponds to a modern Scots writing understood in the entire Scots linguistic area. It is the same case for couldny which, like winnae, is a more localized form, unlike, couldnae. Regarding standard features, might not is the most frequent choice made in both surveys. It was proposed five times by men (three times in 2012 and twice in 2013) and 13 times by women (seven times in 2012 and six times in 2013). Mightn’t was proposed twice, once per survey. It is still identified as a standard feature by the Scottish Borders population despite its rare use. May not was proposed five times by male respondents in 2012 and only once by one woman in 2013. Unlike might, may not cannot be contracted. The rest of the central modals, that is, can’t, wouldn’t, won’t, were proposed only once by both genders in each survey.

~~(3) He------do it for you.~~

~~2012 MEN WOMEN A/ should might better 0 0 B/ will might can 1 2 C/ ’ll should could 1 1 D/ ‘ll might can 2 9 E/ other non-standard features 2 6 E/ other standard features 14 13~~

~~Table 7: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 MEN WOMEN A/ should might better 0 0 B/ will might can 0 2 C/ ’ll should could 1 1 D/ ‘ll might can 1 5 E/ other non-standard features 0 1 E/ other standard features 5 12~~

~~Table 8: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

As in the previous survey, ‘ll might can remains the most chosen TM among the four proposed in the list in both 2012 and 2013. Nine women and two men selected it while one man and two women chose will might can. Six informants in the last study, one man and five women, selected ‘ll might can whereas only two women chose the full form of the combination. There is a net preference for the contraction process of the first modal in these MM constructions. Concerning should might better, it has been totally rejected in both surveys by all the informants contrary to the 2011 survey where two men selected it. The TM ‘ll should could presents the same level of preference too, which remains low, for both genders in 2012 and 2013. It is an appropriate dialectal construction in this sentence for this minority of four informants. Results for this third clause in both surveys remain very similar in the main. Preferences in terms of combinatorial possibilities of MMs for this clause are identical.

As in the previous clause, many informants also proposed both standard and non-standard features. First of all, let us have a look at the dialectal non-standard constructions of replacement written by male speakers:

~~- He should could do it for you. (once) - He will dae it for you. (once)~~

In these two clauses, one man mentioned his own DM that belongs more to the Hawick Scots vernacular. It is a DM which tends to have little use nowadays in the Borders region. In regard to the other sentence, the second man preferred writing only one modal auxiliary but decided at the same time to change the spelling of the verb do by turning it into the modern Central

~~Scots spelling dae. No vernacular structures of replacement were proposed by the male respondents in 2013. The structures remain exclusively standard for male informants.~~

~~Six non-standard features were proposed by women speakers in 2012 which are:~~

~~- He might can do it for you. (four times) - He mibby do it for you. (once) - He’ll might do it for you. (once)~~

Five women wished to maintain the presence of an MM in the clause. Five of them proposed a DM rather than a TM for reasons of simplification and a better understanding of the clause. Among the five women, four wrote might can which is a well known modal combination as might could in the Western Anglophone world. The last female informant proposed ‘ll might which is never mentioned in lists of MMs. However, it is not the first time that this DM was written in this type of study. It is only in 2013 that one woman proposed to maintain the fourth TM of the list while modifying the last modal of the combination, which gives the following:

~~- He’ll might kin do it for you. (once)~~

One woman proposed mibby instead of an MM which can be translated by the standard adverb maybe. Another spelling is possible for this morpheme such as mebbies. Yet, it is mibby that has a better recognition and a greater use among the Scottish Border population. The spelling of mebbies is nowadays too old.

~~Again the standard features were more numerous for both genders. In all, male respondents wrote 19 features in which might and should were the favorite standard modals inserted in the clause.~~

Regarding female speakers, 25 of them decided to include various central modals in the clause without creating a clear tendency in their selection. There is just a slight preference for should (be able to) in the 2013 survey. The rest of the central modals such as could, can, will, and may was either picked once or twice by the female respondents in both sociolinguistic studies. Both surveys do not indicate a modal feature or a small group of modal expressions that stand out, unlike some MMs in which contrasts between combinations are really visible.

~~(4) The girls usually make me toasted sandwiches but they------made any today.~~

~~2012 MEN WOMEN A/ mustn’t could’ve 1 2 B/ must not could have 3 6 C/ mustn’t could have 1 3 D/ might not could’ve 1 1 E/ other non-standard features 5 8 E/ other standard features 10 11~~

~~Table 9: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 MEN WOMEN A/ mustn’t could’ve 1 5 B/ must not could have 0 0 C/ mustn’t could have 1 2 D/ might not could’ve 0 0 E/ other non-standard features 2 5 E/ other standard features 3 10~~

~~Table 10: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

This table presents only two types of DMs. The first three modal combinations represent one unique DM. The differences reside in the contraction or not of the negator as well as the have- auxiliary. In the fourth modal combination, must was replaced by might, which affects the meaning of the sentence. In the 2012 table, there is a preference for must not could have by both genders. Six women chose the modal combination containing no contraction of the auxiliary and the negator. The previous survey in Kelso and Jedburgh indicated a different situation in which mustn’t could’ve (four women) and mustn’t could have (seven women) were the favorite constructions of 12 women. Regarding the male informants, compared with the 2011 survey, the situation is basically identical. Fewer than 10 ticked one of the four DMs of this table. Regarding the 2013 table, the situation is also different in Eyemouth and Jedburgh since the contraction of both the negation not and auxiliary have, which gives mustn’t could’ve, has been mostly chosen by the female informants. These modal combinations remain Northumberland-Tyneside constructions (Joan Beal 1993:195), meaning

73 that they come from the Northern England area close to the Scottish Borders. More Scottish informants have used them for 20 years now since the arrival of a greater number of English people in the South-Eastern region of Scotland for mainly socio-economic reasons.

The number of non-standard features is still inferior to the standard ones for both genders. However, increasing differences exist between the vernacular features proposed by both genders. The non-standard features of men speakers for 2012 are as follows:

~~- The girls usually make me some toasted sandwiches but they havenae made any today. (once)~~

- The girls[…]but they havnae made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they havny made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they couldn’t made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they did nae make any the day.(once)

What is very interesting to notice is the three vernacular spellings of the standard construction have not or haven’t. Most of the time each spelling corresponding to both the auxiliary and the negator belongs to a more or less modern variety of the Scots language. Of course it comes about that some spellings especially the modern ones belong to more than one dialect of the language. It is for example the case of the non-standard negative nae. This common negator in Scots can be separated from the auxiliary with which it is supposed to be connected mainly for semantic reasons. This linguistic phenomenon really becomes less rare to observe. The elision of the auxiliary have between the modal and the past participle in this fourth sentence, which gives couldn’t made, is also more common in the Scots language but it is spoken more often. This same vernacular syntactic structure is also proposed in the 2013 survey by one respondent as well as the particular contraction of mustn’t which happens to be written as musent by another male informant:

~~- The girls usually make me some toasted sandwiches but they musent have made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they couldn’t made any today. (once)~~

Only two structures were proposed. On the one hand, mustn’t has been changed orthographically and turned into musent which corresponds more to the phonological pronunciation of the morpheme [m˄snt]. On the other, regarding the second clause, there is the omission of the auxiliary have between the modal couldn’t and the past participle made. This latter observation indicates the creation of a simplification process of the last part of the clause.

~~Here are the non-standard features proposed by women in 2012 and 2013:~~

~~2012 vernacular features:~~

- The girls[…]but they must no of made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they did not made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they couldn’t made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they may not made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they could not made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they havenae made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they must nay have made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they mustnae have made any today. (once)

~~2013 vernacular features:~~

- The girls[…]but they havnae made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they may not made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they might not made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they could not made any today. (once) - The girls[…]but they manny’ve made any the day. (once)

There are a lot of fascinating grammatical features here, notably the first clause containing the vernacular feature must no of +past participle. It is a shorter version of must not have +past participle. It is indeed more common to find the contraction of have in non-standard dialects identical to the spelling of the preposition of. It mainly derives from the pronunciation of have in Standard English which with the phonological writing gives [əv] when it is located in the middle of the clause. The preposition of in Standard English has the same phonological

75 writing when put in the middle of the sentence. Regarding the other features, three women elided the have-auxiliary when couldn’t, could not and may not are present in the clause. Both vernacular structures May not +past participle and could not +past participle are also proposed by two women in 2013. Two other women respected the rule explained by Jim Miller asserting the non-separation of the sentential negator nae with a primary (have) or modal auxiliary (must). This rule, in the twenty-first century, is not mandatory any more since a minority of informants in the field surveys detached this negative from both types of auxiliaries. Nay, for example, which has a close similarity in the spelling with nae, also undergoes this change in this clause. These slight modifications are recent in the Scots language. Extralinguistic factors implying changes of all sorts (economic, social even political renewal) in Southern Scottish towns are the main reasons for these small dialectal changes. Regarding manny’ve proposed by one female informant in 2013, this is a more traditional interpretation of mustn’t have in the Scots language. Its use is on the wane being replaced nowadays by mustnae have in modern Scots, which is much closer to the English syntax. Although a great many Scottish wish to see their Scots language unified one day, elaborating a modern homogenized grammar (David Purves 1997) applicable to all the Scots speaking regional areas to make it independent from English at economic and political levels makes no sense for most Scottish citizens. Cultural and linguistic regional specificities such as the use of different negators instead of nae or the increasing use of MMs that do not imitate might could or will can remain the main conditions to make sure Scots has a national impact in the life of many Scottish citizens one day. The fragile state in which Scots and its morphosyntactic features are found is mainly responsible for the rapidly increasing spread of Modern Standard English. This has a not insignificant impact on the research since the number of standard features is again superior to the vernacular propositions made by both genders. As in the previous clauses, many standard choices have been written in the clause without drawing a major grammatical preference. Most of the mainstream features were proposed once, like couldn’t have, did not have, did not make, with a slight preference for the haven’t made feature written three times each by both genders. Based on research carried out by Trudgill (Trudgill; Watt; Hughes 2005: 18), the Standard Scottish English feature should be ‘ve not made and not haven’t made, the latter corresponding to a typical Southern Standard English feature. It proves that even the Northern Standard British variety does not make enough weight with its Modern Southern counterpart.

~~5) I didn’t------tak them at aa.~~

~~2012 MEN WOMEN A/ uisst tae coud 1 5 B/ used to would 1 2 C/ use tae could 3 6 D/ used to could 2 3 E/ other non-standard features 4 2 E/ other standard features 7 10~~

~~Table 11: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 MEN WOMEN A/ uisst tae coud 0 2 B/ used to would 1 0 C/ use tae could 1 6 D/ used to could 0 2 E/ other non-standard features 1 2 E/ other standard features 4 10~~

~~Table 12: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

In this type of clause that remains essentially non-standard since there is not yet an official standard linguistic model for the Scots language, the reactions of the informants are various. Although a very slight preference for use tae could among both genders in both tables has been noticed, the other MMs proposed in the list of the fifth clause were well accepted among the informants too. They did not have to search for other standard and vernacular features. The similarity of use tae could to the English spelling means that the structure is easier to use, creating a better interaction with the rest of the clause. This situation gives rise to a more important decrease as regards the standard features for both genders. All the same five men and four women proposed the following non-standard structures of replacement:

~~Male vernacular features:~~

- I did nae talk to them at all. (once 2012) - I didn’t want tae tak them at aa. (once 2012) - I didn’t used tak them at aa. (once 2012) - I didn’t use tae tak them at aa. (once 2012) - I didn’t use tae tak them at aa. (once 2013)

~~Female vernacular features:~~

- I didn’t couldn’t tak them at aa. (once 2012) -Ah didnae used tae tak them at aa. (once 2012) - I didn’t use tae tak them at aa. (once 2013) - I didnae use tae could tak them at aa. (once 2013)

The separation of the sentential negator nae with the auxiliary is still written by a Scottish informant proving that this grammatical tendency is more general nowadays. Another male informant created a simplification process by removing the to of used to which is also frequent in other Anglophone countries such as Australia and New Zealand as Laurie Bauer explained it in his book (Bauer 2002: 52). This simplification process may become a standard feature in the near future due to its greater use especially in the oral medium. There is also the attitude in the last two sentences to use a formal rule of Standard English by removing the preterite ending d of used to in a negative syntax. This is a prescriptive rule of English Grammar barely used in Modern Standard English nowadays. Yet, both sentences remain in the vernacular interpretations because a large part of their syntax is still written in Scots. Concerning the female informants, only two features of replacement in 2012 were proposed, the first one being peculiar to decipher. Some DMs used by African Americans contain a modal and a primary auxiliary such as may didn’t or must didn’t (Stephen Nagle 1997: 1522). Very few of them were created this way. Didn’t couldn’t may be one of them. The problem resides in the position of the auxiliaries which is reversed. Either it is a new creation in the development of Multiple Modality or the informant made a mistake by proposing another feature. Due to a lack of data, I prefer considering this proposal as a mistake for the time being. The second female informant, on the contrary, proposed a correct non-standard clause entirely written in Modern Scots. Based on the idiolect and the own informant’s

78 interpretation, the nae is this time undetached from the auxiliary. What is more, the consonant d of used is still maintained while the preterite is already present in the do-auxiliary. As said earlier, the didn’t used to construction is now acceptable in Modern Standard English. In 2013, one woman proposed to write didn’t use tae by applying the formal English rule regarding the negation of used to or used tae. Finally, another female informant has brought slight modifications by writing didn’t in Modern Scots, which gives didnae by maintaining the third DM combination of the list, that is use tae could.

Standard interpretations are almost the same between both genders. Didn’t use to, which is a construction belonging to prescriptive Standard English, is in both surveys mentioned by two women and only one man. It is declining quickly unlike the Modern Standard English variation didn’t used to which is written and spoken by a total of eleven women and five men. This modern grammatical structure can now be interpreted as a “double preterite” since the past tense ending of used to, viz. the d consonant, is not removed in the negative any more. It is not guaranteed that the same situation would occur so often if used to in the negative was accompanied by a second modal such as could. It would be much harder to define, based on the complex variations that one Scottish or English negator would create on used to could or a similar DM of this kind. For the moment only one example, didnae use to could, was given by a female informant in the 2013 survey in which the d of used to in the modal combination in the negative was removed.

~~(6) I might could do something for her, but you------take her home.~~

~~2012 MEN WOMEN A/ might oughta should 1 2 B/ might better 6 7 C/ might should oughta 1 1 D/ might ought to 2 6 E/ other non-standard features 1 1 E/ other standard features 10 14~~

~~Table 13: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 MEN WOMEN A/ might oughta should 0 1 B/ might better 1 3 C/ might should oughta 1 0 D/ might ought to 1 5 E/ other non-standard features 1 0 E/ other standard features 3 13~~

~~Table 14: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

In this sixth clause, there are almost as many non-standard features, 41 to be exact including MMs, as standard features, viz. 40 to be accurate. Both genders show a greater interest in choosing DMs especially might better in the 2012 table and might ought to in the 2013 table. On the contrary, TMs which are might oughta should and might should oughta were barely selected in both studies. This situation can be explained by a greater morphosyntactic complexity of TMs. Scottish informants are still quite reluctant about the order that must be given to the modals in these MMs for fear of creating a different or wrong sense to the one that is originally thought by the speaker. In the main, it is still risky to use these constructions in face-to-face conversations. For the time being, the limited number of respondents who selected one of the two TMs does not consider that there is a difference in meaning between might oughta should and might should oughta. The MMs selected by both genders for this clause are atypical, like those presented in the fifth clause, because each MM is not solely composed of traditional modals like may, might, must, can or could but also contained other classes of auxiliaries called “marginal modals” such as ought to and “comparative modals” like better or had better. This is also not impossible to assert that the presence of a DM, especially a very famous one, at the beginning of the sentence, entails the logical necessity for some informants to include a second modal combination in the clause. These changes in the internal morphological and semantic structures of some MMs are increasingly replacing the older ones, whose traditional modals mentioned above belong to one group, the group of “Central Modals”. Central or Core Modals are equivalent terms proposed by Randolph Quirk and his fellow grammarians (1985: 137).

As for the non-standard features of replacement, a reduction of modal idiom had better, as Quirk likes to call it (1985: 137), has been proposed by a total of two men and one woman which gives the following:

~~I might could do something for her, but you better take her home.~~

~~This is a process of simplification of the idiom had better that more Scottish people use when speaking with other inhabitants of the Borders.~~

Despite a slight majority of vernacular features proposed for this clause, there is still a significant quantity of standard features that is written. In both lists comprising standard features, there is in both studies a common preference for central modal should proposed four times by men and 13 times by women. Ought to instead of should has also been mentioned by two men and two women. As ought to, had better and other similar forms such as might be better and would be better have been suggested by both genders quite rarely as well. The idiom better expresses a highly suggested piece of advice close to the sense of obligation. By adding might and would, it “softens” the importance of the piece of advice and it therefore diminishes the chance of accomplishment of this suggestion.

~~(7) The lad------muck the byre.~~

~~2012 MEN WOMEN A/ may might can 1 2 B/ might could 4 7 C/ must could 1 2 D/ may should ought 1 4 E/ other non-standard features 1 1 E/ other standard features 12 14~~

~~Table 15: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 MEN WOMEN A/ may might can 0 0 B/ might could 1 10 C/ must could 2 0 D/ may should ought 0 0 E/ other non-standard features 0 1 E/ other standard features 4 11~~

~~Table 16: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

Both tables clearly indicate a clear preference of DM might could among male and female respondents. Unlike the other three MMs proposed in the tables, might could does not belong to one or several specific territories of the Western Anglophone world. It is not surprising that might could is called the “Queen of Combination” by Juan-de-la-Cruz (1995: 82), the tables prove it clearly. Women who wished to select one of the four MMs of the list all selected the same combination which happens to be the most recognizable and spoken combination in every place of the Anglophone world where Multiple Modality is currently present. This can be identified as a universal vernacular feature of Multiple Modality. Despite a regular preference for might could in the field surveys, the exclusive choice of this DM from the female informants in 2013 has never happened before. Concerning Must could, a typical Hawick Scots DM, it does not have the success of ubiquitous might could. It was only selected by three men and two women in both surveys. There has also been a certain interest for TM may should ought among four women and one man in 2012 while this same TM was totally rejected by both genders in the last field survey. The situation is identical for may might can which was only selected by one man and two women in the heart of the Borders in 2012. The interaction of these longer MMs with Southern Scottish Society remains difficult to observe based on their weak adaptability to extralinguistic factors of the modern world. Regarding non-standard features, two informants proposed the same constructions, which happens to be the DM might can, also identified like might could as a very well known modal combination used in the Western Anglophone world.

~~The lad might can muck the byre. This same non-standard interpretation has also been written by another woman in 2013.~~

There are still an important number of standard features written by 26 informants in 2012 and 15 informants the following year. Both genders maintain a slight preference for modal should. It was proposed four times by male informants and three times by female informants in 2012. During this year, might was also a more selected construction by men whereas could was particularly chosen by women. The rest of the modals, viz. may, must, can and modal expressions such as semi modal had to have been mentioned just once by both genders. The year 2013 does not present a specific tendency in terms of choice of standard modals. The same modals were proposed by both genders only once or twice. The lack of informants is one of the reasons why there is not a single modal that stands out contrary to MMs. Despite the significant increase in the choice of might could in 22 questionnaires, especially the ones of the last survey, the number of standard features remains significant all the same in both the English and Scottish clauses.

~~(8) You------have the oil changed.~~

~~2012 MEN WOMEN A/ might ought to should 0 0 B/ may should 2 2 C/ ought to should 1 4 D/ should ought to 6 8 E/ other non-standard features 0 0 E/ other standard features 12 17~~

~~Table 17: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 MEN WOMEN A/ might ought to should 0 0 B/ may should 0 2 C/ ought to should 2 5 D/ should ought to 1 3 E/ other non-standard features 0 0 E/ other standard features 4 12~~

~~Table 18: Selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

For this last sentence, both male and female respondents in the first table consider it is best to put modal should in first position followed by marginal modal ought to in the DM. The reverse (ought to should) is not selected by many informants. Contrary to the 2012 study, ought to should is the favorite MM selected by five women and two men and not should ought to any more. Informants do not see a difference of meaning between both DMs. It is more a matter of preference based essentially on the practicality of the pronunciation of each modal sequence. Moreover, placing a semi or marginal modal at the start of an MM may for some people be considered as unacceptable. For some informants, they do not represent the main elements of the modal combinations because of their grammatical nature, in other terms, they are not identified as “pure” modal auxiliaries. This means that they do not belong to core modality. Regarding DM May should, it was selected by a total of two men and four women. The TM had no success and no informants proposed a non-standard feature of replacement in both tables. As far as standard features are concerned, should remains by far the favorite standard modal in both surveys, followed by ought to, in this perfective aspectual structure. In all, should was written 32 times unlike ought to which was mentioned eight times. Both modals prevail, contrary to might, have to and may have to which were mentioned only once. The last two tables will sum up all the previous tables by mentioning, from top to bottom, the highest frequencies of selection of DMs and TMs by male and female respondents.

~~2012 WOMEN MEN~~

Winnae can (10 times) Winnae can (8 times) ‘ll might can (9 times) Might better (6 times) Should ought to (8 times) Should ought to (6 times) Might better (7 times) May not could (4 times) Might could(7 times) Must not could have (6 times) Use tae could (6 times) Might ought to (6 times)

~~Table 19: Frequency of selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

~~2013 WOMEN MEN~~

Might could (10 times) Winnae can (2 times) Use tae could (6 times) Must could (2 times) Willnae kin (5 times) Ought to should (2 times) ‘ll might can (5 times) Mustn’t could’ve(5 times) Might ought to (5 times) Ought to should (5 times)

~~Table 20: Frequency of selection of the modal combinations by the informants.~~

The most selected MMs of both tables written in bold comprise both traditional DMs, viz. winnae can, must could, and hybrid combinations that are composed of different modal forms such as should ought to, use tae could, might better and ought to should. This small group of MMs already represents the richness and diversity of Multiple Modality in its morphology and daily use by the Scottish citizens of the Borders. Based on the whole frequencies indicated in both tables, there is a general state of balance in their spoken use between combinations only composed of core modals, traditional Scots DMs, hybrid forms and finally typical northern English combinations. This represents an interesting diversity of combinations that no longer astonishes the minority group of people who employ them. Without excluding the writing potential of the Multiple Modality system, it is essentially a spoken dialectal phenomenon known by many Scottish people, which has real practical applications by a strong minority of citizens. In 20 years, with the arrival of English and other European and American people to Southern Scotland for a new life and a new job, local citizens who have preserved their MMs, have also naturally extended their use of these combinations by acquiring new DMs that are usually spoken in Northumberland and/or the United States. Must not could have and its contracted form mustn’t could’ve for example, are nowadays regularly used by this core minority group of Scottish informants. It is the same case for hybrid Should ought to selected in 2012 and its reverse combination ought to should especially selected in 2013 by both genders. They remained peculiar DMs in the 1990’s because of the grammatical nature of some modal elements such as ought (to) different from the traditional core modal combinations. People did not know how to interpret them which

85 implied a limited use. This is why they were still considered in those days as ungrammatical because of the addition of these new modal forms like ought to identified, according to Quirk (1985: 137), as a marginal modal. The same situation can be observed for DMs may not could and use tae could that were barely heard 20 years ago. Regarding ‘ll might can, this is the exception among TMs to be part of the combinations having the highest frequencies in 2012. Unlike the other TMs proposed in the questionnaire, it is the only one which is recognized regularly by Scottish respondents even for those who do not speak MMs. Its Hawick Scots origin greatly contributes to its recognition. Also noticed is the still greater importance of the “Queen of Combinations”, viz. might could, which continues to be very popular especially in the last study in which it is selected 10 times by female informants while traditional Scots DM winnae can was at the top of the frequency hierarchy in 2012. It is, with might can, the only vernacular combination that has this wide international recognition in many spoken and/or written non-standard Englishes in the twenty-first century. It belongs to the small group of vernacular universal Anglophone features which as a result joins the environment of polylectal grammars 12 as well. Thus, all this myriad of combinations generates a new linguistic reality for the Scottish Borders involving a new distribution of older and newer modal combinations in each main town (Hawick, Jedburgh, Kelso, Selkirk, Peebles, Galashiels, Eyemouth) of this region.

Despite the increasing number of Standard features in all of the tables, except the first one, a limited number of Scottish informants still want to maintain a bond with these non-standard modal combinations. They have been taking part in their Scottish linguistic culture for centuries and they generally do not wish to see the complete decline of such dialectal constructions in the future. The most selected DMs and TMs in the questionnaire represent a minority of respondents who are all of different ages and various professional experiences in life. They represent a core of people who try to perpetuate their knowledge of these dialectal forms. The diversity of this minority group, from a social and geographical viewpoint, makes this linguistic phenomenon even richer than in the past decades.

12 A model of language proposed by sociolinguists to account for the varieties (LECTS) of a language that are used by individuals within a SPEECH COMMUNITY. Such a model attempts to factor in REGIONAL VARIATION and SOCIAL VARIATION (as in studies of DIALECT) or command of multiple lects within a CREOLE CONTINUUM [Swann; Deumert; Lillis and Mesthrie 2004: 244]

Furthermore, integrating Scottish syntax has an impact on the increasing tendency to add MMs in these clauses. For most informants, these modal combinations are intrinsically connected with the orthography and syntax of the Scots dialects, especially if they are written with different Scottish spellings instead of the Standard English orthography. Testing informants with typically English orthography and syntax only does not give the same result. Both genders hesitate more in an English context, which leaves more room for standard features or other MMs that are not necessarily Scottish. However, MMs are not fully incompatible with English syntax but their range of use is more limited than with Scots or Scottish-English syntax. The first two tasks of the questionnaire analyzed the current level of grammaticality of MMs in different types of syntax in the Borders by trying to determine what is possible to conceive and to actually use in society among an amazing spectrum of modal combinations.

~~2.3. Conclusion~~

The first two tasks of the questionnaire analyzed the current level of grammaticality of MMs in different types of Scottish and English syntax in the Borders by trying to determine what is possible to conceive and to actually use in society among a wide spectrum of modal combinations. It is already positive to notice that some informants have proposed combinations that were not even mentioned in the lists of the questionnaires, particularly in the second task. Scottish DMs such as wunni can, wull can, willnae can and wuld kin come from the personal dialectal competencies of the informants, which already indicates an ongoing linguistic vitality of these dialectal forms. The first tasks of the questionnaire survey enable the participants to (re)activate their potential of knowledge of MMs. These first stages are already able to determine how significant their skills are concerning these combinations. What does the respondent already know regarding these combinations? What MMs are immediately rejected and those that will be kept by the informants and probably reapplied for the rest of the tasks? What is her/his background knowledge on these specific Scottish- English features? Based on the field observations, integrating Scottish syntax, for example in both tasks, entails a more efficient (re)activation of this background. It has been observed several times and people are more reluctant to include a combination of the lists (Juan-de-la- Cruz 1995; Battistella 1995; Butters 1996; Nagle 1993) or one of their own if the syntax is

87 more English related. It is already important to test their reactions by means of these first tasks and to determine their level of knowledge of these vernacular features before moving on to the rest of the study.

~~3. Spoken and written frequencies of MMs in Southern Scottish towns, 2010-2013 surveys~~

This chapter throws light on the frequencies of use of modal combinations both in the spoken and written media. Each modal combination used in the Scottish Borders is different. The structural complexity of the MMs based on the number of modal elements that the combinations have and also on the grammatical identity of each modal element are important factors that determine how frequent a modal combination will be used in the Southern Scottish society. However, the questionnaire is not intended to ask the informant to give her/his own frequency of use for each combination due to their great numbers. Instead, the questionnaire proposes the informant to assess her/his general spoken and written frequency regarding her/his personal use of the Multiple Modality system. It represents one task in the questionnaire surveys, presented as follows:

~~How often do you use (orally) these types of grammatical constructions? (Circle only one letter)~~

~~A/ a lot – B/ often – C/ occasionally – D/ rarely – E/ not at all~~

~~You write these types of constructions: (Circle only one letter)~~

~~A/ a lot – B/ often – C/ occasionally – D/ rarely – E/ not at all~~

Since two different questionnaire models were prepared during the PhD research, this task is numbered V in the 2011 questionnaire whereas it is numbered IV in the 2012 and 2013 questionnaires. The questionnaires distributed in 2012 and 2013 are identical contrary to the 2011 field survey. Some tasks of the 2011 questionnaire model had to be removed because they turned out not to be adapted to this specific field survey properly.

~~3.1. Tendencies of use of MMs in the 2010’s~~

Although the towns are generally a short distance from each other, this section of the thesis will show how striking the frequencies of use of MMs can change from one town to the other. These changes will be even more scrutinized when tackling the differences between the spoken use of modal combinations and their written interactions in Southern Scottish society. Indeed, significant differences are already easily observable between the written and oral uses of MMs for the three main towns of the region which are Hawick, Kelso and Galashiels. Although the study shows that modal combinations are mainly spoken, this vernacular phenomenon can also be written in a limited number of social contexts. The written use of MMs was particularly detected in Hawick and it is only in this place where the written use of these combinations is not insignificant. In total, twelve towns have been visited to measure both levels of use of these vernacular modal structures. It started in 2010 in the knitwear industrial town of Hawick and it finished three years later in the port town of Eyemouth. For every town, two histograms are sketched to illustrate the differences there are between the written and oral uses of Multiple Modality system. Also, a number of histograms from different towns, particularly the largest ones, will be reunited to be able to trace the general path that the Multiple Modality system is taking for this new decade in both oral and written environments not only for a county but also for the entire region. Before analyzing the bar graphs, here is below a short geographical summary of the location of each group of towns in the counties of the Scottish Borders. Berwick-Upon-Tweed is the only English town explored during the field surveys. However, it was taken into account in the study because it has had linguistic roots with the Scottish Borders for centuries and it is quite close to the region. The numbers in brackets correspond to the year when each town was visited.

Hawick (2010) – Kelso (2011) – Jedburgh (2011): county of Roxburghshire (Southern Borders area). Melrose (2011) – Galashiels (2012) – Selkirk (2012): county of Selkirkshire (Central Borders area). Innerleithen (2012) – Peebles (2012): Peeblesshire (Western Borders area). Coldstream (2011) – Eyemouth (2013) – Duns (2013): Berwickshire (Eastern Borders area). Berwick-Upon-Tweed (2013): Northumberland (North-Eastern England).

~~Here are on the next pages the first two bar graphs representing the oral and written frequencies of MMs in Kelso according to the genders:~~

~~3.2. Towns investigated in 2011~~

~~3.2.1. Kelso~~

~~Table 1: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Kelso)~~

Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 5 17,86% 2 13,33% Often 5 17,86% 1 6,67% Occasionally 8 28,57% 2 13,33% Rarely 4 14,29% 4 26,67% not at all 6 21,43% 6 40,00% Total 28 100,00% 15 100,00%

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males~~

~~40,00%~~

~~15,00%~~

~~28,57%~~

~~26,67% 10,00%~~

~~21,43% 17,86% 17,86%~~

~~5,00% 14,29% 13,33% 13,33%~~

~~6,67% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 1: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Kelso.~~

~~Table 2: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Kelso)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 2 7,14% 1 6,67% Often 2 7,14% 0,00% Occasionally 4 14,29% 1 6,67% Rarely 10 35,71% 3 20,00% not at all 10 35,71% 10 66,67% Total 28 100,00% 15 100,00%~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females Males~~

~~30,00% 66,67%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~35,71% 35,71% 10,00%~~

~~20,00% 7,14%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~6,67% 7,14% 0,00% 6,67% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 2: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Kelso.~~

In addition to the graphs, two tables have been added indicating in detail the number and the percentage of female and male respondents having mentioned the degrees of frequencies corresponding to the use of MMs in their hometown. The first thing to notice in these first graphs is the striking difference that can already be observed between the oral and written frequencies of these modal constructions. Obviously both genders in Kelso use MMs more in oral rather than in written media. Indeed, according to the graphs 17.86 % of women use these

92 constructions very regularly in their hometown, unlike in the written medium where they are just 7.14% to use them a lot and often. It thus represents an important drop of 10%. The difference is quite important even when female speakers use MMs occasionally, viz. 28.57% in the case of an oral use and just 14.29% in the written medium, which represents a drop of 14%. It is striking to notice that the percentages keep rising rapidly when we get closer and closer to the lowest degree of written frequency (35.71% for a rare use of MMs and not a single use of them). Despite these low percentages in the written medium, regarding high frequencies, more women respondents use these non-standard dialectal structures in both media than men. Male speakers are 13.33% to use MMs orally and only 6.67% in the written medium a lot and occasionally. The drop from the oral to the written medium is also quite significant. From the data obtained in the field, it is clear that both genders just write MMs in exceptional circumstances. Only the oral use of MMs is considered as a habit. Now if we compare the same data but this time with the age groups, we do notice that both genders aged between 31 and 70 years old represent regular speakers of MMs especially among informants in the 31-40 and 61-70 year olds where 33.33% of them use MMs quite often. As regards the written medium, 50.00% of a group of age between 40 and 60 years old write MMs quite often and 40.00% of those who are between 41 and 50 years write them occasionally. The other informants outside this middle-aged group are very few to take MMs into account in this type of medium except two young respondents between 21 and 30 years who asserted that they write them a lot. If we now compare these results with the ones obtained in Jedburgh, the correlations will be hard to detect since here we are dealing with a radical change in the oral and written habitual use of Multiple Modality. The following graphs, indicating the data obtained in Jedburgh, are going to show the amazing differences that can be detected between Kelso and Jedburgh.

~~3.2.2. Jedburgh~~

~~Table 3: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Jedburgh)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 1 16,67% 1 25,00% Often 1 16,67% 1 25,00% Occasionally 1 16,67% 0,00% Rarely 1 16,67% 2 50,00% not at all 2 33,33% 0,00% Total 6 100,00% 4 100,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~Females 30,00% males~~

~~50,00% 20,00%~~

~~33,33%~~

~~10,00% 25,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~16,67% 16,67% 16,67%~~

~~16,67% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 3: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Jedburgh.~~

~~Table 4: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Jedburgh)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % Number % a lot 0,00% 0,00% Often 0,00% 0,00% Occasionally 1 16,67% 0,00% Rarely 1 16,67% 2 50,00% not at all 4 66,67% 2 50,00% Total 6 100,00% 4 100,00%~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~30,00% 66,67%~~

~~50,00% 20,00% 50,00%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~16,67% 16,67%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%~~

~~a0,00% lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 4: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Jedburgh.~~

Despite the fact that few people wanted to fill out the questionnaire (six females and four males unlike in Kelso where there were 28 females and 15 males) in this very small town, their viewpoints and attitude towards Multiple Modality show a different direction. According to the graph representing the oral frequencies, 25.00% of men use MMs a lot and often and 50.00% of them also employ these constructions under special circumstances. It is also the case of women but they are only 16.67% to use these DMs and TMs exceptionally. Regarding the written frequencies, the same situation appears in the case of a rare use of MMs, that is 50.00% of men and 16.67% of women write DMs and TMs in exceptional contexts. The other common point that can be made between the two graphs is that 16.67% of women speak and write these structures occasionally, which is not the case of men at all who never mentioned this degree of frequency. Now if differences between the graphs need to be made, it is in the highest frequencies. Both men and women use MMs a lot and often in the oral medium which is not the case in the written medium since no one in Jedburgh writes these non-standard dialectal modals a lot and often. This situation could be compared with other small towns such as Coldstream and Melrose in which these towns, even smaller than Jedburgh, contains a tiny number of citizens speaking these modal constructions. The presence of a written medium of MMs is totally inexistent. Although they are close to Northern England does not explain the reason why Multiple Modality is so unpopular in these small towns because MMs remain quite popular in the county of Northumbria situated in the North-Eastern part of England near the Scottish Borders. For the time being no explanation can be provided. Regarding the age groups, those who recognize and use orally some MMs from time to time or rarely are aged between 31 and 60 years old and those who write them are older and they are aged between 50 and 70 years old. The bigger the town is, the greater the chance of finding people from different horizons who use DMs and TMs since the structures of Multiple Modality are well scattered over important geographical areas of the Western English- Speaking world. As time goes on MMs are increasingly being integrated in social environments that are found in urban middle-sized towns like Kelso and Hawick rather than rural local towns or urban small towns. The ongoing movements of diverse populations are the main reasons of these important changes because they affect both positively and negatively the future of Multiple Modal combinations. All results of the four towns obtained from April to May 2011 in the Scottish Borders will now be assembled together in the following bar graphs to give a general overview of the current trend of MMs in both the oral and written media.

~~3.2.3. All the towns of 2011~~

~~Table 5: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (All the towns)~~

Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 7 17,07% 4 16,67% Often 6 14,63% 3 12,50% Occasionally 10 24,39% 2 8,33% Rarely 7 17,07% 7 29,17% not at all 11 26,83% 8 33,33% Total 41 100,00% 24 100,00%

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00% Females~~

~~Males 15,00% 33,33%~~

~~29,17%~~

~~26,83% 10,00% 24,39%~~

~~17,07% 17,07%~~

~~16,67%~~

~~5,00% 14,63% 12,50% 8,33% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 5: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2011.~~

~~Table 6: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (All the towns)~~

Females Males Frequencies Number % Number % a lot 2 4,88% 1 4,17% Often 2 4,88% 2 8,33% Occasionally 5 12,20% 1 4,17% Rarely 14 34,15% 5 20,83% not at all 18 43,90% 15 62,50% Total 41 100,00% 24 100,00%

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~Males 30,00% 62,50%~~

~~20,00% 43,90%~~

~~34,15% 10,00%~~

~~20,83%~~

~~12,20%~~

~~4,17% 4,88% 8,33% 4,17% 0,00% 4,88% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 6: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2011.~~

These two graphs reunite all the data dealing with the frequency of use of Multiple Modality and a clear difference can henceforth be made. Most Scottish respondents (both female and male) use DMs and TMs much more during conversations rather than in written situations. This situation is not only found in a single area of the Scottish Borders but is generally well scattered over the Southern area of Scotland and probably beyond. It is not necessarily new to find a preference for the oral frequency but the desire to use these MMs more in several oral contexts keeps increasing. Furthermore among the Southern Scottish population that was asked to fill out the questionnaire, these are always the female informants who employ more MMs in multiple contexts than male informants. Indeed if we look at the first graph, 24.39% of women use Multiple Modality once in a while unlike men who are just 8.33% to adopt this frequency. Despite the greater use of MMs by women, they are nevertheless in a short majority (17.07% (a lot) and 14.63% (often) for a regular use orally) over men (16.67% (a lot) and 12.50% (often) for the same degrees of use orally). In the second graph, we deal with the same situation where 4.88% of women use MMs a lot and not very far from them, but still with a lower percentage, 4.17% of men use MMs a lot as well in written contexts. Nevertheless there is one exception. 8.33% of men write MMs often unlike women who this time exceptionally are in a lower percentage and only 4.88% of them write modal combinations often. Regarding the lower frequencies, we find again, like in the oral medium, important differences when MMs are written occasionally. At this frequency, only 4.17% of men use MMs contrary to a larger number of female respondents, over 12%, who use MMs in the written medium. Even in the case of a rare use of MMs in the same medium, over 34% of female informants write MM combinations and only slightly over 20% of men write these structures under special circumstances.

This grouping of data finally shows a large interest by women to continue using Multiple Modal combinations. This is a part of their Scottish roots and culture and they also remain open-minded to the incoming of new MM combinations from other Anglophone areas. Some men also have the same interest but they are more reluctant to talk about it. Contrary to female informants, many do not dare reveal what they know regarding these modal combinations. There exists a greater mistrust among the male population when tackling linguistic subjects. This situation can be interestingly compared with the data obtained in Hawick in April 2010. The graphs that will be shown below indicate a linguistic phenomenon that does not follow the general trends observed above.

~~3.3. Towns investigated in 2012~~

~~3.3.1. Galashiels~~

~~Table 7: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Galashiels)~~

Females Males Frequencies number % number % a lot 1 16,67% 2 18,18% Often 2 33,33% 3 27,27% Occasionally 0 0,00% 2 18,18% Rarely 1 16,67% 0 0,00% not at all 2 33,33% 4 36,36% Total 6 100,00% 11 100,00%

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00% Females~~

~~Males 36,36%~~

~~15,00%~~

~~33,33% 33,33%~~

~~27,27% 10,00%~~

~~18,18% 18,18%~~

~~16,67% 16,67% 5,00%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 7: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Galashiels.~~

~~In this graph, based on the first three frequencies, both men and women have in the main a regular use of MMs in the oral medium. It represents 10 informants. The seven others claimed~~

100 they have no knowledge of such constructions except one woman who uses them on rare occasions. With high percentages in both the highest and lowest frequencies, the situation in Galashiels remains average in the oral medium. The written medium must not reflect the same tendency.

~~Table 8: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Galashiels)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Often 1 16,67% 1 9,09% Occasionally 0 0,00% 3 27,27% Rarely 2 33,33% 3 27,27% not at all 3 50,00% 4 36,36% Total 6 100,00% 11 100,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females Males~~

~~50,00% 20,00%~~

~~36,36% 33,33%~~

~~27,27% 10,00% 27,27%~~

~~16,67%~~

~~9,09% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%~~

~~a0,00% lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 8: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Galashiels~~

~~101~~

Contrary to the previous graph, the situation in the written medium goes toward the negative where most respondents, especially women do not write these types of modal constructions. Over 30% assert that they use them on rare occasions and 50 % never use them in the field of writing. Only one woman and one man declare to write these modal combinations quite often and three other males write them occasionally, which represents 27.27 % of the male informants having completed this task. Informants who claim not to use these MMs in the written medium do not necessarily have the same answer in the oral medium. Some of them speak these MMs a lot without knowing their spelling. There is another reason that may explain their refusal to write such modal features. Some consider that, due to their non- standard dialectal origin, MMs can only be spoken and the writing process can solely be engaged with the normative or formal standard variation of English. The next graph will deal with the town of Selkirk.

~~102~~

~~3.3.2. Selkirk~~

~~Table 9: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Selkirk)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 1 20,00% 0 0,00% Often 1 20,00% 1 33,33% Occasionally 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Rarely 3 60,00% 0 0,00% not at all 0 0,00% 2 66,67% Total 5 100,00% 3 100,00%~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~males~~

~~30,00%~~

~~66,67% 60,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~33,33%~~

~~10,00% 20,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 9: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Selkirk.~~

There are few data regarding the evolution of MMs in Selkirk. However, with the eight questionnaires distributed, it can already be noticed that among the small group of informants, all women assert that they use MMs, regularly for two of them and rarely for the other three.

~~103~~

It is not the case of men, who are just three to participate in the survey and two of them said they have no knowledge of these constructions. Only one man asserted to use a few of them regularly. This man in question lives not only in Selkirk but in Hawick too, a place well known for the popularity of the Scots language, especially the variant called Hawick Scots vernacular. The written medium will show the same tendency as it will be shown in the following graph below.

~~Table 10: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Selkirk)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 1 20,00% 0 0,00% Often 0 0,00% 1 33,33% Occasionally 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Rarely 1 20,00% 0 0,00% not at all 3 60,00% 2 66,67% Total 5 100,00% 3 100,00%~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females Males~~

~~30,00% 66,67%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~33,33% 10,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%~~

~~a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 10: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Selkirk.~~

~~104~~

This time, three women indicate that they have never written these types of modal constructions. Regarding men, two of them confirm this. One woman among the eight writes a few MMs a lot and another one writes them on rare occasions. The man that confirmed his regular use of these dialectal constructions orally is the same one who also writes them at this specific frequency. Despite this small group of informants, it will not be enough to give a general overview of the evolution of MMs in this town. A similar situation already occurred in the 2011 survey regarding the towns of Melrose and Coldstream. These three small and isolated towns of the Borders partly make the conversations with the local inhabitants more difficult to engage in, hence a fairly difficult situation to convince them to share their knowledge of these modal features via the completion of a sociolinguistic questionnaire. The next town, Peebles, will not show the same behaviors.

~~105~~

~~3.3.3. Peebles~~

~~Table 11: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Peebles)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 2 12,50% 0 0,00% Often 1 6,25% 0 0,00% Occasionally 2 12,50% 1 16,67% Rarely 5 31,25% 2 33,33% not at all 6 37,50% 3 50,00% Total 16 100,00% 6 100,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females~~

~~males~~

~~50,00% 20,00%~~

~~37,50% 33,33%~~

~~31,25% 10,00%~~

~~16,67% 12,50%~~

~~12,50%~~

~~0,00% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 11: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Peebles.~~

~~106~~

Unlike Selkirk, many more people were really intrigued by the questionnaire and 22 people decided to express their opinions about MMs via the sociolinguistic questionnaire. Of the 22, seven respondents, five women and two men, claim to have a rare use of these dialectal constructions. Nine of them have no knowledge of these modal combinations. Of course this full rejection of this type of modality does not necessarily mean that they have not heard a few MMs by other citizens in their life before. Those who have a regular use of MMs, are essentially women in Peebles, five exactly who selected the first three frequencies contrary to three men, one of whom speaks a few MMs occasionally. The other two men use them in exceptional circumstances. This table and this graphic sum up a rather negative situation for MMs. Nevertheless there is a small pocket of people that strongly continues using these dialectal features on a day-to-day basis. Contrary to Galashiels and Hawick, in the oral medium, the spoken dialects mostly remain more standard because social classes in Peebles have a higher status. Social factors still play a great deal in the spreading of standard and non- standard features of dialects in the Scottish Borders.

~~107~~

~~Table 12: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Peebles)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 1 6,67% 0 0,00% Often 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Occasionally 1 6,67% 0 0,00% Rarely 1 6,67% 2 33,33% not at all 12 80,00% 4 66,67% Total 15 100,00% 6 100,00%~~

~~90,00%~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00% Females 40,00% Males~~

~~80,00% 30,00% 66,67%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~33,33% 10,00%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 6,67% 6,67% 6,67% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 12: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Peebles.~~

As expected, a low use of MMs orally leads in the main to an even rarer use of these modal combinations in the written medium. Of the 22, three female and two male respondents confirmed they write MMs mostly from time to time and in special circumstances. One woman claims to write them a lot but in the main 12 men and four women said they have never written such modal features, which represents respectively 80 % and 66.67 % of respondents. The last two graphs combines all the towns visited for the enquiry in 2012.

~~108~~

~~3.3 4. All the towns of 2012~~

Table 13: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (All the towns) Females Males Frequencies Number % Number % a lot 4 13,33% 2 9,09% Often 6 20,00% 4 18,18% Occasionally 3 10,00% 4 18,18% Rarely 9 30,00% 2 9,09% not at all 8 26,67% 10 45,46% Total 30 100,00% 22 100,00%

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~Females 25,00% Males~~

~~20,00% 45,46%~~

~~15,00% 30,00%~~

~~10,00% 26,67%~~

~~20,00% 18,18% 5,00% 18,18%~~

~~13,33%~~

~~9,09% 9,09% 10,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 13: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2012.~~

By gathering all the data on the oral frequencies of four towns, the results are finally not so negative regarding the use of MMs in the oral medium. The town of Galashiels has a lot do to with this last graph because it is in this specific town that people’s reactions were the least negative for the use of MMs in both media. Combining the data on this fourth task finally created a balance which shows that people did not completely give up using modal combinations in the heart of the Borders. If we have a closer look at the findings, we notice that 22 women out of 30 and 12 men out of 22 use a couple of MMs in their life in these four

109 towns. If we look deeper into the analysis, of the 22 women, 13 use MMs orally on regular occasions and nine very rarely. With regard to men, of the 12, 10 use them regularly when speaking with friends on the street or families at home. Only two speak these constructions on rare occasions. The last graph shows these current tendencies between men and women with, in the main, a greater use of these modal features by the female informants. As in the previous survey, a higher number of women complete the questionnaire and express their ideas and thoughts about MMs unlike men. Their greater interest and curiosity toward this type of linguistic study has an impact on the results obtained in the field.

Table 14: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (All the towns) Females Males Frequencies Number % Number % a lot 2 6,90% 0 0,00% Often 1 3,45% 2 9,09% Occasionally 2 6,90% 4 18,18% Rarely 6 20,69% 5 22,73% not at all 18 62,07% 11 50,00% Total 29 100,00% 22 100,00%

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females Males 30,00%~~

~~62,07%~~

~~50,00% 20,00%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~20,69% 18,18%~~

~~6,90%~~

~~0,00% 3,45% 9,09% 6,90% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 14: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2012.~~

~~110~~

The same balancing does not occur this time with the use of MMs in the written medium. The situation is that none of the four towns widely considers the writing of these modal constructions as evident and natural unlike the oral use. Because these constructions are identified as dialectal expressions, it implies that most people eventually refuse to write them or simply do not know how to write them or what spelling to give them. These attitudes lead to two opposite directions, viz. the standard form can be written and the dialectal form can only be spoken. That is why the last graph representing the evolution of the written frequency of MMs remains fairly negative. However there are still 11 out of 29 women who can write them from time to time and there are also 11 men out of 22 who write them regularly, occasionally and rarely based on their contexts of use indicated on pages 133-134 of the thesis. In the end 22 people out of 52 have a bit of knowledge in the spelling (Scots and English) and writing of MMs thus preventing a complete collapse of the writing environment of Multiple Modality.

These eight graphs have shown that, in the heart of the Scottish Borders, the ongoing evolution of MMs will mainly be guaranteed via a quasi-exclusive use of the oral medium. The written medium is greatly declining but still maintained by a small pocket of people from these four towns who see no reason why MMs should stop being written. The knowledge of these combinations among the inhabitants varies greatly but apparently most of them remain constant by the fact that the standard form, being identified as the “prestige” written language, and the dialect, as an urban spoken variety outside the language domain, must be kept separated in their use so as to maintain a sort of balance between the two linguistic entities. That is how most Scottish people in the area of the Borders would define their bilingualism and according to them Multiple Modality can only be connected with the environment of dialectal variation and not the language environment. However, the written aspect of MMs does exist and despite its weak influence, it will be tackled more in the next task of the questionnaire which, as in the 2011 survey, will be able to determine if some Scottish informants manage to turn an affirmative clause, containing a DM or TM, into a negative then a question with or without the maintenance of MMs during the transformation processes.

~~111~~

~~3.4. Towns investigated in 2013~~

~~3.4.1. Eyemouth~~

~~Table 15: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Eyemouth)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Often 3 50,00% 0 0,00% Occasionally 1 16,67% 1 50,00% Rarely 2 33,33% 0 0,00% not at all 0 0,00% 1 50,00% Total 6 100,00% 2 100,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females Males~~

~~50,00% 50,00% 50,00% 20,00%~~

~~33,33%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~16,67%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 15: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Eyemouth .~~

~~112~~

Few Scottish from the town of Eyemouth wished to complete the questionnaire. It is the same case for Duns. However, despite these low figures in the number of informants, they gave more positive results in their personal use of MMs unlike the people of Berwick-Upon- Tweed. Indeed, in this first table dealing with the oral use of MMs in Eyemouth, all of the six women speak these constructions with various positive degrees of frequencies. Three of them use modal combinations orally quite often, followed by one woman who has an occasional use of these combinations. Finally the remaining two women of this small group use them only on rare occasions. The blue bars clearly indicate more positive results than the red ones corresponding to the two male informants, one of whom uses them occasionally. The other one has no knowledge of them. As in the previous surveys, each bar graph indicating the oral frequencies will be compared with the other graphs describing the written frequencies evolution of MMs.

~~113~~

~~Table 16 : WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Eyemouth)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Often 1 16,67% 0 0,00% Occasionally 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Rarely 2 33,33% 1 50,00% not at all 3 50,00% 1 50,00% Total 6 100,00% 2 100,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~50,00% 50,00% 50,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~33,33%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~16,67%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%~~

~~a lot often occasionally rarely not at all 0,00%~~

~~Figure 16: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Eyemouth.~~

For the same town, the differences in the written medium are important. Most of the informants, except one woman, chose to select the last two frequencies of the table corresponding to the lowest ones in terms of use. Nowadays it is not considered as natural in the mind of the Scottish to write a great many non-standard dialect words, especially sequences of modals. However it is not impossible, based on the minority of informants that write them, but they can only be written during specific or rare moments. It is the main

114 common point between many informants from the other towns of the Borders visited the previous years. They fixed these same limits in their approach of written syntax and grammar of Multiple Modality.

~~3.4.2. Duns~~

~~Table 17: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Duns)~~

Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 1 25,00% 0 #DIV/0! Often 2 50,00% 0 #DIV/0! Occasionally 0 0,00% 0 #DIV/0! Rarely 0 0,00% 0 #DIV/0! not at all 1 25,00% 0 #DIV/0! Total 4 100,00% 0 #DIV/0!

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~Females 30,00% Males~~

~~50,00% 20,00%~~

~~25,00% 10,00% 25,00%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all Figure 17: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Duns~~

~~115~~

No men completed the questionnaire in Duns. That is why only blue bars are found in the graph. Duns represents an advantage in sociolinguistic research because it is one of the smallest towns of the Borders, which enables in this type of research to detect Scottish informants with greater knowledge and use of dialectal structures. They live in this town which is built in the middle of the countryside away from middle-sized and big towns of the region. What is more, the mixing of populations is not so important, which sometimes allows the detection of more authentic Scottish features especially modal combinations that could not be heard elsewhere. The main inconvenience resides in the lack of candidates to talk about their dialectal knowledge in these small areas. In this graph, only four women expressed their views on the oral use of MMs, three of whom claim to speak them regularly. Only one female respondent asserted that she never uses a single one of them.

~~116~~

~~Table 18: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (Duns)~~

Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 0 0,00% 0 #DIV/0! Often 0 0,00% 0 #DIV/0! Occasionally 0 0,00% 0 #DIV/0! Rarely 1 25,00% 0 #DIV/0! not at all 3 75,00% 0 #DIV/0! Total 4 100,00% 0 #DIV/0!

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~Males 75,00% 30,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~10,00% 25,00%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%~~

~~a lot often occasionally rarely not at all 0,00%~~

~~Figure 18: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Duns.~~

These same women have a radically different linguistic behavior when dealing with the written medium. The situation is similar to the bar graph of Eyemouth, that is, the evolution in the written use of MMs is very negative. Only One woman writes them on rare occasions. The other three simply consider that MMs do not have their place in the written environment, which leaves Single Modals (SMs) as the only written morphemes in a standard and/or non- standard environment.

~~117~~

~~3.4.3. Berwick-Upon-Tweed~~

~~Table 19: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (B-U-T)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 2 16,67% 0 0,00% Often 2 16,67% 1 20,00% Occasionally 0 0,00% 1 20,00% Rarely 0 0,00% 2 40,00% not at all 8 66,67% 1 20,00% Total 12 100,00% 5 100,00%~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females Males~~

~~30,00% 66,67%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~40,00% 10,00%~~

~~20,00% 20,00% 20,00%~~

~~16,67%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 19: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in B-U-T.~~

Unlike Duns, Berwic-Upon-Tweed is a middle-sized English town very close to the Borders region. Despite this geographical proximity, there are a greater number of people from diverse origins. More people are willing to participate in the survey but their knowledge of modal combinations is more restricted. The table clearly shows a net rejection of MMs by eight women. Of the 12 women who completed the questionnaire, only four speak them daily. Two of the four have English origins (Bradford in Yorkshire and Northumberland) whilst the other

118 two are Scottish (Glasgow and Musselburgh). Regarding men, it is more homogeneous despite they were only five. Among them, two speak these modal combinations quite often and occasionally, two others use them quite rarely and only one has no knowledge of such modal structures.

~~Table 20: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (B-U-T)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Often 2 16,67% 0 0,00% Occasionally 0 0,00% 1 20,00% Rarely 2 16,67% 1 20,00% not at all 8 66,67% 3 60,00% Total 12 100,00% 5 100,00%~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~30,00%~~

~~66,67% 60,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~20,00% 20,00%~~

~~16,67% 16,67%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%~~

~~a0,00% lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 20: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in B-U-T.~~

~~119~~

Most of the male and female informants reject the concept of writing of the Multiple Modality system in Berwick-Upon-Tweed. Nonetheless, it is an impossible notion since a minority of four women and two men actually write some of the modal combinations presented in the questionnaire. Half of this minority writes them often and occasionally, the other half (two women and one man) write them rarely. The following graphs will reunite the three towns in order to determine the general evolution of the oral and written frequencies of use of MMs from the South-eastern part of the Borders to the North-Eastern part of Northumberland at the present time.

~~120~~

~~3.4.4. All the towns of 2013~~

~~Table 21: ORAL FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (all the towns)~~

Females Males Frequencies number % number % a lot 3 13,64% 0 0,00% Often 7 31,82% 1 14,29% Occasionally 1 4,55% 2 28,57% Rarely 2 9,09% 2 28,57% not at all 9 40,91% 2 28,57% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00% 45,00%

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females 20,00% Males~~

~~40,91%~~

~~15,00%~~

~~31,82%~~

~~28,57% 28,57% 28,57% 10,00%~~

~~5,00% 14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~0,00% 4,55% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 21: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2013.~~

Despite the negative tendencies observed in the previous graphs especially Berwick-Upon- Tweed, by assembling all the results, it can be noticed that the general oral frequency of use of MMs remains positive with 13 women out of 22 who actually speak some of the modal combinations of the questionnaire from daily to rare occasions. The tendency in the oral medium also remains positive for the male informants even though they were few to

~~121 participate in this survey with five men out of seven who speak some of them often, occasionally and rarely.~~

~~The next results for the written medium do not present the same tendency this time.~~

~~Table 22: WRITTEN FREQUENCIES FEMALES - MALES IN PERCENTAGE (all the towns)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies Number % number % a lot 0 0,00% 0 0,00% Often 3 13,64% 0 0,00% Occasionally 0 0,00% 1 14,29% Rarely 5 22,73% 2 28,57% not at all 14 63,64% 4 57,14% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~Females~~

~~Males~~

~~30,00% 63,64%~~

~~57,14% 20,00%~~

~~10,00% 28,57%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%~~

~~a0,00% lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 22: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in all the towns visited in 2013.~~

~~122~~

As expected, even with the assembling of all the previous three graphs, the rejection of MMs in the written medium is quite important. This last graph shows a general negative tendency when modal combinations are written. 14 women and four men do not write any MMs. The minority of men and women who accept their presence in some written contexts solely write them rarely when the situation is out of the ordinary.

This survey, as the previous ones, except for Hawick, continues observing the same phenomenon of degradation of Multiple Modality when it is used in written contexts. The situation does not change in this regard and it is necessary to be in an exceptional or rare situation in order to have the possibility to write at least one modal combination. Such restrictions create instability in the use of MMs. In the meantime, a minority of respondents does not see the problem to write these types of dialectal constructions since it is not considered as a problem to write many other non-standard features different from MMs such as, multiple negation, double comparative, use of diverse Scots spellings in Single Modals and auxiliaries, plural absence with units of measure, use of demonstrative adjective them instead of those, irregular verbs turning into regular ones… This great gap between the oral and written uses of Multiple Modality still remains unexplainable for the time being.

~~3.5. Comparing the three main areas of research since 2010: Hawick, Kelso and Galashiels~~

The perception of Multiple Modality among the Scottish informants in these three major towns of the Borders remains different for several reasons. They are related to education, family life, the social class and more specifically the socio-cultural environment to which these informants belong. The evolution of some MMs always depends upon a spectrum of socio-cultural factors that have been deeply rooted in the citizens’ habits for many years. A change in these habits also brings about a change in the linguistic background of the Scottish informants no matter where they live in the region. In this subpart, the three major towns of the Borders are going to be targeted in order to have a clear image of the global frequency of MMs that are spoken and written by the Scottish informants.

~~It is necessary to take into account the following information:~~

~~123~~

~~- In every field survey, except Galashiels, more women have completed the part related to the frequency of use than men, that is:~~

~~37 women and 22 men for the Hawick field survey (2010) 28 women and 15 men for the Kelso field survey (2011) 6 women and 11 men regarding the survey in Galashiels (2012)~~

- There have always been bigger differences in the evolution of MMs based on the written medium rather than the oral one owing mainly to the reason that Multiple Modality is considered as a dialect and not a language system by most of the Scottish respondents who completed the questionnaire.

These two pieces of information reflect a tendency in the use of MMs that will not change for several years or even decades. Women continue having a keen interest in the dialectal knowledge of several structures that are used in their geographical area where they live or close to it. This attitude explains in great part why they more actively participate in diverse linguistic fieldwork than men. Both younger and elder women tend to be more concerned by the preservation of the linguistic heritage of the Scottish Borders region than older male citizens. Those who were curious about the linguistic survey especially in 2011 and 2012 were essentially young men aged between 20 and 45 years.

Despite these differences, both genders agree on the following statement that Multiple Modality essentially remains a more spoken than written dialectal phenomenon. Below the six graphs of the three towns are shown again (three for the oral frequency and three for the written one) to really illustrate the different phases of change of both types of frequency for each town. Let’s start by the graphs representing the oral frequency of modal combinations:

~~124~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~15,00% Females~~

~~Males 27,27%~~

~~27,03% 24,32%~~

~~10,00% 24,32% 22,73% 22,73%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~5,00% 13,51% 10,81% 9,09% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 23: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Hawick in 2010.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males~~

~~40,00% 15,00%~~

~~28,57% 10,00% 26,67%~~

~~21,43% 17,86% 17,86%~~

~~5,00% 14,29% 13,33% 13,33%~~

~~6,67% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 24: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Kelso in 2011.~~

~~125~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~Females 20,00% Males~~

~~36,36%~~

~~15,00% 33,33%~~

~~33,33% 27,27% 10,00%~~

~~18,18% 18,18%~~

~~16,67% 16,67% 5,00%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 25: Histogram describing the oral frequency of use of MMs in Galashiels in 2012.~~

The three graphs of the oral frequency confirm a tendency that can be considered as dynamic regarding the spoken use of modal combinations. It is important to mention that these people having some knowledge of these grammatical forms have in their experience of life a bilingual culture, meaning that they speak a non-standard dialect containing a couple of these modal combinations and the prestige standard variety that is identified for the Southern Scottish population as the English language in its “authenticity” and “purity”. It is in Hawick that the notion of bilingual culture is the strongest especially by showing bars exceeding 20 % of regular and occasional use of Scottish and foreign MMs for both genders in the spoken medium. Even if the results regarding the towns of Kelso and Galashiels are not similar and in reality show an important decrease, there is however a not unsignificative interest in these constructions among the female gender. Over 15% and even 30 % obtained in Galashiels of these female informants recognize they speak a few MMs on occasional circumstances. There is unfortunately a greater rejection of these non-standard modal forms among the male population of these two towns. Most of them obviously do not count on these types of grammatical features to make their bilingualism exist. Despite these differences in the approach that both genders have in their personal spoken use of MMs, the bar graphs continue

126 showing a greater stability than in the written medium in which a significant gap particularly between towns will be shown. The next three graphs represent the written frequency of MMs in the same three towns:

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00% Females~~

~~Males 37,84%~~

~~15,00% 31,82%~~

~~10,00% 24,32%~~

~~22,73% 22,73%~~

~~21,62% 18,18%~~

~~5,00% 13,51% 4,55% 0,00% 2,70% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 26: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Hawick in 2010.~~

~~127~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~Females 40,00% Males~~

~~30,00% 66,67%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~35,71% 35,71% 10,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~7,14%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~6,67% 7,14% 0,00% 6,67% 0,00% a lot often occasionally rarely not at all Figure 27: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Kelso in 2011.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~20,00% 50,00%~~

~~36,36%~~

~~33,33% 27,27% 10,00% 27,27%~~

~~16,67%~~

~~0,00% 9,09% 0,00% 0,00%~~

~~a0,00% lot often occasionally rarely not at all~~

~~Figure 28: Histogram describing the written frequency of use of MMs in Galashiels in 2012.~~

~~128~~

The written use always remains a more difficult step to complete for the informants where the notion of oral dialect culture is dominant in most of the Southern Scottish towns of the Borders. It is a deep-rooted habit among these tight-knit communities living and working together to exchange ideas and information orally, on one-to-one regular interactions, rather than by written tools. Unlike the other towns, Hawick remains the exception by not giving-up on the written concept of dialect syntax especially (Scottish) modal combinations. Based on the Hawick graph, over 15% of both genders write a couple of these constructions very often and on occasional situations. It is not out of the ordinary to use them when writing according to the informants provided that these modal combinations continue existing on a dialectal level. MMs that get used to being written in Hawick Scots are part of a traditional Scottish culture that almost exclusively belongs to this specific Hawick community. I say “almost” because some parts of these written traditions are also applied in other towns such as Kelso and Galashiels but in a much less significant way. In Kelso, less than 10 % of a regular written use of MMs has been noticed. There is a rather massive rejection of these non- standard dialect structures, viz. over 60%, especially among the male informants. The rejection comes more from the female respondents in the Galashiels graph but the tendency is very similar to the one observed in Kelso.

At present MMs are going to a very (slippery) slope in their written evolution in Kelso and Galashiels. Only the oral use may remain in the long run. Hawick is the only town where the majority of results remain fairly positive in both uses even though some respondents nowadays tend to drop the writing system of Multiple Modality in Hawick, especially the youngest.

~~129~~

~~3.6. Conclusion~~

The oral and written uses of Multiple Modality take two opposite directions for this new decade. Based on the four surveys carried out from 2010 to 2013, the following conclusions can be drawn: - Firstly, the written use of modal combinations is declining greatly in the last three surveys. Since sequences of modals have always been considered as dialectal vernacular features by Southern Scottish inhabitants, they therefore cannot have a place in a Standard language system. Based on this linguistic attitude, it cannot be envisaged by most people as a written system. Of course there are always exceptions and the first study conducted in Hawick proves it quite well. The histogram representing the written use of Hawick Scots MMs shows a positive dynamic of these vernacular combinations in this type of medium. However, Hawick, like many other neighboring towns, has undergone the consequences of a greater internationalization of cultures, which has slightly weakened their own dialectal features. The difference is that the other towns, for lack of tenacity and/or resistance contrary to Hawick, have succumbed to the overuse of Standard Englishes leaving more of their own dialects aside on a daily basis. - Secondly, most MMs that are currently used are surviving via a quasi exclusive interaction with the spoken medium in most of the Borders towns. The results in this regard remain positive in three of the four studies especially in Hawick in which both graphs show a regular use of modal combinations in both media. The third study conducted in the central and western areas of the Borders is the only one that presents a fragile state in the use of MMs not only in the written medium but in the spoken medium as well. The graph of the oral frequencies heads dangerously toward a negative use of these vernacular combinations. It does not necessarily mean that the other Scottish grammatical features are affected the same way in this area of the Borders.

Although Hawick remains the exception in the current development of Multiple Modals, this non-standard modal system is however taking a trajectory that is essentially inclined toward the oral medium in all its diversity and complexity. Based on the results of the graphs, Hawick is the best hope for a further development of the Multiple Modality system in the Scottish Borders.

~~130~~

~~4. Multiple Modality in Scottish society: Which factors and social variables are favorable for modal sequences?~~

The first two tasks of the questionnaire determined the types of MMs currently used by Scottish informants essentially in the spoken medium. It dealt mainly with grammar and syntax and it has finally been observed after these three field surveys that, according to the informants, DMs are more adaptable to the Scots syntax and Scottish-English dialects than TMs. Which are the extralinguistic contexts, viz. societal environments, public and /or private moments in life, outdoor activities of all sorts, in which these DM combinations are currently spoken and written? Though oral environments remain the dominant factor of presence and development of Multiple Modality, it is however necessary to bear out if written traces of such vernacular constructions can still exist in modern Scottish life. Are MMs condemned to a solely oral use in the twenty-first century? This section will first describe the current use of MMs in oral contexts followed by a second similar analysis of the modern written contexts. All the social situations that the informants selected in the questionnaire were grouped in four specific tables. Each gender has two tables. The first table shows the general distribution of oral social contexts in which people use MMs, while the second one shows the written social contexts. Before showing the four tables, the tasks of the questionnaire study for the three field surveys from 2011 to 2013 are presented below:

~~In what other spoken contexts do you use them (MMs)?~~

~~(Circle one or several letters)~~

~~A/ In family B/ Between friends C/ At work D/ Alone E/ Other suggestions:------~~

~~131~~

~~You write these structures (circle one or several letters):~~

A/ When taking notes during meetings or conferences B/ When leaving a note for a friend C/ When writing a report D/ When leaving an e-mail for someone E/ When doing something else (what would it be?)------

~~Modal combinations applied to oral situations~~

~~A B C D E 2011 21 21 13 1 1 2012 20 20 6 3 3 2013 12 11 8 2 1~~

~~Table 1: Female table (oral social contexts)~~

~~A B C D E 2011 8 10 6 3 3 2012 8 10 5 2 1 2013 3 2 2 1 1~~

~~Table 2 : Male table (oral social contexts)~~

The favorite contexts in which MMs are spoken correspond to letters A and B for both genders, viz. modal combinations are essentially used in friendly and family environments. This can be observed mainly in the first two studies where the results (written in bold) are identical for these two contexts. However, MMs are not only used in private moments or during friendly reunions, but also in professional contexts, which corresponds to letter C. Indeed there is an increasing tendency to include a few of these vernacular combinations at work. Generally these places of society do not leave much room for non-standard features no matter where they come from. However, the Scottish Borders presents an exception in this regard. Southern Scottish towns especially Kelso, Jedburgh, Galashiels and Hawick contain several small and medium sized businesses specialized in wood transport as well as woollen and knitwear industries. Some of the employees working in these small companies have

132 known each other sometimes since the beginning of the creation of these businesses. Furthermore, they have lived in the same geographical area, even for some of them in the same town since their childhood. Distances between main Borders towns are quite short, which naturally creates deep professional interconnections with most of these small businesses that express the vibrating core of the economic activity of the region. This already explains the reasons why using dialectal features such as MMs in some industrial and professional businesses is not so unusual. Few people selected the last two contexts, but a minority of respondents wrote additional commentaries on their personal use of MMs. This is the case in 2011 of a 52-year-old teacher working in a local primary school of Jedburgh. He asserted that he also uses his MMs for the sense of humor, which is not surprising since these constructions are also sometimes used to make fun of people or just to laugh and to make jokes. One 34 year-old woman from Eyemouth also selected the last letter E/. She specifically mentioned the main circumstance in which she would use one or several MMs naturally and the situation where she would never do such a thing. Here is what she wrote in the questionnaire:

~~“Some one with a strong dialect as my self. I have English family – I wouldn’t talk to them this way.”~~

This bidialectal person speaks her own Scots dialect with a couple of MMs with a friend of hers or another person that uses the same type of dialect. On the other hand, this vernacular talk can never be used with family members since they are typically English. In what she asserted, it is more a matter of conventions rather than competencies since she has never said that her family does not master her own vernacular or other more or less similar dialects.

~~Let’s now consider the written contexts in the following two tables: Modal combinations applied to written situations~~

~~A B C D E 2011 6 17 2 8 4 2012 2 11 1 3 4 2013 0 5 2 3 1~~

~~Table 3: Female table (written social contexts)~~

~~133~~

~~A B C D E 2011 2 4 2 3 4 2012 2 7 1 4 3 2013 0 1 1 2 0~~

~~Table 4: Male table (written social contexts)~~

Most informants have especially homed in on two contexts which refer to letters B and D of both tables in order to write modal combinations. People prefer to write MMs when they want to leave a note or an e-mail for a friend. Behind this choice, there is indeed a sense of convenience in the use of these constructions. For most respondents MMs are considered as simpler structures than normative standard constructions since their morphosyntax is an essential sequence of two modal forms that is more convenient to write in short messages. People that know how MMs work can read the message more easily and rapidly. It is in fact a gain of time, which is not the case if we write more standard structures that will automatically be longer such as must be able to (must can) or will be allowed to (may will). In these two examples two words in Vernacular Scottish- English are written instead of four in Standard English. There are also rarer cases in which MMs can be used in the written medium such as in the professional world. A minority of men and women also selected letters A and C when MMs could be used when taking notes during meetings or conferences and when writing reports. However, these specific situations are exceptional but it would be interesting to further test the use of vernacular dialect features like MMs in working activities of all sorts. Contrary to the oral contexts, there are a greater number of additional written contexts where Multiple Modality is welcome. Here are the additional pragmatic situations given by the Scottish informants as follows:

“Texting friends with mobile phone” (2012) “Texting good friends and family” (2012) “Texting” (2012) “You may use this to txt friends or face book but not in any other form. It is socially accepted really and certainly not used in academically” (2012) “When communicating with close family only. Short emails – father/mother/sister/uncles/aunts etc…” (2012) “communicating” (2012)

~~134~~

“General conversation and texting” (2012) This minority of informants shares a common point which is the almost exclusive written use of MMs outside the formal working environment. They propose the same contexts, viz. writing short messages via the use of a cell phone or via internet. MMs find their place more and more to the domain of social networks and cellular technologies. The use of these state- of-the-art technologies is one original way for the informants to maintain these modal combinations and their own dialects in general. These additional contexts common to both genders also want to trace the start of a path that this dialectal phenomenon can take if it wants to survive. Based on their ideas, informants mean that MMs are used nowadays to express short events, which means that modal combinations are designated for a limited number of goals to achieve in the near future. Private moments with people we know such as friends and parents, talking about daily events, to make jokes or simply to have a good time, represent ideal face-to face conditions in which to use MMs. Already in the 1990’s, Juan-de- la-Cruz (1995:77) and Stephen Nagle (1997: 209) pointed out the main pragmatic environment for Multiple Modality which is “face to face negotiations”. Of course, the word “negotiation” must not be reserved stricto census for professional contexts. If some MMs are regularly employed out of these specific situations mentioned above, for example at work or when writing long and detailed reports, they are considered as exceptions in the 2010’s.

Two different concepts in the use of Multiple Modality need to be described for the Scottish Borders. Based on the answers given on the choice(s) of social contexts appropriate to modal combinations, there are two kinds of dialectal behaviors to distinguish among the informants. Two minorities can be described. The first minority group of people who use MMs adopts the following attitude that implies a strict non-habitual use of these Scottish-English combinations. They have to remain in a framework representative of a sort of folklore heritage or ancestral tradition. They cannot be used on several occasions to mention any kinds of social situations or activities contrary to what the second minority group thinks. The core minority group of people who uses MMs mainly represents this second group and tries to maintain the combinations they use as long as possible. What is more, the second group is the one where the presence of MMs is not incompatible with several written media, especially those mentioned above. Multiple Modality has its place in both oral and written media. It is necessary to determine all the possible environments in which modal combinations can be actively spoken and written in the region of the Borders and one day in the entire Southern Scots geographical area.

~~135~~

~~5. MMs and Tag Questions~~

The first thing to know is that a few of the informants found it very difficult to understand the purpose of this task. The problem remains in the understanding of the grammatical construction “Tag Question”. This does not mean that they have not manipulated Tag Questions before. In this part of the questionnaire survey, 61 informants out of 76 completed the third task from beginning to end. The task is made up of five sentences in which a Tag Question must be put at the end of each clause. The beginning of each sentence contains a DM or TM and it is up to the speaker to determine if it is preferable to repeat the entire MM in the Tag Question or to select just one modal that was in the modal combination or to choose a new modal that is not in the combination in order to give the best possible interpretation. The tendency observed for this task reveals an exclusive preference for single modality in the formation of the five Tag Questions. Most of the informants preferred selecting one of the modals of each combination to create the Tag Question at the end of the clause. The modals that were dominantly selected are might, could, can and would. The informants’ choice of the modal also reveals the dominant meaning that the sentence must take for the informant. Here is the first clause that the respondents had to analyze:

~~(1) I might could do that,------?~~

Depending mostly upon the morphological preferences of each respondent, the selected modal to form the Tag Question becomes the favorite modal. This is the case for the second modal of this DM defined as root could. 15 informants proposed couldn’t I? as the best Tag Question for this clause. They emphasized the sense of ability expressed by root could. However, five informants preferred emphasizing the probability meaning of epistemic might, which gives the following Tag Question mightn’t I?. Battistella (1991: 50) observed the same tendency in Southern States English with might could. With the same example, he asked informants to write a tag at the end of the sentence and he also noticed that the majority of the informants chose root modal could instead of epistemic might to form the Tag Question. All the informants of Battistella’s study rejected the presence of might could inside the tag formation. By going back to the Scottish survey, one 38-year old woman proposed the spelling mighten I?. In Modern Standard English, mightn’t is barely used. Nowadays, it is above all defined as an ungrammatical element. However, Scottish Borders people do not consider

136 mightn’t as a dialectal word and it is regularly used in everyday life in Scottish towns. Its usage in England, except for the northern area, remains rare. Therefore, mightn’t belongs rather to a variety named High Standard or Formal Standard English.

As regards the other types of Tag Questions for the first clause, some were put in the affirmative with a change of subject pronoun. Some others represent different modals as it is shown below: Wouldn’t I?, will I?, could you? proposed by men. Wouldn’t I?, wud he not?, could I?, can I?, may I? proposed by women. Other Tag Questions will be found in the following clauses.

~~(2) He must wouldn’t steal,------?~~

Several interpretations are possible for this complex DM, but the majority of the informants, who added a Tag Question, proposed to write would he?. Ten women and ten men chose this Tag construction which implies the following paraphrase:

~~(2’) He wouldn’t have stolen, that I am sure, would he?~~

Despite their strong certainty for this person not to have stolen, most respondents prefer keeping the last modal of the DM. They maintain would because the structure wouldn’t have + past participle enables them to express the non-realization of the event. This is also due to a matter of conviction by the respondent asserting that the impossibility that such event would occur because he or she really trusts this person who is therefore incapable of stealing. Regarding the other interpretations, four women suggested maintaining the negation on the second modal and to include it in the Tag structure. Thus we have the following:

~~(2’’) He must wouldn’t steal, wouldn’t he?~~

~~There is also the Tag Question mustn’t he? that was proposed by two informants.~~

~~Four other women wrote another modal:~~

~~137~~

~~(2) He must wouldn’t steal, should he?~~

~~The translation of must wouldn’t + verb into Standard English by shouldn’t have + past participle is the likeliest interpretation in this case.~~

Finally, will he? and must he? were proposed once. Regarding must he?, the difference of interpretation is hardly visible when compared with mustn’t he?. Regarding will he?, it remains at the present time very difficult to analyze.

~~Unlike must wouldn’t?, the next clause will introduce a DM of Scottish origin which is will can:~~

~~(3) He’ll can do it,------?~~

Can’t he? was the most common choice made by 15 women and five men. Indeed the root sense of ability expressed by can takes the scope in the tag question over the epistemic sense of futurity expressed by will. Can he? was also proposed by only three women and three men. Won’t he? was mentioned by four women considering the sense of the first modal as determining for the formation of the Tag structure. Two other women wrote the past of can’t he? instead, viz. couldn’t he? but it must be translated as a conditional, thus creating an additional doubt as for the ability of realization of the action by the said person. It is additional because a doubt is already put in place when the Tag structure is created. The speaker is not really sure, so he or she demands a confirmation by the interlocutor through the addition of the Tag structure in the conditional. Of course, this is a confirmation coming from the speaker’s assertion in the first place. Could he? and couldn’t he? were also written by two men and two others proposed the following:

~~(3’) He’ll can do it, can you not? (3’’) He’ll can do it, wouldn’t he?~~

With can you not?, the speaker asks this other person (identified as you in the Tag) if she or he will be able to do it. So, it means that the person identified as the subject pronoun he at the beginning of the sentence is perfectly capable of doing it in the future according to the speaker. Regarding wouldn’t he?, it is the past of will and the sense of hypothesis is again expressed in connection with the ability of this person identified as he to realize the action.

~~138~~

~~The fourth clause is quite special due to the presence of a TM in the syntax:~~

~~(4) He might used to could run the marathon,------?~~

The semantic ordering of this special MM is E + R + R, viz. Epistemic + Root + Root. Carolyn Mashburn (1989: 133) also wrote a similar semantic combination which is Epistemic + Compound Root Modal. Therefore she considers used to could as a single root structure, which is not necessarily the best way to understand the TM structure because this would reduce it to a DM, which is not the purpose here. In fact, we are dealing with three different types of modals. The first modal, might, is a kind of hybrid, which means that it carries more than one grammatical identity. Battistella considers might as an adverbial modal (1991: 52) or a modal adverb (1991: 59). The second element of the TM is more considered as a Quasi Modal (Labov 1968: 263) or a Marginal Modal (Quirk 1985: 236). These first two elements of the TM, based on their grammatical nature, indicate a certain degree of modality. The only element that belongs to the category of Central Modality (Quirk 1985: 236) in the syntax is could which is put in the third and last tier of the TM. Among the three elements creating this TM, only one corresponded the best to the Tag structure according to 15 informants. They chose the true modal could, which gives the following:

~~(4’) He might used to could run the marathon, couldn’t he?~~

Most informants emphasized the ability meaning expressed by could. However, two people, one man and one woman, preferred to add the (adverbial) modal might. Two spellings were written: (4’’) He might used to could run the marathon, mightn’t he ? mightent he?

Didn’t he? was also written by six informants, which in fact represents the second element of the TM. This tag is much more used in the oral and written media in Standard English when used to is found at the beginning of a clause (Quirk 1985: 140). Peculiar Tags such as wasn’t he?, could he? and two other non-standard Tags cud he not now? and Scottish Tag no? were also mentioned just once by two women and two men. Wasn’t he? is difficult to explain because this Tag structure has no semantic and syntactic connections with the TM. Regarding cud he not now?, it is actually one of the Scottish spellings for

~~139~~

Standard Tag could he not? or couldn’t he?. No? is a typical Scottish Tag that is still occasionally found in urban speech. Jim Miller (1993: 128) in his paper dealing with the grammar of Scottish English mentioned one example where no? is indicated:

~~You don’t go for that sort, no?~~

~~Similar Scottish Tags such as yes?, surely? and not really? can be found too.~~

~~The last clause of the task indicates the ubiquitous might could accompanied by the “If- hypothetical construction”:~~

~~(5) You might could see Uranus if you had a telescope,------?~~

Couldn’t you? was again written by 12 informants. As regards mightn’t you?, it was mentioned by just four informants. As in the previous clause, the sense of probability was not prevailing, unlike the one expressing ability identified by the modal could. Regarding the other types of Tag Questions, they are quite disparate. Some of them were already mentioned in the preceding examples. The difference now for the last example is that more different types of Tags can be found by all kinds of Scottish respondents. Here are the other Tag structures proposed:

~~Each of the following Tag Questions, proposed by women, was written once:~~

(5) You might could see Uranus if you had a telescope, can you? wouldn’t you? mightn’t he? mighten you? couldn’t yous? might you? In most Standard Englishes, the spelling difference between the second person singular and the second person plural of personal pronoun you no longer exists. It is still not the case in some non-Standard Scottish, American and even Australian and New Zealand Englishes where yous(e), yall, yiz , yez and many other spellings are in use when speaking with several people. A clear difference is still maintained among many Southern Scottish who really wish

140 to preserve the semantic difference between a full and a partial negation by the alternation of the spelling of certain Scottish negators such as na(e) and no. In the list, the presence of positive tags implies the confirmation of the speaker’s assertion. The rest of the modifications such as the change of subject at the end of the Tag as well as the addition of a third modal that does not take part in the DM of the clause were occasionally found in other interpretations in the previous statements. As for the tags proposed by the male informants, wouldn’t you? was written three times unlike women, who only used once. The use of this modal to construct the Tag still remains a mystery due to its important semantic difference with the DM might could. Its connection with the clause is hard to determine because this Tag is mostly associated with an imperative sentence. The following list represents the last five tags which were proposed once by men only:

~~(5) You might could see Uranus if you had a telescope, can’t we? surely? could I? couldn’t he? wouldn’t he?~~

The very special tag surely comes from Southern Scottish dialects (Miller 1993: 128) and it does not require the use of an auxiliary or a subject in it structure. Like (eh) no?, not really?, yes? (1993: 127-128), it is a type of tag that becomes perfectly understood by just one word. Concerning the other four tags, they do not all have the subject of the beginning of the sentence, viz. you. Two Tags have he, one has the first singular pronoun I and one has the first plural pronoun we. This is not the first time this kind of modification has occurred. These occasional changes in the subject pronoun are for the time being inexplicable based on the lack of justifications from the informants. However these choices are not random and each pronoun can reveal a (series of) specific appropriate external context(s) for the informant.

~~141~~

The data proposed by the informants at the present time show that MMs are not compatible with Tag Questions in South-Eastern Scotland. Not a single DM was added at the end of the five clauses to form a vernacular Tag. Either one modal from the original DM was integrated to form the Tag or one modal not belonging to the DM of the clause formed the Tag. These are the only two alternatives proposed by the informants. More than one modal in a Tag is not grammatically possible in the Scottish Borders, making the syntax of Tags in both standard and vernacular environments identical.

~~142~~

~~6. MMs in negative and interrogative syntactic forms~~

In the four towns visited in 2011, especially in Kelso, the use of an MM other than in the affirmative still remains rare but not impossible in the Southern Scottish areas. It depends on the structure of the modal combination, the grammatical identity given to one or several modals (a semi-modal or an adverbial modal for instance) and the balance in which the tenses (present or past) are scattered over the multiple modal combination. All of this determines the transformation of a positive MM into a negative one and/or a question (WH or Yes-No Question). In 1994, Salikoko Mufwene studied the situation regarding MMs in Southern American English asserting that the tendency leads toward the affirmative side of modal sequences:

~~Positive declarative DMs are more acceptable to a greater percentage of the population than negated or inverted double modals are. [Mufwene 1994:101]~~

However, the precise locations, for example, the names of towns or villages located in regions or counties of States of the American South where the Multiple Modality system would lead to a clear preference for the affirmative were not specified. Scotland also presents numerous locations where the tendencies as regards the degree of positivity or negativity of several modal combinations, have barely been measured. The survey I conducted in the Borders intends to describe more precisely the MMs that can adopt negative and/or interrogative forms. Thus, they are used only in specific situations in these two types of syntactic forms. Tables one through six in the following pages show what is grammatically possible in the Scottish Borders firstly in terms of use and position of negators in relation to MMs. The position in the interrogative of a modal when the modal combination is turned into a WH or Yes-No-Question will also be set forth in this table. May can, should ought to and might can represent the three MMs that were tested in 2011 for this specific task of the questionnaire study. The following tables list all the interpretations given by the informants for each modal combination. The clauses written in bold mean that they are not standard. Either the informant maintained the original combination in both syntactic forms or the informant replaced the combination by another one or a completely different vernacular construction. When the clause is not in bold, the interpretation is (mainstream) standard. Furthermore, the brackets that are located after some interpretations mean that the clauses were proposed by more than

~~143 one informant. When there are no brackets, it means that the proposed interpretation is just written once. The vernacular interpretations come first, followed by the standard ones.~~

~~6.1. May can~~

~~1- I may can get it out tomorrow (women) NEG INT~~

I may not can get it out tomorrow (twice) Can I get it out tomorrow? (nine times) I might not can get it out tomorrow May I get it out tomorrow? (five times) I may no can get it out tomorrow Can you get it out tomorrow? (three times) I might can get it out tomorrow I can get it out tomorrow? (three times) I canae get it out tomorrow Could I get it out tomorrow? (twice) I cany get it out tomorrow I will get it out tomorrow? (twice) I may get it out tomorrow (three times) Can't I get it out tomorrow? I can't get it out tomorrow (three times) Will you get out tomorrow? I may not get it out tomorrow (three times) May be able to get it out tomorrow? I won't be able to get it out tomorrow (three times) I might be able to get it out tomorrow I can get it out tomorrow (twice) Will I be able to get it out tomorrow? I could not get it out tomorrow (twice) I can perhaps get it out tomorrow? I might get it out tomorrow (twice) Could I get it out tomorrow? I will not get it out tomorrow Will you get it out tomorrow? I may not get out tomorrow Will I perhaps be able to get it out? I maybe get it out tomorrow I mayn't get it out tomorrow I might not get it out tomorrow I might not be able to get it out tomorrow I may not be able to get it out tomorrow Maybe I can't get it out tomorrow I will not be able to get it out tomorrow

~~Table 1: Negation and inversion of DM may can by the female informants.~~

~~144~~

~~1- I may can get it out tomorrow (men) NEG INT~~

I manny can get it oot the morn I'll can get it out tomorrow? I canae get it out tomorrow Would yee get it oot the morn? I can nae get it out tomorrow Will you get it out the morns morn? I cannae get it out tomorrow Can I get it out tomorrow? (five times) I can't get it out tomorrow (seven times) May I get it out tomorrow? (four times) I cannot get it out tomorrow (three times) Could I get it out tomorrow? (twice) I may not get it out tomorrow (twice) Can he get it out tomorrow? He may not get it out tomorrow I may get it out tomorrow? I can get it out tomorrow Is there any chance you can get it out? I won't be able to get it out tomorrow Am I able to get it out tomorrow? I can not get it out tomorrow What can I get it out tomorrow? I might not get it out tomorrow Can it be possible to get it out tomorrow?

~~Table 2: Negation and inversion of DM may can by the male informants.~~

Each clause that is not accompanied by a bracket in both tables corresponds to a single respondent, who first of all changed the affirmative clause into a negative one and then into a question. Each table contains clauses written in bold, which means that the syntax is written in a Scottish-English or Scots vernacular type. The other clauses not in bold are identified as standard mainstream interpretations. In this task of the questionnaire, most Scottish informants find the use of a DM or TM peculiar other than in the affirmative form. If we take a closer look at the bold constructions maintaining MMs or not, three different types of Scottish negators, that is no, nae and ny were proposed in both men’s and women’s tables. When the DM may can is not included by the speaker, she/he chooses one of the two modals to add the negator of her/his choice by keeping the construction non-standard at the same time. Thus, based on this situation, regarding the women’s table, the Scottish negators are constantly found after modal can:

~~- I cany get it out… (I am unable to get it out… or it is impossible for me to get it out…) - I canae get it out… (ditto)~~

~~145~~

This means that it is more appropriate according to the informant to reject the modal of probability over the one expressing ability, therefore creating the senses of inability or impossibility when adding a negative particle to can. What is also surprising is the inexistence of the doubling of the n consonant when the negations are added. This represents another way of writing canny and cannae, the latter of which is used twice in men’s table but in two different ways as indicated below:

~~- I can nae get it out tomorrow. - I cannae get it out tomorrow.~~

As in Standard American English (I can not get it out…), but mostly forbidden in Standard British English (I cannot get it out), the Scottish negation is separated from the modal of ability. The semantic interpretation remains the same, even with this slight morphological change. If these types of negators are this time incorporated in DM constructions, they are systematically put between the two modals according to the informants’ choices. On the women’s table, three different sentences were proposed with the DM accompanied by the negative particle:

~~- I may no can get it out. - I may not can get it out. - I might not can get it out.~~

Negator no is more used in Scottish-English dialects than not, the latter of which remains a mainstream negator inside a non-standard modal construction. What is more, putting not or no after the first modal does not necessarily mean that the negator is more connected to this modal, in this case may. It always hinges on the degree of flexibility of the negator determined by the wider or narrower scope of the said particle. This particle is a more or less independent based on the idiolect(s) of the individuals.

Concerning the column of interrogation for each table, the presence of MMs is even rarer. Since most Scottish respondents considers a DM as the addition of two true modal auxiliaries semantically and morphologically speaking, it is very difficult to determine for them what type of modal should be put before the subject and the one that is supposed to be placed after the subject. To avoid this complication, only one man decided to leave the clause in the

~~146 affirmative with the DM but to use the proper intonation to make it interrogative giving the following:~~

~~- I’ll can get it out tomorrow?~~

This informant also preferred to replace may by contracted-will. It is more appropriate for him, which is not surprising because will can still remains the most recognized and used DM in the Scottish Borders today. The following DM presents a different morphosyntax due to the morphological aspect of one of its two modals.

~~6.2. Should ought to~~

~~2- You should ought to make the rules clear (women) NEG INT~~

You ought make the rules clear (three times) Hadn't you ought make the rules clear? You oughtn't make the rules clear Ought you make the rules clear? I oughtn't make the rules clear You should make the rules clear? (five times) You shouldn't make the rules clear (four times) Should you make the rules clear? (three times) You should not make the rules clear (three times) Ought you to make the rules clear? You ought to make the rules clear (three times) Will he make that clear? You oughtn't to make the rules clear (twice) Have you made the rules clear? You ought not to make the rules clear I should try to make the rules clear? He should have made it clear Could he make the rules clear? He didn't make the rules clear Could you make the rules clear? The rules are not clear When should you make the rules clear? You need to make the rules clear Shouldn't you make the rules clear? You should make the rules clear Will you make the rules clear? He should make the rules clear Can he make the rules clear? He shouldn't make the rules clear Can you make the rules more clear? You have not made rules clear Should you not make the rules clear? You should have made the rules clear You will make the rules clear? You don't make the rules clear You should be able to make the rules clear? Rules are mixed Can you make the rules clear? Why no make the rules clear? Would you be able to make the rules clear? Can you clarify the rules?

~~Table 3: Negation and inversion of DM should ought to by the female informants~~

~~147~~

~~2- You should ought to make the rules clear (men) NEG INT~~

You should ought make the rules clear How (why) did yee no make the rules clear? You shoulda made the rules clear You ought make the rules clear? You shouldn't make the rules clear (four times) Could you make the rules clear? (three times) You don't make the rules clear (twice) Should you make the rules clear? (three times) You should have made the rules clear Can you make the rules clear? (twice) You shall not make the rules clear You should have made the rules clear You'll never make the rules clear Will you make the rules clear? shoudn't make the rules clear Let's make the rules clear You oughtn't to make the rules clear Why should you make the rules clear? You didn't make the rules clear Can't you make the rules clear? You really should make the rules clear You should make the rules clear? It would be better if you make the rules clear Shouldn't he make the rules clear? You need to make the rules clear Why are the rules not clear?

~~Table 4: Negation and inversion of DM should ought to by the male informants.~~

In both tables, no one proposed to write the DM in a question or to add a negative marker in the modal combination. Both female and male informants (except for one man) preferred adding either should or ought to in the interrogative and negative clauses. Most informants indicated “shouldn’t and should not, oughtn’t to and ought not to make the rules clear” concerning standard negatives. With non-standard negatives, the to particle was removed by two female respondents which gives the following: - You oughtn’t make the rules clear. Strangely, if the negation is removed, the to particle placed after ought is elided too. Three female informants proposed this alternative choice: - You ought make the rules clear! Furthermore, one man maintained the DM without including a negator, which gives the following clause: - You should ought make the rules clear! As regards the column of questions, many respondents wrote a Yes-No Question with should you…? and only one woman emphasized ought you to…? which is a rare use in both Standard and Non-Standard Englishes. Although MMs are not present in this column, three particular non-standard clauses were proposed by two women and one man: - Ought you make the rules clear?

~~148~~

~~- Hadn’t you ought make the rules clear? - How did yee no make the rules clear?~~

The first clause remains non-standard because the to particle was removed. Regarding the second clause, it may be considered as a DM, it depends on the grammatical identity ascribed to had. The standard interpretation will be: - Shouldn’t you have made the rules clear? (standard translation created by the author of this doctoral thesis)

~~It is a reproach expressed by the said person. The last clause is typically Scottish and can be translated this way: - Why didn’t you make the rules clear?~~

Indeed, how? in Scottish-English and in the regional Scots language is translated by why? or for what reason? into Modern Standard English. It was a young man who wrote this sentence and he preferred rejecting the entire DM since, according to him, a modal combination cannot be compatible with a question or a negative particle. The next sentence has a more recognizable and international DM which is might can.

~~149~~

~~6.3. Might can~~

~~3- He might can tell you (women) NEG INT~~

He might not can tell you (three times) He may can tell you? He may not can tell you (twice) Can he no tell you? He'll no can tell you Will he ken the answer? He might can tell you He may can tell you? He'll no be able to tell you Can he tell you? (seven times) He canae tell you He can tell you? (four times) He might tell you (four times) Will he tell you? (three times) He mightn't tell you (three times) He may be able to tell you? He won't tell you (three times) Can't he tell you? He might not tell you (twice) Why can't he tell you? He might not be able to tell you (twice) Can he be able to? He maybe can't tell you Will he be able to tell you? He can tell you When can he tell you? He won't be able to tell you I will probably tell you? He may tell you Is he going to tell you? I mightn't tell you May he not tell you? He can't tell you Might he be able to tell you? He cannot tell you Will he tell you the situation? He may not tell you

~~Table 5: Negation and inversion of DM might can by the female informants.~~

~~150~~

~~3- He might can tell you (men) NEG INT~~

He might not can tell you Can he tell yee? He might can tell yee Can he tell you? (three times) He cannae tell you Might he tell you? (twice) He don't tell you Should he tell you? He won't tell you (three times) He should be able to tell you, shouldn't he? He can't tell you (three times) Maybe he can tell you? He mightn't tell you (twice) He may tell you? He might not tell you (twice) He can tell you? Should be able to tell you Couldn't he tell you? He might possibly tell you He will tell you? He might tell you Will he tell you? He may be able to tell you He can't tell you? He can tell you He might tell you? He may tell you?

~~Table 6: Negation and inversion of DM might can by the male informants.~~

In some American States such as Arkansas, dialectal features such as might can are not considered as the assembling of two modals but rather as a combination ADVERB + MODAL, viz. might, used in a vernacular perspective, has exactly the same identity as maybe, perhaps and possibly. Thus, it is not possible in this area to insert a negation between might and can unlike in Scotland as the following examples illustrate: - He might not can tell you. (mentioned four times) - He’ll no can tell you. (mentioned once) - He may not can tell you. (mentioned twice) In the Scottish Borders, we are in the following scheme MODAL+MODAL, so, the English or Scottish negators are welcome inside the MM combination. These positions for a type of negation would be ungrammatical in Arkansas dialects, which leaves only one choice for the US speakers, they have to put the negative particle after the second modal: - He might can’t tell you. - He may can’t tell you. It is best to contract the negator in these types of American dialects. The second sentence with will can (‘ll no can) was not written with the American scheme because this DM does not exist in the USA.

~~151~~

Concerning the other interpretations, one woman preferred to elide might to preserve can which is attached to a Scottish wide-scope negator, which gives: - He canae tell you. As seen before, there is no doubling of the n consonant to make the writing easier. It permits the traditional dialects of Southern Scotland to become modernized by the natural tendency of the speaker to bring some slight spelling modifications to several morphemes as time goes on. Another woman replaced can by the periphrastic construction be able to which implies the following: - He’ll no be able to tell you. This clause remains non-standard because no was maintained instead of standard negation not. Mightn’t was occasionally mentioned by both genders as well, which is not considered as a traditional vernacular element according to Scottish male and female speakers. There is also a non-standard grammatical structure proposed by one man implying the leveling process of auxiliary do in the conjugation:

~~- He don’t tell you.~~

He rejected the entire MM structure in order to use a primary auxiliary that rejects the normative rule applied to this type of auxiliary when it is used in the third person singular. It creates a process of simplification, which is the deletion of verbal suffix es. Can he no tell you?, he may can tell you? and can he tell yee? were three non-standard interpretations found in the column reserved to questions. The first question is an interro-negative structure combining both the inversion of an auxiliary, in this case a modal, followed by the addition of a negator located after the subject pronoun. Since it is not possible in accordance with Scottish dialectal rules to include the wide scope negator nae in this type of question: *Cannae he tell you? Or *Can he nae tell you? It is reasonable to consider no as a more isolate independent negative here. Concerning he may can tell you?, again it deals here with the system of intonation that makes the clause interrogative. In the last question only one modal is found and it is the one expressing a root sense that is privileged. Can he tell you? without non-standard yee was

152 occasionally proposed by both genders as well. They privileged the second modal that in fact will have more the root sense of permission like may in this clause. The difference is that using only may becomes a too formal way of expressing permission even in vernacular Scottish English varieties nowadays. But if a speaker uses the DM structure in the sentence, in this case, two senses must be put forward, viz. the root sense of permission expressed by may followed by the root sense of ability expressed by can.

~~6.4. Conclusion~~

At present, most informants do not use modal combinations in the negative or interrogative forms due mainly to their morphological complexity above all. Using combinations in the affirmative does not imply the splitting of the elements of Multiple Modality, which in the end does not disturb the semantic ordering of DMs or TMs. Nevertheless, a minority of Scottish informants expresses a different viewpoint on how some of these constructions could be spoken and written otherwise in the 21st century. Based on their interpretations, this minority of informants negates traditional DMs composed of central modals only (such as may, might, can, could, must) more easily than modal combinations containing modal expressions that can sometimes act as verbs sometimes as auxiliaries (such as ought (to), used (to), need). The inversion of the three DMs in WH or Yes-No questions is found nowhere in the tables. Even the minority who negated the DMs did not modify the combinations to form questions. It is ungrammatical in their own vernacular(s) to invert these three combinations, but this is not necessarily the case for the entire spectrum of combinations they use. This non- affirmative grammatical situation of MMs observed in the Southern Scottish Borders territory confirms the words of Mufwene cited at the beginning of this chapter.

~~153~~

~~7. ‘ll should can and used to would in syntactic environments other than in the affirmative~~

It is true that in most linguistic interpretations, the presence of modal combinations, DMs or TMs, with additional syntactic elements such as negative particles has always been difficult to detect. Using interrogative forms like WH-Questions or Yes-No Questions in Multiple Modality remains exceptional as well. Salikoko Mufwene in his 1994 paper asserted that their frequency in the negative form or in an inverted process is lower than in the affirmative:

~~Positive declarative DMs are more acceptable to a greater percentage of the population than negated or inverted double modals are. [Mufwene 1994:101]~~

However, despite fewer positive results, observing the Multiple Modality system other than in the affirmative syntactic model is not an impossible task to investigate. This situation had already been observed in the work of John Pampell (1975) who realized how much more complex this system is in its syntax and semantics compared to what his predecessor Ronald Butters (1973) thought:

Based on the results obtained by a minority of respondents during the field surveys conducted in Scotland from 2011 to 2013, this section of the thesis will tackle the level of grammaticality of two typical Scottish MMs, ‘ll should can and used to would, when they are turned into negative or interrogative combinations. In which position can a negator be put in these constructions, viz. before, after or between the MM? What types of negators can be joined to these two specific combinations? How many modals can be inverted in a question that contains a DM or TM? Based on the studies conducted from the 1970’s to the 1990’s, the answers to these questions are far from evident. This is mainly due to the morpho-syntactic complexity of these two modal combinations and the grammatical category to which they belong. Since both combinations have always been part of the Scottish dialectal heritage, these two South-Eastern Scottish MMs will be analyzed in detail in the following sections.

~~154~~

~~7.1. The negation of ‘ll should can in Southern Scotland~~

The three studies conducted in the Scottish Borders outline the same tendency in terms of syntactic forms that Multiple Modality can take other than the affirmative. It shows a clear trajectory toward the negative forms. Most of the respondents who negate ‘ll should can preferred to use four specific negative markers which are not, never and Scottish negators no and nae. This link is, however, very fragile as regards the interrogative form, which will be dealt with later in the thesis. For the moment, the NEG column from 2011 to 2013 that are presented below contain different types of vernacular and standard syntactic interpretations written in the negative form and based on the original sentence that contains the TM ‘ll should can. Clauses written in bold are dialectal vernacular interpretations. The remaining clauses not in bold are standard ones. The number in brackets corresponds to the number of times at which the interpretation was proposed by male or female respondents during the three studies. Interpretations which contain no brackets mean that they were proposed just once. The three NEG columns for the TM ‘ll should can are displayed as follows:

~~155~~

~~1- He’ll should can come the morn.~~

~~1- He'll should can come the morn NEG~~

He'll not can come tomorrow (five times) He'll no can come the morn (five times) He won't can come the morn He won't can come tomorrow He'll maybe no can come the morn He'll shouldn't have come the morn He'll should not come the morn He shouldn't can come the morn He might not can come the morn He may not can come the morn He canae can come the morn He'll souldnae can come the morn He'll no should can come the morn He'll shouldny can come the morn He'll might can come the morn He'll no come the morn (four times) He shouldnae come the morn (twice) He canae come the morn He cannae come the morn He cannae come He canny come tomorrow He willnae come the morn He winny come the morn He winnae be coming the morn He widnae come the morn He should'nae come the morn He'd mibbae come the morn He not come the morn He's no coming the morn He can't come the morn (twelve times) He shouldn't come the morn (seven times) He'll not come the morn (six times) He should come the morn (five times) He won't come the morn (five times) He can't come in the morning (twice) He won't be able to come in the morning (twice) He'll not be able to come the morn (twice) He should come tomorrow (twice) He will not be able to come the morn

~~156~~

He might not be able to come tomorrow He might come the morn He shouldn't be able to come tomorrow He may come the morn He should maybe come the morn He won't be able to come until the morning I should not come the morn He should not come the morn I doubt if he will come He might not make it tomorrow He maybe can come the morn He might appear tomorrow He will never come tomorrow Will he come the morn He shall not come the morn He will not come into in the morning He could come the morn He shouldn't come tomorrow He should've come the morn He won't be able to come tomorrow He'll not come in the morning He'll be unable to come tomorrow He couldn't come the morn He will not come in the morning He shouldn't come in the morning He cannot come the morn He never comes in the morning He never could come the morn He won't come in the morn He should be able to come tomorrow He won't be able to come the morn He can not come the morn He might not come the morn

~~Table 1: Negation of TM will should can.~~

As can be observed in the columns, not all the group of informants maintains the MM of the original clause. Most informants actually removed one of the three modals from the combination to turn the TM into a DM. In the three studies, there are 29 different vernacular interpretations, which represents one third of the total number of interpretations corresponding to 120 informants. Some of these interpretations were proposed several times. Among the 29, 11 contain a DM, four have a TM, 12 contain one modal and two have no

157 modal expressions in their syntax. Finally, 15 interpretations out of 29 maintain a modal combination. Nonetheless, for the majority of MMs, the negation is possible provided that the combination does not exceed two modal elements. What is more, it is a specific DM that the respondents, especially the female ones, easily integrate with the help of the English negator not or Scottish negators no and nae during the three studies. This DM is typically Scottish and it comes from the Hawick Scots dialectal area. It is the “ubiquitous” will can.

~~7.1.1. ‘ll should can becomes negative will can~~

~~Below are the common syntactic forms of will can in the negative proposed by 13 respondents:~~

~~(1) He’ll not can come the morn. (six times) (2) He won’t can come the morn. (twice) (3) He’ll no can come the morn. (four times) (4) He’ll maybe no can come the morn. (once)~~

There are four different clauses in which will can was proposed with a syntactic preference for the contraction of will followed by a Scottish or English negator detached from the contracted modal. This preference is clearly illustrated in sentences one, three and four. Since the negators of these three clauses are detached from the first modal and located between modals M1 and M2, they are therefore identified as isolate negative particles that will partly affect the meaning of the clause. Keith Brown in his paper on the DMs in Hawick Scots (1991: 81) describes in detail the diverse types of negation that can be found in Scots dialects with or without the presence of modal(s). He identifies three types of negation in Scottish English which are:

~~1- Sentence, wide scope, negation: the negation covers the entire clause.~~

~~she couldnae have told him. (1991: 81) (It is not possible for her to have told him.)~~

~~2- Verb Phrase (VP), narrow scope, negation: the negation only affects a portion of the clause, which gives a different meaning from the first negation type.~~

~~158~~

She could no have told him. (1991: 81) (It was possible for her not to have told him.) 3- Main verb negation: the negation affects a portion of the clause too. This third negation type is identified as a partial negation like the second negation type. Since no paraphrase was written by Keith Brown for this clause contrary to the other two above, the two synonymous paraphrases in bracket below are my own interpretations.

~~He could have no come. (1991: 86) (It was possible for him not to have come) Or (It would have been possible for him not to come.)~~

The identities of the Scottish negators are of course written in the following analyses of the clauses. These analyses are accompanied by the addition of paraphrases and standard translations created by the author of the thesis. Here are the possible semantic interpretations based on the position of the negators no or not: The first interpretation comprises the first, third and fourth clauses:

~~Contracted M1 + VP Narrow Scope independent negator + M2~~

~~(1) (3) (4) He’ll (maybe) not/no can come the morn. E R M1 13 M2 Aff S 14 Narrow Scope Neg S 15~~

~~(1’) (3’) (4’) (Maybe) he‘ll be unable to come tomorrow. (standard) E R M1 ME2 16~~

~~13 M1: Central Modal 1 14 Aff S: Affirmative Sentence 15 Neg S: Negative Sentence 16 ME2: Modal Expression 2~~

~~159~~

The letters E and R under each Central Modal (M) and Modal Expression (ME) have to be read as Epistemic – Root (Lapaire and Rotgé 2004: 188-189). This is the semantic ordering of DM will can for this clause. Every combination that will be described in the following clauses is accompanied by these semantic codes. The type of modal and ordering of the modals are inherently linked with the ordering of the modal senses too. Based on the position of the negative particle in the vernacular clause, the negator in the standard translation has to be put at the beginning of the predicate where the VP is located, making the standard clause partly negative. The situation is reversed with DM won’t can:

~~Fusion of M1 and English Wide Scope negator + M2~~

~~(2) He won’t can come the morn. E R M1 M2 Sentential Negation~~

~~Standard translation:~~

~~(2’) He will not/will never/won’t be able to come tomorrow. E R M1 ME2~~

This combination is similar to the Scots DM winnae kin. The spelling is not English but the syntactic and semantic properties of this combination are identical to won’t can. In this situation, the negator embraces the entire sentence from the subject to the elements of the predicate. It is a sentential negation that is also present in other types of DM combinations proposed by five female informants in the five examples below.

~~160~~

~~7.1.2. Alternate DMs to ‘ll should can~~

As for the other informants who preferred writing other DMs, three out of five located the negator between M1 and M2 as in the previous clauses. Only two chose to put the negator after M2. Regarding the identity of the negators, the fifth, sixth and seventh clauses contain sentential wide scope negation whereas the eighth and ninth ones have independent isolate narrow scope negation in their syntax. The five clauses appear as follows:

(5) He shouldn’t can come tomorrow. (proposed in 2011) (6) He’ll shouldn’t have come the morn. (2012) (7) He‘ll should not come the morn. (2013) (8) He canae can come tomorrow. (2011) (9) He might not can come the morn. (2013)

~~M1 + Contracted Wide Scope negative +M2~~

~~(5) He shouldn’t can come tomorrow. E R M1 M2 Sentential Negation~~

~~Paraphrase of the clause:~~

~~(5’) It is not likely for him to be able to come tomorrow. E R Or more simply with the standard translation:~~

~~(5’’) He shouldn’t be able to come tomorrow. E R M1 ME2~~

~~161~~

Only one woman reacted differently and decided to reject will to maintain the DM should can in the negative. Contrary to will can, the sense of logical hypothesis is here prevalent over the sense of futurity. Two other women proposed a DM that is not mentioned in the Scottish, Northern Irish and American lists of MMs. It does not mean that this DM is necessarily a new combination in the Scottish Borders. Here is the DM below:

~~Contracted M1 + M2+ Contracted negative + perfect aspect~~

~~(6) He’ll shouldn’t have come the morn. E R M1 M2 Sentential Negation~~

~~Paraphrase of the clause:~~

~~(6’) It is a mistake that he has come the following day. R Or with the standard translation:~~

~~(6’’) He shouldn’t have come the following day. R M2~~

This is one possible translation for ‘ll shouldn’t + (Have-V-en). From the original vernacular clause, only one root modal should accompanied by a cliticised negator remains in the standard translation. Shouldn’t in this clause expresses a reproach because a mistake has been made. This meaning stemming from the negative modal embraces the entire clause, which creates a sentential negation. The problem resides in the use of a perfective aspect with a DM that has never been seen before in the previous field surveys. What is more, the Scots time marker the morn does not fit in with the aspect. For the moment, the best attempt for the standard translation to make sense is to suggest that the morn means the following day in this clause and not just tomorrow. In the following clause, the same DM, without the perfective aspect, makes the standard translation easier to understand.

~~162~~

~~Contracted M1 + M2 + independent isolate negative~~

~~(7) He’ll should not come the morn. E E M1 M2 Aff S Main Verb Neg S~~

~~Paraphrase of the clause:~~

~~(7’) It will be likely for him not to come tomorrow. E E~~

~~Or with the standard translation:~~

~~(7’’) He should not come tomorrow. E M2~~

Based on the absence of the perfective aspect, the morn finds its original meaning again. Its English equivalent tomorrow replaces the first modal of the combination in the Standard English translation. Both elements of the combination are epistemic modals this time. The first epistemic modal will expresses a future event that is (not) likely to happen. The negation is detached from the DM and located before the main verb. The second epistemic modal accompanied by the main verb negation express the logical hypothesis of the occurrence of the event not happening. Expressing the same situation in the Standard English translation requires the use of should and not only.

~~Another particular never-seen-before DM was written by one female informant in 2011. She proposed the following clause:~~

~~(8) He canae can come tomorrow. R R M1 M2~~

~~163~~

It is a DM that contains the same modal twice. This type of DM can can is non-existent among the current lists of MMs. It may be a new creation but its use in the affirmative form makes no sense. Both modals are root and express ability in this clause, which gives the following standard translation:

~~(8’) He is not able to come tomorrow. R ME1~~

~~M1 can also be an epistemic modal expressing the impossibility of the realization of the event, which gives the following paraphrase in (8’’):~~

~~(8’’) It is impossible for him to be able to come. E R~~

~~M2 as in (8’) remains a root modal expressing the inability of the realization of the event. In both (8’) and (8’’), the negation is sentential, thus affecting the entire clause.~~

~~The last DM might not can is on the contrary quite recognizable to the users of MMs:~~

~~(9) He might not can come the morn. E R M1 M2~~

~~Paraphrase of the clause:~~

~~(9’) It is possible for him to be unable to come tomorrow. E R Or with the standard translation:~~

~~(9’’) He might not be able to come the morn. E R M1 ME2~~

~~164~~

As with might could, might can is the most widely known combination in the Western Anglophone communities that are used to speaking and writing MMs. Some informants prefer using simpler combinations when she/he barely recognizes a series of modal sequences that has few historical and/or social ties with their local dialect. The DM may not can was also proposed by one man in 2013. Like might not can, it carries the same sequence of meanings, viz. E M1 (probability meaning) + not + R M2 (ability meaning). However, may not can still remains a young DM which has settled in the Scottish Borders since the 1980’s. May in Scottish-English grammar was ungrammatical for a long time. It was replaced by can and two catenative constructions as James Shay calls them (1981: 314) which are: get to + infinitive or get +gerund. The only slight difference that exists between might not can and may not can is the “equi-possibility” (Lapaire and Rotgé 2004: 205) present in the modal may. It means that the action has a 50 % chance of occurring or not. With might, the degree of the occurring of the action is weaker leaving more room for doubt and uncertainty when compared to may.

Except for ‘ll should, the presence of a negator is possible between both elements of the DM combinations. It means that the grammatical nature of both elements of each DM combination is purely modal. What is more, the negative particle can also be located after the second element of the combination, which gives rise to the following schemes:

~~MODAL – NEGATOR (isolate or sentential) - MODAL M1 NO(T) M2 N’T~~

~~MODAL – MODAL – NEGATOR (isolate or sentential) M1 M2 NO(T) N’T~~

~~165~~

None of these models would have been possible if one of the elements of the combinations described above had been given the identity of a pure adverb, which does occur in several dialects in the American South and Appalachia such as those spoken in Arkansas (Joan Close) or Southern Illinois (Douglas Bigham):

By considering data collected from both spoken and written sources, we can deconstruct the double modal constructions of “might could”, “might would”, and others, in an attempt to show that what appears to be a double modal is actually an adverb + modal. [Bigham 2000: 1]

Bigham, in his paper about Southern Illinois Appalachian English, proved through his tests that the second element of the combination is a true finite modal auxiliary. It can therefore carry tense like a modal in Standard English, which enables the combination to have a negator only after M2:

~~In the negation test,[…]the negation occurred exactly where expected – after the “true” modal and not the adverb. [Bigham 2000: 21]~~

The scheme ADVERB-MODAL does not correspond to the Scottish Borders dialectal reality based on the clauses proposed by the female informants. It is the MODAL-MODAL scheme in which both elements are two true tensed auxiliaries. This enables the negator to be placed either between M1 and M2, or after M2. Joan Close also confirmed this in her own thesis on the use of DMs in Hawick (county of Roxburghshire, Scottish Borders) in 2004:

~~The[…]structure MODAL-MODAL[…]is the correct way to analyse DMs in SEH (Scottish English in Hawick). [Close 2004: 186]~~

Since three women maintained will should can in the negative in other towns of the Scottish Borders, it will be interesting to know if the MODAL-MODAL scheme can be adapted to longer combinations as well.

~~7.1.3. ‘ll should can with negative markers~~

To obtain the first answers to this new syntactic situation, it is necessary to see if the informants who maintained the TM included one or several negators in the combination or if they changed one or several modals of the combination to make it negative. In the field surveys of 2012 and 2013, two women maintained will should can with two different types of Scottish negators. In 2011, only one man kept the same combination by also adding one

~~166~~

~~Scottish negator and one woman the same year decided to change the second element of the combination. The four clauses are presented as follows:~~

~~(10) He’ll no should can come the morn. (2012) (11) He’ll shouldny can come the morn. (2013) (12) He’ll souldnae can come the morn. (2011) (13) He’ll might can come the morn. (2011)~~

~~(10) He’ll no should can come the morn. (2012) E E R M1 M2 M3 Aff S Narrow Scope Neg S~~

~~Paraphrase of the clause:~~

~~(10’) It will be likely for him to be unable to come. E E R~~

~~Or more simply with the standard translation:~~

~~(10’’) He should be unable to come tomorrow. E R M2 ME3~~

According to this female informant, it is possible to include an isolate independent negative between the M1 and M2. Based on its position in the vernacular syntax, the paraphrase and standard translation leaves little room to create a sentential or wide-scope negation. Although the negator is located after M1 in the vernacular syntax, the negative process starts just before the third modal M3 when the semantics of the syntax is described via the paraphrase and the standard translation. It is thus a narrow scope negation that only has its effect in a specific portion of the syntax. Can this same or another negative particle also be located after another modal such as M2? This question will be answered in the following proposal made by another female informant in 2013.

~~167~~

~~(11) He’ll shouldny can come the morn. (2013) E E R M1 M2 M3 Sentential Negation Paraphrase of the clause:~~

~~(11’) It will be unlikely for him to be able to come. E E R~~

~~Or with the standard translation:~~

~~(11’’) He shouldn’t be able to come tomorrow. E R M2 ME3~~

The vernacular syntax accompanied by its paraphrase and standard syntax proves that a negation is also possible not just after M1 in will should can but also after M2. It means that like M1, M2 is also identified as a modal tensed auxiliary. This time it is a negator that is attached to the modal should. Negator ny is a former Scots spelling which is replaced more often by modern Scots nae or na now. The paraphrase, like the standard translation, confirms that the negation does not affect just a specific area of the syntax. In reality, the negative particle embraces the entire clause, which naturally affects the translations too. It is therefore a wide-scope negation. With this particular type of TM, the meaning eventually remains the same in 2012 and 2013 even if the negators no and ny both have a different spelling morphology and a different type of negative entity. In 2011, the combination ll souldnae can was proposed by one man:

~~(12) He’ll souldnae can come the morn. (2011) E E R M1 M2 M3 Sentential Negation~~

~~Although nae is a more contemporary Scottish negator, its position in the combination and its slight morphological difference vis-à-vis the negator ny do not imply any change in the~~

168 meaning of the sentence. The paraphrase and standard translation remain identical. The absence of h in should is just a Scottish spelling variant. It does not bring any changes to the standard interpretation of the clause either. Unlike the other three, the fourth example proposed by one woman in 2011 will show no negation, as follows:

~~(13) He’ll might can come the morn. (2011) E E R M1 M2 M3~~

~~Paraphrase of the clause:~~

~~(13’) It will be possible for him to be able to come. E E R~~

~~Or with the standard translation:~~

~~(13’’) He might be able to come tomorrow. E R M2 ME3~~

The female informant decided to replace should by might. This does not mean that this modal could not accept an isolate or sentential negator in this position. A similar TM which is might will can’t exists in the list of Mishoe and Montgomery (1994: 9). The first two modals are inverted which allows the negation of the third element of the combination and to assert that M3 in might will can’t is a true modal auxiliary. For the moment, will might can has never shown any negation after the first, second and third element. However, significant changes need not be applied in order to see an element of a combination adopt another grammatical identity. This would enable a negation to be inserted in the modal combination. Based on the three clauses proposed by the female informants, the MODAL-MODAL scheme is valid for the first two elements of will should can. M1 and M2 are modal auxiliaries whereas M3 remains an Undetermined Grammatical Element (UGE) since none of the respondents proposed to include a negative particle after can:

~~169~~

MODAL - (Isolate NEGATOR) - MODAL - (Sentential NEGATOR) - UGE WILL (NO ) SHOULD (NY) CAN More data need to be collected to be able to determine the possible future grammatical identities of can in this vernacular syntactic form.

~~7.1.4. Scottish Single Modals in the negative~~

The remaining 13 clauses among the 33 only have one modal. Each contains a specific Scots negator, which implies, as in the Multiple Modality system, a specific type of negation. In total, there are, from 2011 to 2013, 12 vernacular clauses proposed by the female informants which are:

(14) He’ll no come the morn. (written four times) (15) He willnae come the morn. (once) (16) He winny come the morn. (once) (17) He might no come the morn. (once) (18) He shouldnae come the morn. (twice) (19) He cannae come the morn. (three times) (20) He canny come the morn. (twice) (21) He not come the morn. (once) (22) He canae come the morn. (once) (23) He’s no coming the morn. (once) (24) He should’ nae come the morn. (once) (25) He widnae come the morn. (once) (26) He winnae be coming the morn. (once) (27) He’d mibbae come the morn. (once)

~~170~~

Three different negators appear with these single modals. Firstly nae and no are the non- standard negators of Modern Scots. Ny on the contrary is a traditional version of mainstream vernacular negators nae and na that is still in use nowadays. Since the Hawick research period, it has been observed that most of the informants who turn MMs into negative entities only do it if the negative particles refer especially to no and not. It can be seen with DMs will should, should can, might can and especially with the most recognizable Scottish DM will can. The other negators that have older morphological forms like ny and modern forms like nae or na are essentially attached to single modals as it can be seen above with will, should, can and Scottish wid for would. Furthermore, it is with the “ubiquitous” modal will that seven informants decided to include three different negators. ‘ll no is proposed by four informants whereas the other three chose to write willnae, winnae and winny. The latter represents an older Scots form of modality in the negative. No matter what follows after will, viz. another modal or a negative particle or both, it is a determining grammatical element for the ongoing development of Single and Multiple Modality in the spoken and written environment in the Scottish Borders. These syntactic interpretations only represent a fraction of what can really be created in terms of negative processes with older or newer spelling forms of Single and/or Multiple Modals. A detailed look at what is possible to write can be seen in the book entitled Grammar Broonie by Susan Rennie and Matthew Fitt (1999: 10).

The interpretations that were analyzed above show that the TM ‘ll should can is barely accepted as a negative combination among a large majority of female informants, except for three women. To create a negative modal combination in the clause, they mostly decided to use the common form of Southern Scottish MM known to most of the inhabitants of the region, viz. DM will can. Based on this DM, they proposed different syntactic variants to put an English or Scottish negator in the “ubiquitous” combination. Even for those who do not use will can, they still prefer to write another DM rather than to maintain the entire TM proposed in the questionnaire. The choices they made were quite clear from the very beginning and they rapidly knew how they wanted to turn the sentence into the negative form. Based on these observations, it finally leaves little hope for a possible ongoing development of ‘ll should can in the forthcoming years in the Scottish Borders. .

~~171~~

~~7.2. ‘ll should can in inverted forms~~

~~The results obtained during the three studies show that it is even more difficult to invert a modal combination. The three INT columns show it clearly:~~

~~1- He’ll should can come the morn~~

~~1- He'll should can come the morn INT~~

Will he can come the morn? (three times) Would he can come the morn? He'll can come the morn? (twice) He may can come the morn? Can he no come the morn? (twice) Can eh come the morn? Cun he come the morn? He'll should can come the morn, won't he? He winny come the morn? Can he come the morn? (fifteen times) Will he come the morn? (thirteen times) Could he come the morn? (six times) Can he come tomorrow? (five times) He can come the morn? (four times) Should he come the morn? (four times) Will he be able to come tomorrow? (four times) He could come the morn? (three times) Will he be able to come the morn ? (twice) Will he come in the morning? (twice) Will he come tomorrow? (twice) He should come the morn? (twice) Should he come in the morning? (twice) Can you come the morn? (twice) He should be able to come tomorrow? (twice) He may be able to come the morn? He will come the morn? Could he come tomorrow? Will he be able to come out tomorrow ? Should he come tomorrow? Will he maybe be able to come the morn Will he be here tomorrow? He perhaps can come the morn?

~~172~~

Is he able to come in the morning? It should be possible for him to be there tomorrow? Can he come two morrow? He shall come the morn? Is he coming the morn? Will he be here in the morning? When should he able to come? Shouldn't he come tomorrow? Will he come in the morn? Will you be able to do it? Why will he not be coming in the morning? He will come the morn? Do you think he can come the morn? He shouldn't come tomorrow? When will he come in the morn? Is he comming the morn? He'd maybe come the morn? He should come the morn? He should be able to come? Should he be able to come the morn? Will he be able to come in the morning? Can he come in the morn? When will he come? Can he come in the morning? Should he make it the morn? Shall he come the morn?

~~Table 2: Inversion of TM will should can.~~

No inversion has been made of ‘ll should can since the beginning of the research. As in the negative, the TM has been turned into a DM, again with ubiquitous will can. In total, only four informants, one man and three women, really invert DMs would can and will can which gives the following Yes-No Questions:

~~(1) Would he can come the morn? (one man in 2011)~~

~~(2) Will he can come the morn? (two women in 2012 and one woman 2013)~~

The rest of the interpretations is mostly standard even more than in the NEG columns with the use of common mainstream clauses that essentially start with either can, could or will in Yes- No questions:

~~173~~

~~(3) Will he come the morn( or tomorrow)? (4) Will he be able to come the morn (or tomorrow)? (5) Can he come the morn (or tomorrow)? (6) Could he come the morn (or tomorrow)?~~

For the minority of informants who is used to speaking DMs, will can remains the most ideal combination for all of the syntactic forms, viz. the affirmative, negative and interrogative. Few combinations have this “plasticity” in syntactic modifications. It is the case of might could or might can in the American territories practicing modal combinations. The minority of Scottish speakers using MMs insist on maintaining this typical Southern Scots DM. They keep the remaining Scottish combinations for exceptional occasions (would can, might used to (could), (will) should could, have (got) to can, need to can…). The respondents do not have this natural flexibility when using the combinations above in the negative and interrogative unlike with will can. Strangely, will can and would can are not flexible if can, identified as M2, becomes the first modal in a Yes-No Question. Apparently, according to Brown, it is not possible to put M2 before the subject although it is the MODAL-MODAL configuration which is the model to follow in the Scottish Multiple Modality system:

~~According to Brown (1991), there is only one possible way to form a question with a DM, to invert M1 [Joanne Close 2004: 179]~~

~~(2) Will he can come the morn?~~

~~M1 M2~~

~~T T~~

~~And not:~~

* Can he will come the morn?

~~M2 M1~~

~~T T~~

~~(The same for DM would can in Yes-No Questions)~~

~~174~~

The only inversion of a single modal in Brown’s case, M1 and not M2, is not logical since in the MODAL-MODAL scheme, both elements are true independent modal auxiliaries and they are in this case marked for Tense (T). Based on the partial application of the scheme, the epistemic sense of futurity expressed by M1 takes scope over the root of ability expressed by M2. This problem is non-existent in Tennessee where M1 like M2 can be equally inverted in WH or Yes-No Questions. Both modals share tense equally and there is not a sense that is more superior than another in a Tennessee combination. In this case, the scheme is really applied.

The phenomenon of Multiple Modality is barely compatible with interrogative syntactic environments, leading to the idea that the MODAL-MODAL scheme proposed for the Scottish MMs is not adaptable to any kinds of syntactic constraints. It is obviously more applicable to the negative environment. Let’s see if the same conclusion can be drawn regarding the negative and inverted processes of the DM used to would.

~~7.3. What about used to would?~~

Used to would, contrary to other traditional Scottish MMs, is a combination that is not composed of Central Modals only. The first element of the combination is called, based on Randolph Quirk’s terminology, a Marginal Modal. Semi Modal or Quasi Modal are also categories given to used to by French Linguists such as Wilfrid Rotgé and Jean Rémi Lapaire. Although used to is not identified as a pure modal unlike might, must, may, can, could, will, would …it is still considered as a modal expression that partially preserved its modal content. The association of a Marginal Modal followed by a Central Modal forms a specific combinatorial entity composed of two different modal forms as opposed to the ubiquitous might can, will can, thus turning used to would into a hybrid combination. The following results that will be presented in the NEG and INT columns, as in the previous MM, show that using used to would otherwise than in the affirmative syntactic form is not really considered as an option by both genders. Still, there are always exceptions, and a limited number of informants in 2012 and 2013 proposed to turn this complex modal combination in the negative and interrogative forms. The interpretations are illustrated as follows:

~~175~~

~~2- He used to would drink black coffee late at night.~~

~~NEG 2012 NEG 2013~~

He would never use to drink coffee late He would not used to drink black coffee at night He used to not drink black coffee late He never used to would drink black coffee at night (twice) He shouldnae be drinking black coffee He is not used to drink black coffee (twice) at night He shouldnae drink coffee at night He would nae drink black coffee at night He should 'nae drink black coffee He no used to drink black coffee late at night He disnae drink black coffee He doesn'y drink black coffee late at night He wouldnae dae that He wouldn't drink black coffee late at night (three times) He cannie drink coffee at night He doesn't drink black coffee at night (twice) He never would drink black coffee late He wouldni drink black coffee at night He doesnae drink black coffee He would not drink black coffee at night He didn't used to drink black coffee late He used to not drink black coffee at night He never drunk coffee He couldn't drink black coffee late at night He wouldn't drink black coffee (four times) He used to drink black coffee, at night He never used to drink black coffee (four times) He would drink black coffee at night He used to drink black coffee (four times) He would drink black coffee late at night He never drank black coffee (twice) He would drink black coffee He would never have drunk coffee late He never drinks black coffee (twice) at night He doesn't drink black coffee (twice) He didn't drink black coffee late at night He will not drink black coffee (twice) He used to drink black coffee late at night He would drink black coffee He likes white coffee in the morning He can't drink black coffee He would've drunk late at night He would drink black coffee at night He couldn't drink black coffee He sometimes drank black coffee He would never drink black coffee He shouldn't drink black coffee He should not drink black coffee He won't drink black coffee He didn't drink black coffee He always drinks black coffee He never could drink black coffee

~~Table 3: Negation of DM used to would.~~

~~176~~

~~INT 2012 INT 2013~~

Would he ever used to drink black coffee? Would he no drink coffee at night? Would he used to drink black coffee? Does eh drink black coffee late at night? Would he drink black coffee late at night? (three Is he used to drink black coffee? times) Did he used to drink black coffee late at night? Cun he drink coffee at night? (twice) Did he used to drink black coffee? (five times) Does he drink black coffee at night? Would he drink black coffee? (four times) Would he drink black coffee late at night? Does he drink black coffee? (four times) Would he drink black coffee at night? Can he drink black coffee? (twice) Does he drink coffee in the evening? Will he drink black coffee? (twice) He would normally drink black coffee late at night? He could drink black coffee? Could he drink black coffee late at night? Did he ever drink black coffee? Did he drink black coffee at night? Do you like black coffee at night? Would he drink coffee late at night? Does he drink coffee at night now? He drank black coffee late at night? He would not drink late at night? Did he drink black coffee late at night? Was he drinking black coffee? What would he drink late at night? Would he drink coffee? He never drank black coffee? Could he drink black coffee? He used to drink coffee black? When would he have drunk? He used to drink black coffee late at night? He would always drink black coffee late What did he drink at night? at night? Did he drink black coffee? Does he still drink black coffee at night? Did he use to drink black coffee? Fancy a black coffee? Do you think he should drink black coffee? What happens if he drinks a coffee late at night? Should he drink black coffee at night? He would always drink black coffee? He will maybe drink black coffee? He didn't drink black coffee? He used to drink black coffee? When during the day does he drink?

~~Table 4: Inversion of DM used to would.~~

~~177~~

~~7.3.1. The negative of a hybrid~~

In the last two studies carried out in the Borders, only three women maintained the DM in the negative, two of which decided to invert both modals. In other words, Marginal Modal used to is located in the second tier of the combination whereas central modal would is positioned in the first tier of the DM, which gives the following clauses:

~~(1) He never used to would drink black coffee. (2012) M1 M2 R R~~

~~(2) He would not used to drink black coffee. (2012) M2 M1 R R~~

~~(3) He would never use to drink coffee late at night. (2013) M2 M1 R R~~

The DMs present in these three sentences are all Root-Root combinations. No matter how the modals are placed or the type of negator selected for the DM, the epistemic notion is excluded here. The three clauses express the habitual past about an event that has actually never occurred. This means that this action may occur in the present time. Regarding semantic interpretations, the priority is given to the notion of past habits for the first clause due to the presence of used to identified as M1 positioned in the first slot of the DM. Here it represents the dominant sense which gives the following paraphrase:

~~In former times, he never had a habit of drinking black coffee. (2012)~~

Would put in second position only accentuates this notion of past habit. The sense changes slightly when both modals change place. This time would carries the main meaning of the clause expressing the notion of volition followed by used to that carries on the notion of past habit. The other two clauses have thus the following paraphrases:

~~178~~

~~He formerly did not want to drink black coffee. (2012) He formerly never wanted to drink black coffee. (2013)~~

Although the use of used to would in the negative is exceptional, it is not ungrammatical in the idiolects of a minority of female informants. What is more, the hybrid DM is still identified as a compound composed of two modal forms, a Central Modal (full modality) would and a Marginal Modal (partial modality) used to since negators have been positioned between both modals M2 and M1. In this case, the MODAL-MODAL scheme applies for this hybrid compound in the negative.

~~7.3.2. The inversion of a hybrid~~

~~Two women in 2012 proposed to invert the hybrid DM used to would as follows:~~

~~(4) Would he (ever) used to drink black coffee? (written twice) M2 M1 R R~~

With this inversion, M2 is put in first position in the question whereas M1 is found after the subject. So far, no other informants have ever proposed the reverse. The scheme M1 + SUBJECT + M2 is not possible here because used to has just a partial modality unlike would. The “to” particle also poses a problem for the inversion since no true modals (can, must, would, will…) have this element in their morphology. It does not change the fact that both modal entities have root senses, the most significant being, to understand the question, the sense carried by M2, which gives the following paraphrase:

Did he (ever) want to drink black coffee at the time? These results show a clear tendency that indicates a very difficult compatibility of modal sequences with the interrogative system of English. However, Elsman’s (2007) and Battistella’s (1991) research showed that this compatibility can increase if the sequences are reduced to two modals and if they are quite recognizable by many Anglophone speakers such as will can, might can, might could… Most of the examples in the interrogative form analyzed contain these MMs. Even with these ubiquitous combinations, the inversion process is

179 generally less used with the Multiple Modality system than the negation process. This situation is not just observable in Southern Scotland but also in the American South as Ellison (2007) asserts:

Although researchers of Southern US dialects have determined acceptable patterns of inversion, they all report that many informants reject or at least avoid the usage of many MMCs (Multiple Modal Combinations) in inverted forms. [Gregory Ellison 2007: 90]

~~7.4. Conclusion~~

Observing the Multiple Modality system in syntactic forms other than in the affirmative is quite rare at the present time. Only well-known DMs like might could are more easily accepted with the presence of negative or interrogative processes than TMs or DMs that are composed of various modal forms. Only the Marginal Modal used to is proposed more often by the informants in both syntactic forms, especially in Yes-No Questions. It is even more so the case for the Central Modal would. Unlike will should can, used to would was more often substituted by primary auxiliaries such as do, does, did and other Central Modals such as will, can and could in the negative and interrogative. Contrary to the affirmative form, the Multiple Modality system generally shows its constraints very swiftly. The syntactic complexity of many modal combinations does not enable the informants to break these current constraints. At the same time, the exceptions described above can represent an independent section of the current syntactic development of the system shared by a minority of the Borders’ populations.

~~180~~

~~8. Combinatorial possibilities currently acceptable in the Scottish Borders: final task of the 2012 and 2013 questionnaire surveys~~

Results obtained in the last task show that the future of MMs is not compromised despite a greater presence of Standard English grammatical features in public and private conversations and written communications in Scottish daily life. In this sixth and last task of the questionnaire, informants really took the time to complete it by being absolutely sure of their choice among the 30 DMs and TMs (list on page six of the 2012 and 2013 questionnaire) selected for both surveys. The modal combinations all appeared in the previous tasks, which enables every informant to confirm her/his choices at the very end of the questionnaire. The main goal of the task was simply to classify the 30 MMs according to five usage frequencies indicated in the table below:

MM MM MM Structures Structures Structures MM I use under Structures I use I use once special that I have MM regularly in a while circumstances already Structures (everyday, (not (rarely, on heard but that I have on multiple necessarily rare that I never never heard occasions) daily) occasions) use (of) A B C D E

~~In total, 83 informants completed this last task. Of these 83, 49 use MMs. Table below indicates the number of men and women in 2012 and 2013 who use some of these modal combinations:~~

~~USE OF MMs MEN WOMEN 12 out of 21 out of 2012 22 31 13 out of 2013 3 out of 8 22~~

~~181~~

Of these 49 informants, 34 selected in the list a various spectrum of modal combinations with levels of frequency that go from the regular use to the exceptional use (A through C). Concerning the remaining 15, their uses of MMs remain rare. They selected a minority of these 30 combinations in which they indicated either the second (B) or third (C) frequency. The list contains Scottish-English MMs, Scots MMs as well as MMs used in Northumberland. A limited number of American MMs have been added too. The five frequencies of the table above which are represented on bar graphs from page 184 to 246 give the tendency of use of each modal combination in the region. It has been noticed in both surveys that more than half of the list of MMs (16 out of 30 in 2012 and 18 out of 30 in 2013) is frequently used in the Scottish Borders. However, more than half of this list is used by a minority of informants in both surveys. The graphs that accompany each MM in the following pages clearly indicate that most of the informants choose the last two frequencies of the table, viz. D and E. Although each informant of this minority uses a various spectrum of modal combinations, each of them also has her/his own frequencies of use for these combinations. This selection of frequencies made by this minority for each modal combination allows the 30 MMs to be classified into three main groups: The first group contains the MMs that are spoken daily by most of the 49 informants. The common MMs belonging to this group in 2012 and 2013 are the following: should ought to, used to could, might ought to and use tae could. Frequencies A and B were selected for these four modal combinations. In the second group are mentioned the MMs that are spoken occasionally by the minority of the informants. Nine common DMs selected by over half of the 49 informants integrate this group in both surveys: might could, should can, would could, may not could, might not could’ve, must could, might better, winnae can and may should. Frequencies B and C were selected for these nine modal combinations. Finally, the last group contains the MMs which were basically rejected by the majority of the 83 informants, thus giving them little chance of survival in the near future. This third group contains 11 common MMs in both surveys, which are: used to widnae, may should ought, wull kin, used to would, will should could, might should oughta, will should can, have to can, should might better, might will can’t and may might can. Frequencies C, D and E were selected for these 11 modal combinations. In total, 24 modal combinations out of 30 remain in one single type of group in both surveys carried out in the (Western) Central and Eastern areas of the Borders.

~~182~~

~~The main observations of the final task of this dialectal study on Multiple Modals in the Scottish Borders are described below:~~

- Firstly, there are fewer and fewer Scottish informants at the outset of this new decade who maintain the presence of traditional Scottish MMs, viz. DMs and TMs that are mostly composed of core modals only, such as would could, should can, will might can, will should can…

- Secondly, they have incorporated in their usage the presence of new types of MMs which contain modals that were still considered as ungrammatical in Scottish-English and Scots dialects in the 1990’s as Jim Miller (1993: 116) asserts:

~~Broad Scots lacks SHALL, MAY and OUGHT. [Miller 1993: 116]~~

These new MMs, viz. may and ought, are now more accepted within the South-Eastern Scottish community. Thus DMs like ought to should, should ought to, may not could, and may should are now more commonly used in the heart of the Borders.

- Thirdly, in addition to the use of the modals may and ought in the Southern Scottish territory, a greater space is left to other types of modals that are very different from the core modals morphosyntactically speaking. In the modality literature, they have different grammatical identities such as marginal modals, semi or quasi modals and/or comparative modals. Although they are not new modal expressions, they are more welcome in the dialects of the Scottish Borders nowadays. This is especially the case for used to in used to could and its Scots counterparts use tae could and uisst tae coud. Ought to as a marginal modal (Quirk 1985: 137) in might ought to and better as a comparative modal (Van der Auwera 2010: 1) in might better are also considered as two of these types of modal expressions, which enables Multiple Modality system to show a new face in the Scottish Borders.

- Lastly, these changes do not stop speakers in the Borders from using certain traditional Scots DMs from time to time. This is the case for winnae can and must could. Some of these DMs maintain the Scots spelling and are therefore more resistant to change. The current changes of MMs in this part of Scotland essentially concerns DMs. TMs remain unpopular in the whole Borders’ region. After these remarks, it is now time to analyze in greater detail the different graphs that will show the female and male tendencies in usage for each modal combination used in the Scottish Borders.

~~183~~

~~8.1. The 2012 survey: enquiry on the Central and Western Scottish Borders area~~

~~8.1.1. Group 1: MMs used frequently by the informants~~

This is a minority group composed of four DMs which are: should ought to (23), used to could (27), might ought to (28) and use tae could (30). The numbers in brackets correspond to the ordering of MMs in the list written on the last page of the questionnaire. The four graphs are displayed below. Let’s start with should ought to:

~~SHOULD OUGHT TO (23)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 4 12,90% 3 13,64% B 8 25,81% 4 18,18% C 3 9,68% 4 18,18% D 10 32,26% 9 40,91% E 6 19,36% 2 9,09% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 1: Frequency of use of DM should ought to.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00% 30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 40,91%~~

~~15,00%~~

~~32,26%~~

~~10,00% 25,81%~~

~~19,36% 18,18%~~

~~5,00% 18,18%~~

~~13,64% 12,90%~~

~~9,68% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 1: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should ought to.~~

~~184~~

Each graph is accompanied by a table indicating the number of female and male respondents who determined their frequency of use for each MM. For this first graph, 15 women out of 31 and 11 men out of 22 selected one of the first three frequencies (A-B-C) which already implies that should ought to is a well recognized DM among the populations of the heart of the Borders. It remains a common DM that is mostly used in its root meaning, viz. it is used to give people advice or suggestions. Both modals are root in this case which was still a rare semantic ordering to find in Southern Scotland two decades ago. There is just a minority of people (six men and two women) who has never heard of this DM before.

~~185~~

~~USED TO COULD (27)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 7 22,58% 1 4,55% B 7 22,58% 6 27,27% C 2 6,45% 3 13,64% D 9 29,03% 6 27,27% E 6 19,36% 6 27,27% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 2: Frequency of use of DM used to could.~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00% Females~~

~~15,00% Males~~

~~29,03%~~

~~27,27% 27,27% 27,27%~~

~~10,00% 22,58%~~

~~22,58% 19,36% 5,00%~~

~~13,64% 4,55% 6,45% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 2: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to could.~~

Both high (A-B) and low (D-E) frequencies were selected by 14 and 15 women respectively and by seven and 12 men respectively. This DM presents much acceptance and rejection by both genders. However from the graphic, we can assert that women use and hear this DM quite frequently slightly more than men. This DM is special because it has nothing to do with traditional MMs only composed of core or pure modals such as will can or should could. This one contains a marginal modal followed by a core modal which makes it more special. Thus used to could is identified as a hybrid structure among others in the list of MMs.

~~186~~

~~MIGHT OUGHT TO (28)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 4 12,90% 2 9,09% B 8 25,81% 5 22,73% C 1 3,23% 5 22,73% D 9 29,03% 4 18,18% E 9 29,03% 6 27,27% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 3: Frequency of use of DM might ought to.~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00% Females~~

~~15,00% Males~~

~~29,03% 29,03%~~

~~27,27%~~

~~10,00% 25,81% 22,73%~~

~~22,73% 18,18% 5,00%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~9,09% 3,23% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 3: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might ought to.~~

The third DM might ought to, like used to could, is also a hybrid composed of a core modal followed by a marginal modal. In the graph, more women recognized their regular use of might ought to. Men prefer using the DM in occasional or exceptional circumstances. Although 13 women and 12 men chose the first three frequencies, nine female and six male informants did not recognize this dialectal structure which remains high for the last frequency. However, as with used to could, we find an interesting core group of people that have solid dialectal knowledge of the Multiple Modality system.

~~187~~

~~USE TAE COULD (30)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 5 16,13% 4 18,18% B 8 25,81% 2 9,09% C 2 6,45% 0 0,00% D 9 29,03% 6 27,27% E 7 22,58% 10 45,46% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 4: Frequency of use of DM use tae could.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00% 40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00% 25,00% Females~~

~~Males 20,00% 45,46% 15,00%~~

~~29,03%~~

~~10,00% 27,27%~~

~~25,81%~~

~~22,58% 18,18%~~

~~5,00% 16,13%~~

~~9,09% 0,00% 6,45% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 4: Histogram describing the frequency of use of use tae could.~~

Use tae could, despite its positive use by the female speakers, its usage by the men is in decline. Over 45 %, viz. 10 men informants in the table have never heard of this construction or any MMs before. Six among the 22 have already heard the DM but they have never spoken or written it. The women’s response creates a sort of counterbalance that finally gives this DM enough credibility to be maintained by at least one of the two genders in the future. And as in the previous three DMs, this one contains a marginal modal use tae written with the modern Scots spelling.

~~188~~

Eventually the DMs, which have mostly been given a positive frequency, are in fact all hybrids, which leads us to think that Scottish people leave less room to traditional DMs containing only core modals. They simply desire to see their dialectal knowledge change. The transformations of Scottish Border towns by the arrival of new people also contribute to a modification of the Multiple Modality system.

~~8.1.2. Group 2: MMs which have an occasional use~~

The twelve constructions which follow will represent the second group that, as I asserted before, are used occasionally, which means that their future remains uncertain. This depends on the decision of the speakers of what to make of them in a not-so-distant future. Nine out of 12 are MMs containing core modals only, four of which are in the negative. Three among the 12 are hybrids. The 12 modal combinations are displayed as follows:

- might could (2) (core modal combination) - should can (4) (core modal combination) - would could (7) (core modal combination) - may not could (8) (core modal combination in the negative) - uisst tae could (9) (hybrid modal combination) - might not could’ve (10) (core modal combination in the negative with a perfective auxiliary) - must could (11) (core modal combination) - might better (12) (hybrid modal combination) - winnae can (15) (core modal combination in the negative) - ought to should (16) (hybrid modal combination) - mustn’t could have (20) (core modal combination in the negative with a perfective auxiliary) - may should (24) (core modal combination)

~~189~~

~~MIGHT COULD (2)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 9,68% 2 9,09% B 5 16,13% 3 13,64% C 3 9,68% 2 9,09% D 13 41,94% 9 40,91% E 7 22,58% 6 27,27% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 5: Frequency of use of DM might could.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00% 30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males~~

~~41,94% 40,91% 15,00%~~

~~10,00% 27,27%~~

~~22,58%~~

~~5,00% 16,13%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~9,68% 9,68% 9,09% 9,09% 0,00%~~

~~A B C D E~~

~~Figure 5: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might could.~~

The DMs of this group are in a fragile state although this is not a negative state in general. Some of them are likely to survive reaching a similar frequency of use as the other four DMs analyzed previously. It is probably the case of might could. As the graphic shows, the “queen of combinations”, as Juan-de-la-Cruz (1995: 82) used to call it in his paper, is no longer the favorite DM for the informants of the heart of the Scottish Borders. More positive results were given in the previous two surveys especially in Hawick which really means that this DM is used more locally nowadays than in the previous decades. However the results here are not so negative since over 20 informants recognized having heard of it more in other towns than in their own. It is not yet a stigmatized feature and the 11 women and seven men in the table above who selected one of the three frequencies still confirm its popularity in this traditional region.

~~190~~

~~SHOULD CAN (4)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 5 16,13% 2 9,09% B 0 0,00% 3 13,64% C 2 6,45% 5 22,73% D 11 35,48% 6 27,27% E 13 41,94% 6 27,27% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 6: Frequency of use of DM should can.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00% 30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 41,94% 15,00%~~

~~35,48% 27,27% 10,00% 27,27% 22,73%~~

~~5,00% 16,13%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~0,00% 6,45% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 6: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should can.~~

Should can is not a new DM that has just arrived in the Scottish Borders. On the contrary, it is a traditional Hawick DM composed of two central modals (also called core modals) which has been used less over these past few years but it still has a greater potential mostly in its spoken use. The bar graph above shows that it is mainly men who do not totally reject the structure. Over 22 % use it on a limited number of occasions and over 13 % use it once in a while. Women clearly have begun abandoning the use of should can. Over 35 % declare having heard it and over 41% assert they no longer spoke or wrote it. Should this construction be saved, it will be in all likelihood by the male gender. The same cannot be said for the next traditional Scottish-English DM would could.

~~191~~

~~WOULD COULD (7)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 2 6,45% 1 4,55% B 3 9,68% 3 13,64% C 4 12,90% 3 13,64% D 12 38,71% 6 27,27% E 10 32,26% 9 40,91% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 7: Frequency of use of DM would could.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00% 35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~20,00% 40,91% 15,00% 38,71% 32,26% 10,00% 27,27%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~13,64% 13,64%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~9,68%~~

~~6,45% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E Figure 7: Histogram describing the frequency of use of would could.~~

This traditional DM belongs to two areas of the UK, which is why the expression “Scottish- English would could” is more appropriate. It is used both in rural areas of Northumberland and in the town of Hawick as well as in the whole Southern area of the Borders. Yet, its use is decreasing dangerously. Only nine women out of 31 and seven men out of 22 respond positively to this DM. They have a regular and occasional use of it. Many women and men said they heard it very regularly and a great number of them also said they had never encountered a dialectal structure of this type before.

~~192~~

~~MAY NOT COULD (8)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 3,23% 0 0,00% B 2 6,45% 4 18,18% C 2 6,45% 4 18,18% D 12 38,71% 4 18,18% E 14 45,16% 10 45,46% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 8: Frequency of use of DM may not could.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00% 45,46% 45,16%~~

~~15,00% 38,71%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~18,18% 18,18% 5,00% 18,18%~~

~~3,23% 0,00% 6,45% 6,45% 0,00% A B C D E Figure 8: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may not could.~~

May not could is one of the new DMs that came into the Scottish Borders in the 1990’s. However, in the heart of the region where Galashiels, Selkirk and Innerleithen are located, it is not used quite a great deal. Just a small majority of men use it once in a while and in special circumstances. According to the graph, over 38 % of women hear this negative DM on the street and strangely just over 18% of men hear it in the center of the Borders. However the men’s determination may imply a continuous use of may not could in the future. The presence of the negator between both central modals very probably explains why the DM is slowly disappearing. Some informants generally prefer speaking or writing MMs without using additional complements (a negator, a quantifier or an adverb) to the structure or cutting an MM into two when using it in a question.

~~193~~

~~UISST TAE COUD (9)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 9,68% 2 9,09% B 6 19,36% 3 13,64% C 1 3,23% 2 9,09% D 9 29,03% 5 22,73% E 12 38,71% 10 45,46% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 9: Frequency of use of DM uisst tae coud.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 45,46% 15,00% 38,71%~~

~~10,00% 29,03%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~5,00% 19,36%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~9,09% 3,23% 9,09% 9,68% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 9: Histogram describing the frequency of use of uisst tae coud.~~

Both the table and the graph show a greater use of the Scots DM uisst tae coud by the female informants. They are even more numerous than men to claim they hear this DM on the street. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the addition of a negative marker or the inversion of one of the elements of the DM would make the use of this type of DM ungrammatical. It is important to note that, despite the considerable number of modal combinations existing in the Western English-speaking world, only a small portion of them undergoes modifications by the speakers when they are present in a negative clause or in a question. Here, based on the percentages, uisst tae coud can only be stabilized if it continues being used in affirmative clauses.

~~194~~

~~MIGHT NOT COULD'VE (10)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 2 6,45% 1 4,55% B 5 16,13% 5 22,73% C 0 0,00% 2 9,09% D 13 41,94% 8 36,36% E 11 35,48% 6 27,27% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 10: Frequency of use of DM might not could’ve.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00% 35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females 20,00% Males~~

~~41,94% 36,36%~~

~~15,00% 35,48%~~

~~10,00% 27,27%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~5,00% 16,13%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~6,45% 4,55% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 10: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might not could’ve.~~

This DM is composed of two central modals as well as the uncontracted negator not located between might and could and the contracted auxiliary have positioned after the second modal which means that only a past participle verb can be written after the DM. A slightly higher number of men (seven of them) use the DM once in a while and on special occasions as well as five women. They were five regarding women. Only two women and one man use the DM on a day-to-day basis. Both genders (over 41% of women and over 36% of men) confirmed that they have already heard the DM without using it. In terms of figures, this represents 13 women and eight men. Despite its complexity, might not could’ve is not yet identified as a totally ungrammatical MM. A strong minority still maintains it essentially in the oral medium.

~~195~~

~~MUST COULD (11)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 5 16,13% 2 9,09% B 4 12,90% 2 9,09% C 1 3,23% 2 9,09% D 9 29,03% 7 31,82% E 12 38,71% 9 40,91% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 11: Frequency of use of DM must could.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 40,91%~~

~~38,71% 15,00%~~

~~31,82% 29,03% 10,00%~~

~~5,00% 16,13%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~9,09% 9,09% 9,09% 3,23% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 11: Histogram describing the frequency of use of must could.~~

Contrary to might not could’ve, there is a greater rejection of must could, which is a traditional Southern Scottish DM. 12 women and nine men have no recollection of such a dialectal structure whereas nine women and seven men have already heard it on the street. As for the rest of the informants, nine women and four men mostly speak the structure regularly whereas one woman and two men use it on special occasions. Although it has been present long enough in Scottish linguistic history, must could is spoken less and less by the Scottish population of the Borders. However, based on the graph above, the DM tends to be maintained by female rather than male informants. Of course, the situation may be different elsewhere in Scotland.

~~196~~

~~MIGHT BETTER (12)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 4 12,90% 2 9,09% B 5 16,13% 2 9,09% C 4 12,90% 3 13,64% D 8 25,81% 7 31,82% E 10 32,26% 8 36,36% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 12: Frequency of use of DM might better.~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00% Females Males~~

~~15,00% 36,36% 32,26% 31,82%~~

~~10,00% 25,81%~~

~~5,00% 16,13%~~

~~13,64% 12,90%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~9,09% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E Figure 12: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might better.~~

Nowadays, might better is a more recognizable DM than two decades ago. It is used in the Southern United States too and like might could, might better becomes more popular in regions of the Anglophone world accepting the presence of MMs. The table and the graph show results which are quite encouraging especially from the women’s side. The meaning of this DM is, in the main, simpler to decipher unlike the previous ones which could give rise to an increasing use of this DM in the near future.

~~197~~

~~WINNAE CAN (15)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 6 19,36% 3 13,64% B 2 6,45% 3 13,64% C 1 3,23% 2 9,09% D 14 45,16% 6 27,27% E 8 25,81% 8 36,36% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 13: Frequency of use of DM winnae can.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00% 40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00% 45,16%~~

~~15,00% 36,36%~~

~~27,27% 10,00% 25,81%~~

~~5,00% 19,36%~~

~~13,64% 13,64%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~6,45% 3,23% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 13: Histogram describing the frequency of use of winnae can.~~

Nine women and eight men claim to speak and write this traditional Scots DM and 20 informants hear winnae can more than once in the different towns of the Borders. As with may not could and must could, it is in a fragile state. The last two frequencies indicate high rates of non use of this DM by the informants. However, it is still maintained by a non- insignificant minority group of informants. These informants have mainly chosen the first two frequencies rather than the third one which is a good sign.

~~198~~

~~OUGHT TO SHOULD (16)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 2 6,45% 1 4,55% B 4 12,90% 5 22,73% C 1 3,23% 2 9,09% D 11 35,48% 7 31,82% E 13 41,94% 7 31,82% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 14: Frequency of use of DM ought to should.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00% 35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 41,94%~~

~~15,00% 35,48%~~

~~31,82% 31,82% 10,00% 22,73% 5,00%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~6,45% 4,55% 3,23% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 14: Histogram describing the frequency of use of ought to should.~~

According to the table, most speakers who use this type of DM have chosen the second frequency out of the five, especially the men speakers. The second frequency corresponds to an occasional use of the construction in question, in this case it is ought to should. It does not have the success of should ought to and in the main, marginal modal ought (to) put in the first tier of a DM or TM, is considered by most informants as ungrammatical. It is preferable to put it either in the second or especially in the third tier of a TM. There is a lot of non-recognition of the DM particularly on the women’s side where over 41% have never heard of ought to should.

~~199~~

~~MUSTN'T COULD HAVE (20)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 4 12,90% 1 4,55% B 2 6,45% 2 9,09% C 4 12,90% 4 18,18% D 10 32,26% 6 27,27% E 11 35,48% 9 40,91% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 15: Frequency of use of mustn’t could have.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00% 35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males~~

~~40,91%~~

~~15,00% 35,48% 32,26%~~

~~10,00% 27,27%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~5,00% 12,90%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~4,55% 6,45% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 15: Histogram describing the frequency of use of mustn’t could have.~~

Mustn’t could have is a Northumberland English DM whose the use among the inhabitants of the Scottish Borders keeps increasing especially among the men speakers. Over 18 % use it on special occasions and 9.09% use it now and again. There is also a slow progression on the women’s side, viz. over 12% of them use it in regular (frequency A) and special occasions (frequency C). As for its morphosyntax, people prefer contracting either the negation, as showed here, or the have auxiliary. Contracting both elements or neither of them are also two possible solutions but they are used more rarely. Although many informants still have no knowledge of this DM at present, its use is progressing slowly and steadily.

~~200~~

~~MAY SHOULD (24)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 9,68% 3 13,64% B 5 16,13% 3 13,64% C 2 6,45% 1 4,55% D 9 29,03% 8 36,36% E 12 38,71% 7 31,82% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 16: Frequency of use of DM may should.~~

~~45,00% 40,00%~~

~~35,00% 30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females 20,00%~~

~~Males 38,71%~~

~~15,00% 36,36% 31,82% 10,00% 29,03%~~

~~5,00% 16,13%~~

~~13,64% 13,64%~~

~~9,68%~~

~~6,45% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 16: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may should.~~

Both genders (over 10 % of them) speak and write this DM regularly and occasionally. As with mustn’t could have, the tendency has a greater chance of being reversed and to finally see this DM as a future common MM feature in the incoming decades in Southern Scotland. These 12 constructions present a potential of use that is still effective for the years to come. It is not guaranteed that all of them will survive in one decade or two but this 2012 field survey shows that a solid group of male and female informants do not want to see these dialectal structures disappear in the near future. Some of them realize the importance of the MMs in their culture and at the same time the reactions can be so violent towards their use. Each structure can only be treated separately. Each of them has a unique use. The next and last group displays modal combinations that are barely used in the region.

~~201~~

~~8.1.3. Group 3: MMs which are barely used~~

The frequencies in the 14 histograms (figures 17-30) are so low that, for over 50 % of the informants (last bar, E, of each histogram), their morphosyntax is totally incomprehensible. For over 30 % of them (Bar D of each histogram), these MMs are recognizable without a single use. TMs represent the modal combinations that have the lowest use. Due to the negative results in this group, only five MMs will be analyzed. Contrary to the other nine set forth in the first appendix on page 259, this small group of MMs still has a slight chance of survival but at the same time the results of these five MMs remain too low in order for them to take part in the second group. Here are the five MMs that will be analyzed:

~~- Will can (1) (Hawick Scots DM) - Wouldn’t could’ve (18) (Northumbrian-English DM) - Used to widnae (19) (Scots DM) - May should ought (25) (US TM) - Will might can (26) (Hawick Scots TM)~~

~~202~~

~~WILL CAN (1)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 9,68% 1 4,55% B 4 12,90% 2 9,09% C 1 3,23% 1 4,55% D 14 45,16% 10 45,46% E 9 29,03% 8 36,36% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 26: Frequency of use of DM will can.~~

~~50,00% 45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00% 25,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00%~~

~~45,46% 45,16%~~

~~15,00% 36,36%~~

~~29,03% 10,00%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~9,68%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~4,55% 3,23% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 26: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will can.~~

Over 10 % of the female informants, which represents four women in the table, use this DM once in a while. If we count all the actual uses, we have the following: eight women out of 31 speak this DM and only four men out of 22 use it mostly orally. These results show that the women give a greater chance of survival to this DM. What is also positive in the bar graph is the percentage of people who claims to hear will can without using it personally. They represent over 45% among men and women speakers. Will can is starting to become a quasi- exclusive non-standard female feature. Let us now have a look at wouldn’t could’ve.

~~203~~

~~WOULDN'T COULD'VE (18)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 9,68% 2 9,09% B 2 6,45% 2 9,09% C 1 3,23% 4 18,18% D 11 35,48% 6 27,27% E 14 45,16% 8 36,36% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 27: Frequency of use of DM wouldn’t could’ve.~~

~~50,00% 45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females Males 20,00%~~

~~45,16%~~

~~15,00% 36,36% 35,48%~~

~~10,00% 27,27%~~

~~5,00% 18,18%~~

~~9,09% 6,45% 9,09% 3,23% 9,68% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 27: Histogram describing the frequency of use of wouldn’t could’ve.~~

This time the situation is reversed. Over 18 % of men claim to use this DM orally essentially in special circumstances whereas women are only slightly over 3% of women to claim that they use it. Regarding frequencies A and B, which represent the highest ones, the differences between women and men are not significant. Over 9% of both genders claim to speak the DM regularly. It remains a small percentage, which puts the future use of wouldn’t could’ve in serious difficulty. However this DM can be saved by the slight advantage of the male informants who are almost 20% to use it in special occasions. The next DM used to widnae is in a similar situation to wouldn’t could’ve.

~~204~~

~~USED TO WIDNAE (19)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 2 6,45% 1 4,55% B 1 3,23% 0 0,00% C 4 12,90% 3 13,64% D 13 41,94% 8 36,36% E 11 35,48% 10 45,46% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 28: Frequency of use of DM used to widnae.~~

~~50,00% 45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00% 25,00% Females Males 20,00%~~

~~45,46% 41,94%~~

~~15,00% 36,36% 35,48%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~5,00% 13,64%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~6,45% 4,55% 3,23% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 28: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to widnae.~~

According to the bar graph, this is a Scots DM used regularly by a very small portion of the informants. Over 12 % of women and 13 % of men use it in exceptional circumstances, which corresponds to the third frequency C. The other frequencies especially A and B, based on their percentage, do not indicate a clear tendency toward a great popularity of used to widnae which puts it anyway in a very difficult position. However, as in the previous DMs, it is heard by quite a few informants who do not use it personally. The last two MMs that have a chance of survival, despite their tendency of use, are TMs, because they are the only ones, in all of the TMs on the list, to show percentages exceeding 10% of use among the Scottish respondents.

~~205~~

~~MAY SHOULD OUGHT (25)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 3,23% 1 4,55% B 1 3,23% 3 13,64% C 3 9,68% 3 13,64% D 8 25,81% 3 13,64% E 18 58,07% 12 54,55% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 29: Frequency of use of TM may should ought.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~30,00% Males~~

~~58,07% 20,00% 54,55%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~25,81%~~

~~13,64% 13,64% 13,64%~~

~~9,68% 4,55% 3,23% 3,23% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 29: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may should ought.~~

This case is slightly different. It is a TM that is not often heard by the population of the Borders contrary to the previous DMs. However, both frequencies B and C show that 13.64% of men use the TM once in a while and on special occasions which represents six men out of 22 on the table. This small core group of men may not be enough to maintain this construction in the long run as a high percentage of people (58.07% of men and 54.55 % of women) rejects it. The last of the five MMs will might can does not show exactly the same tendency as can be seen below.

~~206~~

~~WILL MIGHT CAN (26)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 0 0,00% 0 0,00% B 4 12,90% 2 9,09% C 1 3,23% 4 18,18% D 11 35,48% 6 27,27% E 15 48,39% 10 45,46% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 30: Frequency of use of TM will might can.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00% 48,39% 45,46%~~

~~35,48%~~

~~10,00% 27,27%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~12,90%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 9,09% 3,23% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 30: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will might can.~~

This is another TM which is heard more often than may might can as shown on the table above. The percentages are more encouraging since more than 18 % of men use it on special occasions and over 12% of women use it from time to time. This proves that it remains an important dialectal feature of daily life for both genders. Will might can is slightly more popular than may might can because it is a Scottish TM. It is deeper-rooted in the Scottish ground than in the other non-European MMs which arrived in the region just two decades ago as in the case of may might can.

~~207~~

For this last part, it is clear that it will be extremely difficult in regards to most of the 14 MMs to have a reversal of the situation towards a positive use in the incoming decades. Most of the TMs are barely used and their use continues to decrease. For nine modal combinations, their future is already sealed. If we look closely at the remaining five, their future remains uncertain. Only time and more research will tell if these five special MMs are integrated enough to remain in use in Southern Scotland for a long while.

Multiple Modality remains a well known minority group of DMs recognizable by most of the Scottish informants in the center of the Borders. Nevertheless, a strong minority of the population has a real use of them essentially in the spoken medium. This last task showed a true creativity and diversity in the use of MMs because this dialectal phenomenon is in constant change mostly in a positive way with half of the MMs present in the list that have a good potential of survival in the incoming decades. The TMs, in this final task, are the only ones who suffer the most. They are almost always incomprehensible and some of them are not recognizable by the Scottish population. It is mainly due to their morphological complexity. It happens to be much more difficult for the informants to give a meaning to a structure composed of more than two modals. Most informants do not know the specific rules that must be applied to use this complex group of TMs in the three forms of the clause (affirmative, negative and interrogative). Even in theoretical papers, few explanations are given regarding their grammatical behavior and how they are supposed to be employed in the various syntactic forms of the clause. Can all the TMs be inverted or negated or are there several exceptions to these grammatical processes? Other Southern regions of Scotland, such as the Lothians may reveal a greater use of TM combinations. Further grammatical and syntactic analyses of these structures need to be made by means of new field enquiries that would zero in on their geographical presence in Scotland at the turn of this new decade.

~~208~~

~~8.2. The 2013 survey: enquiry on the Eastern Scottish Borders area~~

Structures Structures I use under Structures I use special that I have regularly Structures circumstances already Structures (everyday, (rarely, on heard but that I have on multiple I use once rare that I never never heard occasions) in a while occasions) use (of) A B C D E

Eastern Borders’ informants have exactly the same list of MMs in the last task of the questionnaire survey as the Central and Western Borders’ people in 2012. The informants of the Eastern coast also have to confirm the information they indicated in the previous tasks of the questionnaire. In other terms, based on their knowledge, interpretations and general experience of the Multiple Modality system, they have to select the MM combinations they actually use in their own dialects and those that can never have their place in their social, professional and private life. As in the 2012 survey, they have to make their final decisions based on five degrees of frequency, identified by the first five letters of the alphabet, going from the regular use to the complete ignorance of modal combinations. Furthermore, each MM will be accompanied by a bar graph that indicates the level of recognition and use of each modal combination. Each graph will also be accompanied by a table indicating the number of female and male informants who selected the frequencies for each MM. Therefore, as in 2012, three groups will be created to classify the combinations:

- Firstly, the MMs which are used frequently by the Scottish informants (group 1). - Secondly, the MMs which have an occasional use but they remain in a fragile state (group 2). - Thirdly, the MMs which have very little chance of survival due to a low use. They are in a state of collapse (group 3).

By comparing with the previous study, it will be interesting to observe if the same modal combinations are condemned to a high or low use by the Scottish informants or on the contrary if the social and cultural attitudes toward these constructions on the Eastern coasts indicate other preferences and choices of frequency among the 30 modal combinations. Let’s start with the first group of MMs.

~~209~~

~~8.2.1. Group 1: MMs used frequently by the informants~~

This first group, as in the 2012 field survey, is composed of a minority of modal combinations. However, two more MMs, mustn’t could have and uisst tae coud, which belonged to the second group in 2012, join the first group in the 2013 study. Six bar graphs are represented illustrating the following DMs:

~~- Should ought to (23) - Used to could (27) - Use tae could (30) - Uisst tae coud (9) - might ought to (28) - Mustn’t could have (20)~~

Group 1 of 2013 confirms the tendency already observed in 2012 in the towns of Galashiels, Selkirk and Peebles, viz. a greater attraction toward the use of combinations made up of various modal expressions, away from the traditional CENTRAL MODAL-CENTRAL MODAL combination type. Five of the six MMs have in their syntactic structures marginal modals, identified by ought to, used to, used tae could, uisst tae coud and central modals, that is, should, could and might. Mustn’t could have could be an exception but it is not the case. This Northern English DM also presents some specific characteristics which are the presence of a contracted negator after the first modal followed by an uncontracted perfective aspectual marker after the second modal. These are different grammatical specificities from the other five but they are already significant to move this DM away from the traditional combinatory model. These hybrid forms of MMs give a clearer direction as for the future development and eventual new expansion of Multiple Modality in the Scottish Borders and beyond. The adjective “eventual” is used because it is not guaranteed that this current linguistic tendency extends to other regions of Scotland or English-speaking territories located outside the country or the continent. However, it is not impossible to assert that the Scottish Borders can become the nerve centre of the change of the Multiple Modality system if it spreads widely and efficiently elsewhere. For the time being, let’s analyze the six bar graphs of group 1 by starting with should ought to.

~~210~~

~~SHOULD OUGHT TO (23)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 5 22,73% 0 0,00% B 5 22,73% 1 14,29% C 2 9,09% 2 28,57% D 7 31,82% 3 42,86% E 3 13,64% 1 14,29% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 31: Frequency of use of DM should ought to.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00% 30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females 20,00% Males 42,86%~~

~~15,00% 31,82%~~

~~10,00% 28,57% 22,73% 22,73%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~14,29% 14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~9,09% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 31: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should ought to.~~

In this graph, the majority of the female informants, that is, 12 out of 22, represents a regular user group, essentially in the oral medium of the DM should ought to. Five confirm speaking the structure daily. Five others also stated using the DM often, which corresponds to letter B. Finally two women have a limited use of should ought to. Only 10 women do not use it at all. As for the men, the tendency is more negative with only one out of seven regularly using this combination and two among the seven using it quite rarely. As with the other MMs on the list, it remains difficult to draw a conclusion of the state of use of MMs among the male informants in the Eastern coasts of the Borders because they were too few to participate in the survey. The number of male participants was much higher in the previous field survey but in

211 the main, it has been noticed that the female informants have always been more inclined to take part in this type of linguistic survey. Curiosity and the natural desire to protect a part of their linguistic heritage also explain this behavior.

~~212~~

~~USED TO COULD (27)~~

Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 5 22,73% 0 0,00% B 4 18,18% 1 14,29% C 2 9,09% 2 28,57% D 6 27,27% 2 28,57% E 5 22,73% 2 28,57% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00% Table 32: Frequency of use of DM used to could.

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~15,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~28,57% 28,57% 28,57%~~

~~27,27%~~

~~10,00% 22,73% 22,73%~~

~~18,18% 5,00% 14,29%~~

~~9,09% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 32: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to could.~~

Used to could in this graph is spoken by eleven women and three men. The situation is quite similar to the previous graph. Like should ought to, used to could presents the same morphosyntactic characteristics, viz. a combination of modal expressions made up of a central modal and a marginal modal. Of course these combinations of morphemes have been existing for a long time before the beginning of the research on MMs in the 1970’s. The difference now is their increasing expansion in the system of Multiple Modality, which puts other types of more traditional modal combinations aside. The system is both reinforced by the growing acceptance of more of these complex MMs and fragilized by the greater disinterest of the other combinations that do not have these specificities. The other forms of used to could, written this time with different Scots spellings, also show a stronger regain of interest.

~~213~~

~~USE TAE COULD (30)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 6 27,27% 1 14,29% B 3 13,64% 0 0,00% C 1 4,55% 0 0,00% D 11 50,00% 3 42,86% E 1 4,55% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 33: Frequency of use of DM use tae could.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~20,00% 50,00%~~

~~42,86% 42,86%~~

~~10,00% 27,27%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~0,00% 4,55% 0,00% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E Figure 33: Histogram describing the frequency of use of use tae could.~~

This DM represents the modern Scots version of used to could. The modifications are slight but they already reveal the importance of its use among the female informants. 10 use it regularly and 11 regularly hear it too. Use tae could has the same impact, as used to could, on a small part of the Southern Scottish population. It is a core group mostly composed of women who, by their own activities in Scottish towns, make this construction gain more ground in the entire region.

~~214~~

~~UISST TAE COUD (9)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 4 18,18% 0 0,00% B 2 9,09% 1 14,29% C 3 13,64% 1 14,29% D 8 36,36% 2 28,57% E 5 22,73% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 34: Frequency of use of DM uisst tae coud.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 42,86%~~

~~15,00% 36,36%~~

~~10,00% 28,57%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~5,00% 18,18%~~

~~14,29% 14,29%~~

~~13,64% 9,09% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 34: Histogram describing the frequency of use of uisst tae coud.~~

Uisst tae coud is a former Scots modal combination. Despite its morphological complexity, it remains understandable by the same group of female informants and it thus continues to be used actively in Scottish society. However, five women stated that they had never heard of this DM, this is four women more compared with the previous graph where use tae could was only unknown by one woman. The complexity of the spelling no matter its position can keep certain native speakers from using it indefinitely, which will eventually lead to the collapse of the dialectal structure. Uisst tae coud is not in this situation yet with 17 women who recognize the dialectal combination, nine of whom use it in their life. Only one man asserted that he regularly uses this combination and another one who barely uses it.

~~215~~

~~MIGHT OUGHT TO (28)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 4 19,05% 0 0,00% B 5 23,81% 2 28,57% C 2 9,52% 1 14,29% D 6 28,57% 2 28,57% E 4 19,05% 2 28,57% Total 21 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 35: Frequency of use of DM might ought to.~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~15,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~28,57% 28,57% 28,57% 28,57%~~

~~10,00% 23,81% 19,05% 19,05%~~

~~5,00% 14,29%~~

~~9,52% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 35: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might ought to.~~

With should ought to, might ought to is the second most used DM on the list of 30 MMs. 11 women and three men know the combination quite well in both media although the oral use remains the dominant environment in which the combination can fully expand on a day-today basis. It is quite amazing to reach this level of acceptance for both DMs nowadays with the rejection of some modals in the (Multiple) Modality and the Scots grammatical systems 20 years ago: Broad Scots lacks SHALL, MAY and OUGHT. [Miller 1993: 116] Except for shall, the other two modals are at present more accepted by the Scottish population of the Borders in both the Single and Multiple Modality systems. This is a very rapid change that no one could have envisaged in the 1980’s.

~~216~~

~~MUSTN'T COULD HAVE (20)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 5 23,81% 0 0,00% B 3 14,29% 0 0,00% C 2 9,52% 2 28,57% D 3 14,29% 2 28,57% E 8 38,10% 3 42,86% Total 21 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 36: Frequency of use of DM mustn’t could have.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00% 25,00% Females 20,00% Males 42,86%~~

~~15,00% 38,10% 28,57%~~

~~10,00% 28,57% 23,81%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~14,29% 14,29%~~

~~9,52% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 36: Histogram describing the frequency of use of mustn’t could have.~~

With its negative contraction and its perfective aspect, mustn’t could have is an English DM which is gaining more ground in the Scottish Borders region in the 21st century. Like the other DMs previously mentioned, it also has its own specificities that remain different from the traditional Southern Scottish MMs. The negation and the aspect represent these important changes because must could is a typical Scottish DM in the Borders. These changes may be less significant compared with the changing of modals or spellings of modals in a combination, but they are in reality equally important and decisive for the future transformations of the Multiple Modality system in a specific Anglophone region. The effect is the same as in the previous five combinations. There is a high use of Northern English mustn’t could have among eight Scottish female informants out of 21. Two other women use

217 it on rare occasions and 11 never use it. As for men, two speak this combination rarely and five reject it. Only one person did not indicate a letter of frequency next to this construction, which is why there are 21 women mentioned in the total line of the table instead of 22.

Except for the addition of two more MMs, this is the same series of modal combinations displayed in this first group as in the 2012 field survey. Though both 2012 and 2013 surveys took place in two remote geographical areas of the Borders, the observations made regarding the current use of these six modal combinations is remarkably similar. It is not just the first group which shows such similarities. The other two almost always display exactly the same DMs and TMs confirming the tendencies observed in Galashiels and Selkirk in 2012.

~~8.2.2. Group 2: MMs which have an occasional use~~

This group is constituted by 12 MMs. The first column below displays nine MMs that were already present in the second group of the 2012 study while the second column contains three MMs that did not appear in group 2 in 2012:

Column 1 Column 2 - might could (2) - will can (3) - would could (7) - wouldn’t could’ve (22) - winnae can (15) - will might can (6) - might better (12) - must could (11) - might not could’ve (10) - should can (4) - may should (24) - may not could (8)

In this list, we find different types of combinations composed of central modals only, e.g. might could and must could. There are DMs accompanied by the negator not after the first modal in combinations (10) and (8) above. One DM, whose first modal is written with the Modern Scots spelling in the negative, gives winnae in combination (15). Finally there is one DM that is composed of the central modal might followed by what is termed, according to

~~218~~

Van der Auwera and de Wit, comparative modal better. Might better and other DMs containing in their structure comparative modals such as better can and would better are also mentioned in Battistella’s 1995 paper dealing with the syntax of the Multiple Modality system (1995: 20-21). These types of combinations represent one of the main contemporary groups of MMs which are currently affecting the traditional Scottish model of Multiple Modality. These nine MMs are rich in their morphosyntactic and semantic diversity in Anglophone territories accepting their presence. This has been the case for the Scottish Borders over these past 25 years. However, their existence in the near future remains uncertain due to the current rapid linguistic changes of the Scottish informants. The ongoing transformations of the Borders’ towns based partly on the arrival of new groups of people but also with the search for new jobs or lodgings in more or less remote areas of the Borders create unstable conditions for dialectal morphemes such as MMs. Some, in this list, will survive in the long run but some are likely to become outdated combinations for an indefinite period of time. Let’s start with the graph of might could:

~~219~~

~~MIGHT COULD (2)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 4 18,18% 0 0,00% B 5 22,73% 1 14,29% C 1 4,55% 0 0,00% D 9 40,91% 4 57,14% E 3 13,64% 2 28,57% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 37: Frequency of use of DM might could.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females 30,00% Males~~

~~57,14% 20,00%~~

~~40,91%~~

~~10,00% 28,57%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~0,00% 4,55% 0,00% 14,29% 13,64% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 37: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might could.~~

Among the 22 female respondents, 10 continue using might could essentially in the oral medium. Of these 10, nine speak it on a day-to-day basis and only one uses might could when the situation is exceptional, for example, when traditions in the towns of the Borders are celebrated. Although might could is the most popular combination in the Western Anglophone world, its use remains more limited in this part of the European continent unlike in the American South. It is even more limited among the male informants with only one out of seven using it quite often.

~~220~~

~~WOULD COULD (7)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 2 9,09% 0 0,00% B 2 9,09% 2 28,57% C 4 18,18% 0 0,00% D 11 50,00% 3 42,86% E 3 13,64% 2 28,57% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 38: Frequency of use of DM would could.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00% 50,00%~~

~~42,86%~~

~~28,57% 10,00% 28,57%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~0,00% 9,09% 0,00% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 38: Histogram describing the frequency of use of would could.~~

Regarding this Scottish-English DM, also present among the rural Northumbrians according to Joan Beal (1993: 195-196), the bar graph shows that it is more often heard by the informants than it is spoken and written in the Southern Scottish society. Nevertheless, eight women and two men continue using it. 11 women and three men just hear it without integrating the DM into their own dialect(s) and three women and two men have never heard of the combination. Based on the data, the situation of would could is slightly more fragile than might could despite its current use both in Northern England and Southern Scotland. It can also be said that this DM still exists because of its linguistic-cultural bridge with these two geographical areas that a group of British citizens maintains.

~~221~~

~~WINNAE CAN (15)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 3 13,64% 0 0,00% B 5 22,73% 0 0,00% C 2 9,09% 1 14,29% D 10 45,46% 3 42,86% E 2 9,09% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 39: Frequency of use of DM winnae can.~~

~~50,00% 45,00% 40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females 20,00% Males~~

~~45,46%~~

~~42,86% 42,86% 15,00%~~

~~10,00% 22,73%~~

~~5,00% 14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 9,09% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 39: Histogram describing the frequency of use of winnae can.~~

Winnae can remains one of the rare Scots DMs to be recognized and spoken regularly by the Scottish informants. Nowadays, these MMs accompanied by the Scots spelling are very few. Over 80 % of modal combinations are now written with the Standard English spelling. DMs won’t can, ‘ll not can , used to could and used to would are the only ones where alternative spellings remain quite various when they are used by the Scottish and/or Northern English communities. Might can and might could also undergo similar modifications in their spelling variants but it occurs much more rarely these days.

~~222~~

~~MIGHT BETTER (12)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 2 9,09% 0 0,00% B 2 9,09% 1 14,29% C 5 22,73% 0 0,00% D 9 40,91% 5 71,43% E 4 18,18% 1 14,29% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 40: Frequency of use of DM might better.~~

~~80,00%~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females Males 30,00% 71,43%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~40,91%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~9,09% 0,00% 9,09% 0,00% 14,29% 14,29% 0,00%~~

~~A B C D E~~

~~Figure 40: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might better.~~

Might better is one of these comparative DMs previously described on page 197 of the thesis. Most men are not particularly keen on these forms of DMs unlike the female informants. Nine women out of 22 hear the construction without using it. Four women confirm that they use might better daily in town while five others claim that they do not usually use the DM except for rare occasions. It would be interesting to investigate if the current use of the other comparative DMs similar to might better, viz. would better, would sooner, had rather, would rather… reveal the same tendencies in terms of oral and written frequencies of use as well as their level of grammaticality and correctness in the dialectal areas of the contemporary Scottish society.

~~223~~

~~MUST COULD (11)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 13,64% 0 0,00% B 2 9,09% 1 14,29% C 3 13,64% 1 14,29% D 9 40,91% 2 28,57% E 5 22,73% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 41: Frequency of use of DM must could.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 42,86% 40,91% 15,00%~~

~~28,57%~~

~~10,00% 22,73%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~14,29% 14,29%~~

~~13,64% 13,64% 9,09% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 41: Histogram describing the frequency of use of must could.~~

Without the presence of a negator and a perfect auxiliary, must could belongs to the dialects of Southern Scotland, notably in Hawick Scots based on the table of Keith Brown tracing the acceptable sequences of modals in this town (1991: 75). The table of the graph shows that three women use the DM regularly. Two other female respondents use it often and three others only in specific circumstances. Also, nine among the 22 have already heard must could at least once in their life, which is not too bad for a traditional Scottish DM which is more and more caught up with the hybrid forms such as should ought to or might ought to.

~~224~~

~~MIGHT NOT COULD'VE (10)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 2 9,52% 0 0,00% B 3 14,29% 0 0,00% C 2 9,52% 1 14,29% D 7 33,33% 2 28,57% E 7 33,33% 4 57,14% Total 21 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 42: Frequency of use of DM might not could’ve.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females 30,00% Males~~

~~57,14% 20,00%~~

~~33,33% 33,33%~~

~~10,00% 28,57%~~

~~14,29% 14,29%~~

~~9,52% 0,00% 0,00% 9,52% 0,00% A B C D E Figure 42: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might not could’ve.~~

Without the negator and the contracted perfective aspect, the modal combination might could becomes a common DM that is well known all over the Western Anglophone world. The additions of morpheme turn the ubiquitous might could into a Northern English DM that is finally less used by both genders. 14 women never use might not could’ve whereas 12 do not use might could. It is the same case with the men. Two male informants have never heard of might could while four have discovered might not could’ve for the first time in the questionnaire survey. The informants are few to use it. Only eight women and one man use this Northern English construction in their life whereas 10 women and one man use the “ubiquitous” might could in the Scottish Borders. These additional morphemes, not and

225 contracted have, make the DM more difficult to decode semantically speaking, which in the end creates less empathy for its use on a regular basis. The last three DMs, viz. should can, may should and may not could are, contrary to the others, in more unstable conditions. This is explained by a higher score on the last frequency, the lowest one indicated by letter E. However, they still remain in this group because the number of respondents who chose one of the first three frequencies is similar if not identical to the previous tables. Here are the remaining three graphs and tables as follows:

~~SHOULD CAN (4)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 4 18,18% 2 28,57% B 2 9,09% 0 0,00% C 1 4,55% 1 14,29% D 8 36,36% 1 14,29% E 7 31,82% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 43: Frequency of use of DM should can.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 42,86%~~

~~15,00% 36,36% 31,82% 10,00% 28,57%~~

~~5,00% 18,18%~~

~~14,29% 14,29%~~

~~9,09% 0,00% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 43: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should can.~~

~~226~~

~~MAY SHOULD (24)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 4,55% 0 0,00% B 4 18,18% 0 0,00% C 2 9,09% 2 28,57% D 8 36,36% 2 28,57% E 7 31,82% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 44: Frequency of use of DM may should.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females 20,00% Males 42,86% 15,00% 36,36%~~

~~31,82% 28,57% 10,00% 28,57%~~

~~5,00% 18,18%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure.44: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may should.~~

~~227~~

~~MAY NOT COULD (8)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 4,55% 0 0,00% B 4 18,18% 1 14,29% C 2 9,09% 1 14,29% D 8 36,36% 1 14,29% E 7 31,82% 4 57,14% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 45: Frequency of use of DM may not could.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females 30,00% Males~~

~~57,14% 20,00%~~

~~36,36% 10,00% 31,82%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~4,55% 0,00% 9,09%~~

~~14,29% 14,29% 14,29% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 45: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may not could.~~

What is changing is the decrease in the number of people choosing the fourth frequency D over E. It implies the increase of a complete unawareness of the existence of these dialectal combinations by Scottish and English informants from Eyemouth, Duns and Berwick-Upon- Tweed. Furthermore, it is also striking to notice that, for each of these three tables, we deal with the same number of women, eight exactly, who assert that they hear these constructions without using them personally. Seven in each table state having no recollection of any of these MMs. These similarities have never occurred in the previous graphs of the 2013 study or during the previous field survey.

~~228~~

These nine MMs, whose tables and graphs have been described, represent the second group that, as in 2012, contains 12 MMs. The first nine combinations were already present in this group last year. It is not the case for the remaining three, that is, will can, wouldn’t could’ve and the TM will might can. They replace ought to should, mustn’t could have and uisst tae coud, which belonged to the second group in the 2012 study. Henceforth, ought to should goes to the third group whereas mustn’t could have and uisst tae coud head toward the first group in 2013.

~~229~~

~~WILL CAN (1)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 4 18,18% 1 14,29% B 3 13,64% 0 0,00% C 1 4,55% 1 14,29% D 10 45,46% 2 28,57% E 4 18,18% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 46: Frequency of use of DM will can.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00% 30,00%~~

~~Females 25,00% Males~~

~~20,00% 45,46%~~

~~42,86% 15,00%~~

~~10,00% 28,57%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~5,00% 18,18%~~

~~14,29% 14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~4,55% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 46: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will can.~~

Coming from the third group in 2012, will can is a traditional Southern Scottish DM that has come into the second group in 2013. The table indicates that there are still eight female informants who assert that they use will can on diverse occasions as in 2012 but the difference remains in the total number of respondents of both tables. The 2012 table for this DM contained 31 women while the 2013 table has 22 women who completed the final task of the questionnaire. It also implies a reduction in the number of respondents as regards their choice among the last two letters of the task, that is, D and E that correspond to a zero use of MMs. These slight changes cannot be underestimated, which is why will can is not yet considered as a decaying DM in the Eastern coast of the Borders.

~~230~~

~~WOULDN'T COULD'VE (18)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 4 18,18% 0 0,00% B 2 9,09% 1 14,29% C 2 9,09% 0 0,00% D 9 40,91% 3 42,86% E 5 22,73% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 47: Frequency of use of DM wouldn’t could’ve.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 42,86% 42,86% 40,91% 15,00%~~

~~10,00% 22,73%~~

~~5,00% 18,18%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~9,09% 9,09% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 47: Histogram describing the frequency of use of wouldn’t could’ve.~~

This northern DM, containing a contracted negator and perfective auxiliary, is spoken more often by eight women out of 22 on the coast of the Borders rather than by the female informants coming from the center of the Borders who were 6 out of 31 to use this combination. These changes of frequency from one county of the Borders to another, despite the short distance between Selkirkshire in the center and Berwickshire on the coast, can be explained by their proximity to Northumberland. Berwick-Upon-Tweed being nearer allows wouldn’t could’ve to spread its English influence toward the Eastern Scottish coasts fading away as it reaches deeper into the region, to the central or western areas for example.

~~231~~

~~WILL MIGHT CAN (26)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 13,64% 0 0,00% B 2 9,09% 1 14,29% C 2 9,09% 1 14,29% D 8 36,36% 2 28,57% E 7 31,82% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 48: Frequency of use of TM will might can.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males 42,86%~~

~~15,00% 36,36% 31,82% 10,00% 28,57%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~14,29% 14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~9,09% 9,09% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 48: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will might can.~~

For the first time, a TM has come into one of the first two groups, in this case, the second one. The morphological complexity of these types of modal combinations causes more hesitation among the informants, who finally do not know how to use them when involved in several discussions or talks. Can they be integrated in questions? Is the presence of a negator or quantifiers inside a TM ungrammatical? Deciphering their semantic systems also remains too complex for most people for fear of using the wrong modals or the wrong ordering sequence of modals when they want to express points of view during a discussion. Yet, the Scottish origin of will might can makes its use less odd among the inhabitants of the coasts and those

232 living in Berwick-Upon-Tweed. Even though it is not applied as it should be in its semantic or syntactic approach, it is still present in the life of the Scottish-English communities close to each other. Some of these TMs especially those that have a Scots origin similar to will might can, may survive in local pockets of populations living in small or medium towns in close proximity to the Borders’ counties like Berwick-Upon-Tweed.

Despite the presence of a TM in the second group, few changes have finally occurred between both surveys regarding the second group. They were for the great majority the same combinations who were selected by the informants in this group. They have a limited use unlike used to could or should ought to which are used more frequently by the informants. However the morphology of the 12 MMs of group 2 remains recognizable and familiar by the Southern Scottish and Northern English communities. They know these constructions have always represented their own linguistic specificities and culture in this part of Great Britain. For most of these communities, they intend to keep it that way. The last batch of MMs belong to the third group and again the list of combinations will barely change compared with 2012.

~~8.2.3. Group 3: MMs which are barely used~~

The 12 combinations of the group are barely recognizable by most of the female and male informants due mainly to their syntactic complexity. Of the 12 MMs, there are seven TMs and five DMs. The majority of men and women selected the last letter E of the frequency levels mainly for the three-modal sequences whereas a higher number chose the letter D for the five DMs instead. By order of preferences in this third group, the graphs of the DMs will first be displayed followed by the TMs. The list of the DMs is presented below followed by the five graphs:

~~- have to can (17) - ought to should (16) - wull kin (3) - used to would (5) - used to widnae (19)~~

~~233~~

~~HAVE TO CAN (17)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 2 9,09% 1 14,29% B 2 9,09% 0 0,00% C 2 9,09% 0 0,00% D 7 31,82% 2 28,57% E 9 40,91% 4 57,14% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 49: Frequency of use of DM have to can.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~30,00% Males~~

~~57,14% 20,00%~~

~~40,91% 31,82%~~

~~10,00% 28,57%~~

~~9,09% 9,09% 0,00% 9,09% 0,00% 14,29% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 49: Histogram describing the frequency of use of have to can.~~

~~234~~

~~OUGHT TO SHOULD (16)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 2 9,09% 0 0,00% B 1 4,55% 1 14,29% C 2 9,09% 0 0,00% D 13 59,09% 3 42,86% E 4 18,18% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 50: Frequency of use of DM ought to should.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~30,00% Males~~

~~59,09%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~42,86% 42,86%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~18,18%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~0,00% 9,09% 0,00% 4,55% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 50: Histogram describing the frequency of use of ought to should.~~

~~235~~

~~WULL KIN (3)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 2 9,09% 0 0,00% B 1 4,55% 0 0,00% C 0 0,00% 2 28,57% D 11 50,00% 3 42,86% E 8 36,36% 2 28,57% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 51: Frequency of use of DM wull kin.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~20,00% 50,00%~~

~~42,86%~~

~~36,36% 28,57% 10,00% 28,57%~~

~~0,00% 4,55% 0,00% 0,00% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 51: Histogram describing the frequency of use of wull kin.~~

~~236~~

~~USED TO WOULD (5)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 4,55% 1 14,29% B 1 4,55% 0 0,00% C 2 9,09% 1 14,29% D 10 45,46% 2 28,57% E 8 36,36% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 52: Frequency of use of DM used to would.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00% 45,46%~~

~~42,86%~~

~~15,00% 36,36%~~

~~28,57% 10,00%~~

~~5,00% 14,29%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~4,55% 4,55% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 52: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to would.~~

~~237~~

~~USED TO WIDNAE (19)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 4,55% 0 0,00% B 1 4,55% 0 0,00% C 2 9,09% 1 14,29% D 11 50,00% 4 57,14% E 7 31,82% 2 28,57% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 53: Frequency of use of DM used to widnae.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females 30,00% Males~~

~~57,14%~~

~~20,00% 50,00%~~

~~31,82% 10,00% 28,57%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~4,55% 0,00% 0,00% 4,55% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 53: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to widnae.~~

In every table of the five graphs, between three and four women out of 22 as well as between one and two men out of seven use these modal combinations in their talks and various discussions. These structures are common for this minority of respondents. However these figures are too low for these combinations to survive for long in the Scottish and English dialects spoken in the Scottish Borders and English counties close to it. Contrary to the current general attitude to develop greater interests in the use of combinations composed of

238 modal phrases and central modals such as use(d) to could, this association of grammatical morphemes does not work so well for used to would and used to widnae. It is not because their syntactic structure is similar that it will mandatorily indicate the same level of use in the communities. All the hybrid combinations cannot be used with the same high degree of frequency. Unlike DMs, it can be noticed for TMs that their perspective of survival in Scottish-English vernaculars is seriously compromised. Below is a list of the seven TMs that are barely used by the informants, followed by their corresponding graph.

~~- should might better (21) - might should oughta (13) - may should ought (25) - may might can (29) - might will can’t (22) - will should can (14) - will should could (6)~~

~~239~~

~~SHOULD MIGHT BETTER (21)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 2 9,09% 0 0,00% B 1 4,55% 0 0,00% C 0 0,00% 1 14,29% D 10 45,46% 3 42,86% E 9 40,91% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 54: Frequency of use of TM should might better.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00% 45,46% 42,86%~~

~~42,86% 40,91% 15,00%~~

~~10,00% 5,00%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~0,00% 4,55% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 54: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should might better.~~

~~240~~

~~MIGHT SHOULD OUGHTA (13)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 4,55% 0 0,00% B 0 0,00% 0 0,00% C 2 9,09% 1 16,67% D 9 40,91% 2 33,33% E 10 45,46% 3 50,00% Total 22 100,00% 6 100,00%~~

~~Table 55: Frequency of use of TM might should oughta.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~Females 30,00% Males~~

~~50,00%~~

~~20,00% 45,46%~~

~~40,91%~~

~~33,33% 10,00%~~

~~16,67%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 9,09% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 55: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might should oughta.~~

~~241~~

~~MAY SHOULD OUGHT (25)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 4,55% 0 0,00% B 3 13,64% 1 14,29% C 1 4,55% 0 0,00% D 8 36,36% 3 42,86% E 9 40,91% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 56: Frequency of use of TM may should ought.~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00% 30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females~~

~~20,00% Males~~

~~42,86% 42,86% 40,91%~~

~~15,00% 36,36%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~0,00% 4,55% 0,00% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 56: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may should ought.~~

~~242~~

~~MAY MIGHT CAN (29)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 4,55% 0 0,00% B 3 13,64% 0 0,00% C 1 4,55% 1 14,29% D 3 13,64% 3 42,86% E 14 63,64% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 57: Frequency of use of TM may might can.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females 30,00% Males 63,64%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~42,86% 42,86%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~13,64% 13,64%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 4,55% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 57: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may might can.~~

~~243~~

~~MIGHT WILL CAN'T (22)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 2 9,09% 0 0,00% B 2 9,09% 0 0,00% C 0 0,00% 1 14,29% D 5 22,73% 2 28,57% E 13 59,09% 4 57,14% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 58: Frequency of use of TM might will can’t.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~30,00% Males 59,09%~~

~~57,14% 20,00%~~

~~10,00% 28,57%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~0,00% 9,09% 0,00% 0,00% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 58: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might will can’t.~~

~~244~~

~~WILL SHOULD CAN (14)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 13,64% 0 0,00% B 1 4,55% 1 14,29% C 2 9,09% 0 0,00% D 6 27,27% 3 42,86% E 10 45,46% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 59: Frequency of use of TM will should can.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~35,00% 30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00%~~

~~45,46% 42,86% 42,86% 15,00%~~

~~10,00% 27,27%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~9,09%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 4,55% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 59: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will should can.~~

~~245~~

~~WILL SHOULD COULD (6)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 4,55% 1 14,29% B 2 9,09% 0 0,00% C 1 4,55% 0 0,00% D 7 31,82% 3 42,86% E 11 50,00% 3 42,86% Total 22 100,00% 7 100,00%~~

~~Table 60: Frequency of use of TM will should could.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~Females 30,00% Males~~

~~20,00% 50,00%~~

~~42,86% 42,86%~~

~~31,82% 10,00%~~

~~14,29%~~

~~4,55% 9,09% 0,00% 4,55% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 60: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will should could.~~

~~246~~

The graphs clearly show a sharp decline in the use of the TMs except for will might can which joined the second group in the latest study. It is not expected that the others will follow the same trend in the near future based on their very low use. However, it will be necessary to confirm if the same results are obtained in the regions nearby the Scottish Borders, especially in the Lothian area.

~~8.3. Conclusion~~

These 30 bar graphs describe MM structures which are more or less well established in Southern Scottish society. Most Hybrid combinations (used to could, should ought to…) are well accepted in the Southern Scottish towns, whereas TMs, except for will might can, are globally rejected. As for the traditional Scottish combinations which are will can, might could or winnae can, they have frequencies of use in both surveys that remain acceptable. These three traditional DMs are still easily recognized and perfectly understood by the Scottish- English communities because they are one of the first contemporary combinations to have come into the Scots dialects and Scottish-English varieties. They have been deeply rooted in the vernaculars of Southern Scotland for centuries. It is even possible that they were already present in Older Scots varieties from the 14th and 15th centuries. This long presence in Scotland explains the reasons why some Scottish speakers do not forget these traditional DMs so easily. However, most of these traditional combinations are no longer used in the Scottish Borders. Only a few of them, particularly will can and its Scots variant wull kin, have managed to survive especially during the 20th century. Yet, the main changes that the Multiple Modality system is undergoing at present reside in the greater use of hybrid modal combinations, especially used to could. These sequences of various modal expressions are replacing the traditional DM combination but it does not mean that different Scots spelling variants will no longer be used on these hybrid combinations. As for the TMs, they have never really taken part in the changes of the Scottish Multiple Modality system for several decades. A significant number of informants have never recognized these types of combinations and their meanings remain too complicated to be understood by most of the respondents not just in the last two studies but in the four surveys conducted in the Scottish Borders since 2010.

~~247~~

~~9. Final conclusion~~

This study has shown that the syntax of the Multiple Modality system in the Scottish Borders is challenging and complex. The greater use of Marginal Modals such as used to and ought to implies a new order inside the system. However, these current changes are mainly made by a minority of the Southern Scottish population who in everyday language use a limited number of modal combinations essentially in the spoken medium. The three field trips conducted between 2011 and 2013 have lead to four specific observations reflecting the current reality of the Multiple Modality system in this region:

- First of all, the current combinations that most of the 165 informants of the three studies use quite often involve both Central Modals and Marginal Modals leading to the following combinations: used to could and its Scots spelling variants uisst tae coud and use tae could, might ought to and should ought to. The three studies trace a general pattern that heads toward a greater use of hybrid modal combinations rather than traditional combinations composed of Central Modals only, such as would can or should could. Used to would and its Scots variant in the negative used to widnae are the only hybrid combinations that show low frequencies of use.

Nevertheless, some typical Scottish modal combinations are not completely abandoned by the informants. Of these, “ubiquitous” will can remains the most recognizable and used non- hybrid combination in the Scottish Borders. The other traditional combinations that are still used in the region are also DMs of Scots origin. Will can is one of them. By including will can, a small spectrum of 18 DMs of this type was identified in these three field surveys. Below, the six DMs of column A were included in the questionnaire and selected by those informants who recognize and/or use modal combinations. The 12 DMs in columns B and C are combinations that were added by the informants themselves. It is interesting to note that of these 12 DMs, five are written exclusively in Scots. With the addition of winnae can and willnae can, there are in total seven modal combinations that have the Scots spelling in this list, thus all written in bold.

~~248~~

~~Column A Column B Column C~~

~~Will can Wunni can ‘ll not can~~

~~Should can Wull can Won’t can~~

~~Would could ‘ll no can ‘ll might~~

~~Must could Wuld kin ‘ll shouldn’t~~

~~Winnae can Wouldnae could ‘ll should not~~

~~Willnae can Shouldn’t can~~

~~Wouldn’t could~~

This list of 18 traditional Scottish DMs can be extended in future research based on the number of spelling variants that one single modal can contain in the Scots language. The use of Northumbrian-Tyneside DMs is not insignificant either in the Scottish Borders. The questionnaire also describes a growing tendency in the use of three Northern English DMs that contain negators and perfective aspects in their morphology: might not could’ve, mustn’t could have and wouldn’t could‘ve.

- Secondly, the appearance of American DMs has been noticed during the three studies; these are may not could, may should and might better. They are essentially present in the American South but their spoken use in the Borders is increasing too. Their use in the region implies the presence of Americans who have been living and working in the Borders for several years now. However an independent use of these three DMs by typical Scottish citizens with a set of different semantic interpretations from the American one cannot be excluded either. The lack of data regarding these three DMs prevents me from going further in the analysis at present. This represents a great change since the use of the Central Modal may could not be found in the Scots language 20 years ago (cf. Miller (1993: 116)). It was the same case for the Marginal Modal ought at the time.

~~249~~

- Finally, TMs are all in a very low use and recognition among the population of the Borders. Except for will should can, the four counties of the Borders which were visited for this dialectal enquiry indicate a global rejection of Triple Modality. Although TMs are present in many lists of modal combinations in various Anglophone papers (De la Cruz 1995: 76; Butters 1996: 267-275; Mishoe and Montgomery 1994: 9-10; Brown 1991: 75-78), the majority of the informants had great difficulties in understanding them. The number of modals and the order in which they were placed to form these combinations caused serious problems of understanding for most of the respondents. Conducting surveys in other regions of Southern Scotland are necessary to confirm whether TMs are generally so infrequently used among speakers of Scottish-English dialects.

In the 21st century, the Multiple Modality system of the Scottish Borders covers a heterogeneous spectrum of DMs coming from different varieties of English and Scots but only a fraction of the informants use all of these various combinations. Each region that accepts the presence of MMs has its own set of constraints when using them. MMs have numerous morphosyntactic specificities that are not always explicit because no official rules for these vernacular constructions exist. With specificities that can be found even at a local level, Multiple Modality is already a very complex system to construe at a regional level. As regards the Scottish Borders, the three surveys detected that it is easier for the informants to negate DMs that have been in use for a long time, especially will can and its numerous Scots variants. The grammatical rules for the negation process are precise. In the questionnaires completed by Borders dialect speaking informants using modal combinations, it is necessary to place the English or Scots negator between will and can and to contract will to make sure that the negation process works. The same is true for shouldn’t can, except that should cannot be contracted. As for will should, the negator is placed after the second modal and maintains its full form. The purpose of this study was to give a clearer description of the morphosyntactic reality of the Multiple Modality system in the Borders at the beginning of the 21st century. Modal combinations have spread throughout many territories of the English- speaking world. Most of the research on MMs has been conducted outside the United Kingdom, even though it is there where this dialectal phenomenon originates. Similar to the investigations carried out in several American states, this first Southern Scottish doctoral research represents the first step for further explorations in other regions and counties of Southern Scotland, notably in the East Lothian county, to observe and describe the own morphosyntactic specificities of MMs in the entire Lowland area of Scotland. Will there be

250 more Scots than English MMs in the Lothians? Do the informants use more negative adverbs with MMs than in the Borders? Is inverting MMs in questions a common syntactic habit in the Lothians contrary to the Borders? What kinds of modals do the citizens of these counties accept in their own combinations? The data retrieved from these questions will provide the means to obtaining a global understanding of the type of Multiple Modality system created in the entire Lowlands dialect area. We barely scratched the surface of this system but the knowledge and the generous help that each informant tried to give will one day put dialect syntactitians in the position to elaborate a complete grammar of Southern Scottish Multiple Modals.

~~251~~

~~BIBLIOGRAPHY~~

Aitken, Adam. 1971. Edinburgh Studies in English and Scots, Longman. Aitken, Adam and Tom McArthur. 1979. Languages of Scotland, Chambers. Aitken, Adam. 1979. “Scottish Speech: A historical view with special reference to the Standard English of Scotland”, in: Adam Aitken, and Tom McArthur, Languages of Scotland, Chambers, 6, 85-118. Aitken, Adam. 1980. “New Scots: The problems” in: Derrick McClure, The Scots Language: Planning for Modern Usage, Edinburgh: The Ramsay Head Press, 45-63. Aitken, Adam. 1984. “Scottish accents and dialects”, in: Peter Trudgill, Language in the British Isles, Cambridge University Press, 6, 94-114. Aitken, Adam. 1984. “Scots and English in Scotland”, in: Peter Trudgill, Language in the British Isles, Cambridge University Press, 30, 517-532. Algeo, John. 2006. British or American English? A handbook of word and grammar patterns, Cambridge University Press. Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2009. The Morphology of English Dialects, Cambridge University Press. Angelosanto, Karen. 2002. A look at the relationship of the Scots and English Language, http://www.clan-duncan.co.uk/lingo.html. Atwood, Bagby. 1953. A Survey of Verb Forms in the Eastern United States, Ann Arbor The University of Michigan Press. Battistella, Edwin. 1991. “The Treatment of Negation in Double Modal Constructions” in: Linguistic Analysis 21.49-65. Battistella, Edwin. 1995. “The Syntax of the Double Modal Construction”, in: Linguistica Atlantica, 17, 19-44. Bauer, Laurie. 2002. An Introduction to International Varieties of English, Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Beal, Joan. 1993. “The Grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English”, in: James Milroy and Lesley Milroy, Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, Chapter 4, Longman Group UK, 99-138. Beal, Joan. 2010. An Introduction to Regional Englishes, Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

~~252~~

Bigham, Douglas. 2000. What “might” might could be in “might could”: The case of double Modals in Appalachian English, http://scholar.google.fr/, 1-24. Boertien, Harmon. 1979. “The Double Modal Constructions in Texas”, in: Texas Linguistics Forum 13: 14-33. Boertien, Harmon. 1986. “Constituent Structure of Double Modals”, in: Michael Montgomery, and Guy Bailey, Language Variety in the south, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 294-318. Bour, Anthony. 2010. Fonctionnement de la Double Modalité en Ecosse: Théorisation et Mise en Pratique d’un phénomène dialectal contemporain, porteur de sens, Master’s thesis, University of Metz Lorraine. Bourdel, Pascale. 1997. “Les doubles modaux‘’, Anglophonia, Presses universitaires du Mirail, Toulouse, France, n°2: 239-253. Boyer, Henri. 2010. Hybrides Linguistiques: Genèse, statuts, fonctionnements, L’Harmattan. Brown, Keith, and Jim Miller. 1975. “Modal Verbs in Scottish English”, Work in Progress, 8, 99-115. Brown, Keith, and Martin Millar. 1979. “Tag Questions in Edinburgh Speech”, Linguistische Berichte, 60, 24-45. Brown, Keith, and Martin Millar. 1980. “Auxiliary Verbs in Edinburgh Speech”, Transactions of the Philological Society, 81-133. Brown, Keith, and Jim Miller. 1982. “Aspect of Scottish English Syntax”, English World- Wide, 3, 3-17. Brown, Keith. 1991. “Double modals in Hawick Scots”, in: Peter Trudgill and Jack Chambers, Dialects of English Studies in Grammatical Variation, Essex, Longman, 8, 74-103. Butters, Ronald. 1973. ‘’Acceptability Judgments for Double Modals in Southern Dialects’’, in Bailey and Roger Shuy (eds), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in Linguistics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 276-286. Butters, Ronald. 1991. “Multiple Modals in United States Black English: Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects”, in: Walter Edwards and Donald Winford, Verb Phrase Patterns in Black English and Creole, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 165-176. Butters, Ronald and Barbara Fennel. 1996. “Historical and Contemporary Distribution of Double Modals In English”, in: Focus on the USA. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 265-288.

~~253~~

Calvet, Louis and Pierre Dumont. 1999. L’Enquête Sociolinguistique, L’Harmattan. Chambers, Jack K., Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 2001. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Victoria, Blackwell Publishing. Chartier, Delphine. 2006. De la grammaire pour traduire, Broché, Presses Universitaires du Mirail. Cheshire, Jenny. 1999. “Taming the Vernacular: Some Repercussions for the Study of Syntactic Variation and Spoken Grammar”, Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa, 8, 59-80. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague. Close, Joanne. 2004. “Double Modals in American English” “Double Modals in Scottish English”, in: English Auxiliaries: A Syntactic Study of Contraction and Variation, PhD dissertation, University of York, http://www.users.york.ac.uk/~lang30/close-thesis-os.pdf, 4, 30-173, 5, 174-196. Coleman, William. 1975. Multiple Modals in Southern States English, Bloomington, Indiana University doctoral dissertation. Collins, Peter. 1978. “Dare and need in Australian English: A study of divided usage” English Studies 59, 434-441. Collins, Peter. 2005. “The modals and quasi-modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English and other Englishes” English World-Wide, 26:3, 249-273. Collins, Peter. 2006. “Will, Shall, be going to, and want to: The Modals and Semi-modals of Prediction and Volition in Modern English”, Selected Papers from the 2005 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 1-11. Collins, Peter. 2009. “Modals and quasi-modals in World Englishes”, World Englishes, 28, No. 3, 281-292. Corbett, John, Derrick McClure, and Jane Stuart-Smith. 2003. The Edinburgh Companion to Scots, Edinburgh University Press. De-La-Cruz, Juan. 1995. “The Geography and History of Double Modals in English”, in: Folia Linguistica Historica, XVII1-2 pp. 75-96. De -La-Cruz, Juan. 1997. “The issue of double modals in the history of English revisited”, in: R. Hickey, and S. Puppel, Trends in Linguistics Studies & Monographs 101 Language History and Linguistic Modelling, http://books.google.fr/, Mouton de Gruyter, 87-97. Di-Paolo, Marianna, C. McClenon, and K. Ranson. 1979. ‘’A survey of double modals in Texas”, Texas Linguistic Forum, 13, 40-49. Di-Paolo, Marianna. 1989. “Double Modals as single lexical items”, in: American Speech 64.3, 195-224.

~~254~~

Douglas, Fiona. 2009. “English in Scotland”, in: Braj Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil Nelson, The Handbook of World Englishes, Wiley Blackwell, 3, 41-57. Drubig, Hans. 2001. “The Evidence of Multiple Modal Constructions”, in: On the Syntactic Form of Epistemic Modality, http://www.sfb441.uni-tuebingen.de/b2/papers/DrubigModality.pdf, 36-39. Duffley, Patrick. 1994. “Need and dare: The black sheep of the modal family”, Lingua, 213-243. Edwards, Vivian, Peter Trudgill, and Bert Weltens. 1984. The Grammar of English Dialect: A Survey of Research, Economic and Social Research Council. Edwards, Vivian and Jenny Cheshire. 1989. “The Survey of British Dialect Grammar”, in: Jenny Cheshire, Vivian Edwards, Henk Münstermann, and Bert Weltens, Dialect and Education: Some European Perspectives, Multilingual Matters, 12, 200-215. Elsman, Minta. 2007. The “Double Modal”: Dialectal Variant or Latent Modal Structure, http://www.cas.sc.edu/ling/news/babble.html. Elsman, Minta. 2007. Double Modals: From Semantics and Pragmatics to Syntax, http://www.cas.sc.edu/LING/faculty/dubinsky/LING721/studentwork/Elsman. OrderingModals.pdf. Elsman, Minta. 2007. Double modal syntactic patterns as single modal interactions, http://www.Ling.upenn.edu/Events/PLC/plc32/revised/elsman.pdf. Fennell, Barbara. 1993. “Miscellany: Evidence for British Sources of Double Modal Constructions in Southern American English”, in: American Speech 68.4, 430-437. Fitt, Matthew. 2007. “What is Scots”, in: Scots Education Resources, http://www.scotseducation.co.uk/whatisscots.html Grant, William, and James Main Dixon. 1921. Manual of Modern Scots, Chapter V, Cambridge at the University Press, 112-133. Inside Out – North East, 2005. http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northeast/series7/geordie_dialect.shtml,. Jacobsson, Bengt. 1980. “On the Syntax and Semantics of the Modal Auxiliary Had Better”, Studia Neophilologica, 52, 47-53. Johnstone, Barbara. 2000. Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics, Oxford University Press. Jorgensen, Erik. 1988. “USED TO (+ INFINITIVE)”, English Studies, 4, 348-354. Kirk, John. 1987. “The Heteronomy of Scots with Standard English” in: Caroline Macafee, and Ian Macleod, The Nuttis Schell essays on the Scots Language, Aberdeen University Press, 14, 166-181.

~~255~~

Kortmann, Bernd and Edgar Schneider. 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English, 2 vols., Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Labov, William, P. Cohen, and J. Lewis, 1968, A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. 2 vols. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 3288. Eric Document 028 423. Columbia University, New York. Lawson, Robert, Scots Extended Grammar Essay –Scottish Corpus of Texts and Speech, http://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/corpus/search/document.php?documentid=594,. Lawson, Robert, Scots version of History of Scots essay – Scottish Corpus of Texts and Speech, http://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/corpus/search/document.php?documentid=595,. Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair, and Nicolas Smith. 2009. Change in Contemporary English, A Grammatical Study, Cambridge University Press. Llamas, Carmen. and Dominique Watt. 2010. Language and Identities, Edinburgh University Press. Macafee, Caroline. 1980. Characteristics of non-standard grammar in Scotland, http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~en1038/grammar.html,. Macafee, Caroline, and Iseabail Macleod. 1987. The Nuttis Schell: essays on the Scots Language, Aberdeen University Press. Mashburn, Carolyn. 1989. “Multiple Modals in an American English Dialect”, CUNY Graduate Center, 130-133. McClure, Derrick. 1979. “Scots: its range of uses”, in: Adam Aitken, and Tom McArthur, Languages of Scotland, 3, Chambers, 26-48. McClure, Derrick. 1979. “The Status of English in and furth of Scotland”, in: Adam Aitken, and Tom McArthur, Languages of Scotland, 4, Chambers, 50-67. McClure, Derrick. 2009. Why Scots Matters, The Saltire Society. Miller, Jim. 1993. “The Grammar of Scottish English”, in James Milroy, and Lesley Milroy, Real English, The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, Chapter 4, Longman Group UK, 99-138. Mishoe, Margaret, and Michael Montgomery. 1994. “The Pragmatics of Multiple Modal Variation in North and South Carolina”, in: American Speech 69.1, 3-29. Montgomery, Michael. 2003. “The Scots Language Abroad”, in: John Corbett, Derrick McClure, and Jane Stuart-Smith, The Edinburgh Companion to Scots, Edinburgh University Press, 11, 233-250.

~~256~~

Mufwene, Salikoko. 1994. “Double Modals in American Southern English: How Peculiar Are They?”, In: Contemporary Linguistics, University of Chicago, 1, 89-104. Murison, David. 1977. The Guid Scots Tongue, William Blackwood. Nagle, Stephen J. 1985. “Lexical Change and the History of USED TO”, The Secol Review, supplied by The British Library “The world’s knowledge”, 161-169. Nagle, Stephen J. 1989. “Double Modals in Early English”, in: H. Aertsen. and R. Jeffers. Historical Linguistics 1989, Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 363-370. Nagle, Stephen J. 1992. “Quasi-Modals, Marginal Modals, and the Diachrony of the English Modal Auxiliaries”, Folia Linguistica Historica, IX/2, 93-104. Nagle, Stephen J. 1994. “The English Double Modal Conspiracy”, in: Diachronica, XI:2.199-212. Nagle, Stephen J. and Michael Montgomery. 1994. “Double Modals in Scotland and the Southern United States: Trans-Atlantic Inheritance or Independent Development?”, in: Folia Linguistica Historica, XIV/1-2 pp. 91-107. Nagle, Stephen J. 1995. “The English double modals: internal or external change?”, in: Linguistic Change under Contact Condition, http://scholar.google.fr/, Google beta, 207-214. Nagle, Stephen J. 1997. “What is double about double Modals?”, in : Language History and Linguistic Modelling, http://books.google.fr/, Google beta, 1513-1526. Nagle, Stephen J. 2000. “On the semantic of the English double modals”, in: Structure, Meaning, Function, http://scholar.google.fr/, Google beta, 217-234. Nagle, Stephen J. 2003. “Double Modals in the Southern United States: Syntactic Structure or Syntactic Structures”, in : Modality in Contemporary English, http://scholar.google.fr/, Google beta, 349-370. Palmer, Frank Robert. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, Second Edition, New York: Longman. Pampell, John. 1975. “More on Double Modals”, Texas Linguistic Forum, 2, 110-121. Penttilä, Eso. and Heli Paulasto. 2009. Language Contacts meet English Dialects: Studies in Honour of Markku Filppula, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Preston, Dennis. 1989. Perceptual Dialectology Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics, Foris Publications. Purves, David. 2002. A Scots Grammar, revised and extended edition, The Saltire Society.

~~257~~

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Goeffrey Leech, and Jan Svarvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London, Longman. Rennie, Susan, Matthew Fitt, and Barbara Robertson. 1999. Grammar Broonie: A Guide tae Scots Grammar, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Rotgé, Wilfrid, and Jean Rémi Lapaire. 2004. “Les modaux”, in: Réussir le commentaire grammatical de Textes, chapitre 6, Ellipses, Paris, 186-212. Scots Language. 2008. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0005953.html,. Scur, G. 1965. “On the Non-Finite Forms of the Modal Verbs in Danish and Swedish”, Acta Linguistica Hung, XV, 331-340. Scur, G. 1968. “On the Non-Finite Forms of the Verb Can in Scottish”, Acta Linguistica Hafniensa, XI, 211-218. Shay, James. 1981. “Still more on Double Modals ‘’ in: Journal of the Linguistic Association of the South West, 4, 313-319. Smith, Geoff, Newcastle English (Geordie), http://www.une.edu.au/langnet/definitions/geordie.html,. Swann, Joan, Ana Deumert, Theresa Lillis, and Rajend Mesthrie. 2004. A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics, Edinburgh University Press. Tagliamonte, Sali. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation, Wiley-Blackwell. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1972. A History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to The History of English Sentence Structure, New York, Holt. Trudgill, Peter. 1983. On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives, Basil Blackwell. Trudgill, Peter. 1984. Languages in the British Isles, Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, Peter. 2002. Sociolinguistic Variation and Change, Edinburgh University Press. Trudgill, Peter. 2003. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics, Edinburgh University Press. Van-der-Auwera, Johan and Astrid De Wit. 2010. “The English Comparative Modals – A Pilot study”, in: Distinctions in English Grammar, Offered to Renaat Declerck, Bert Cappelle and Naoki Waka (eds.), 127-147. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Visser, Fredericus T. 1963-1973. An historical Syntax of the English language, Leiden: Brill. Whitley, Stanley. 1975. “Dialectal Syntax: Plurals and Modals in Southern American”, Linguistics 16, 89-108. Wolfram, Walt, and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 2006. American English Dialects and Variations, Blackwell Publishing.

~~258~~

~~Appendix 1~~

~~Bar graphs of the 2012 survey referring to the last task of the questionnaire survey (MMs belonging to group 3)~~

~~WULL KIN (3)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 3 9,68% 0 0,00% B 3 9,68% 3 13,64% C 1 3,23% 0 0,00% D 13 41,94% 7 31,82% E 11 35,48% 12 54,55% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 17: Frequency of use of DM wull kin.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females~~

~~Males~~

~~54,55%~~

~~20,00% 41,94%~~

~~35,48% 31,82% 10,00%~~

~~13,64%~~

~~9,68% 0,00% 9,68% 3,23% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 17: Histogram describing the frequency of use of wull kin.~~

~~259~~

~~USED TO WOULD (5)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 2 6,45% 0 0,00% B 1 3,23% 1 4,55% C 1 3,23% 2 9,09% D 14 45,16% 9 40,91% E 13 41,94% 10 45,46% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 18: Frequency of use of DM used to would.~~

~~50,00%~~

~~45,00%~~

~~40,00% 35,00%~~

~~30,00%~~

~~25,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00% 45,46%~~

~~45,16%~~

~~41,94% 40,91% 15,00% 10,00%~~

~~5,00%~~

~~0,00% 3,23% 4,55% 3,23% 9,09% 6,45% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 18: Histogram describing the frequency of use of used to would.~~

~~260~~

~~WILL SHOULD COULD (6)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 3,23% 0 0,00% B 0 0,00% 1 4,55% C 1 3,23% 0 0,00% D 11 35,48% 8 36,36% E 18 58,07% 13 59,09% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 19: Frequency of use of TM will should could.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~Females~~

~~30,00% Males~~

~~59,09% 58,07% 20,00%~~

~~36,36% 35,48% 10,00%~~

~~3,23% 0,00% 0,00% 4,55% 3,23% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 19: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will should could.~~

~~261~~

~~MIGHT SHOULD OUGHTA (13)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 0 0,00% 0 0,00% B 2 6,45% 0 0,00% C 0 0,00% 2 9,09% D 10 32,26% 9 40,91% E 19 61,29% 11 50,00% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 20: Frequency of use of TM might should oughta.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females 30,00% Males 61,29% 20,00% 50,00%~~

~~40,91% 32,26%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~0,00% 6,45% 0,00% 0,00% 9,09% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 20: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might should oughta.~~

~~262~~

~~WILL SHOULD CAN (14)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 3,23% 1 4,55% B 1 3,23% 0 0,00% C 3 9,68% 2 9,09% D 6 19,36% 5 22,73% E 20 64,52% 14 63,64% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 21: Frequency of use of TM will should can.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females~~

~~30,00% Males 64,52% 63,64%~~

~~20,00%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~22,73%~~

~~19,36%~~

~~0,00% 4,55% 3,23% 9,68% 9,09% 3,23% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 21: Histogram describing the frequency of use of will should can.~~

~~263~~

~~HAVE TO CAN (17)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 1 3,23% 1 4,55% B 3 9,68% 1 4,55% C 1 3,23% 2 9,09% D 11 35,48% 8 36,36% E 15 48,39% 10 45,46% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 22: Frequency of use of DM have to can.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~30,00% Females Males~~

~~20,00% 48,39%~~

~~45,46% 36,36% 35,48% 10,00%~~

~~4,55%~~

~~3,23% 9,68% 3,23%~~

~~4,55% 9,09% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 22: Histogram describing the frequency of use of have to can.~~

~~264~~

~~SHOULD MIGHT BETTER (21)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 1 3,23% 0 0,00% B 1 3,23% 1 4,55% C 1 3,23% 1 4,55% D 10 32,26% 8 36,36% E 18 58,07% 12 54,55% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 23: Frequency of use of TM should might better.~~

~~70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females 30,00% Males~~

~~58,07% 54,55% 20,00%~~

~~36,36% 10,00% 32,26%~~

~~0,00% 3,23% 4,55% 3,23% 4,55% 3,23% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 23: Histogram describing the frequency of use of should might better.~~

~~265~~

~~MIGHT WILL CAN'T (22)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use number % number % A 0 0,00% 0 0,00% B 2 6,45% 1 4,55% C 1 3,23% 1 4,55% D 7 22,58% 9 40,91% E 21 67,74% 11 50,00% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 24: Frequency of use of TM might will can’t.~~

~~80,00% 70,00%~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00% Females Males 30,00% 67,74% 20,00% 50,00%~~

~~40,91%~~

~~10,00%~~

~~22,58%~~

~~0,00% 4,55% 3,23% 4,55%~~

~~0,00% 6,45% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 24: Histogram describing the frequency of use of might will can’t.~~

~~266~~

~~MAY MIGHT CAN (29)~~

~~Females Males Frequencies of use Number % number % A 0 0,00% 0 0,00% B 0 0,00% 1 4,55% C 5 16,13% 2 9,09% D 9 29,03% 7 31,82% E 17 54,84% 12 54,55% Total 31 100,00% 22 100,00%~~

~~Table 25: Frequency of use of TM may might can.~~

~~60,00%~~

~~50,00%~~

~~40,00%~~

~~Females 30,00%~~

~~Males 54,84% 54,55% 20,00%~~

~~31,82%~~

~~10,00% 29,03%~~

~~16,13%~~

~~0,00% 0,00% 4,55% 9,09% 0,00% 0,00% A B C D E~~

~~Figure 25: Histogram describing the frequency of use of may might can.~~

~~267~~

~~Appendix 2~~

~~Questionnaire of 2011 (sociolinguistic study)~~

~~NAME :------FORENAME :------AGE :------GENDER: M-F EMPLOYMENT:------WORK PLACE:------~~

~~I- 1) I know I might could and should enjoy myself. After reading the first sentence evoking a context, try to answer the following questions:~~

A/ Have you ever heard this kind of underlined structure? B/ Would you use it yourselves in a similar context? If yes you would use it regularly, occasionally or rarely? C/ If not, try to replace it by another one which, according to you, would be more suitable in this context. Do the same for the other seven sentences.

~~A B C~~

~~2) He willnae can come.~~

~~A B C~~

~~3) He’ll can help us the morn.~~

~~A B C~~

~~4) I was afraid you might couldn’t find this address.~~

~~A B C~~

~~5) A good machine clipper would could do it in half a day.~~

~~A B C~~

~~268~~

~~6) I think that we should have ought’ve done that yesterday.~~

~~A B C~~

~~7) He wouldn’t could’ve worked, even if you had asked him.~~

~~A B C~~

~~8) He should can go tomorrow.~~

~~A B C~~

~~269~~

~~II- Choose only one structure (by circling one letter) that, according to you, would be the best choice in the following clauses.~~

~~1) He------refuse.~~

A/ might not can B/ might not could C/ used to couldn’t D/ might used to couldn’t E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap. It must be the same type of grammatical structure like the first four ones)

~~2) I thought maybe I better put it (a hearing aid) on or I------understand you.~~

~~A/ might not couldn’t B/ might couldn’t C/ may not could D/ might will can’t E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~3) He------do it for you.~~

~~A/ should might better B/ will might can C/ ‘ll should could D/ ‘ll might can E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~4) The girls usually make me some toasted sandwiches but they ------made any today.~~

~~A/ mustn’t could’ve B/ must not could have C/ mustn’t could have D/ might not could’ve E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~5) If we------get a piece of a car, things would be better.~~

~~A/ might would B/ may could C/ could might D/ might could E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~270~~

~~6) one of our goals------be to encourage non-member involvement.~~

~~A/ might oughta should B/ might better C/ might should oughta D/ might ought to E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~7) I think I------have me a piece of cake.~~

~~A/ may might can B/ might could C/ should could D/ may should ought E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~8) You------have the oil changed.~~

~~A/ might ought to should B/ may should C/ ought to should D/ should ought to E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~271~~

~~III- Add the Tag Question you wish to write after each underlined dialectal construction.~~

~~1- I might could do that,------?~~

~~2- He must wouldn’t steal,------?~~

~~3- He’ll can do it,------?~~

~~4- He might used to could run the marathon,------?~~

~~5- You might could see Uranus if you had a telescope,------?~~

~~Additional questions concerning these structures~~

~~IV- In what other contexts do you use them? (Circle one or several letters)~~

~~A/ In family B/ Between friends C/ At work D/ Alone E/ Other suggestions:------~~

~~V- In general,~~

~~How often do you use (orally) these types of grammatical constructions ? (Circle only one letter)~~

~~A/ a lot – B/ often – C/ occasionally – D/ rarely – E/ not at all~~

~~You write these types of constructions: (Circle only one letter)~~

~~A/ a lot – B/ often – C/ occasionally – D/ rarely – E/ not at all~~

~~You write these structures: (Circle one or several letters)~~

A/ When taking notes during meetings or conferences B/ When leaving a note for a friend C/ When writing a report D/ When leaving an e-mail for someone E/ When doing something else (What would it be?):------

~~272~~

~~VI- To conclude~~

~~Put each of the underlined dialectal constructions in the negative & in the interrogative.~~

~~1- I may can get it out tomorrow.~~

~~NEG: ------~~

~~INT: ------~~

~~2- He’ll should can come the morn.~~

~~NEG: ------~~

~~INT: ------~~

~~3- You should ought to make the rules clear.~~

~~NEG: ------~~

~~INT: ------~~

~~4- He might can tell you.~~

~~NEG: ------~~

~~INT: ------~~

~~5- The children used to would kind of stay in the background, you know.~~

~~NEG: ------~~

~~INT: ------~~

~~Thank you for your cooperation !~~

~~273~~

~~Questionnaire of 2012 and 2013 (sociolinguistic study)~~

~~LAST NAME :------CHRISTIAN NAME :------AGE :------GENDER: M-F EMPLOYMENT:------WORKPLACE:------BIRTHPLACE:------~~

~~I- 1) I know I might could and should enjoy myself. After reading the first sentence, try to answer the following questions:~~

A/ Have you ever heard this kind of underlined structure? B/ Would you use this structure yourselves in a specific context? If yes, mention the context(s) and indicate if you use the structure on a day-to-day basis (d-t-d), every now and again (n&a) or rarely. C/ If not, try to replace it by another one which, according to you, would be more suitable in this context. Do the same for the other seven sentences.

~~A/ B/ C/~~

~~2) You have to can drive a car to get that job.~~

~~A/ B/ C/~~

~~3) He’ll can help us the morn.~~

~~A/ B/ C/~~

~~4) I was afraid you might couldn’t find this address.~~

~~A/ B/ C/~~

~~274~~

~~5) A good machine clipper would could do it in half a day.~~

~~A/ B/ C/~~

~~6) He used to widnae let me up the brae: Ah wis terrified i him.~~

~~A/ B/ C/~~

~~7) He wouldn’t could’ve worked, even if you had asked him.~~

~~A/ B/ C/~~

~~8) He should can go tomorrow.~~

~~A/ B/ C/~~

~~II- Choose only one structure (by circling one letter) that, according to you, would be the best choice in the following clauses. 1) Ye------can get a bus efter midnight.~~

~~A/ winnae can B/ wullna can C/ wull kin D/ willnae kin E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap. It must be the same type of grammatical structure like the first four ones)~~

~~2) I thought maybe I better put it (a hearing aid) on or I------understand you.~~

~~A/ might not couldn’t B/ might couldn’t C/ may not could D/ might will can’t E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~275~~

~~3) He------do it for you.~~

~~A/ should might better B/ will might can C/ ‘ll should could D/ ‘ll might can E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~4) The girls usually make me some toasted sandwiches but they ------made any today.~~

~~A/ mustn’t could’ve B/ must not could have C/ mustn’t could have D/ might not could’ve E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~5) I didn’t------tak them at aa.~~

~~A/ uisst tae coud B/ used to would C/ use tae could D/ used to could E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~6) I might could do something for her, but you------take her home~~

~~A/ might oughta should B/ might better C/ might should oughta D/ might ought to E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~7) The lad------muck the byre.~~

~~A/ may might can B/ might could C/ must could D/ may should ought E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~8) You------have the oil changed.~~

~~A/ might ought to should B/ may should C/ ought to should D/ should ought to E/ another similar construction (in this case, write it in the gap)~~

~~276~~

~~Additional questions concerning these structures~~

~~III- In what social contexts do you use them in general? (Circle one or several letters)~~

~~A/ In family B/ Between friends C/ At work D/ Alone E/ Other suggestions:------IV- In general,~~

~~How often do you use (orally) these types of grammatical constructions? (Circle only one letter)~~

~~A/ a lot – B/ often – C/ occasionally – D/ rarely – E/ not at all~~

~~You write these types of constructions: (Circle only one letter)~~

~~A/ a lot – B/ often – C/ occasionally – D/ rarely – E/ not at all~~

~~You write these structures: (Circle one or several letters)~~

~~V- Turn each of the underlined dialectal constructions into a negative clause (NEG) & into a question (Q).~~

~~1- He’ll should can come the morn.~~

~~NEG: ------~~

~~Q: ------~~

~~2- He used to would drink black coffee late at night.~~

~~NEG: ------~~

~~Q: ------~~

~~277~~

~~VI- Classify the following dialectal structures based on the table below. (Just indicate the letter that corresponds to your frequency of use of each structure)~~

1- Will can 16- Ought to should 2- Might could 17- Have to can 3- Wull kin 18- Wouldn’t could’ve 4- Should can 19- Used to widnae 5- Used to would 20- Mustn’t could have 6- Will should could 21- Should might better 7- Would could 22- Might will can’t 8- May not could 23- Should ought to 9- Uisst tae coud 24- May should 10- Might not could’ve 25- May should ought 11- Must could 26- Will might can 12- Might better 27- Used to could 13- Might should oughta 28- Might ought to 14- Will should can 29- May might can 15- Winnae can 30- Use tae could

Structures Structures I use I use under Structures regularly special that I have (everyday, circumstances already Structures on Structures (rarely, on heard but that I have multiple I use once rare that I never occasions) in a while occasions) never use heard (of) A B C D E

~~Thank you for your cooperation !~~

~~278~~

~~Appendix 3 2011 Transcriptions~~

These transcriptions represent over a dozen of conversations that took place in the four towns of the Borders, viz. Kelso, Jedburgh, Coldstream and Melrose. Yet most of the recorded talks occurred in the first two towns mentioned above. The informants, who wished to take part in this type of recording with the help of a digital voice recorder, mentioned almost everytime their birth place as well as the places where they live and work in the Borders and sometimes beyond this part of Scotland. The data of the recordings below indicate a clear tendency for multiculturalism, in other terms, many people living and working in Southern Scotland actually come from different areas of the United Kingdom such as the Highlands, the Grampians, the city of Glasgow, the Fife region and the Lothians. Even for a small number of them, they were born in another European country (the Netherlands and Germany for example). During their teenagehood or adulthood, some of the informants moved to the Borders, took the Scottish nationality and decided to work and live in one of the numerous towns of the South-Eastern part of the territory. Nowadays, one third of the populations of small towns like Jedburgh and especially commercial middle towns such as Kelso is of English origin and the data below indicate the names of various counties where they were born and spent their childhood. As regularly observed in the field, these people do not forget who they are and they remain proud of their bi-nationality as well as their command of two or over two varieties of English, Scottish-English and/or the Scots regional language. Although the advancement of a global standardization of the English language keeps growing, the situation in Southern Scotland as well as in the rest of the Scottish territory makes the notion of monolingual speakers still impossible to conceive today.

Regarding the punctuation, the dash (-) symbol is the fieldworker who conducts the enquiry. The fieldworker in this research is the interviewer too. When there is no dash, it is the interviewee or also called the informant who speaks. The conversations were recorded from April 21st to May 10th 2011. Only the most interesting conversations between the fieldworker and the interviewee were transcribed during the 2011 field survey.

~~279~~

~~Transcription N°1: Gibson Mark, 22, Art Gallery assistant, born in Glasgow, works in Kelso. (21/04/2011)~~

Right So circle ? I have to warn you, I’m not very good at grammar. Yeah. - You were born in Glasgow? Yeah. - How long have you been living here? Ten months. Okay - Is it your first exhibition? Yeah! - Are you familiar with these constructions? Not really! - Do you speak the Scots language or some of its variants? Wee bits, know words like wee and canna just that.m - They’re common words. You had many people doing this? - Last year 80 people filled in partially or entirely the questionnaire. I have to compare from town to town. - Do you give a name to these constructions? How do you call them? (No answer)

Transcription N°2: Billingham Katie, 29, self employed (in a giftshop), born in the Midlands (Coventry), upbringing in Worcestershire, lives in Berwickshire and has worked in Kelso (Roxburghshire) for 5 years. (22/04/2011) - You told me you come from the midlands? Yes Midlands in Worcestershire. - It’s far from here? It’s about from here 350 miles something like that, it’s on the English side. - The center of England?

~~280~~

Yes, exactly from the third point from the seaside, yes it’s on the English side of the Welsh border. - I understand you much better in fact, because I understand your accent better than the Scottish ones. I have a very English accent. - Okay, so you try to master the RP accent? The RP? - The RP, Received Pronunciation accent, the accent from London. Yeah! I suppose, there is a traditional accent in London which is Cockney. My family, sort of, in my family some are Cockneys from my mother side, it’s that hard to understand, it’s like trying to understand the Glaswegian accent. I suppose my accent is typically Midland England. You know a lot of Londoners speak things (the way) I do. Traditional Londoners don’t speak like this. - I’ve been told that only five percent of the UK population in general speaks RP or Queen’s English. Oh yeah! Very few people, my husband is what we call a Geordie, he comes from Newcastle and his accent is very different to mine. - But you understand each other? We understand each other but when we talk together, his accent softens and my accent becomes more relaxed. So it’s like we need halfway, my accent drops and his rises a bit, so, it’s very funny when you listen. When I talk to my mother I am very very correct, when I’m talking to my husband things like, instead of, with my mother it’s /gra:s/ and /ba:θ/, with my husband it’s /græs/ and /bæθ/ it’s very simple things like that. I suppose, with my mother “push” is /pƱ∫/, with my husband it’s more /pu:∫/ conservative a bit deeper it’s hard to say, it’s little things like that. - Slight distinctions. Yes, with my mother I pronounce with my teeth, with my husband I drop my teeth, just because you try to adapt the way where you are…. - You try to understand the Scottish accent? I try to, I think with these people wherever I am I do try to adopt some of these local phrases or my accent relaxes, I ‘m not quite of the English (accent) because I think it’s important to fit. It’s important to be around… - You may recognize these structures (referring to MMs). Some of my mateys, some of my own.

~~281~~

“Might could, should” I would use that. “He willnae can come” the nae, the actual word nae, I hear a lot. My husband says nae. It’s interesting when you see these things written down actually because you just say things. It’s funny you see ‘cause I have a very traditional English education, when I see that written down Waoh!! That’s bad construction, but when I read out I think (my) gosh! I heard people say that. - It is hard for you to understand their accents now? Not any more. I can even understand a very thick border(s)(accent). Where I come from, you wouldn’t use any of them like that, for me it would just be I may not … my education is traditional. I heard people say it (MM) a lot. - Especially in Hawick. That doesn’t surprise me a bit. Very rarely here people speak like that. In Kelso, very rarely in fact the only people I can think of that I’ve come across that some that come from Berwick on the English side. The Berwickers know the local dialect, it’s very unique. It’s not really English, it’s not really Scottish, very strange the way they construct sentences, very oddly sometimes, you’ve got to speak to the right people to really get that sort of Berwick speech as you used to call it. I live in Berwickshire. (Very localised language in Duns). Without being funny, in this particular area they recognize the language as a class division as well and a lot of people here living in Kelso have come from well-to-do families, have quite a bit of money, childrens go to very nice schools, a lot come from England, live in Kelso. I’ve never seen them written. Woah!! That’s a Berwick sentence! (Referring to the last sentence of the questionnaire)

~~Transcription N°3: Dixon Irene, 58, Shop Assistant, born in Kelso. (22/04/2011) The accent(s) in Hawick , my god! It’s vernacular language. I’m from the west coast, Glasgow.~~

~~282~~

~~Transcription N°4: McKenzie Jamie, 19, Florist, born in Melrose, works in Kelso. (22/04/2011) It’s like I’m back in school. “He must wouldn’t steal” to me it’s not proper English.~~

Transcription N°5: Sinclair Heather, 20, sales assistant, born in Kelso. (23/04/2011) - You were born here, in Kelso? - You speak the Scots language, the original language, you have some basic knowledge of it? Gaelic? - Not Gaelic, the Scots language, the original language called Scots or one of its varieties such as Hawick Scots? I wouldn’t say it Scots, you know, it’s slang, it’s not really … - Officially it’s a language. Oh yeah! - You have a basic knowledge? I would say so! - You have learned this language at school or from your parents? Parents and friends, just have to pick it up, yeah… - Outside school? Yeah!

Transcription N°7: Bruce Eliz, 72, retired, former teacher in a primary school, born in Northern Scotland Aberdeen, lives in Kelso. (24/04/2011) I recognize them but I wouldn’t use them myself. - Do you give a name to this construction? How do you call them? No, I don’t know the name for them. It’s a sort of like a double…. - Double modals. Yeah! My father was brought up in Aberdeenshire but he got rid of it. He used different words for instance, all his life he never called a fox a fox. He used two or three other words. My father came from here (North-East Scotland). I come from the center between Edinburgh and Dundee, 50 miles north of Edinburgh. Mightn’t….. Mayn’t yes, yes we could say that.

~~283~~

~~Never heard of should could. I wouldn’t put the ‘ll. I used to do (write DMs) when I was teaching.~~

Transcription N°8: Donnelly Cameron, 42, self employed (Antique Dealer), born in Northants England, works in Kelso, lives in Jedburgh. (25/04/2011) What do you think of Kelso? - I leave on May 23rd, I will visit Jedburgh as well, it’s not far from here. That’s where I live, Jedburgh. - By bus? Perhaps 10-15 minutes. - You come from the Southern county? Very middle England, Northamptonshire. We’ve got an accent, quite a lazier accent /∫∂n/ /k∂n/

Transcription N°9: Young Jacque, 26, assistant manager, born in Kelso. (25/04/2011) - You’ve been living here since your childhood? I live in Kelso up until I was 17, moved to Edinburgh and then moved back here last year. - You were born in Kelso? Yeah. - And you moved to Edinburgh when you were 17 for a job? University. - University, Okay. What field? I was (doing) consumer’s studies. - For business management? Yeah. - Okay. - Have you heard customers say this kind of sentence? Yeah. - It happens occasionally? Yeah.

~~- When you’re at work or in family?~~

~~284~~

~~When I work here, it’s really relaxed, people use questions like this. - Okay. I was not good at English at school.~~

Transcription N°10: Hird Ian, 71, Proprietor of “Kelso Pottery”, born in Aberdeen, works in Kelso. (25/04/2011) When I came from Aberdeenshire to the Borders, I couldn’t understand some of the Jedburgh people. - It was hard? Yes. If I speak in the Aberdeen, you wouldn’t understand what I say, will you? When I speak like that, my sister still speaks Aberdeen. - I understand you for the moment. Yes, if I say fit like?, do you…? - Yeah fit like?, it comes from the Doric, so fit like? would mean what like? How are you? How are you doing? Something like that. - And the answer would be gweed G W E E D. Good /gi:d/ I would’ve used could or should.

Transcription N°13: Brown Deborah, 26, born in Jedburgh, works in Kelso. Latimer Jane, 58, born in Ilford (Essex), works in Kelso. Greer Brian, 39, born in Glasgow, works in Kelso. They are all managers in the shop selling kitchen supplies. (27/04/2011) Is it wrong I use all of this? (laughs) What would you say? He wouldnae come. This is very much of the Borders. (laughs) - It’s not my first study, in fact I went to Hawick last year. Oh! I feel sorry for you. (laughs) What would you have done if I wasnae here? (laughs) Struggled! It sounds so stuffy! You speak English better than than the Borders for anything it’d be Glaswegian slang, I think the most difficult is the Glaswegian accent.

~~285~~

Transcription N°14: Gillodie Peter, 61, Pet Shop Proprietor, born in Edinburgh, works in Kelso. (29/04/2011) I would never say might could & should. I would just say should. “He willnae can come”, that’s not grammatically correct for a Scottish. He willnae come, “He will not can come”, that’s what it says. Willnae is Scottish. - In fact willnae can is a typically Scottish construction. It’s used in several Scottish dialects in fact. You would never get a construction like that. - In fact when I went to Hawick, some people definitely used these structures. I don’t believe in Hawick. In Hawick they speak funny, very strange in Hawick. - For some people in Scotland, these structures are correct. As far as I’m concerned, he willnae come which means he will not come. I would never hear anything like “He willnae can come”, that’s the can but…. - For you it’s not correct, so you change, fine. “He’ll can help us the morn”, no I could never use two words.

Transcription N°15, Graeme Shaw, 19, shop assistant. (Garden Centre, Kelso) (29/04/2011) Kelso can be mixed, the thing is for fieldwork, the borders have very different accents. Nae doesn’t really have a specific spelling. The whole idea of slang is it’s lazy. I’ve heard all these things. - How do you translate should might better in Standard English, Queen’s English. I’m not very good at Queen’s English. He would be better to do it for you, or he would be better doing it. Tae also means to. Don’t ever realize you’re saying. It’s more a slang than a dialect to you? Yeah that’s right, you never realize you’re doing it. There was one girl in school, she wrote slang when she had an exam, she done it, she didn’t realize she’s done it and she failed because all her spelling was wrong. -Do you have a tweet account?

~~On Facebook, I write correctly on Facebook, I write properly. - It’s weird because young people try to contract word. I don’t like that, I don’t like….texts, it’s lazy.~~

~~286~~

Transcription N°17: Lightbody Kathleen, 46, Travel manager, born in Hannover, works in Jedburgh. (02/05/2011) - You speak your original language (German)? I do but very badly now ‘cos I’ve not spoken (it) for so long. - When did you arrive in Scotland? Oh when I was 14 a long long time ago. - They (MMs)’re quite popular in the Southern part of Scotland. Yeah, bad English. - You already knew English when you arrived there? Yes ‘cos my dad’s from here, he was born here, my mom’s German, he was in the army. - You were already familiar with the accent from the get go? Yeah yeah! My accent is very English. My daughter speaks like that. My daughter speaks some of these. - She’s bilingual? No, no.

Transcription N°19: Hill Jackie, 47, Visit Scotland Advisor, works in Jedburgh. (02/05/2011) - Some are more complicated than others. Yes! My mother was born in Edinburgh. She spoke to us differently, She didn’t speak the Borders accent. Every time does have a different subdialect, places like Hawick have a really strong dialect, in Hawick. If I had used those sentences as a child, my mother would’ve correct me.

Transcription N°20: Inglis David, 46, self employed, born in Sheffield England, works in Jedburgh. (09/05/2011) - You were born here in Jedburgh? No I was born in England. My family is Scottish and my wife is German. My father is Scottish. I intend to speak English rather than the dialect. Have you found a lot of people been helpful or unhelpful? You found to get people? - I was able to distribute over 50 questionnaires and in Kelso half (of) the people in fact were able to recognize these constructions. Some filled in the questionnaire entirely, some partially without knowing the Scots language.

~~287~~

Transcription N°21: Jameson Jain, Self Employed, born in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, works in Jedburgh. (09/05/2011) Have you been to Glasgow yet? - No, not yet. ‘cos it’s a very strong accent, I used to have friend. - It’s an industrial city. Yes, west coast and it’s a very little much harsher accent and I found quite difficult to understand. - It’s not the case in Edinburgh? No, Edinburgh is a much softer accent. - I’m trying to find typical local towns beside Hawick. Have you been to Kelso yet? - In fact my B&B is in Kelso. Right, right. - I mean in various areas of the borders. In Galashiels, that’s another big town, it’s one of the biggest towns of the Borders. So, that might be a good place to visit. I know my friends and I would use these but it would be humorous, for recreational. These “Doubles” equating what’s being said, there are groups who would say that, but they wouldn’t ever say it as part of a conversation and having a laugh about it (and) not actually using it as a real conversation. - I’ve been told that might and not contracted doesn’t exist. Right! - But apparently it’s not the case since you just wrote that. Right, yeah, it’s something I say quite a lot. - You could say: he mightn’t go? Um… - Instead of he might not go, you could contract not with might in a negative sentence? Yeah, yes! - Is it possible? Yeah! I think it’s still in use. - Even in England? Yep! - It was too formal for some people in fact like mayn’t, I didn’t hear a lot of people say mayn’t.

~~288~~

No. - He mayn’t go. No, that’s not, I wouldn’t have heard that very often. - This construction may have disappeared. Yep! - But it’s not the case of mightn’t? Mightn’t, it’s used in Newcastle. - Okay, interesting.

Transcription N° 22: James Denise, 55, Retail Manager, born in Leeds West Yorkshire, works and lives in Jedburgh. (09/05/2011) - These constructions are quite famous. Oh yeah, I lived for a long time in Scotland, I lived in fact longer in Scotland than in Yorkshire. I left when I was 17. I lived in the Highlands……for a couple of years. - And you’ve been living in Jedburgh? For 6 years now. - You’ve heard these constructions even in the Northern part of Scotland? Oh ay(e)! He willnae come is…. - You think these constructions are used in Yorkshire? Some of them yeah! (the interviewee mentioned should have ought to as a construction used in this county) - Could be understandable? Oh yes, definitely!

Transcription N°23: Maitland Patricia, 73, retired, former music teacher , works in Melrose. (10/05/2011) My mother is from Wales and my father is from Ireland and I was born in the broad of Scotland but I have lived in Ireland, so my accent is probably unique. - I visited several towns, in fact, I went to Kelso, Hawick, Jedburgh. Oh Hawick is amazing, have you been to Hawick? - Last year. They have an amazing accent, isn’t it? I can hardly understand it. - It was difficult sometimes, as a French speaker, it was difficult.

~~289~~

Do you know it’s the nearest to Middle English? The way they speak in Hawick is the nearest still exists in written today, that’s to what Middle English would have been back in the Middle Ages. So they have worked out. -Half of the people, I couldn’t understand them. No, I can’t. - Still 66 questionnaires were completed thanks to the people of Hawick. So I think they knew these constructions quite well especially willnae can and will can, very famous in the town. Accents are amazing, we were just talking earlier, I had a woman here from the north of England and she said when she went to school, she passed to a very good school. Her father had been something quite working class and she had a terrible time in school because of her local accent and I was saying: ‘that still happens’. These constructions are amazing (referring to MMs). I think they’re still used in Glasgow. This is interesting.

~~Transcription N°24: Gray Anoy, 42, Self Employed (Merlin Music), born in Perth Scotland, works in Melrose. (10/05/2011) -You’ve arrived recently in this town? 10 years.~~

~~290~~

~~2012 Transcriptions~~

Regarding the 2012 field survey, only 12 recordings were made, which represents half of the total of the previous ones made in 2011. The reason for this reduction in the number of conversations is based on the choice of the informants to essentially remain silent when completing the questionnaire. They were intrigued and found the questionnaire in the main quite interesting to fill out but they had greater difficulty in talking about their own ways of using non-standard Scottish-English dialects and Multiple Modal combinations before and/or after completing the questionnaire. Below are transcribed the most interesting and detailed conversations that occurred mostly in Galashiels, Selkirk and Peebles during the sociolinguistic enquiry, which exactly represents six transcriptions. Every conversation was recorded from March 20th to March 30th 2012. Every transcription was written in order with the name, the age, the job and the place where each informant was born and lives at present. The punctuation does not change either. The dash symbol (-) is identified as the interviewer and the sentences which have no dash were said by the Scottish informants.

~~Transcription n°1: Borthwick Tracy, 28 years old, Project Assistant at Info Hub, born in Edinburgh, lives in Galashiels. (20/03/2012)~~

~~- Will it be colder or not in fact here? Regarding temperatures, it won’t be colder than this?~~

~~It shouldn’t be but with this (fresh) weather you never know.~~

~~- Sometimes I have a couple of surprises. We have the same temperatures in France now because I live in the north-east part of France in Lorraine, perhaps you know the region?~~

~~Not really.~~

~~- Near Alsace, near the the German border.~~

~~Yeah!~~

~~291~~

~~- They’re not so strange to you these types of constructions?~~

~~No!~~

~~- You recognize all of them?~~

~~There’s just one that I have to add something else.~~

- The last part is a kind of conclusion. It’s based on the frequency. Perhaps the English spelling is more used than the Scottish spelling regarding these constructions, I may be wrong! You don’t tend to get proper traditional Scots spelling any more.

~~- Sometimes I indicate the Scots spelling for some words in fact. I think they’re rare now.~~

~~I would say we use more English spelling and that’s probably due to the way we’ve been taught at schools because I think the way we were taught now is much more universal I would say.~~

~~Transcription n°2: Taylor Anorea, 51, retired nurse, born in Edinburgh. (21/03/2012)~~

~~- Do you speak personally a dialect or another language?~~

~~No, I don’t. I can speak a little bit of French but I mainly, I can’t understand French.~~

~~- You have spent some time in our country?~~

~~Just on holiday~~

~~- In which region?~~

~~Paris~~

~~292~~

~~-Paris, île de France~~

But I can’t, just don’t come out very easily. - The French Language remains complex because there are a lot of declinations. We use several articles, you just use in English “The” but in French we have several “le”, “la”, “les”, “l’”. It depends on the declination like in the German language.

I learnt French and German at School and French is like easier than German but I don’t retain this info very well. I think for the Scottish (of Galashiels), our language is so different even from this area to Hawick.

~~- But in Edinburgh, for example, is there a kind of modern dialect, a Scots dialect spoken in Edinburgh, a kind of Edinburgh Scots?~~

~~Yes, some from the Glaswegian Region, not quite as Scots, not quite as English.~~

~~Transcription n°3: Redburn Keith, 29, Computer engineer, born in Edinburgh, works in Galashiels. (21/03/2012)~~

~~Hawick has a language all to itself. - Kind of a separate Hawick Scots language. You personally speak the regional language?~~

Well , I come from the Borders, I spent four years in Stirling and Glasgow universities, so, I’ve got a mix of everything. “Ken” is a very Borders word I would say: you mightn’t find this address

~~- “Mightn’t” is a standard construction in English?~~

~~I think it is. Yeah I think it would be. You mightn’t be able to do that or you wouldn’t be able to do that, mightn’t, yeah, I guess so. - “Mayn’t” is also possible? Yeah!~~

~~293~~

~~Transcription n°6: Mr. Herd, 70, full time commercial print manager, born in Scotland. (22/03/2012)~~

That’s fascinating to see it! I was born out there in Galashiels, …….70 years…… - How many people do you think speak the Scots language in Galashiels? Dialectic, the dialect of the area, I wid say, you know, because we are a bit more cosmopolitan in Scotland, many new citizens come in Scotland. We have a very inclusive society, we try whatever possible to welcome people, you know. 14% of the town Galashiels and 14% of the Borders, people who have come from different areas, they will obviously not speak the dialect of the area but from the 16%, no but you can tell that you spend time in a specifically English speaking, you know pure English. - You may have learned perhaps a couple of words and expressions?

Oh yes! If he lived (referring to his young co-worker) here for another twenty years, he would be using what I call Scotticisms or you know dialectal. If you want to hear the most pure English, that’s spoken in the British Isles, you have to go up to the Islands of Scotland and you will hear a very very pure dialectic English language, very very pure language where the[…]. In English they drop the “r”, they would say: Hi! My name is Herd /hз:d/, they don’t pronounce the “r”. They would say /hз:d/, they don’t pronounce the “r”. That’s just to do with the rhotic and non-rhotic accents (assertion of his young co-worker). That’s what I’m saying. One is more pure (assertion of his young co-worker). No, no, no, no, no, but, no, but […] some Scots do, some Scots live without it (“it” referring to the rhotic accent), you know. My name is /hз:rd/, but neither do we say /hз:d/. My father was an Englishman and he would say /hз:d/. My name is Johnny Herd /hз:d/. It is recognized that the purest form of English spoken language is in the northern Scotland. You get this in France. My daughter spent a year in France. She taught, she’s a teacher in French and German and there are as many dialects in France as there are in the UK.

~~294~~

~~- Especially in the Southern part of France.~~

That’s right! But if you travel in the Borders, Hawick, Selkirk, Peebles, Eyemouth across the East, you will pick up in your studies, you will pick up clear deviations of such a thing as a Standard Border tongue.

~~- But the differences are phonological, differences regarding the accents more than grammatical differences. The differences will be more in the phonetics.~~

Yes, yes! You see it in Hawick. If you want to hear the original Hawick language, come to the Scottish Borders Council meeting and you ‘ll hear a man called David Patterns speaking and I found it difficult try to understand whit he says. I lived in Hawick for five years when I was a young man but I never picked up. I don’t speak with a Broad Gala accent because I’ve lived in the South of England, the North of England, I‘ve lived in Fife where we have a different language and I’ve lived in the Northern Scotland, near Aberdeen.

~~- So you master a spectrum of accents.~~

I don’t think I master. I think I became fully addicted to the accents of the area over a period of time. In the Islands, they speak a very pure language but they speak with their lovely leid (language) and their tongue you know. It’s almost musical you would see, you know. So they speak like that and I think it’s lovely to hear that, I think it’s lovely to hear all the variations of language.

~~- But they also use the Gaelic language.~~

~~Gaelic, that’s right! Of course you have Gaelic in France.~~

~~- Yes, but it’s not spoken any more. It’s used in songs perhaps.~~

That’s right! You should always be proud of your language and of your dialects and different accents. See, when I was a teacher, technical teacher in technology, one of my professors said to me when he was customizing me in my teaching. This is what he said: “You will never be a teacher because you are too colloquial”. I think that’s a positive advantage if you move to an

295 area (where) you can pick up a local dialect, it’s a positive advantage that you speak in that tone and that mode because you’re more understandable. Who wants to help everybody…, I don’t want to be speaking one language full stop.

~~Transcription n°7: Linton Helen, 63, shop assistant, born in Selkirk, works and lives in Selkirk. (26/03/2012)~~

~~- I’ve been to Hawick.~~

~~Oh right! Hawick is different~~

~~- To Jedburgh, Kelso in the past but I’ve found, in fact, I’ve had interesting results.~~

~~“Wouldnea” (by looking at the questionnaire) that’s not this area.~~

~~- In which are is it?~~

~~More up northern Scotland, Fife.~~

~~- Above the Lothians, in the county of Fife. - Do you speak the Scots language?~~

~~Just a little.~~

~~- Which dialect of the Scots language? The Borders. Everytime in the Borders, it’s a slight different dialect.~~

~~- Is there a kind of Selkirk Scots?~~

~~No, I wouldn’t say it’s, no, Scots, it’s …Scots…, Scottish base people, you know, they will know Scots, it’s like a modern Scots, I would think this.~~

~~- Do you speak Modern Scots, a dialect of Modern Scots personally?~~

~~296~~

~~It’s just the way I’m speaking at the moment.~~

~~- Okay, it changes all the time?~~

~~Aye, aye! - You’re bilingual in a way?~~

~~Well, aye! And my dad is Polish~~

~~- You come from …~~

~~No, I was born in Scotland.~~

~~- You have Polish ancestors?~~

~~Yes!~~

~~- There is a strong polish community in the Borders?~~

~~Yeah! And there always has been an any kind of …a big influx of Poles.~~

~~Transcription n°9: North Patricia, 51, shop assistant, born in Buenos Aires Argentina, works and lives in Peebles. (30/03/2012)~~

~~- In what city of Argentina were you born?~~

~~Buenos Aires.~~

~~- When did you arrive in Scotland?~~

~~Twenty years ago.~~

~~- It must‘ve been a big change in fact culturally speaking?~~

~~297~~

~~Yes, exactly.~~

~~- You learned English in Argentina?~~

I learned very little. I started to learn when I lived in England. I lived two years, before I came to Scotland, in England. But when I came to Scotland, it’s easy to understand Edinburgh accent because they speak with the “r”, stronger which Spanish people would pronounce the ”r” you know, but the people for example from Hawick is very difficult to understand.

~~- For me too! It’s a difficult pronunciation.~~

~~298~~